Typology of lexical meanings of words (according to V.V. Vinogradov’s classification). The problem of the basic (main) meaning of the word. Thematic group of verbs with the meaning of speech activity in English (in comparison with Russian) Classification of words with support

STYLISTIC CLASSIFICATION OF WORDS

Contextual, or thematic, classification of words is closely related to the definition and delimitation of various contingents of words according to different areas of application of the language: words of general literature, specifically book or, conversely, familiar colloquial, slang, dialect, poetic, scientific and technical in general and specific to individual specific branches of science and technology. Words move from one sphere to another and can occupy a more or less definite position, so it is impossible to draw precise boundaries between individual spheres of use. However, it is necessary to outline the fundamental distinction between words belonging to different spheres, because otherwise, the system of vocabulary of a given language will be presented in a wrong way.

A special place is occupied by the stylistic classification of words, partly related to their distribution in various spheres of application of the language, since the language in certain spheres of its application differs in certain stylistic features.

I.V. Arnold, speaking about the English language, divides vocabulary into bookish and colloquial, bookish, in turn, into scientific, special and poetic, colloquial into literary colloquial, familiar colloquial. , professional (professional words), colloquial (low colloquial) and slang (slang). In the scientific style, terms are widely used - words or stable combinations that serve as a refined name for a concept specific to any field of knowledge, production, culture (1, 249) and bookish words. There is a layer of vocabulary that is traditionally used exclusively in poetry. In any other environment, these words seem to be inappropriate archaisms, while in poetic speech they create the impression of solemnity, emotionality, elation, being associated with other poetic contexts. However, the vocabulary of modern poetry is increasingly approaching literary and colloquial.

Literary-colloquial speech is the everyday speech of everyday and business communication, closest to the norms of book speech, grammatically correct and containing neither jargon nor dialectisms (1, 257). Familiar colloquial speech is much less ordered and normalized, and is distinguished by a wealth of figurative expressions, often humorous or ironic. In contrast to literary colloquial speech, familiar colloquial speech easily absorbs slang and neologisms; within this style of speech, all kinds of abbreviations most often arise.

Professional speech has the same basic features as familiar colloquial speech, but is characterized by special vocabulary and phraseology within each profession. By professional vocabulary, in contrast to terminology, we mean the vocabulary of oral communication between people of a particular specialty. A certain range of concepts, processes, phenomena, etc., associated with one or another professional activity, causes the appearance in the speech of specialists of new words expressing these concepts. These words differ from terms in that they are often emotionally charged, humorous, figurative and often ambiguous. They are often difficult to distinguish from slang, so professional vocabulary is often called professional jargon.

Common speech in the field of vocabulary is distinguished by the presence of dialectisms and archaisms. Slang refers to purely colloquial words and expressions with a rude or emotional comic connotation, untested in literary speech. Slang words are always synonyms for commonly used words, not the only way to express a particular concept.

In the Russian language, it is customary to distinguish in the book style - scientific, official business, journalistic and artistic styles.

In scientific speech there are three layers of words:

Stylistically neutral words of common vocabulary

General scientific words, i.e. found in languages of different sciences

Highly specialized vocabulary, terms of one science

The journalistic style is characterized by the widespread use of socio-political vocabulary, as well as vocabulary denoting the concepts of morality, ethics, medicine, economics, culture, words from the field of psychology, words denoting the internal state and experiences of a person.

In the official business style of speech, standard expressions, special terminology, and stable combinations of a non-emotional nature are widely used.

The artistic style of speech is not distinguished by all scientists, and is considered mainly as the language of fiction. In the artistic style of speech, colloquialisms and dialectisms, words of a high, poetic style and slang, rude words, professional and business figures of speech and vocabulary of a journalistic style can be used.

In the colloquial style of speech, a large number of words are used that have a conversational connotation, including everyday content, specific vocabulary, words with an expressive-emotional connotation (familiar, endearing, disapproving, ironic). The use of abstract and terminological vocabulary, vocabulary of foreign language origin and book words is limited (3). Conversational style can be divided into neutral colloquial, familiar everyday, colloquial and various slangs

Stylistic classification is not semantic in the narrow sense of the word, since the difference in the stylistic character of two words is not a difference in their meaning. In addition, emotional-expressive, stylistic moments, no matter how much they sometimes attract attention, cannot be placed on a par with strictly semantic, intellectual moments, related to the expression of thoughts, the exchange of thoughts and which are the most specific to language.

At the same time, the stylistic classification still cannot be recognized as completely unrelated to semantics; A.I. Smirnitsky points out 4 reasons (12, 174 -203):

The very stylistic character of a word and its stylistic coloring is a special character or coloring of its meaning.

Stylistically different words in a very large number of cases are synonyms, and thus stylistic classification is closely related to the study of synonymy, and, consequently, to the logical classification of words.

Stylistic differences are often associated with semantic differences in the proper sense. In some cases, a word of a certain stylistic nature has a meaning that is not close enough to that of any word with a different stylistic character, in particular in words specifically scientific or technical.

Some words have one or another stylistic character associated with one of the meanings of each of them.

The stylistic classification of words is related to the grouping of words based on the emotional connotation of their meaning. So, for example, words of a solemn poetic style have a clearly different emotional connotation than words characteristic of a familiar, everyday style of speech; words in an official business style can be distinguished by a deliberate lack of any emotional connotation...

However, the classification of words based on their emotional connotation, of course, does not completely coincide with their stylistic classification: in the system of the same style there may be words with completely different emotional connotations. On the other hand, synonyms belonging to different styles may have the same emotional connotation. Emotional coloring is even more closely related to the actual semantics of a word than its stylistic coloring. The set of semantic-stylistic features of a language unit, which ensure its ability to act in a communicative act as a means of subjective expression of the speaker’s attitude to the content or addressee of speech, is called expressiveness (15, s.v. Expressiveness). All expressive means have a clearly defined positive or negative connotation. V.I. Shakhovsky refers to the connotation as an aspect of the lexical meaning of a unit, with the help of which the speaker’s emotional state and the resulting attitude towards the addressee, object and subject of the speech situation in which this speech communication is carried out is encoded (14, 14). Traditionally, linguists include emotional, expressive, evaluative and stylistic components of meaning into the semantic structure of connotation. V.I. Shakhovsky believes that the semantic core of connotation is the emotive component, and emotion is always both evaluative and expressive. By emotivity, V.I. Shakhovsky understands the linguistic expression of emotions, and by the emotive component of meaning - that semantic portion with the help of which a linguistic unit carries out its emotive function (14, 9). Differences in the emotional and expressive coloring of linguistic means are expressed in such assessments as “high, sublime”, “solemn”, “neutral”, “lowered”, “rude”, “ironic” and others.

