Once again to the strict definition of the word form
N. V. Pertsov
The conceptual and terminological apparatus of linguistics needs to be corrected: many linguistic terms are understood and used differently in different linguistic directions by different linguists (we can recall the old aphorism: “There are as many linguistic schools as there are linguists”). Therefore, in this area of humanitarian knowledge, we can state a very sad situation. Development of a relatively rigorous conceptual system, such as the one proposed by I. A. Melchuk for morphology in his five-volume fundamental monograph "Course of General Morphology (descriptive and theoretical)" (the last, fifth, volume should be published in 2000; Russian translation the first three volumes - [Melchuk 1997-2000]) - can bring linguistics closer to the exact sciences and thereby help clarify hidden linguistic phenomena, the connections between them and previously known ones, between scientific concepts and linguistic reality, can help predict deductively possible facts and fill in logically acceptable “cells” not represented in the linguistic material to date.
Within the framework of this methodology, we will consider one of the most important concepts of linguistics, completely clear and comprehensible for the linguistic intuition of an inexperienced native speaker (“a person from the street”) and at the same time elusive and not amenable to formalization - the concept of the WORD. People manipulate words as if words were physical objects, accessible to the senses. In this regard, we can recall the famous episode from the great novel by Francois Rabelais, when travelers hear words that once sounded during a naval battle and thawed with the advent of a thaw, like blocks of ice. For a naive linguistic consciousness, even for the consciousness of an illiterate savage, a word is by no means a scientific concept, such as a phoneme, morpheme, subject, etc., but a completely real and tangible thing. And at the same time, this is one of the most difficult linguistic concepts, eluding definition for centuries despite numerous attempts to clarify it.
This concept hides three possible “readings”: segment(roughly speaking, a piece of text, limited on both sides by spaces or punctuation marks), word form(minimal linguistically autonomous sign), lexeme(the set of all word forms or analytical forms that have the same lexical meaning, i.e., are described by the same dictionary entry). The second of these concepts - the word form - will be considered below from the point of view of its strict definition, formulated on an axiomatic basis, i.e., on the basis of a set of initial concepts that - within the framework of this conceptual system - are accepted as undefined - indefinibilia, - and derivatives concepts defined at the appropriate moment. Two fundamental properties of word forms that distinguish them from word form components and from word combinations are: (i) their relative autonomy in the speech chain (a word form is able to form a complete utterance - a speech expression between two full pauses - either (i) by itself, or (ii) together with a word form of type (ii), satisfying in this last case a set of certain criteria specific to the respective language - criteria of weak autonomy - see below); (II) their minimality (the word form cannot be completely divided into autonomous units), which property determines the cohesion of significant components (morphs) in the composition of the word form. Our definition of the word form is based on
conceptual apparatus of Melchuk and is in many respects similar to its definition in [Melchuk 1997:176], but differs from the latter in some important points.
Before proceeding directly to a review of concepts related to the definition of a word form, let's consider examples of word forms against the background of other language expressions that are not word forms. Namely, let's take a look at the following groups of expressions:
(G1) Great pictures! Thrones of eternal snow!(Pushkin).
(G2) eat a dog, sit in a galosh, give an oak tree; blue stocking, flower bed egg, apple
discord, grated kalach
(D4) (a) louisa, professor, romance, freedom, noon, incomprehensible, lazy, reading,
let's go, go, everywhere, always, never, or where, I, me, we, him
(b) from, k, thanks(pretext) , in, if, and, or
(G5) tower- [the basis of the word form tower], -ovate[adjective suffix], - itz
[noun suffix - tigress],under-, over-
(D6) English. I' m [I am], he' d [he had/would], I' ll [I shall / will], she' s [she is/has], we' re [we
are],should a [should have], gonn a [going to], could' ve [could have]
The expressions of the group (G4) - word forms - differ from the expressions of the first three groups by their minimality from the point of view of the plan of expression (property II above); and from the expressions of groups (G5) and (G6) - by their autonomy (property I). At the same time, the expressions of the group (G6) (more precisely, the underlined fragments of these expressions), despite their complete non-autonomy, from an intuitive point of view, are also included in the number of word forms. The indicated data of our intuition must be taken into account in the definition of the word form.
The definition of the word form, which will be proposed in this report, is based on the following concepts, interpreted in accordance with [Melchuk 1997]: statement; segment sign; properties of signs - strong autonomy, separability, distributive variability, permutability, relocatability, weak autonomy; alternation; representability of signs, their signifiers and signifiers. Based on Melchuk's monograph, we will allow ourselves to confine ourselves to an explication of these concepts and brief comments on some of them. (We also borrow from [Melchuk 1997] some examples.)
- utterance = speech expression capable of speaking naturally
conditions between two complete pauses.
- Segmental sign = a sign whose signifier is a chain of phonemes.
Segmental signs are contrasted, on the one hand, with suprasegmental signs (for example, tonal signs), and, on the other hand, with operation signs (apophonies, reduplications, conversions).
- A strongly autonomous sign = a sign capable of forming an utterance. (As group (D4b) shows, by no means all word forms are strongly autonomous, and not only official ones. For example, in French personal verb forms are not strongly autonomous - to the question Q’ est- ce qu’ ils font? can't answer Lisent, but only Ils lisent`They are reading'.)
- The X sign is separable from the strongly autonomous Y sign in a strongly autonomous
context "X + Y" or "Y + X"=X can be separated from Y by a strongly autonomous sign Z - so that the corresponding expression ("X + Z + Y" or "Y + Z + X") is correct and in it the semantic relation between X and Y is the same as in the original expression. (In accordance with this criterion, prepositions are separable: To home ~ to the green house.)
