I. structural-semantic types of words

Word- the main structural and semantic unit of the language, which serves to name objects and their properties, phenomena, relations of reality, which has a set of semantic, phonetic and grammatical features, specific to each language. The word is different the following structures: phonetic (an organized set of sound phenomena that form the sound shell of a word), morphological (a set of morphemes), semantic (a set of word meanings).

Semantic (semantic) structure of the word- an ordered set of interrelated elements, forming a certain generalized model in which lexico-semantic variants are opposed to each other and are characterized relative to each other.

Lexico-semantic variant (LSV)- a two-sided unit, the formal side of which is the sound form of the word, and the content side is one of the meanings of this word.

Words that have only one meaning are represented in the language by one lexico-semantic variant, polysemantic words - by the number of lexico-semantic variants corresponding to the number of its different meanings.

An analysis of the meaning of a word shows that usually words have more than one meaning. Words that have one meaning, i.e. monosemantic, relatively few. These usually include scientific terms, such as: hydrogen, molecule. Most English words are polysemantic words. The more often a word is used, the more meanings it has. For example, the word table has, by at least, 9 meanings in modern English language: 1) a piece of furniture; 2) the persons seated at the table; 3) sing. The food put on the table, meals; 4) a thin flat piece of stone, metal, wood, etc.; 5)pl. slabs of stone; 6) words cut into them or written on them (the ten tables– ten Commandments); 7) an orderly arrangement of facts, figures, etc.; 8) part of a machine-tool on which the work is put to be operated on; 9) a level area, a plateau. Words that have multiple meanings are called polysemantic. It follows that the concept of semantic structure is applicable only to polysemantic words, since a semantic structure is, in fact, an LSW structure, and if a word has only one LSW, it cannot have an LSW structure.

The semantic structure of a word includes a set of lexico-semantic variants, organized in a certain way and forming an ordered set, a hierarchy. There are various classifications that reflect the difference in approaches to the semantic structure of the word and to the hierarchical relationships of its elements.

Applying synchronic approach to the study of the semantic structure of the word, the following main types of meanings can be distinguished:

· main meaning of the word , which reveals the greatest paradigmatic fixation and relative independence from the context;

· private (secondary, derivative) values , which, on the contrary, reveal the greatest syntagmatic fixation and are not conditioned to a noticeable degree by paradigmatic relations;

· nominative meaning , which is directly directed to objects, phenomena, actions and qualities of reality;

· nominative-derived meaning , which is secondary to it. For example, in the word hand meaning ‘terminal part of human arm beyond the wrist’ (give me your hand) is nominative, while the meanings ‘a thing like a hand’ (the hour hand, the minute hand), ‘an employee who works with his hands’ (the factory has taken on two hundred extra hands) are nominative-derived;

· direct (intrinsic) meaning , directly related to the objects and phenomena of material reality, it can be revealed when getting acquainted with the realities themselves, and the latter act in this connection as an indispensable condition and an objective criterion for determining the semantic volume of a word;

· figurative (metaphorical, figurative, figurative) , which is acquired by a word as a result of its conscious use in speech to denote an object that is not its usual or natural referent. Portable values are formed from a direct meaning according to certain models of semantic derivation and are realized only in certain contextual conditions. They not only name an object or phenomenon, but also characterize it on the basis of similarity with some other object or phenomenon. Semantic structure of the verb to die includes the following LSVs: 1. cease to live, expire (direct meaning); 2. to lose vital force, become weak, faint (Hope/interest dies; the noise/the conversation died); 3. to be forgotten, lost (His fame will never die); 4. decay (flowers/plants die). The values 2, 3, 4 are portable.

The meaning is portable 'time' the words ‘sand’: The sands are running out; meaning 'win' in the word ‘land’: She landed a rich husband; He landed the first prize.