§ 1. Depending on the various formal and semantic properties of words, the vocabulary is divided into groups or classes of words. Such a division can be displayed either on the vocabulary as a whole, or only on part of it. To reflect these most important characteristics of lexeme groupings terminologically, within the general framework of partitioning a set of lexemes, one should distinguish between a three-dimensional hierarchy of “sub-” and “over-” relations.

Thus, a class of words (lexical class) will be defined as a set of words, identified according to such characteristics that are significant from the point of view of the organization of the vocabulary as a whole. This means that the basis, by. to which a class is allocated, potentially divides the entire vocabulary into correlative classes, although the accepted definition does not require the actual implementation of this division. Thus, according to the morphemic-quantitative criterion, it is possible to identify and describe a single class of one-morpheme words, and potentially, in the absence of special restrictions, it will be opposed by classes of two-morpheme words, three-morpheme words, etc. With specially defined definitions, it will be possible to contrast the class of one-morpheme words with classes multimorpheme (more than one-morpheme) words taken in different quantitative combinations of morpheme components - say, classes of two-morpheme, three-morpheme and more than three-morpheme words. By the way, phonologists know that such a division of the English vocabulary is very significant from an accentological point of view.

A subclass of words (lexical subclass), in contrast to a class, should be defined as a set of words, identified according to specified characteristics within a class of words. According to the content of the term, the concept of a lexical subclass prohibits its components from crossing class boundaries. Since the own basis on which the subclass is distinguished, generally speaking, is not reflected in the organization of the vocabulary as a whole, individual large groups of words, distinguished without regard to the division of vocabulary as a whole, are often called “subclasses”: a subclass of words of mental activity, a subclass of words of emotional state , a subclass of words with a negative prefix, etc.

A superclass, on the contrary, is a collection of words, distinguished by certain characteristics that unite classes either entirely, without intersection, or with intersection in various combinations (one whole class and part of another, etc.). The two most important upper superclasses of words in any semantically relevant divisions of the dictionary are, on the one hand, full-meaning words that serve as independent names of objects and relations of reality, and, on the other hand, incomplete words of relational-clarifying semantics.

The main types of word classes identified in modern descriptions of language for various purposes are grammatical classes, word-formation classes, etymological classes, semantic classes, and stylistic classes. “Class” terminology may be absent. Thus, etymological and stylistic classes and subclasses of words are usually called “layers”, and semantic-thematic classes, respectively, are called “groups”.

But no semantic, stylistic or other non-grammatical classification of vocabulary can be adequate for its purpose outside of the grammatical ordering of the material. In fact, already at the very preliminary stage of layout, words are divided into objective and attribute, but these characteristics immediately interact with the highest categorical meanings of words, requiring their grammatical processing. Compare, on the one hand, words with subject basic semantics, denoting a process, and on the other, words with process basic semantics, denoting an object: to man (a ship), to spot (a dress), to butter (bread) - a run (for sheep), a drive (to a house), a refill (for a ballpen). It is no coincidence that the theoretical knowledge of language in the history of science began with attempts to distribute words into grammatical classes called “parts of speech.”

§ 2. Based on the above definition of the class of words, we define part of speech as a separate class of words, distinguished by grammatically essential properties and directly correlated with other classes in the division of the vocabulary on a general basis.

The term “part of speech” should be accepted as a conditional, but firmly established name, which has long lost its motivational connection with the designated phenomenon. It arose in ancient Greek grammar, which, as we noted above, had not yet explicitly isolated the concept of a sentence in the linguistic sense, did not separate it from the general concept of “speech” and, therefore, did not draw a strict distinction between the word as a unit of the lexicon and the word as element of the sentence.

There is hardly any other area of study in modern theoretical grammar that causes as much heated debate among linguists as the division of words into parts of speech. The accepted partitioning schemes are accused of being inconsistent, unscientific, completely lacking logic, etc., etc. Here is what L.V. Shcherba, for example, wrote about the theory of parts of speech, who himself made a significant contribution to the development of this theory: “Although By subsuming individual words under one category or another (part of speech), we obtain a kind of classification of words, but the very difference in “parts of speech” can hardly be considered the result of a “scientific” classification of words” [Shcherba, 1928, p. 5]. The above assessment echoes the “destructive criticism” of parts of speech given by M. I. Steblin-Kamensky in a “penetrating oratorical” manner: “For us, linguists, it is hardly advisable, like ostriches, to hide from the fact that our knowledge in the field of nature words, and in particular their grammatical nature, are not yet deep enough to be able to construct a grammatical classification of words in the scientific sense of the word... By distributing words into parts of speech, i.e. by asserting that among the words there are so-called nouns , adjectives, verbs, etc., we do approximately the same thing as if we, summing up what we know about the people around us, said that among them there are blondes, there are brunettes, there are mathematicians, there are professors, and there are also smart people...” [Steblin-Kamensky, 1974, p. 21].

The practical result of such criticism, as a rule, is the same: having finished with the “refutation” of parts of speech, the author, if the area of his working interests really comes into contact with them, uses their nomenclature and conceptual basis, as if forgetting that he rejected them “at the root” on the previous page of your essay. The following statement, taken from a modern manual on theoretical grammar, is very characteristic in this regard: “...All attempts to create a classification of linguistic units based on a single principle have not been crowned with success. The traditional classification is no worse (though perhaps not better) than anything that has tried to replace it, and has the advantage of being widely known. We will therefore further proceed from the traditional classification” [Ivanova, Burlakova, Pocheptsov, 1981, p. 19].