- The sign of X is distributively variant = X can appear in different expressions
together with strongly autonomous signs Y and Z belonging to different parts of speech, and the semantic relation between X and Y and between X and Z in the corresponding expressions is the same. (In accordance with this criterion, distributively variant particles or, is it : He told us about it ~He told us about it; Did the brother write this letter yesterday? ~ Did your brother write this letter yesterday? ~ Did your brother write this letter yesterday? ~ Did your brother write this letter yesterday? As for the sign - ka, which grammarians usually refer to as particles, this sign is not distributively variant; for its affixal status, see [Pertsov 1996]).
- The sign X is interchangeable in combination with the strongly autonomous sign Y = the signs X and Y
can be swapped while maintaining the correctness of the expression and the semantic relationship. (In accordance with this criterion, the particle - still: He did come~ He did come. We rearrange the French personal verb forms in the following contexts: Vous le lui donnes ~ Donnez- le- lui!; il peut ~ Peut- il?; nous pouvons ~ Pouvons nous? )
- Sign X is relocatable = X can be moved from a strongly autonomous sign Y to some other sign Z in the same expression - while maintaining the correctness of the expression and the semantic relationship. (According to this criterion, the particle is displaced would: If he told us about it… ~ If he told us about it… Pronominal clitics in French are limitedly movable: Cette histoire, il l’ entends raconter; Jean lui a fait porter ces livres par son domestique.)
- The sign X is weakly autonomous = X has at least one of the properties indicated in items 4-7, i.e., separability, distributive variability, permutability, or relocatability.
- Alternation (phonological) = operation of changing chains of phonemes /f/ => /g/ .
- The language unit E is representable in terms of the language units F and G = E can be represented as a union of the units F and G in accordance with the rules of the given language.
The definitions in paragraphs 4-7 define the criteria, or properties, for the weak autonomy of a linguistic sign. We emphasize that these criteria are not absolute, they are gradual: one or another unit can have one or another property of weak autonomy to a greater or lesser extent.
So, the French negative particle ne ol has a very limited separability: for it, only pronominal adverbs can act as strongly autonomous separators rien, jamais and pressure- and only before the infinitive: Ne rien < jamais> jet;Ne pressure rien manger. Separability of the Russian prefix element - something- the ability to separate from the landmark sign by means of a preposition ( to someone) is so insignificant that it does not allow the corresponding unit to acquire the status of a word form. It is curious that affixes and affixoids can acquire separability in specific contexts - for example, some prefix elements in the situation of a coordinating tmesis, cf. French le para- ainsi que ferromagnetism, en socio- ou bien en psycholinguistique.
The property of separability can be illustrated by the example of matching the Russian sign floor and French mi-, meaning 'half': the former is separable, the latter is not, cf. mid-September ~ half past September ~ mi- September(separate mi- nothing is possible from a landmark sign).
We now have a complete set of conceptual tools for formulating a definition.
The segment sign X is called the word form = For X, one of the two conditions is satisfied - (1) or (2):
(1) (a) X is sufficiently autonomous in a given language [i.e. i.e. either strongly autonomous, or
satisfies any criteria of weak autonomy] and at the same time:
(b) X is not representable in terms of other sufficiently autonomous signs, and
(c) the beginning of the sign X is not representable in terms of the signifiers of the other enough
autonomous signs;
(2) X is representable through some word form X' and some alternation in the given language, and X can be replaced in any expression by the word form X' without violating the correctness and without changing the meaning of the original expression.
Paragraph (2) in this definition substantially coincides with paragraph 2 of Definition 1.23 in [Melchuk 1997: 176].
Paragraph (1a) excludes from the number of word forms stems and affixes that do not have autonomy, i.e. units of the group (G5).
Paragraph (1b) excludes free combinations and analytical forms from word forms, i.e. expressions of the group (G1) and (G3), and paragraph (1b) excludes their idiomatic combinations - phrasemes, i.e. expressions of the group (G2).
Paragraph (2) leaves among the word forms such units as the consonant endings of English auxiliary verbs - see group expressions (D6), - among which there are expressions that are completely devoid of any autonomy (say, the form ’ m absolutely non-autonomous, and the form ’ s- in meaning is or has- has separability: The drive home today’ s been really easy).
What is the degree of sufficiency of the weak autonomy of a sign, on which paragraph (1a) of our definition is based, in order for this sign to qualify for the status of a word form? We do not know a general answer to this question.
The proposed definition differs from the definition of I. A. Melchuk, as it seems, in greater transparency: Melchuk - to determine the language word form - had to resort to the additional concept of speech word form; moreover, in his recursive definition of a word form, the recursion basis is not singled out, which makes this definition, strictly speaking, incorrect. In our definition, also recursive, as is clear from his point (2), this flaw is overcome.
Literature
Melchuk 1997-1000 – Melchuk I. A. Course of general morphology (theoretical and descriptive). - T. 1 - 1997, T. 2 - 1998, T. 3 - 2000. - M .: Languages of Russian culture.
Pertsov 1996 – Pertsov N. V. Element – ka in Russian: word form or affix? // Russian Studies. Slavistics. Indo-European studies. M.: Indrik, 1996. - S. 574-583.
Mel'cuk 1993-1998 - Mel'cuk I. A. Cours de morphologie generale (theorique et descriptive).
- 1 - 1993, V. 2 - 1994, V. 3 - 1996, V. 4 - 1998. - Les Presses de l'Universite de Montreal, CNRS Editions.
autonomy
AUTONOMY and, well. autonome. Isolation, self-management. Church autonomy. Kartashev 2 449. These ships were distinguished by high autonomy, they could take a supply of coal up to 2500 tons and supplies of consumables designed to stay in the oceans for up to four months. Kostenko On the "Eagle". - Lex. SAN 1932: autonomous / a lot.
Historical Dictionary of Gallicisms of the Russian Language. - M.: Dictionary publishing house ETS http://www.ets.ru/pg/r/dict/gall_dict.htm. Nikolay Ivanovich Epishkin [email protected] . 2010 .