· According to the objects of naming and social purpose, meanings are divided into conceptual and stylistic. conceptual such lexical meanings are called , in which the subject-conceptual orientation is leading and defining; stylistic (cultural-historical) are those meanings in which the function of naming and designating objects and concepts is combined with the function of characterizing the words themselves.

Among the conceptual lexical meanings, there are abstract values , for example, witness - 1. evidence, testimony; and specific , for example, witness - 2. a person who has first-hand knowledge of an event and is ready to describe it; 3. a person who gives evidence under oath in a law court; 4. a person who puts his signature to a document; common nouns and own nominative and pronominative (pronouns). stand out special meanings inherent in terms and professionalisms.

· Stylistic meanings the meanings of words belonging to different stylistic layers of the vocabulary of the language and areas of use are recognized. Archaisms and neologisms, dialectisms and exoticisms also have stylistic significance, and not only words, but also individual LSVs can be archaic, neological, dialectal and exotic.

When analyzing the relationship of a word in language and speech, the concepts intensional meaning (meanings of a word as a unit of language) and extensional meaning (acquired by the word in the given context of its speech use). The term dictionary meaning.

On the other hand, "speech" meanings are subdivided into usual (established meanings accepted in the language in which the word is usually and naturally used, i.e. reflecting syntagmatic connections that characterize the own semantics of the word) and occasional meanings (given to a given word in a given context of speech use and representing some departure from the usual and generally recognized, i.e. meanings that, not being the result of a regular combination of words, are exclusively contextual). For example, the meaning of the verb to seat in the sentence 'Where shall I seat all these people?' is conventional, in the sentence 'She went into the living-room and sat on the edge of a chair so as not to seat her good grosgrain suit' ( J. and E. Bonett) is occasional.

Usage diachronic approach means classifying values according to their genetic characteristics and in accordance with their increasing or decreasing role in the language and allows the selection of the following types of values:

· initial (original) values and derivatives derived from them. For example, in the semantics of the word pipeinitial value is ‘musical wind-instrument consisting of a single tube’, and derivatives are ‘tube of wood, metal, etc., especially for conveying water, gas, etc.’; ‘narrow tube of clay, wood, etc. with bowl at one end for drawing in smoke of tobacco’ etc. Moreover, with such a classification, it often becomes necessary to single out an intermediate meaning, which, diachronically, is one of the links in the semantic development of a word between the original and already established derived meanings. For example, in the semantic structure of a noun board the meaning 'table', being a metonymic transfer, acts as an intermediate link between the meaning 'an extended surface of wood' (which in turn is intermediate between 'table' and the original meaning - 'long thin usually narrow piece of sawn timber') and the meaning 'committee', also associated with metonymic transfer. Thus, with the diachronic approach, the meaning of the word board can be presented in the following form:

long thin usually narrow piece of sawn timber

an extended surface of wood

(metonymic transfer)

· etymological meaning – the value that is historically the earliest;

· archaic meaning - a meaning displaced from use by a newer word, but preserved in a number of stable combinations, for example: meaning "view" at the word blush: at the first blush; the meaning of "spirit" in the word ghost: to give up the ghost "give up the spirit"; meaning "particle" at the word parcel: part and parcel "an integral part"; at the same time, the word exists with a different meaning (meanings) as an active element of modern vocabulary.

· obsolete value – obsolete value;

· contemporary meaning - the meaning that is the most frequent in the modern language.

Polysemy

Polysemy, or polysemy, is characteristic of most words in many languages. However, in English it is much more widespread than, for example, in Russian, which is partly due to the analytical nature of the English language and the presence in it a large number monosyllabic words related to the most commonly used vocabulary.

As already noted, the totality and hierarchy of all lexico-semantic variants polysemantic word represents his semantic structure , or paradigm . For example, the word coat four main meanings can be distinguished: 1) long outer garment with sleeves buttoned in the front; 2) jacket; 3) any covering that can be compared to a garment (e.g. an animal's hair or wool); 4) layer of paint or other substance put on a surface at one time (coat of paint).