In order to make a correct judgment both about the general concept of a part of speech, and about the type of classification that the parts of speech of specific languages require, one should be clear about the fact that words are the most complex objects of that area of reality that is created by man himself in the process of his social and mental development. These are not simple constructive products produced by a one-time labor act of an individual master, nor are they objects of the non-human universe with their purely physical properties. In a generalizing classification, which is a grammatical classification, words - elements of a special two-sided ideal-material nature - should not, by their very nature, be grouped on a simple logical basis. Otherwise (and this case is not at all so difficult to implement, as some of the above-mentioned critics seem to think: compare, for example, the division of the dictionary according to the mere ability of a word to undergo categorical change or according to the type of its morphemic structure) such a classification will be completely devoid of cognitive power with point of view of the tasks facing it. A. I. Smirnitsky, a brilliant specialist in the field of linguistic classifications, understood this well. He wrote: “... when identifying any part of speech, one should be based on the same general principles, namely: take into account the general meaning of a given group of words and the grammatical features that express it. At the same time, it must be emphasized that the sum of features by which individual parts of speech are distinguished cannot be the same for all parts of speech... each part of speech differs from the other in the sum of different features, and the relationship between different parts of speech is therefore not the same.” [Smirnitsky, 1959, p. 104-105].

When assessing the modern distribution of words into parts of speech, made on the basis of the development of traditional classification, one should clearly understand that what is important here is, first of all, the fundamental principles of identifying classes and categorizing words, and only secondarily the enlargement or fragmentation of certain lexical groups or the revision of categorical and subcategorical features of individual words. The very idea of subcategorization or subclass grouping of words as a necessary second stage in the general distribution of words into parts of speech clearly indicates the objective nature of such analysis. The moment of objectivity has been strengthened recently in connection with the application to the concept of a part of speech of the idea of a field structure of the distribution of relevant properties of objects: within a certain part of speech, a central part of words is distinguished, constituting a class strictly according to the characteristics established for it, and a peripheral part of words with a corresponding gradation of characteristics [ Ivanova, Burlakova, Pocheptsov, 1981, p. 19].

Thus, prepositions and conjunctions can be combined into one general class of “connectors”, since the functional purpose of both is precisely to connect or “connect” the significant members of a sentence. In this case, at the second stage of classification, the enlarged class of connectors will be subject to division into two main subclasses, namely, the subclass of prepositional connectors and the subclass of conjunctive connectors. In a similar way, articles can be included as a small subclass in the enlarged class of qualifying particles. As is known, nouns, adjectives and numerals are sometimes considered under the single terminological heading of “names”; in ancient Greek grammar they did not differ as separate parts of speech, since they had the same forms of morphological change (nominal declension). On the other hand, in various grammatical descriptions of a language, a separate class status can be given to such narrow sets of words as words of affirmation and negation (yes, no) or pronominal determiners of a noun, and in this case, the characterization of the allocated units according to their own grammatical properties does not suffer significant damage .

§ 3. In modern linguistics, grammatical classes of words (parts of speech) are distinguished either by several or by one group of characteristics. These two principles can be called polydifferential and monodifferential, respectively.

The polydifferential principle, which develops the old philological tradition at a new stage of knowledge, was developed mainly in Soviet linguistics. It is formulated with the greatest completeness and consistency in the works of L. V. Shcherba and V. V. Vinogradov, devoted to the description of the Russian language, in the works of A. I. Smirnitsky and B. A. Ilyish, devoted to the description of the English language.

In accordance with this principle, parts of speech are distinguished according to a combination of three fundamental criteria: “semantic”, “formal” and “functional”. Let's consider these criteria in this order.

The semantic criterion involves assessing the abstract semantics of words, uniting them into verbal aggregates, which in terms of content are opposed to each other with the greatest degree of clarity. Such semantics is established on the basis of two aspects of comparison: on the one hand, extra-linguistic, or denotative, With the other is intralingual, or formal-relative. In the denotative aspect, words are compared directly with the elements of reality that they denote. In the formal-relative aspect, the semantics of a word is assessed from the point of view of the integrative features of its morphemic composition. Thus, class-forming semantics, reflecting the elements of the substance of the world - the elements of reality given to us in sensation - receives a limiting definition in the form of a categorical-semantic feature, typical for each of the identified aggregates.

According to the role of categorical-semantic features in the general semantics of words, significant words, or full-meaning words, and auxiliary, or incomplete-meaning words, are sharply opposed to each other. The difference is that in significant words, categorical-semantic features are combined with generic and specific material (directly denominative) features in their typified word usage, or “lexical-semantic variants.” As for function words, categorical-semantic features essentially exhaust their general semantics: these are “building elements of vocabulary” (L. V. Shcherba), performing only various clarifying functions in any act of formation of a statement. Their own, individualizing part of the semantics is so generalized that it is difficult to interpret in the order of a dictionary definition: the definition here, as a rule, is replaced by an indication of class affiliation and an explanation of functions. That is why the difference between the class and subclass stages of the division of function words is not as important as the corresponding division of significant words: each service lexeme, unlike the significant one, is important in itself precisely as an element of the structure of the language as a whole. Figuratively speaking, significant words, although they are self-denotative, play the role of soldiers in the ranks, while service words are the officers organizing the soldier’s formation. As for generals and marshals, such a role in the semantic army of language is played by semantic-categorical features in the broad sense of the term (features of words, phrases and sentences).

A complex gradational field is established between significant and auxiliary semantics. The more a particular word is saturated with significant semantics, the more clearly individual generalized word usages, defined by sets of elementary semantic features - “sem,” are identified within its denomination volume. These word usages, called the rather awkward term “lexical-semantic variant of a word” (LSV), could be called “lexicals” on a joint terminological basis with “lexemes”. Using the existing terms “sememe” and “semanteme”, the first of them will be given to the semantic content of the lexicon, that is, the lexical set of semes, and the second, respectively, to the total semantic content of the lexeme, that is, the complete set of its semes (this set in existing terminological practice is called completely inappropriate name “semantic structure of a word”).