Synonyms:Antonyms:
See what "autonomy" is in other dictionaries:
autonomy- Possession of autonomy, independence from anything. Autonomy (in coupled control systems) independence of any one of the controlled variables from changes in the remaining controlled variables Autonomy of the ship limit ... ... Wikipedia
AUTONOMY- AUTONOMY (from the Greek αυτός itself, ?όμος ηakon; self-government) a characteristic of highly organized, primarily living and social systems, meaning that the functioning and behavior of such systems is determined by their internal foundations and ... ... Philosophical Encyclopedia
autonomy- Lack of control, independence, independence Dictionary of Russian synonyms. noun autonomy, number of synonyms: 3 lack of control (5) ... Synonym dictionary
autonomy- AUTONOMOUS, oh, oh; me, me. Explanatory dictionary of Ozhegov. S.I. Ozhegov, N.Yu. Shvedova. 1949 1992 ... Explanatory dictionary of Ozhegov
autonomy- The time during which the battery must supply power. Topics chemical current sources EN autonomy … Technical Translator's Handbook
AUTONOMY- one of the most important properties, expressed in the ability of AMSE to function independently, without the help of any auxiliary external systems (energy sources, controls, support and supply, etc.). The autonomy of the armaments and military equipment is ensured by ... War and peace in terms and definitions
AUTONOMY- ship, the suitability of the ship to perform tasks in isolation from bases without replenishment of supplies and replacement of personal. composition. Usually measured in days. A.k. diff. classes with the usual energetic. installation is up to 90 days (PL - 60 120 days) ... Encyclopedia of the Strategic Missile Forces
autonomy- 3.3.39 autonomy: Availability of power supply sources that ensure the life of the object in the event of a power failure on the main power sources. [ title= Categorization of electrical receivers of industrial facilities of OAO Gazprom, point 3] … Dictionary-reference book of terms of normative and technical documentation
autonomy- in coupled control systems, the independence of any one of the controlled variables from changes in the other controlled variables (see Automatic control). To fulfill conditions A. between the regulators included in the system ... Great Soviet Encyclopedia
autonomy- I f. distraction noun according to adj. autonomous I II distraction noun according to adj. offline II Explanatory Dictionary of Efremova. T. F. Efremova. 2000... Modern explanatory dictionary of the Russian language Efremova
Books
- Symbiosis and autonomy. Dispositions in trauma. Symbiotic trauma and love beyond the family, Franz Ruppert. Throughout life, a person is accompanied by two desires: the desire for intimacy and the desire for autonomy in relation to other people. It happens that children do not find satisfaction in their life ...
LEXICOLOGY
BUTAUTONOMYOF LEXICAL MEANINGS OF A POLYSEMINATED WORD. In the semantic structure of a polysemantic word, each of its lexical meanings has a certain independence: each lexical meaning has its own concept, i.e. in each lexical meaning, the word expresses a separate concept; most often, each meaning of a word has its own lexical compatibility, its own syntactic conditions for implementation, its own context, as well as its own morphological and stylistic indicators.
Context plays an important role in the formation and functioning of lexical meanings. Contextual attachment, positional conditionality of the lexical meaning of the word provides it with autonomy. An essential element of the semantic context is the lexical environment. Usually, in each meaning, the word has a characteristic (specific) lexical environment, its own lexical compatibility. Yes, the word iron the meaning of “make smooth, even, level with a heated iron” is realized in combinations: iron pants, suit, dress...(names of clothes, underwear), son, husband, father...(names of the person - to whom they stroke), through chintz, gauze, rag ...(names of objects through which they stroke), on table, on(ironing) blackboard...(names of items being stroked), quickly, slowly, carefully...(qualitative adverbs), I want, I can, I can, I must...(modal words, verbs), start, continue...(phase verbs).
In other conditions, another meaning of this verb is realized: to stroke child, daughter, son...(name of person) cat, dog...(animal names) hand, face...(names of body parts) head, cheek...(names of body parts) gently, gently...(qualitative adverbs), I want, I allow...(modal verbs), I will continue...(phase verbs).
Compatibility usually determines the lexical meaning of the word, its boundaries, volume. Wed lexical groups of words that define the meanings of the adjective green: 1) colors of grass, leaves. This meaning is a generalization of the semantics of adjectival combinations with all objects that can be green: color, paint, suit, machine, door, wall, grass, eyes etc.; 2) overgrown with greenery, vegetation; formed by greenery; one with a lot of greenery and trees. This meaning is based on the lexical series of words associated with the concept of a certain territory, “area”: meadow, field, street, yard, city etc.; 3) unripe, unripe. In this meaning, the adjective is combined with the names of fruits, cereals: fruit, fruits, apple, pear, grapes, berries, strawberry, tomato etc.; 4) inexperienced. Combines with a limited range of words: youth, youth, youth.
The autonomy of the lexical meanings of a polysemantic word is manifested in their various properties. For example, the adjective green in its different meanings, it is included in various lexico-semantic groups (LSG). In the first meaning, it is included in the LSG of color terms (green, blue, pink, sand etc.), in the fourth meaning - in the LSG of adjectives that characterize a person (smart, stupid, kind, cunning, experienced, inexperienced etc.). In different meanings, it is included in various synonymic series and antonymic oppositions. Wed synonymous lines: green, herbal, emerald, malachite; immature, unripe, green, inexperienced, inexperienced, green or antonyms: green - ripe, mature; green - experienced.
Different for each lexical meaning and derivational potency (possibility). Wed in all senses adjective green and its derivatives greenish, greenish, greenery, greenery, greenfinch, greenery, greengrocer, greengrocer, green-eyed, green-leaved, green-brown, turn green, turn green, turn green and etc.
Thus, the lexical meanings of polysemantic words participate in the systemic organization of vocabulary independently, one independently of the other: they show independence in the formation of system units - synonymous series, antonymic paradigms, lexico-semantic groups.