LSV is understood as such variants of a word, the differences between which are not reflected in their sound shell, but in a very large number of cases they find their expression either in the difference syntactic construction, or in different compatibility with other words - in phraseological features, or in both together. LSV is equated to a separate meaning of a polysemantic word.

Separate meaning delimitation (LSV) of a word, however, is a sufficient difficult problem due to the diffuseness, uncertainty and fluctuation of the boundaries between them. The most objective way to determine them is to study the typical means and conditions for the realization of a particular value, called the potential typical context. As long as the semantic variants are demarcated, do not merge with each other, the differences between them should be revealed when they are implemented in speech in the form of a kind of pointers, which are “deposited” in the language as a potential typical context.

Differ the following types typical contexts:

thematic or semantic;

constructive or grammatical;

phrasal.

Semantic context is set by thematic classes of words that reflect the relationships and connections of objects of reality. For example, the verb break in combination with a specific subject countable noun has the meaning "break" (to break a cup, a plate, a window), in combination with an abstract noun denoting rules, instructions, etc., realizes the meaning "to break" (to break the law), in combination with the name of the animal - the meaning “tame, train”, “go round” (to break the horse), in combination with the name of the person - meaning "accustom to discipline" (to break a child) etc.

Sometimes, to identify a separate LSV of a polysemantic word, it is not necessary to indicate the semantic class of words or enumerate the lexical units that form its immediate environment. It is enough to indicate their general categorical features, belonging to one or another part of speech, in order to determine in which of the meanings a given word is used. For example, the verb look in combination with the following adjective, realizes the meaning “look” (to look pale, to look young, etc.) Different LSVs are transitive and intransitive verbs like to burn smth - “burn”, to burn - “burn”, to move smth - “move”, to move - “move”, to turn smth - “turn”, to turn - “turn around”. This type of context is called constructive (grammatical). In English, the constructive context is typical for LSV verbs, is much less common in adjective variants, and practically does not occur in other parts of speech.

Phrase context such a context is called, which is given by an enumeration, a list of specific tokens. The phrasal context, like the constructive one, is intralingual, since the limitation of the list of lexemes, the impossibility of extracting from it common features due to purely linguistic reasons, the peculiarities of the system of a given language, in other words, linguistic usage. For example: stock ladder- "loose loop (on a stocking)", flowers of speech- "beautiful turns of speech."

Thus, the conditions for the implementation of the LSW of a word in speech are its syntagmatic characteristics . However, it should be noted that an important role in distinguishing between LSV words is also played by paradigmatic word connections, their systemic opposition. So, all LSVs of one word are correlated in the language system with different synonyms and antonyms (if any). For example, LSV "break", "break" verb break correlates with synonyms crack, smash, demolish, fracture, shatter; LSV "violate" with synonyms violate, infringe; LSV "tame"- with a synonym tame etc.

Recognition of the ambiguity of a word leads to the question of the correlation of lexico-semantic variants, the classification (ordering) of the types of such variance, i.e. to the question of the typology of different sets of elements of the semantic structure of the word.

Semantic structure of the word is defined as a hierarchical system, a historically established unity of lexico-semantic variants with the main direct nominative meaning in its center.

Since the lexico-semantic variants in the structure of a polysemantic word are hierarchically organized on the basis of a direct nominative meaning and are interconnected by a semantic derivative relation, intra-word connections of the meanings of a polysemantic word can be described in terms of direction, pattern and ordered sequence of links and their meaningful characteristics.

The following types of organization of the semantic structure of a polysemantic word are distinguished: radial and chain.