In the seme composition of a word, one should distinguish between basic semes, internal to the word as such, and derived semes that appear in specific contextual conditions and situations. Seminal analysis of words, used in lexicology, usually aims to identify and define word lexicons by establishing their semes, consisting of combinations of “integral” and “differential” semes within larger or smaller inclusive lexical groups. It is necessary, however, to take into account that to all these semes an individual semantic feature is added in the form of a unique seme, connected by an unambiguous connection with the sound image of the word.

Integral semes are divided into categorical and real, and among the categorical ones there are upper, or “class”, and lower, or “formal” (embodying the meanings of the grammatical forms expressed by a given lexeme). Thus, in the lexeme (to) look, the class seme will be “process”, and the form semes, respectively, will be “indeterminacy” in relation to “duration”, “imperfectivity” in relation to “perfection”, etc. The individual seme separately from the word is indefinable and must be represented by the very image of the word in the definition of each lexicon. This is exactly how lexicons are entered into dictionaries, where they are provided with numbers representing them in an enumeration, the ideal ordering of which places them from the primary (main) base vocabulary through the secondary base ones to the derivatives - first close and then distant. Thus, for the lexeme eye (substantive), the primary base lexicon eye 1 means “eye”; secondary basic vocabulary eye 2 - “eye” of a needle, eye 3 - “peephole” in the door; close derivatives of the lexicon eye 4 - “eye” - flower, eye 5 (plural) - “look, look”, eye 6 - “views, judgments”, etc.; more distant derivatives of the lexicon eye 7 (jargon) - “detective”, eye 8 (jargon) - “TV screen”, etc. The seme of the primary basic lexicon represents what is commonly called the “basic meaning of the word.” The boundary of a semanteme (the total meaning of a word), and with it the boundary of a word (lexeme), that is, the transition of polysemy into homonymy, from a grammatical point of view, is distinguished by a sememe that transfers its vocabulary into a subclass of another, significantly different grammatical characteristic. We see such “extraordinary” vocabulary (in relation to the producing basic ones in the etymological sense) in the copular use of the verbs be, get, grow, go, run, in the significant use of the verbs will, need, in the pronominal use of the adjectives certain, definite, in the indefinite personal use of the pronouns you, we, they, etc. At the same time, it is hardly advisable to require lexicographers to necessarily separate such lexicons into separate dictionary entries. It is much more important to provide the corresponding sub-articles (interpretations of vocabulary) with grammatical notes and explanations and certainly strive to arrange the sub-articles in the above order of removing them from the interpretation of the primary basic vocabulary.

Speaking about the semantics of a significant word, it is necessary to make a fundamental distinction between the meanings of ordinary, everyday use and the meanings of professional, especially scientific use. Ordinary meanings correspond to “visual representations” of the concepts behind the naming words. These meanings in themselves are not and cannot be any complete reflections of the corresponding concepts: concepts are reflected only in judgments about objects of thought, and the meanings of words, embodied in their sememes and semantemes, serve as a linguistic means of constructing judgments and, consequently, the formation of concepts . The usual meanings of significant words correspond to concepts that some researchers call “formal concepts” in contrast to the “substantive” concepts of rational understanding of reality. On the relationship between ordinary meaning - the “formal concept” and the “substantive” concept in the proper sense, S. D. Katsnelson writes: “... a formal concept can be expressed in two ways: using a single word and through “internal translation” (that is, synonymous interpretations - M.B.). A meaningful concept cannot be expressed in this way. If by “expression” we mean the reproduction of content, then the word in this case does not express the concept, but names it. Words relate to meaningful concepts in the same way as a library card index relates to the contents of the books registered in it” [Katznelson, 1965, p. 25].

Based on the above, we can draw a strict distinction between the two noted types of meanings, which consists in the fact that the meaning of one type receives a detailed definition in any area of professional activity (scientific or practical) and, therefore, reflects a scientific or practical concept, and a value of another type does not receive such a definition, remaining within the limits of ordinary, everyday use. A word whose meaning forms a concept in the indicated sense, that is, is professionally defined, constitutes a term.

The professionally defined meaning of a word is so different from the undefined that defined lexicons certainly go beyond the lexical identity of the word, forming independent lexemes-terms. The set of terms of a particular field of activity (knowledge) constitutes its terminology - a “terminological system” or “terminological language”. Pointing to the linguistic uniqueness of terminology in comparison with other, undefined significant vocabulary, one should simultaneously emphasize the fact that no terminology forms a separate language in the full sense of the word: terms are included in the speech of a professional according to the laws of the common language, without which full-fledged cognitive activity is impossible . This truth resolves the paradox of the so-called “metalanguage” of linguistics, that is, the use of language tools to understand “oneself.” In fact, language is learned not by language, but by the researcher, and not through terminology taken in isolation, but through terminological speech, that is, speech in a common language, but using defined significant words of its branch of science. In this speech, the corresponding conclusions are built and the necessary theories are formulated. Consequently, in a fundamentally philosophical sense, speech about language, within the framework of its epistemological specificity, is entirely correlated with speech about other subjects of theoretical knowledge.

§ 5. The formal criterion for the class distribution of words involves the identification of such elements of their structure that, repeated in sufficiently large aggregates, are their typical features in distinguishing from each other and thereby indices of class recognition of any randomly chosen word. The last circumstance is especially important for understanding the very principle of the formal division of words into parts of speech. In fact, this principle asserts its vitality precisely for the categorical recognition of an unlimited set of words of diverse, but distinguished by group characteristics of structure. If we have before us a narrowly limited set of words of typologically identical categorical semantics, then the formal criterion of its class identification becomes unnecessary: such a set is given by a list. And indeed, the formal features of parts of speech are relevant for classifying significant words into their categories, forming open systems in the language with characteristic categorical-grammatical forms of inflection and lexical, but grammatically significant forms of word formation. As for function words, their “form” is determined by simple enumeration under the corresponding headings of small classes and subclasses. After all, construction words enter into the grammatical backbone of the language directly and directly. Their number is limited: they, “as carriers of grammatical functions, are subject to the competence of grammar” [Katznelson, 1965, p. 4].