Lit.: Vinogradov V.V. The main types of lexical meanings of the word // V.V. Vinogradov. Selected works. Lexicology and lexicography. M., 1977; Kobozeva I.M. On the boundaries and internal stratification of the semantic class of verbs // VYa. 1985. No. 2; Novikov L.A. Semantics of the Russian language. M., 1982.
ACTIVE AND PASSIVE VOCABULARY. Language as a means of communication is constantly being improved. And improvement, as you know, is always associated with certain changes, transformations in its various subsystems. They are especially active in vocabulary, which quickly reacts to all changes in social life - in the sphere of production, in the field of technology, science and art, etc. New objects appear, new concepts are formed, new phenomena arise - new words are created that name them. Vocabulary is the most mobile part of the language system. It is constantly replenished, updated, i.e. develops. The main thing in development is the process of renewal. It is aimed at meeting the ever-growing public needs in new nominations. However, development certainly implies the aging of some elements of the lexical system, their replacement or disuse. In this regard, the relationship between the core and the periphery in the vocabulary changes.
The central, core, part of the vocabulary is made up of words that are relevant for modern native speakers of the Russian language, and, above all, commonly used words that are understandable to all speakers of Russian and necessary for their daily communication, regardless of their occupation, profession, place of residence, social class, age, etc. etc. Such words constitute active vocabulary. This is, for example: man, head, hands, face, child, school, bread, salt, water; learn (sya), drink, eat, talk, look, see, sit, stand; good, bad, light, smart, long; close, far, early.
Active vocabulary includes not only commonly used words. It also includes words that are limited in their use: special terms and professionalisms, book words, emotionally expressive vocabulary, etc. The words of the active vocabulary have neither a shade of obsolete nor a shade of novelty.
Against the background of active vocabulary, passive vocabulary stands out. It includes words that are rarely used in everyday communication and are not always clear to native speakers. They have either ceased to be relevant, necessary in the process of communication, are outdated (obsolete words), or, on the contrary, have appeared relatively recently and have not yet become familiar, relevant, have not finally come into general use (neologisms).
The boundaries between passive and active vocabulary are characterized by mobility and variability. In the process of language development, they constantly move. The words of the active vocabulary are transferred to the passive vocabulary. So, in Soviet times, they switched to a passive dictionary sovereign, empress, hussar, batman, policeman, gymnasium, gymnasium student etc. On the contrary, the words appeared and quickly moved from the passive vocabulary to the active vocabulary. collective farm, collective farmer, collective farmer, collective farm, state farm, state farm, Komsomol, Komsomol member, Komsomol member, Komsomol etc.
Lit.: Feldman N.I. Occasional words and lexicography // VYa. 1957. No. 4; Fomina M.I. Modern Russian language. Lexicology. M., 1990; Shansky N.M. Lexicology of the modern Russian language. M., 1972; He is. Obsolete words in Russian // РЯШ. 1954. No. 3.
ENGLISH. Word and phrase borrowed from English. The terms of science and technology begin to penetrate into the Russian language at the end of the 17th - at the beginning of the 18th century, during the formation of the language of science: block, riot, statistics, florist, utopia, series etc. In the 19th century words appear created by English and American scientists: X. Devi - aluminum, ammonium, barium, potassium...; M. Faraday - anode, anion, benzene, ion, cathode, electrolysis...; E. Rutherford - emanation, radon, proton... In the 1920-1940s. more than 200 lexemes were borrowed: effect, neutron, speedometer, donor, lewisite, genetics, stand container, trolleybus and others. There is a great flow of Angisms in
1950s-1970s These are the terms of computer technology, industrial automation, machine translation, sports, etc.: antifreeze, tester, transistor, leader, water polo, start, finish.
Lit.: Akulenko VV Questions of internationalization of the vocabulary of the language. Kharkov, 1972; Krysy L.P. Foreign words in modern Russian. M., 1968.
ANTONYMY(Greek anti "against" + onima "name"). Antonyms are words of the same part of speech that have opposite but correlative lexical meanings. For example: left - right, alive - dead, appear - disappear, collect - disassemble, day - night, early - late, today - tomorrow.
Antonyms denote correlative, logically compatible concepts. Yes, the words short and tall express opposite manifestations of the same sign - height, and young and old indicate contrasting "points" of age. They mutually presuppose each other: short necessarily presupposes the existence high, a young necessarily evokes the idea of old and vice versa. They are inextricably linked not only semantically, but also functionally. The following examples of their use testify to their mutual attraction to each other: They play parliament, and I'm neither young enough nor young enougholdto play with toys(L. Tolstoy). Oldgetting old andyounggrowing(Chekhov).
At the same time, antonyms mutually negate each other. One and the same object cannot be both low and high at the same time, and one and the same person cannot be both young and old. Low - it is a negation of the high, and molodoe - denial of the old. However, antonyms are not a simple negation of each other. They express "the ultimate negation of the opposite meaning, revealed by semantic analysis: "strong - weak(= extremely weak + strong)" (Novikov L.A. Antonyms // Russian language. Encyclopedia. M., 1979. S. 21). Therefore, they do not form an antonymous pair white and non-white etc. They do not express the contrast characteristic of antonymy. Often between the extreme (contrasting) points of the lexical paradigm there can be its middle members. Wed: low - medium - high, small - medium - large. Only the extreme members of such paradigms are in antonymic relations.
The basis of antonymy is made up of qualitative features that can change (increase or, conversely, decrease) to their opposite.
Antonyms are always words of the same part of speech.