At radial connection all derived meanings are directly related to and motivated by a direct nominative meaning, this type is much more common. For example, the word field the following LSVs are distinguished: 1) field, meadow (field of rye); 2) large space (field of ice); 3) platform, site (for any purpose) (flying field); 4) geol. deposit (gold field); 5) battlefield, battles (to hold the field); 6) area, field of activity (he "s the best man in his field); 7) specialist. field, area (magnetic field). Here, the direct nominative meaning "field, meadow" is directly related to all subsequent meanings, which can be graphically represented as follows:

Chain polysemy in pure form, when the values are sequentially connected to each other and form a single chain, is extremely rare. This takes place, for example, in the semantic structure of such polysemantic words as black and suggest; black- 1) not protected from the wind, open (bleak hillside); 2) cold, harsh (bleak wind); 3) dull, sad, gloomy (bleak prospects); suggest- 1) offer, advise (what do you suggest?); 2) inspire, cause, suggest (thought) (his tone suggested unfriendliness); 3) come to mind, mind (an idea suggested itself to me). Graphically, this relationship can be represented as follows:

The most common type of arrangement of links in the structure of a polysemantic word is radial chain polysemy , which takes on a variety of configurations depending on which values are in direct relationship with each other. For example, for a noun glass, in which dictionaries distinguish such meanings as 1) glass; 2) glassware; 3) glass, glass, glass; 4) a glass, a glass, a glass (a measure of capacity); 5) greenhouse frame; 6) greenhouse; 7) mirror; 8) lens; 9) microscope and some others, this configuration is as follows:

The above tables clearly demonstrate that the relationships between individual LSVs in the semantic structure of a polysemantic word can be direct or indirect. Direct connections are established between the generating and derived from it value, and indirect - between the derived values. As a result of the mediation of connections, some meanings in the semantic structure of a polysemantic word are quite far apart from each other.

In the process of functioning and development of the language, the indicated relations of various LSPs of a polysemantic word, which have developed and are considered from the point of view of a historical perspective, do not remain unchanged: new meanings appear, some meanings disappear over time, the direction of derivation changes.

homonymy

homonymy- this is a sound coincidence of various language units, the meanings of which are not related to each other.

Homonyms the same-sounding words are called that do not have common elements of meaning (sem) and are not associated associatively. For example, nouns are: bank 1 - "bank" and bank 2 - "shore (rivers, lakes)"; Verbs boast 1 - “boast” and boast 2 - “hew a stone in a rough”; adjectives close 1 - "closed" and close 2 - "close" etc.

Highly developed homonymy is a characteristic feature of the English language, which is due, firstly, to the presence in the English language of a large number of monosyllabic words related to the most commonly used vocabulary, and, secondly, to the analytical nature of the language. The frequency of words is inversely related to their length (the number of syllables in them), so monosyllabic words are the most frequent. In turn, the most frequent words are characterized by highly developed polysemy. And it is quite natural that in the process of development such words can acquire meanings that deviate very far from the main (central, direct nominative) meaning, which is known in linguistics as semantic differentiation, or divergence.

Homonym classification

important place in the linguistic description of homonyms, the problem of their classification occupies.

According to the degree of identity three types of coincidences of the sound and letter form of different words are distinguished - full homonyms and incomplete homonyms (homophones and homographs).

Full homonyms words are called that coincide both in their sound and in writing, but different values. These are, for example, the words back, n "part of the body" :: back, adv " away from the front" :: back, v "go back"; ball, n "a round object used in games" :: ball, n "a gathering of people for dancing"; bark, n "the noise made by a dog" : : bark, v "to utter sharp explosive cries" :: bark, n "the skin of a tree":: bark, n "a sailing ship"; base, n "bottom" :: base, v "build a place upon " :: base, a "mean"; bay, n "part of the sea or lake filling wide-mouth opening of land" :: bay, n "recess in a house or a room" :: bay, v "bark" :: bay, n "the European laurel".

homophones units are called that are similar in sound, but differ in their spelling and meaning, for example: air:: heir; buy::by; him::hymn; knight::night; not::knot; or::oar; peace:: piece; rain::reign; steel::steal; storey::story; write::right.

homographs name words that are identical in spelling, but different in meaning and pronunciation (as in relation to sound composition, and places of stress in a word), for example: bow :: bow; lead::lead; row::row; sewer :: sewer; wind :: wind.