§ 6. The functional criterion for classifying words into parts of speech involves revealing their syntactic properties in a sentence. For significant words, these are, first of all, positional characteristics, that is, the ability to fulfill the role of independent members of a sentence: subject, predicate verb, predicate, object, definition, circumstance. In determining the subclass affiliation of words (the second stage of classification), an important place is occupied by the identification of their combinative characteristics (cf., for example, the division of verbs into valency subclasses). At this level of analysis, the possible contradiction between the material-lexical and categorical-grammatical semantics of the word is resolved. Thus, according to its basic substantive semantics, the word stone is a noun, however, in the sentence Aunt Emma was stoning cherries for preserves, this substantive base acts as a productive basis in the verb. At the same time, the situational semantics of the sentence reflects the constant substantive orientation of the lexeme, which is preserved in the causative nature of its content (here - “take out the bones”). The categorical characteristics of such lexemes can be called “mixed subject-process”. In contrast, the categorical characteristic of the lexeme go in the statement That's a go will be defined as “mixed process-but-objective.” But the mixed nature of semantics at the derivational and situational-semantic level does not deprive the lexeme of its unambiguous functional-semantic characterization by class accessories.

Function words, considered from a functional-syntactic point of view, especially clearly reveal their closeness to grammatical affixes - indicators of various categorical meanings of words (cf., for example, prepositions and case forms, modal verbs and auxiliary verbs). Moreover, the syntactic characteristic for many function words, as we noted above, actually exhausts their content side: the functional-syntactic content fills the entire volume of their semantics. It is not for nothing that V.V. Vinogradov, contrasting the classes of function words with the classes of significant words, called them not “parts of speech”, but “particles of speech”.

§ 7. So, as a result of the combined application of three criteria for the class identification of words - semantic, formal and functional - all words of the language are classified under the rubrics of significant and auxiliary parts of speech with the necessary subclass characteristics. The main significant parts of speech in the English language are usually recognized, in the traditional enumeration, as noun, adjective, numeral, pronoun, verb and adverb; The main auxiliary parts of speech are, respectively, the article, preposition, conjunction, particle, modal word, interjection.

Due to the redistribution of classes and subclasses, a stative (state category) is sometimes added to the significant parts of speech, the interjection is transferred from auxiliary parts of speech to the significant ones, and linking verbs and words of affirmation and negation are added to the auxiliary ones. Other redistributions are also possible, which, as we indicated above, mostly fit into the compensating relationships of super- and subdivisions and are rationally supplemented by data on the field properties of the vocabulary.

In the course of criticism of the polydifferential rubrication of the vocabulary, which was accompanied by the development of alternative systems and, ultimately, contributed and continues to promote its improvement and development, another, monodifferential principle of dividing the lexicon was put forward, based on taking into account only the syntactic properties of the word. The promotion of this principle was due to the fact that with the polydifferential classification of words, a specific difficulty arises in establishing the grammatical status of such lexemes that have the morphological characteristics of significant words (morphological-categorical, word-formative features), but differ sharply from significant words in function, fulfilling the role of auxiliary and auxiliary elements of varying degrees of lexical emptiness. These are modal verbs along with their equivalents - suppletive fillers, auxiliary verbs, aspectual and phase verbs, intensifying adverbs, demonstrative determiners; The entire class of pronouns is distinguished by heterogeneous properties.

The noted difficulty of grammatical identification of lexemes, associated with the intersection of heterogeneous properties in the classes of the lexicon, obviously must be overcome by accepting only one criterion out of three possible as the defining one.

As is known, in ancient Greek grammar, which outlined the contours of the linguistic doctrine of parts of speech, one defining feature was also taken as the basis for dividing the vocabulary, namely, a formal-morphological feature. In other words, the recognized word was translated into a classified lexeme based on its relationship to grammatical inflection. This characteristic was quite effective in conditions of the primary accumulation of linguistic knowledge and when applied to a language rich in inflectional forms. However, it gradually lost its effectiveness due to the ever deeper penetration into the grammatical nature of the language.

The syntactic characteristic of a word, established after the disclosure of its morphological properties (in any case, those properties that are determined by grammatical variability), is at the present stage of development of linguistics both relevant and universal from the point of view of the needs of the general classification of the lexicon. This characteristic is relevant because it divides words into functions, that is, groups them in accordance with the purpose that they have in the structure of the language. At the same time, the role of morphology as a system of means of bringing a word into the semantic-syntactic sphere of a sentence also becomes clearer. This characteristic is universal, since it is not specifically focused on the inflectional side of the language, and, therefore, is equally suitable for languages of various morphological types. In addition, it is organically connected with the semantic properties of words, since syntactic functions are formed on the basis of generalization of semantic ones.

Based on the material of the Russian language, the foundations of a syntactic approach to the class division of vocabulary were outlined in the studies of A. M. Peshkovsky. Based on the material of the English language, the principles of syntactic classification of words in positional-distributive refraction were outlined by L. Bloomfield and his followers and received detailed development in the system of Charles Freeze.

The positional-distributive classification of words is based on an assessment of their compatibility, derived through a system of tests in substitution-diagnostic models of phrases and sentences. The material for the study is a sound recording of live dialogues.

Significant words in the models are assigned the role of fillers of “positions” (position of the actor, position of the action, position of the object of the action, etc.). These words are distributed into four “formal” classes, which receive symbols in the form of numbers according to the order of positions in the diagnostic model. The numbers correspond to the letter symbols that have become common: N - substantive words, V - verbal words, A - adjective words, D - adverbial words. Pronouns are included in positional nominal classes as substitute words. Repeated substitution of previously identified words in different semantic combinations reveals their formal-morphological characteristics (due to which they are called “formal words” or, more precisely, “form-words”).

Functional words are isolated into strictly defined sets in the process of substitution research, as they are incapable of occupying its position without destroying the structure of the sentence.