Members of an antonymic pair (paradigm) have the same subject correlation, denote the same phenomenon. Hence, they have the most important condition for antonymization - semantic commonality. However, antonyms contain in their semantics not only general, but also distinctive (differential) semantic elements (semes). Differential semes are non-coinciding, incompatible components of the meaning of antonyms, which serve as the basis for their semantic opposition. Possessing common and distinctive semantic elements, antonyms can have both common and incompatible compatibility. For example, antonyms friend - enemy same goes with adjectives old, old, new etc., but with words close, devoted, faithful etc. combined only friend, with the word cursed - only enemy. In the zone of common compatibility of antonyms day Night phrases include: winter day - winter night, January day - January night, short day - short night, disturbing day - disturbing night; day came - night came, work all day - work all night etc.: The zone of individual word compatibility day and night make phrases: sunny (serene, gray, gloomy, weekend ...) day, the day is fading, in broad daylight, clear as day and etc.; starry (lunar, dark, sleepless, late, deep, deaf ...) night, the night falls and etc.
All antonyms of the Russian language are divided into two types - lexical (different-rooted) and derivational (single-rooted). Derivative antonyms are antonyms that have arisen as a result of derivation. They are the product of word formation. Derivational antonyms are formed with the help of derivational means - prefixes, suffixes. In compound words, antonymous components are used for this purpose. With the help of prefixes, antonyms are widely formed in nouns: truth - falsehood, symmetry - asymmetry, order - disorder, maneuver - counter-manoeuvre, harmony - disharmony, action - reaction etc.
In derivational antonymy, reflected antonymy clearly predominates, i.e. antonyms are derived words that in themselves do not express antonymic relations and are antonyms because their generators have antonymic meanings. They borrow antonymous meanings from their producers, as if reflecting them in their semantic structure. For example, adjectives lower and upper, reflecting the antonymy of the producers bottom and top. Wed also: opening - closing and open close; turn white - blacken, white - black and White black.
In the antonymic organization of vocabulary, word-formation nests play an important role. All reflected antonymy is associated with them, which makes up about 70% of the entire antonymic array of the Russian language. The great organizing power of word-formation nests in the system of Russian antonymy is evidenced by words that give rise to many derivative antonyms. For example, in nests buy Sell 15 derived antonyms, liquid - thick - 24, curved - straight - 21, light - difficult - 34, darkness - light - 41, low - high - 42, dull - sharp - 43, White black - 65, wet - dry- 105.
Words enter into antonymic relations in their specific lexical meanings. They can antonymize in one of some. meaning. Wed: maximum(most) - minimum(least number).
Polysemantic words can be antonymized in one meaning, in a number of their meanings, or (rarely) in all of their meanings. At the same time, they can enter into an antonymous pair with the same word. Wed: strong - weak in all meanings. Wed also in direct and figurative meanings: spicy and blunt, wide and narrow, empty and full, thin and thick, early and late, direct and crooked, poor and rich, close and open etc.
Most often, polysemantic words in their different lexical meanings enter into antonymic pairs with different words. Yes, adjective thick forms antonymic pairs with three adjectives: rare, liquid and thin. In turn, the word rare is the antonym of the adjective frequent, a thin - antonym of the word thick.
The problem of distinguishing between antonymy and homonymy arises in connection with different interpretations of the phenomenon of enantiosemy. Enantiosemy (Greek enantios “opposite, opposite” + sema “sign”) is commonly understood as the combination of opposite meanings in the semantics of one word. It is also called intra-word antonymy. This usually includes examples like: carry(to the house = bring) and carry(from home = carry away); view(article = familiarize) and view(error = overlook, miss); maybe(maybe in all likelihood) and maybe(undoubtedly, exactly), etc. For the modern Russian language, the phenomenon of enantiosemy is uncharacteristic and unproductive.
Not all linguists attribute this phenomenon to antonymy. After all, the meaning of a word can develop only to its opposite, after which it passes into a new quality and serves as a semantic base for the formation of another word. The transition of a lexical meaning into its opposite means the splitting of one word into 2 independent lexemes - homonyms.
The phenomena of antonymy and synonymy are closely related and actively interact. The words of one synonymous series enter into antonymic relations with one of them. word or with all the words of another synonymic series. Wed: destroy - create, destroy - create, destroy - build, destroy - create, destroy - erect.
Adjective disgusting in the meaning of "very bad, disgusting" acts as an antonym of the words superb, superb, marvelous, marvelous, marvelous, marvelous, marvelous, denoting "very good, admirable." Wed also: beauty is ugliness, beauty is ugliness, beauty is ugliness.
On the basis of synonyms that enter into antonymic relations, derivative words of the same type often arise, reflecting the synonymy and antonymy of their generators. Wed: cheerful - sad, boring, sad, dreary, gloomy, gloomy, gloomy, sad and a series of words derived from them: fun - sad, boring, sad, dreary, gloomy, gloomy, gloomy, sad; gaiety(cf.: fun), melancholy, gloominess, gloom, gloom, right here: sadness, boredom, sadness, melancholy; have fun - be sad, bored, sad, yearn, sulk, frown; cheer up (cheer up) - get sad (get sad), get bored (get bored), get gloomy (get gloomy), gloom, frown (get gloomy); merry - gloomy, gloomy, gloomy, gloomy and etc.; cheerful - dull, gloomy and others. Such cases show how closely the synonymic and antonymic systems of the Russian language are intertwined.
Lit.: Aksanova N.V. On the question of the concept of opposition as the basis of lexical antonymy // Actual problems of philology. M., 1981; Ivanova V. A. Antonymy in the language system. Chisinau, 1982; Novikov L.A. Antonymy in Russian. M., 1983; Pavlovich N.V. Semantics of oxymoron // Linguistics and poetics. M., 1979; Chmykhova N.M., Baskakova L.V. On speech techniques for the implementation of contrast // Problems of expressive stylistics. Issue. 2. Rostov n/D, 1992; Shishkina T. I. Attributive oxymoron combinations as a functionally significant deviation from the onomasiological norm in a poetic context. Tula, 1991.