Along with the sound coincidence of words, the coincidence of individual forms of different words is possible. In these cases, we are no longer talking about lexical homonyms, but about morphological ones. Different forms of words that coincide in sound appearance are called homoforms (saw"drank" and saw form of the verb to see "to see").

By type of distinguishing value(i.e., according to the semantic differences observed between words that are identical in form), all homonyms are divided into the following groups:

lexical homonyms belonging to the same part of speech and characterized by one lexical and grammatical meaning and different lexical meanings (for example: night "night" - knight "knight"; ball 1 "ball" - ball 2 "ball"; seal "fur seal" - seal "seal");
lexico-grammatical homonyms , which differ both in their lexical and grammatical meanings, and, accordingly, in the paradigm of inflection (for example: rose "rose" - rose "rose"; sea "sea" - see "see");
grammatical homonyms - homonymous forms in the paradigm of the same word, differing in their grammatical meanings (for example: boys "boys" - boy's "boy" - boys' "boys"; in the paradigm of verbs, the forms of the past tense and participle II are homonymous (asked - asked)).

Of particular note are the lexico-grammatical homonyms formed in English according to the productive conversion model ( patterned homonymy ). Words formed by conversion always have a common semantic part with the generating stem, but refer to a different part of speech.

Professor A.I. Smirnitsky divides homonyms into two large classes: full homonyms and incomplete homonyms.

Full lexical homonyms words are called that belong to the same part of speech and have the same paradigm. For example: match "match" :: match "match".

Incomplete homonyms are divided into three subclasses:

1) Simple lexical and grammatical incomplete homonyms- words belonging to one part of speech, the paradigms of which have one the same shape. For example: (to) found, v:: found, v(Past Indef., Past Part, of 'to find'); to lay, v:: lay, v (Past Indef. of 'to lie'); to bound, v:: bound, v(Past Indef, Past Part, of 'to bind').

2) Complex lexical and grammatical incomplete homonyms- words belonging to different parts speeches that have the same form in their paradigms. For example: maid, n:: made, v (Past Indef., Past Part, of ‘to make’); bean, n:: been, v (Past Part, of 'to be'); one, pet:: won, v(Past Indef., Past Part, of ‘to win’).

3) Incomplete lexical homonyms- words belonging to the same part of speech and the same only in the initial form. For example: to lie (lay, lain), v:: to lie (lied, lie), v; to hang (hung, hung), v:: to hang (hanged, hanged), v; to can (canned, canned), v:: can (could), v.

Sources of homonymy

The emergence of homonyms in the language is caused different reasons. I.V. Arnold identifies two reasons for the emergence of homonyms in English:

1) as a result coincidence sound and / or graphic form of completely different words (for example: case 1 in meaning "case, circumstance, position" and case 2 in meaning "box, casket, box", flaw "crack" and flaw "gust of wind", which have different sources of origin, but coincidentally in form). Such a phenomenon is called sound convergence ;

2) in the event that some intermediate links (meanings) fall out of the semantic structure of a polysemantic word, the new meanings may lose their connection with the rest of the semantic structure of the word and become an independent unit. This phenomenon defined as split of polysemy . For example, in modern English board 1– a long and thin piece of timber, board 2– daily meals, esp. as provided for pay (e.g. room and board), board 3– an official group of persons who direct or supervise some activity (e.g. a board of directors) are treated as three homonyms, because there is no semantic connection between the meanings of these three words. However, in large dictionaries, you can sometimes find the already outdated and obsolete meaning of the word board - "a table", which once connected all the above meanings with each other, and they all together made up the semantic structure of the polysemantic word board, in which the second meaning came from the first as a result of metonymic transfer (material is a product from it), and the third and fourth meanings came from the second also as a result of metonymic transfer (contiguity in space: food is usually laid on the table, and people discuss some official business, as a rule, also at the table). After a loanword appeared in English table in meaning "a piece of furniture", it displaced the corresponding meaning of the word board, as a result of which the semantic connection between its remaining meanings was lost, which began to be perceived as different lexical units having the same form, i.e. homonyms.