Functional words identified in this way in sets of the same type reveal their specificity as standing in the corresponding positions as clarifiers and complementers of the meanings of significant words. These are, for example, determiners for nouns, modal verbs for significant verbs, clarifying and intensifying words for adjectives and adverbs. I reveal function words in sets of a different type! :I as interpositional elements indicating the relationship of positional words to each other. These are prepositions and conjunctions. Finally, function words in sets of the third type turn out to be outside the direct relationship of positions and, therefore, reflect their meaning on the sentence as a whole. These are the words of question, encouragement, request, request for attention, affirmation and denial, constructional introduction (introducing particles), etc.

When comparing the positional-distributive classification of words with the more traditional division of words into parts of speech, one cannot help but be struck by the similarity of the general contours of the two types of classification, although the entire previous “school grammar”, together with its teaching about parts of speech, in accordance with the canons of descriptivism, was rejected by Charles Freese as “pre-scientific”. However, beyond the similarities of both classifications, which serve as indirect confirmation of the objective nature of the general understanding of the structure of the lexicon (since the classifications under consideration are based on different principles, and the positional-distributive distribution of words was carried out in the form of an experimental study), their significant differences are also revealed. Assessing these differences from the point of view of the functional-paradigmatic relationships of language elements at different levels of its hierarchy allows us to make a number of fundamental generalizations regarding the grammatical organization of vocabulary, to which we devote the next chapter.

Words in Russian have 2 meanings: lexical and grammatical. If the second type is abstract, then the first is individual in nature. In this article we will present the main types of lexical meanings of the word.

Lexical meaning, or, as it is sometimes called, the meaning of a word, shows how the sound shell of a word relates to objects or phenomena of the world around us. It is worth noting that it does not contain the entire complex of features characteristic of a particular object.

In contact with

What is the lexical meaning of a word?

Meaning of the word reflects only features that allow one to distinguish one object from another. Its center is the base of the word.

All types of lexical meanings of a word can be divided into 5 groups depending on:

correlation;
origin;
compatibility;
functions;
nature of the connection.

This classification was proposed by the Soviet scientist Viktor Vladimirovich Vinogradov in the article “Basic types of lexical meanings of a word” (1977). Below we will consider this classification in detail.

Types by correlation

From a nominative point of view (that is, by correlation), all meanings of a word are divided into direct and figurative. Direct meaning is basic. It is directly related to how this or that letter and sound form relates to the concept that has developed in the minds of native speakers.

Thus, the word “cat” refers to a small predatory animal from the cat family, which belongs to the order of mammals that exterminate rodents. A "knife" is a tool that is used for cutting; consists of a blade and a handle. Adjective "green" denotes the color of growing foliage.

Over time, the meaning of a word can change, subject to trends characteristic of a particular time in the life of a people. So, back in the 18th century, the word “wife” was used in the sense of “woman”. It came into use much later to mean “wife” or “a woman who is married to a man.” Similar changes occurred with the word “husband”.

Figurative meaning the word is derived from the main one. With its help, one lexical unit is endowed with the properties of another based on common or similar characteristics. Thus, the adjective “dark” is used to describe a space that is immersed in darkness or in which there is no light.

But at the same time, this lexeme is quite often used in a figurative meaning. Thus, the adjective “dark” can describe something unclear (for example, manuscripts). It can also be used in relation to a person. In this context, the adjective “dark” would indicate that a person in question, uneducated or ignorant.

As a rule, value transfer occurs due to one of the following signs:

As can be seen from the above examples, the figurative meanings that have developed in words are in one way or another connected with the main one. Unlike author's metaphors, which are widely used in fiction, figurative lexical meanings are stable and occur much more often in the language.

It is worth noting that in the Russian language there is often a phenomenon when figurative meanings lose their imagery. Thus, the combinations “teapot spout” or “teapot handle” have become closely integrated into the Russian language and are familiar to its speakers.

Lexical meanings by origin

All lexical units existing in a language have their own etymology. However, upon careful examination, you can notice that the meaning of some units is easy to deduce, while in the case of others it is quite difficult to understand what a particular word means. Based on this difference, a second group of lexical meanings is distinguished - by origin.

From the point of view of origin, there are two types of meanings:

Motivated;
Unmotivated.

In the first case, we are talking about lexical units formed by adding affixes. The meaning of a word is derived from the meaning of the stem and affixes. In the second case, the meaning of the lexeme does not depend on the meaning of its individual components, that is, it is non-derivative.

Thus, the words “running”, “red” are classified as unmotivated. Their derivatives are motivated: “to run”, “to escape”, “to blush”. Knowing the meaning of the lexical units underlying them, we can easily deduce the meaning of derivatives. However, the meaning of motivated words is not always so easy to deduce. Sometimes an etymological analysis is required.

Lexical meanings depending on compatibility

Each language imposes certain restrictions on the use of lexical units. Some units can only be used in a certain context. In this case, we are talking about the compatibility of lexical units. From the point of view of compatibility, there are two types of meanings:

free;
not free.

In the first case, we are talking about units that can be freely combined with each other. However, such freedom cannot be absolute. It is very conditional. Thus, nouns such as “door”, “window”, “lid” can be freely used with the verb “open”. At the same time, you cannot use the words “packaging” or “crime” with it. Thus, the meaning of the lexeme “open” dictates the rules for us, according to which certain concepts may or may not be combined with it.

Unlike free ones, the compatibility of units with a non-free meaning is very limited. As a rule, such lexemes are part of phraseological units or are syntactically determined.

In the first case, the units are connected phraseological meaning. For example, the words “play” and “nerves,” taken separately, lack the semantic component “deliberately irritate.” And only when these lexemes are combined in the phraseological unit “play on your nerves” do they acquire this meaning. The adjective “sidekick” cannot be used together with the word “enemy” or “comrade”. According to the norms of the Russian language, this adjective can only be combined with the noun “friend”.

Syntactically determined meaning is acquired by a word only when it performs a function unusual for it in a sentence. Thus, a noun can sometimes act as a predicate in a sentence: “And you are a hat!”

Functional types of lexical meanings

Each lexical meaning carries a specific function. Using some units of language, we simply name objects or phenomena. We use others to express some kind of assessment. There are two types of functional values:

nominative;
expressive-semantic.