APHORISM(Greek aphorismos "spoken"). Brief expressive saying: aphorisms of Gorky, Chekhov, L. Tolstoy, to speak in aphorisms.
Along with the term aphorism are used saying, saying, winged (accurate) words etc. The most important features of aphorisms are not assigned to them: semantic completeness, completeness, figurativeness. An aphorism is a phrase belonging to a particular author: Love cannot be without respect(Leskov). In order for one person to discover a fruitful truth, it takes a hundred people to incinerate their lives in unsuccessful searches and sad mistakes.(Pisarev). By the degree of respect for labor and by the ability to evaluate labor according to its true value, one can find out the degree of civilization of the people(Dobrolyubov). Flexible, rich, and for all its imperfections, the language of every nation whose intellectual life has reached a high development is beautiful.(Chernyshevsky).
Lit.: Bortnik G.V. Kozma Prutkov and his aphorisms // РЯШ. 1993. No. 5; Radzievskaya TV Pragmatic aspect of aphoristic texts // Izvestiya AN. Ser. literature and language. T. 47. No. 1. M., 1988; Fedorenko N.T. Word accuracy. M., 1975; Fedorenko N.T., Sokolskaya V.K. Aphoristics. M., 1990; Kharchenko V.K. Metaphor in aphorism // Studies in semantics. Semantics of language units of different levels. Ufa, 1988.
APHORISM. 1. A set of aphorisms: Literature
Differences from units studied in Russian lexicology. Paradigmatic/syntagmatic and diachronic/synchronic approaches... differences from units studied in Russian lexicology. Paradigmatic/syntagmatic and diachronic/synchronous...
Methodological recommendations for independent work in the course of English language lexicology for students of the III year / Ukl. Boytsan L. F. K., 2000. 40 p. Mostovy M.I. Lexicology of English language. H. Osnovi, 1993. 255 p.
Methodical recommendations1999. - 273 p. Antrushina G. B., Afanasyeva O. V., Morozova N. N. Lexicology in English. - M. : Bustard, 2004. - 288 ...]. - M. : Soviet Encyclopedia, 1990. - 685 p. Minaeva L.V. Lexicology and lexicography of the English language: textbook. allowance...
Phraseologisms are considered as equivalents of words, and lexicology- as a linguistic discipline that studies vocabulary ... the study of phraseology. They are in charge lexicology. This is also true for turnovers with terminological ...
Aspects of learning vocabulary. Branches and sections of lexicology
Lexicology (Greek lexicos - relating to a word) is a section of linguistics that studies the vocabulary of a language, vocabulary. Disputes about whether the vocabulary is inherent in the system did not subside until the 70s. 20th century and sometimes flare up now. The definition of a system accepted by most linguists is as follows: “A system is an integral object consisting of elements that are in mutual relations” (V.M. Solntsev). Compare also: “A system is a well-organized set of interrelated and interdependent elements” (A.S. Melnichuk).
General properties of any system:
Integrity. The supreme role of the system as a whole, not only articulating individual sections, but also coordinating the processes taking place in them;
Complexity (discreteness). Any system consists of separate sections (subsystems), which in turn have a fairly complex internal organization;
Orderliness. Mandatory is the constant interaction of subsystems, in their connections and relationships influencing each other.
Lexical level lies between morphological and syntactic, therefore, there are 3 aspects of the characteristics of the word: 1) a lexical level unit with its own characteristics; 2) a complex of morphemes; 3) an integral part of the proposal, realizing in it the fullness of its functions.
Features of the organization of each level: relative autonomy (existence of own laws) and isomorphism (Greek isos. - equal, morphe - form) - the presence of structural (formal) regularities of the same type for all levels. To include four types of system relationships: paradigmatic, syntagmatic, variant and manifestation relations(only for bilateral language units). paradigmatic – relations of co-opposition, relations of choice. In vocabulary, it is primarily synonymy, antonymy. Syntagmatic relationships are relationships of compatibility. Relations variability connected with the opposition of language and speech. All units exist in two statuses: as invariant units that form the basis of the language system, and as their variants, representing these abstract units in speech: phoneme/allophone, morpheme/allomorph, etc. In vocabulary: word/LSV. Invariants are typical abstract units in abstraction from living functioning, the result of scientific abstraction. Options are psychological reality, directly observable and perceived facts. Finally, there are relationships demonstrations , characterizing the connection of the expression plan (PV) and the content plan (PS): PV (form) manifests PS (meaning). For vocabulary, the law of asymmetry of a linguistic sign (Kartsevsky's law) is extremely important: remaining equal to itself for a long time, a linguistic sign seeks to expand either its expression plane (formal variation) or its content plane (polysemy).
The isomorphism of language levels also confirms the presence of a number of general concepts, in particular for phonetics and vocabulary: oppositions, strong and weak positions, positions of neutralization, differential and integral signs etc.
Features of vocabulary as a system. Let's see if the vocabulary satisfies the general definition of the system: 1) is it divided into smaller subsystems that are ordered in a certain way (is the requirement of discreteness and ordering satisfied), and 2) is there a global connection between all lexical subsystems (integrity)?
1) Within the lexical system, there are various ordered subsystems: a polysemantic word, semantic fields, lexico-semantic groups (LSG), synonymic series, antonymic pairs, oppositions such as "original - borrowed", "old - new", "active - passive". All these are groups of words connected by systemic relations of paradigmatics, syntagmatics, and variance. However, the consistency of vocabulary is manifested not only in the presence of certain groups of words or fields, but also in the very nature of the use of words, in their functioning. So, for example, words with similar or opposite meanings have similar syntagmatics (they are used in the same positions: true, correct, false(thought), sure, inevitable(death). On the contrary, different meanings of a polysemantic word, as a rule, are used in different - differentiating - contexts: deep well - deep voice. Moreover, an attempt was made (I.A. Melchuk, Yu.D. Apresyan, A.K. Zholkovsky, etc.) to systematize all non-free word compatibility, reducing it to several dozen deep meanings (lexical functions). So, deep(gratitude), crackling(freezing), pouring(rain), notorious(rascal) dead(silence), indisputable(authority), rough(mistake), dazzling(white), round(fool) - all these combinations implement the semantics of the highest degree of property manifestation (the so-called MAGN 'very' function). Thus, the lexical subsystem has the property of discreteness and relative ordering of individual groups of words. Let us now consider whether there is a connection between these groups and, consequently, whether the integrity condition necessary for the recognition of the lexicon by the system is satisfied.