G.B. Antrushina identifies the following sources of homonymy:

· phonetic changes , as a result of which two or more words that previously had different pronunciations may acquire the same sound, thus forming homonyms, for example: night:: knight, write:: right;

· borrowing from other languages, since a borrowed word may, at the last stage of phonetic adaptation, coincide in form with a word of a given language or with another borrowed word. So, in the group of homonyms rite, n:: to write, v. ::right,adj second and third word English origin, and the word rite was borrowed from Latin (Lat. ritus);

· word formation. The most productive way in this regard is conversion: comb, n:: to comb, v; to make, v:: make, n; reduction, For example, fan, n in meaning "an enthusiastic admirer of some kind of sport or of an actor, singer, etc." is a shortened form fanatic. Its homonym is a borrowed word from Latin fan, n "an implement for waving lightly to produce a cool current air". Noun rep, n, denoting the type of material, has 3 homonyms formed by abbreviation: rep,n(repertory) rep,n(representative), rep,n(reputation).

The source of homonymy may be the imitative origin of one of the homonyms, cf.: bang, n ("a loud, sudden, explosive noise") :: bang, n ("a fringe of hair combed over the forehead"); mew, n (the sound a cat makes) :: mew, n ("a sea gull") :: mew, n("a pen in which poultry is fattened") :: mews("small terraced houses in Central London").

All of the above sources of homonymy have a common feature. In all cases, the homonyms originated from one or more different words and their similarity is completely accidental, with the exception of homonyms formed by conversion;

II. Consolidation of basic knowledge. 1. In a playful way, an exercise is carried out in transforming the word regiment - file - stick.

II. Consolidation of basic knowledge. Find antonyms for the words

II. Consolidation of basic knowledge. · A game. "Enter the words in the cells" (Chineword).

II. Work with words denoting objects and actions.

§ 5. Basic structural-semantic types of words

Already from the proposed description of the word it is clear that the structural-semantic types of words are heterogeneous and that this heterogeneity of the structure of words depends most of all on the nature of the combination and interaction of lexical and grammatical meanings. Semantic types words are not placed in the same plane. Established in Russian grammar since the 18th century. the division of words into significant and auxiliary is interesting as a symptom of the consciousness of structural heterogeneity different types words.

Seven hallmarks of service words

Seven distinguishing features of service words were noted:

1) inability for a separate nominative use;

2) the inability to independently spread a syntagma, or a phrase (for example, the union and, the relative word which, the prepositions on, with, etc., are incapable of themselves, independently of other words, neither to construct nor to spread the phrase, or syntagma);

3) the impossibility of a pause after these words in the composition of speech (without a special expressive justification);

4) morphological indivisibility or semantic indecomposability of most of them (cf., for example, at, with, after all, here, etc., on the one hand, and because, then that, although, etc. - with another);

5) inability to wear phrasal stresses (except in cases of opposition by contrast);

6) the absence of independent stress on most of the primitive words of this type;

7) the originality of grammatical meanings, which dissolve the lexical content of service words.

This is the division of words into significant and auxiliary under different names- lexical and formal words (Potebnya), full and partial (Fortunatov) - was adopted in all works on Russian grammar. Along with these two general categories of words in the Russian language, researchers have long outlined a third category - interjections.