Tokens of the first type do not carry additional (evaluative) characteristics. As an example, we can cite such linguistic units as “look”, “man”, “drink”, “make noise”, etc.

Tokens belonging to the second type, on the contrary, contain an evaluative attribute. They are separate linguistic units, separated into a separate dictionary entry and act as expressively colored synonyms for their neutral equivalents: “look” - “stare”, “drink” - “thump”.

Lexical meanings by nature of connection

Another important aspect of the meaning of a word is its connection with other lexical units of the language. From this point of view, the following are distinguished: types of lexical meanings:

correlative (lexemes that are opposed to each other based on some attribute: “big” - “small”);
autonomous (lexical units independent of each other: “hammer”, “saw”, “table”);
determiners (lexemes with an expressive meaning, determined by the meaning of other lexical units: “huge” and “hefty” are determiners for the adjective “big”).

Cited by V.V. Vinogradov’s classification quite fully reflects the system of lexical meanings in the Russian language. However, the scientist does not mention another equally important aspect. In any language there are words that have more than one meaning. In this case, we are talking about single-valued and polysemantic words.

Single and polysemous words

As mentioned above, all words can be divided into two large groups:

unambiguous;
multi-valued.

Single-valued lexemes are used to designate only one specific object or phenomenon. The term “monosemantic” is often used to denote them. The category of unambiguous words includes:

However, there are not many such lexemes in the Russian language. Polysemantic or polysemantic words have become much more widespread.

It is important to note that the term “polysemy” should in no case be confused with “homonymy”. The difference between these linguistic phenomena lies in the connection between the meanings of words.

For example, the word "escape" can mean:

leaving the place of serving a sentence (imprisonment) at one's own request, thanks to a well-developed plan or by chance.
young plant stem with buds and leaves.

As can be seen from this example, the given values are not related to each other. Thus, we are talking about homonyms.

Let's give another example - “paper”:

material made from cellulose;
document ( trans.).

Both meanings have one semantic component, so this lexeme belongs to the category of polysemantic ones.

Where can I find the lexical meaning of a word?

In order to find out what a particular word means, you need to consult a dictionary. They give the exact definition of the word. By turning to an explanatory dictionary, you can not only find out the meaning of the lexical unit of interest, but also find examples of its use. In addition, describing the meaning of a word helps to understand the difference between synonyms. All vocabulary in the explanatory dictionary is arranged alphabetically.

Such dictionaries are usually intended for native speakers. However, foreigners learning Russian can also use them.

As an example you can provide the following dictionaries:

“Explanatory dictionary of the living Great Russian language” - V.I. Dahl;
“Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language” - S.I. Ozhegov;
“Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language” - D.N. Ushakov;
“Dictionary of Russian onomastic terminology” - A.V. Superanskaya.

As mentioned above, in the explanatory dictionary you can find the lexical meanings of words in the Russian language and examples of their use. However, this is not all the information that this type of dictionary provides. They also provide information about the grammatical and stylistic features of lexical units.

A grammatical category is a set of homogeneous grammatical meanings represented by rows of grammatical forms opposed to each other. The grammatical category in its connections and relationships forms the grammatical core of the language. It exists as a class of meanings united in a system of oppositions. A necessary feature of GC is also the unity of expression of grammatical meaning in the system of grammatical forms, therefore each grammatical category is a complex structure that unites a series of forms opposed to each other. GCs are divided into:

· Morphological – expressed by lexical and grammatical classes of words – significant parts of speech (noun, adj, verb, adverb, pronoun, number). Highlight:

· Syntactic - categories that belong primarily to the syntactic units of language (the category of predicativity or the category of sentence members), but they can also be expressed by units belonging to other language levels (in particular, the word and its form, which participate in the organization of the predicative basis of the sentence and form its predicativeness).

Ways and means of expressing grammatical meanings.

Ways to express grammatical meanings:

· Analytical (includes means of grammatical meanings that are outside the word)

Analytical tools include:

Prepositions – expression of case meanings

Particles – bring different meanings, emotions. shades, used to form the forms of words

Auxiliary words - the formation of new forms of words (future tense of verbs)

Word order is a meaningful function (mother loves daughter; daughter loves mother).

Context – we are going to the cinema (vin. pad); acted in films (prev. pad).

Intonation – expression conveying different shades

· Synthetic (includes means of grammatical meanings that are in the word)

Synthetic products include:

Affixation - the formation of new forms of words

Stress - helps to distinguish word forms (pour - pour)

Internal inflection (alternation of sounds)

Agglutination and fusion, analytical and synthetic structure of language.

Analytical languages are characterized by a tendency towards separate (analytical) expression of LZ and GZ. LZ is expressed by significant words, and GZ by function words and word order (Modern Chinese; possibly English).

Synthetic languages are characterized by a tendency to synthesize, to combine lexical and grammatical morphemes within one word form, i.e. these languages make extensive use of affixes.

Affixal languages, which include Russian, are divided into:

· inflectional (using inflection (fusion)) Fusion - interpenetration of morphemes (most European languages)

· Agglutinative languages - affixes that have different GCs are added sequentially to each other (Turkic, Georgian, Japanese, Korean, Finno-Ugric languages).

Vowels and consonants as types of sounds.

The system of vowels and consonants differs in 3 ways:

· Functional – Ch. sound form syllables into words (sonatas)

· Articulatory – tension of the vocal cords. At Ch. sound the speech apparatus is open. The air stream passes freely. In acc. sound we encounter an obstacle in the formation of sound in the form of a gap or a bow, overcoming or exploding it. This creates noise.

· Acoustic – noise – acoustic characteristics of noise

Vowel sounds are sounds that are formed with the participation of the voice. There are six of them in Russian: [a], [e], [i], [o], [u], [s].

Consonants are sounds that are formed with the participation of voice and noise or noise alone.

The modern Russian alphabet consists of 33 letters, 10 of which are intended to represent vowel sounds. 21 consonant letters are used to represent consonant sounds. In addition, in modern Russian there are two letters that do not indicate any sounds: ъ (hard sign), ь (soft sign).