2) The rule of 6 steps is known (Yu.N. Karaulov): if you present all the vocabulary in the form of a card file and pull out one card, then it will inevitably be pulled all file cabinet. It is impossible to find such a pair of words in the dictionary, between which there is no semantic connection. Moreover, a chain linking any two words in the dictionary never takes more than six steps to a common element. How many steps do you think great before funny? The aphorism states: one step. Is it so? Consider the semantics of words according to the explanatory dictionary.
Great- 1) exceeding the general level, the usual measure, meaning, outstanding.
Funny - 3) trans. ridiculous, awkward.
Meaning – meaning, what the subject stands for.
Ridiculous- not justified by common sense meaning.
GREAT FUNNY
(meaning) (ridiculous)
MEANING
So from great before funny two steps!
And so any arbitrarily chosen words in the dictionary are related. You can check it yourself. Thus, there are no and cannot be isolated associations in the lexicon, because each word is connected with others by dozens, hundreds of threads. The process of semantic transition from one word to another is endless, it covers the entire vocabulary.
However, Vocabulary is a special kind of system. It has the following features that distinguish it from other language systems (subsystems):
The modern Russian lexical system has developed historically and reflects the centuries-old experience of the people: it contains individual units and entire subsets that bear traces of the previous stages of language development, thus, the system itself contains the properties of juxtaposition of units that are different in their individual genetic (chronological) characteristics , as well as stylistic coloration: cf. sir, citizen, master, comrade, colleague, uncle, bro.
The lexical system consists of separate sections (subsystems) - semantic fields, lexico-semantic groups, synonymous series, etc., interacting with each other, but existing under the auspices of the system as a whole and obeying its laws. These sections themselves have a certain internal organization.
The lexical system is open , this openness is different for different areas: some of them relatively easily accept innovations, others are almost strictly conservative. The lexical composition of the language mobile - we cannot answer the question of how many words there are in the language at one time or another. Some words constantly (at this very moment) enter the system, and it is not always possible to say whether the use of a new word was a single, individual, or whether this is already a fact of the system. It is not always possible to answer the question whether a word is obsolete or whether it is not even included in the passive stock ( green shop, stitch boots, house charity). In the lexical composition of a language, it is fundamentally impossible to draw a hard line between what belongs to its modern layer and what does not belong to it. The vocabulary is the most permeable language area.
When innovations enter one or another section of the system, certain changes occur in it, a new unit is not simply included in this section: its presence affects the ratio and quality of the nearest units (synonymous, antonymic connections, motivational relations change). Wed changes in the circle of modern names of men: comrade ↔ mister(remember the lawsuits at the dawn of perestroika over the fact that someone was “called” a comrade).
This is the uniqueness of vocabulary as a subsystem of the language.
It can also be said that in this subsystem are extremely strong asystemic(centrifugal) trends. They are connected
with the potentialities of the language system itself, with the opposition of language/speech. Let us give as an example the phenomenon of potential words - words “which do not exist, but which could be if historical chance so desired” (G.O. Vinokur): * kitiha, giraffe, hippopotamus, ostrich; *caller, repeater, interrogator, answerer; *quotation mark, skobyst, zapyatist, tyreshnik('specialist in punctuation').
with the mobility of the semantics of the word, the effect of the uncertainty of the lexical meaning, the blurring of the periphery, the ability of the word to convey not only systemic meanings (fixed in the dictionary), but also individual, personal ones.
influenced by social factors. An impulse is born - a social need - and the language (especially its most mobile layer - vocabulary) reacts to it instantly. The impulse comes from outside, from the needs of society. But the technical means of implementation are provided by the language proper. Having been born, the word grows into systemic relations with other words, that is, the system automatically adjusts in accordance with its internal capabilities (cf. the group words PR - public relations specialist).
with the "memory" of the language - the preservation of relics of the previous stage. Obsolete words and meanings, although they lose their activity, are stored in the dictionary for some time and can be revived, albeit with a slightly changed meaning (cf. the history of words governor, parliament, duma and under.). This is the continuity, the conservatism of the language.
test questions
Using knowledge from the course "Introduction to Linguistics", define the language system and its properties: orderliness, integrity, discreteness and hierarchy. What levels (subsystems) are distinguished within the language as a system of systems?
What is the specificity of vocabulary as a special level of language? What are its features? Is vocabulary a system? How do systemic and asystemic tendencies interact in vocabulary?
Name the subject and tasks of lexicology. Describe the two main aspects of its study - system-semasiological and sociolinguistic.
Tell us about the main sections of lexicology. What does lexicology and semasiology study? What is the difference between semasiological and onomasiological approaches to the word? What are the tasks of general, particular, comparative, applied lexicology? What do descriptive (synchronic) and historical (diachronic) lexicology study? What related sciences are involved in the description of vocabulary?
Tasks
The language system is not a blind copy of the surrounding world. It has "white spots", gaps - areas of reality that do not have their own designation. For example, all fingers on the hands have names (thumb, index, middle, ring, little finger). What about toes? Maybe only the little finger and the big one! There is a word ice rink, but there is no designation for a strip of ice on the pavement on which children ride in winter; have a word newlyweds, but there is no word for spouses who already have experience in family life. Why is this happening? Trace the lacunarity on the material of words that call a person according to the properties of character and temperament: a cheerful person - jovial, brave - daredevil, evil - the villain, happy - lucky. Continue this row. What concepts are lacunar, not indicated by separate words?