The traditional solution to the question of the main semantic-grammatical classes of words is different doctrines of parts of speech. But these teachings, for all their diversity, do not take into account the general structural differences between the main types of words. All parts of speech are placed in the same plane. V. A. Bogoroditsky wrote about this: “... it is necessary to pay attention to the subordination of some parts of speech to others, which is usually ignored in school grammars, and all parts of speech are put on the same line” (75).

The identification of parts of speech should be preceded by the definition of the main structural-semantic types of words.

Classification of words should be constructive. It cannot ignore any side of the structure of the word. But, of course, lexical and grammatical criteria (including phonological ones) must play a decisive role. In the grammatical structure of words, morphological features are combined with syntactic ones into an organic unity. Morphological forms are settled syntactic forms. There is nothing in morphology that is not or was not previously in syntax and vocabulary. The history of morphological elements and categories is the history of the displacement of syntactic boundaries, the history of the transformation of syntactic breeds into morphological ones. This offset is continuous. Morphological categories are inextricably linked with syntactic ones. AT morphological categories there are constant changes in relations, and the impulses, pushes towards these transformations come from the syntax. Syntax is the organizational center of grammar. Grammar, immanent to a living language, is always constructive and does not tolerate mechanical divisions and dissections, since grammatical forms and the meanings of words are in close interaction with lexical meanings.

Basic grammatico-semantic categories of words

An analysis of the semantic structure of a word leads to the identification of four main grammatical-semantic categories of words.

1. First of all, the category of word-names is distinguished, according to the traditional definition. All these words have a nominative function. They reflect and embody in their structure objects, processes, qualities, signs, numerical connections and relations, circumstantial and qualitative-consequential definitions and relations of things, signs and processes of reality and are applied to them, point to them, designate them. Adjoining words-names are words that are equivalents, and sometimes substitutes for names. Such words are called pronouns. All these categories of words form the main lexical and grammatical fund of speech. Words of this type form the basis of syntactic units and unities (phrases and sentences) and phraseological series. They serve as the main members of the sentence. They can - each separately - make up a whole statement. The words belonging to most of these categories are grammatical and combined complexes, or systems of forms. With different forms or modifications of one and the same word are associated with different functions of the word in the structure of speech or utterance.

Therefore, when applied to these classes of words, the term "parts of speech" is especially appropriate. They form the subject-semantic, lexical and grammatical foundation of speech. These are "lexical words", according to Potebnya's terminology, and "full words", according to Fortunatov's qualification.

2. Parts of speech are opposed by particles of speech, connective, service words. This structural-semantic type of words is devoid of a nominative function. He is not characterized by "subject relatedness". These words relate to the world of reality only through and through the medium of words-names. They belong to that sphere of linguistic semantics which reflects the most general, abstract categories of existential relations—causal, temporal, spatial, purposeful, etc. They are closely connected with the technique of language, complicating and developing it. Linking words are not "material", but formal. In them, the "real" content and grammatical functions coincide. Their lexical meanings are identical with grammatical ones. These words lie on the verge of vocabulary and grammar, and at the same time on the verge of words and morphemes. That is why Potebnya called them "formal words" and Fortunatov - "partial".

3. The third type of words differs markedly from the two previous structural types. These are modal words. They are also devoid of a nominative function, like linking words. However, many of them do not belong to the same extent as connective, functional words, to the field of formal linguistic means. They are more "lexical" than link words. They do not express the connections and relationships between the members of the sentence. Modal words seem to be wedged or included in the sentence or lean against it. They express the modality of the message about reality or are the subject-stylistic key of speech. The sphere of assessments and points of view of the subject on reality and on the methods of its verbal expression finds its expression in them. Modal words mark the inclination of speech towards reality, due to the point of view of the subject, and in this sense they are somewhat close to the formal meaning of verb moods. As if introduced into a sentence or attached to it, modal words are outside both parts of speech and particles of speech, although in appearance they may resemble both.