In the Russian language, there are 6 vowel sounds under stress: [á], [ó], [ú], [í], [ы́], [é]. These sounds are indicated in writing using 10 vowel letters:

· The sound [a] can be indicated in writing by letters A (small[small]) and I (crumpled[m "al]).

· The sound [у] is indicated by letters at (storm[bur"a]) and Yu (muesli[m "convention" and]).

· The sound [o] is indicated by letters O (they say[they say]) and e (chalk[m"ol]);

· The sound [s] is indicated by the letter s (soap[soap]) and And- after f, w And ts(live[zhyt"], sew[shyt"], circus[circus]).

· The sound [and] is indicated by the letter And (Mila[m "ila]).

· The sound [e] is indicated by the letter e (measure[m "era] or after a hard consonant in some borrowings - uh (mayor[mayor]).

In unstressed syllables, vowels are pronounced differently than under stress - more briefly and with less muscular tension of the speech organs (this process in linguistics is called reduction). In this regard, unstressed vowels change their quality and are pronounced differently than stressed ones. In the Russian language, there are 4 vowel sounds in the unstressed position: [a], [u], [ы], [i]. The sounds [o] and [e] in Russian occur only under stress. The only exceptions are a few borrowings ( cocoa[cocoa]) and some function words, for example conjunction But. The quality of an unstressed vowel depends on the hardness/softness of the preceding consonant.

Voiced and voiceless consonants differ in the participation or non-participation of the voice in the formation of the consonant sound.

· Voiced consist of noise and voice. When pronouncing them, the air stream not only overcomes the obstacle in the oral cavity, but also vibrates the vocal cords. The following sounds are voiced: [b], [b'], [v], [v'], [g], [g'], [d], [d'], [zh], [z], [ z'], [th'], [l], [l'], [m], [m'], [n], [n'], [r], [r'].

· Deaf consonants are pronounced without a voice when the vocal cords remain relaxed and consist only of noise. The following consonant sounds are voiceless: [k], [k'], [p], [p'], [s], [s'], [ t], [t'], [f], [f'], [x], [x'] [ts], [h'], [w], [w'].

Based on the presence or absence of voice, consonants form pairs. There are 11 pairs of opposed consonants: [b] – [p], [b'] – [p’], [v] – [f], [v’] – [f’], [g] – [k], [g'] – [k'], [d] – [t], [d'] – [t'], [z] – [s], [z'] – [s’], [g] – [w].

The remaining consonants are characterized as unpaired. Voiced unpaired ones include [й'], [l], [l'], [m], [m'], [n], [n'], [р], [р'], and voiceless unpaired sounds [ x], [x'], [ts], [h'], [w'].

Hard and soft consonants differ in the features of articulation, namely the position of the tongue: when soft consonants are formed, the entire body of the tongue moves forward, and the middle part of the back of the tongue rises to the hard palate; when hard consonants are formed, the body of the tongue moves back.

The consonants form 15 pairs, contrasted by hardness/softness: [b] – [b’], [v] – [v’], etc.

Hard unpaired consonants include the consonants [ts], [sh], [zh], and soft unpaired consonants include the consonants [ch’], [sch’], [y’].

The consonants [ш] and [ш'] (as well as [ж] and [ж']) do not form pairs, since they differ not only in hardness/softness, but also in brevity/longitude.

Vocalism. Classification features of vowels (in a comparative aspect).

Vocalism is a vowel system.

Classification of vowel sounds:

1) Lip position:

a) labialized (tense, elongated) (o, y)

b) non-labialized (not tense)

2) Tongue position:

a) rise (upper, middle, lower)

b) row (front, middle, back)

Consonantism. Classification features of consonants (in a comparative aspect).

Consonantism is a system of consonant sounds. To characterize consonants and their classification, 3 aspects are taken into account:

· Obstacle or place of formation of obstruction (articulation)

1) Bowed - explosion of an air barrier. stream (b/b’, p/p’, d/d’, t/t’)

2) Frictional (fricative) – air friction. jets against the walls of the passage (v/v’, f/f’, s/z’, s/s’, w/w’, w, sch, th, x/x’)

3) Bow-frictional (affricates) - articulation begins with the bow and ends with the fricative passage (ts, h’)

4) Bow-passage forms a bow, but air. the stream goes around it in another place (sonorants). Divided into nasal (m/m’, n/n’), lateral (l/l’), tremulous (r/r’)

· Method of formation (by active organ):

1) Labial: labial-labial (b, p); labiodental (v, f)

2) Forelingual: dental (d, t, c, n, z, s, l)

3) Anteropalatine (f, w, sch, h, r)

4) Middle language(s)

5) Rear lingual: (g, k, x)

1) Noisy:

a) deaf (p, t, k, ts, ch, f, s, sh, shch, x)

b) voiced (b, d, d, c, h, g)

2) Sonorants (m, n, l, r, th)

There are various systematizations of the lexical meanings of words. Vinogradov in the article “Basic types of lexical meanings of words” proposed the following: 1. Direct nominative meaning - directly aimed at objects and phenomena, the foundation of all other meanings.

They are freely combined, the contexts correspond to the relationships in reality and the primary semantic function. 2. Nominative-derived meaning - directly reflect objects, but are assigned to a specific grammatical form (drops as a medicine, lexicalization of the plural of nouns). They are combined with direct meaning into a semantic structure, but at the same time they are syntagmatically conditioned. 3. Syntagmatically determined meanings: a) Phraseologically related - implemented in combination with a strictly limited range of words, the use is determined not by logical relationships, but by the laws of functioning in the language. The rows of phraseologically determined words cannot be expanded - the norms of word usage will be violated. b) Syntactically related meaning is characteristic of LSVs, whose functions in a sentence are limited to a certain syntactic position (of a predicate with a predicative-characterizing meaning) (he is such an ass). This meaning may be the only LSV of the word (feast for the eyes, kaput). c) Structurally related meaning - requires for its disclosure certain grammatical constructions, thanks to which the LSV stands out within a polysemantic word (to get involved - to get involved in the cheeks; to get involved where - to get involved in work).

All types of meanings can intersect and combine (sheaf is a constructively conditioned and phraseologically related secondary nominative meaning).