Some words become obsolete, leave the language, and gaps remain in their place in the system. Using a historical dictionary or Dahl's dictionary, establish what concept the words meant wuy,stern, yatrov. Which kinship terms you know are on the way to becoming obsolete?
Another illustration of the discrepancy between language and reality is phantom words. The simplest example is mermaid,beech,brownie, ghoul and other evil spirits. Why did the word become a phantom phlogiston? Try to give your own examples (at least look at children's literature or science fiction!).
One of the types of phantom words distinguished by scientists, futurologisms (futurologism, literally - « budeslovie » ) are new words that denote not yet existing, but possible phenomena. Some of them later found their realities and came into wide use, such as robot(invented by the Czapek brothers) or cyberpunk, invented by the American science fiction writer William Gibson in 1984 Turn on your imagination - try to create your own futurological ideas.
Literature
Main
Shmelev D.N. Modern Russian language. Vocabulary. M., 1977. § 1-7.
Kuznetsova E.V. Lexicology of the Russian language. M., 1989. Chapter 1.
Modern Russian: Phonetics. Lexicology. Word formation. Morphology. Syntax: textbook / ed. ed. L.A. Novikov. SPb., 1999. Section "Lexicology", § 2.
Fomina M.I. Modern Russian language. Lexicology. M., 1990. § 1-2.
Linguistic encyclopedic dictionary. M., 1990 (See: Vocabulary, Lexicology).
Norman B.Yu. Playing on the edge of language. M., 2006. S. 12-33 (See Appendix).
Epstein M.N. Types of new words. Classification experience // "Topos". Literary and Philosophical Journal [Electronic resource] (See Appendix).
Additional
Vasiliev L.M. Modern linguistic semantics. M., 1990. S. 23-27, 55-66.
Melnichuk A.S. The concept of system and structure in the light of dialectical materialism // History of Soviet linguistics. Some aspects of the general theory of language. Reader. M., 1981. S. 76-79.
Shvedova N.Yu. Lexical system and its reflection in the explanatory dictionary // Russian Studies Today. Language system and its functioning. M., 1988. S. 152-166. Or: Shvedova N.Yu. Theoretical results obtained in the work on the "Russian Semantic Dictionary" // Problems of Linguistics. M., 1999. No. 1 (section "Vocabulary as a system"). pp. 3-16.
Solntsev V.M. Language as a system-structural formation. M., 1977 .
AUTONOMY
AUTONOMY (from the Greek ?????-self, ?????-? akon; self-management) is a characteristic of highly organized, primarily living and social systems, meaning that the functioning and behavior of such systems is determined by their internal foundations and is not depends on the external environment.
When analyzing autonomy, the focus is usually on the problem of independence. Independence is an essential sign of autonomy, but far from defining. The autonomy of objects and systems is, first of all, their action on internal grounds, according to internal motives, according to the laws of functioning of their internal organization. Accordingly, a system of basic concepts is being built that expresses the idea of autonomy. When characterizing autonomous living systems, the problem of internal activity during their functioning and behavior acquires paramount importance. This inner activity is the most important and initial principle in understanding the living. It was noted and often absolutized by all natural science and philosophical trends that sought to reveal the secrets of the living. For example, vitalism proclaimed the presence of a special “life force” (entelechy, psyche, archaea) in living systems, which determines their features; The problem of activity is now being considered at the level of microphysics.
Disclosing the nature of activity is one of the most important tasks of science, while two aspects are distinguished in modern research - energy (power) and information (signal). The activity of systems is based on their energy, on the ability to accumulate and release significant amounts of energy. The energy issues of living things are now actively considered in the framework of biophysical and biochemical research. The informational aspect concerns management issues, that is, the interaction of structural principles in the organization of the living.
The internal activity of autonomous systems is ordered and channeled in a certain way. The problem of canalization is the problem of self-determination of autonomous systems. The analysis of the latter is based on the development of such concepts and categories as “management”, “goal”, “purposefulness”, “feedback”, “diversity”, “decision making”, “needs”, “interests”, “efficiency”, etc. .
The meaning of autonomy, the internal activity of systems should be considered in terms of evolutionary teaching; the autonomy of complex systems and subsystems is justified when it helps to improve the efficiency of the functioning and behavior of systems as a whole, to expand the range of their existence.
The idea of activity absorbed something new that was developed in the course of the formation of the theory of probability and its numerous applications to the knowledge of real processes and that is fixed in the concept of randomness. The idea of randomness opposes the concept of rigid determination with its interpretation of causality as some external force acting on bodies and causing changes in them.
The idea of activity presupposes the presence of internal dynamics and self-determination of the functioning and behavior of systems. The application of the idea of autonomy to social processes led to ideas about freedom as a condition and prerequisite for the development of society and man to the promotion of the ethical principle of autonomy: “Autonomy is ... the basis of the dignity of man and any rational nature” (Kant I. Soch., vol. 4, part 1. M., p. 278). Autonomous systems are very diverse: they speak of a variety of functions, a high specialization of autonomous systems, manifested in a variety of actions in relation to the environment and other autonomous systems. Autonomy is important for the organization of society, when national-territorial associations independently carry out the functions of state power. Self-government of such national-territorial units is justified when it serves to improve their internal organization, mobilize their internal forces and reserves and increase the efficiency of the functioning of the whole, which includes these autonomous units.
K. V. Sachkov
New Philosophical Encyclopedia: In 4 vols. M.: Thought. Edited by V. S. Stepin. 2001 .
Synonyms:
- lack of control, independence, autonomy
Antonyms:
- lack of independence
Other related news.