4. The fourth category of words leads to the sphere of purely subjective - emotional-volitional expressions. Interjections belong to this fourth structural type of words, if we give this term a slightly wider meaning. The intonational, melodic peculiarities of their form, their lack of cognitive value, their syntactic disorganization, their inability to form combinations with other words, their morphological indivisibility, their affective coloring, their direct connection with facial expressions and expressive gesture sharply separate them from other words. They express emotions, moods and volitional expressions of the subject, but do not designate or name them. They are closer to expressive gestures than to words-names. Whether interjections form sentences is debatable (76). However, it is difficult to deny the meaning and designation of "sentence equivalents" behind interjectional expressions.

So, four main structural-semantic categories of words in the modern Russian language are outlined:

1) words-names, or parts of speech,

2) linking words, or particles of speech,

3) modal words and particles,

4) interjections.

Apparently, in different styles of book and colloquial speech, as well as in different styles and genres of fiction, the frequency of using different types of words is different. But, unfortunately, this question is still only in the preparatory stage of the examination of the material.

N.S. Pospelov identified the main difference between the two types of complex sentences. It consists in the following: the subordinate part either correlates with the main part in its entirety, or is part of the main part, attaching itself to some word and spreading it. He called sentences of the first type binomial, sentences of the second type - single-term.

An example of a binary type sentence: We will agree on everything if you come to me. The predicative parts of a complex sentence contain two situations that correlate in general: the second situation is a condition for the implementation of the first situation. The subordinate part is connected with the main part as a whole. A similar relationship is observed in sentences with other semantic conjunctions: We'll agree on everything when you come to me. We will agree on everything, because we understand each other. We will agree on everything, although it will not be easy.

An example of a monomial type sentence: We agreed to meet in the evening.

The subordinate part does not refer to the entire main part, but to one word “agreed”, spreading it, making up for its informative insufficiency. This connection is comparable to the connection in the phrase: make an appointment(We made an appointment).

Other important difference one-term and two-term sentences is manifested in the means of communication. In monomial sentences, asemantic unions are used as means of syntactic communication (the union “what”, some unions that are used as asemantic - “as if”, “as if”, “to”) and allied words, i.e. such indicators that only formalize the connection, but do not establish syntactic relations (syntactic relations are expressed by other means). In binomial sentences, semantic conjunctions are used as means of syntactic communication - indicators of syntactic relations (temporal, conditional, causal, target, etc.).

The classification of complex sentences, developed by N.S. Pospelov, was further developed in the works of other scientists, in particular, V.A. Beloshapkova, who made important clarifications to this classification. First of all, the terms were replaced: one-membered and two-membered, respectively, are denoted by the terms undivided and divided sentences. The reason for changing the terms is the similarity of the former terms with the names of the types of simple sentences (one-part - two-part) and their possible confusion in use.

V.A. Beloshapkova made an important clarification for sentences of a dissected structure (according to Pospelov - two-term). She found that in these sentences there is a connection not between the predicative parts as a whole, but between the predicates: the subordinate part refers to the main predicate, and this predicate is not necessarily a predicate, it can also be an additional predicate, for example, a gerund or participle in separate phrases, and even a semantic predicate (a word with predicate semantics). For example: He held his son tightly by the hand so that he would not run away. The subordinate clause with the target meaning refers to the predicate-predicate "held" (held - for what purpose?). He went out, holding his son tightly by the hand so that he would not run away. The subordinate part refers to an additional predicate expressed by the gerund "holding" (holding - for what purpose?)

Another important step, made by V.A. Beloshapkova in the development of a structural-semantic classification, is the definition of methods of communication between the components of a complex sentence. There are three ways of communication: conditional, determinant and correlation.

A word connection is a predictive connection, it is predetermined by the valency of the word in the main part, its morphological or lexical features. Such a connection is similar to a connection in a phrase. For example: The confidence she had at first is now gone. The word connection is determined by the morphological characteristic of the reference word - its belonging to a certain part of speech - a noun (cf. in the phrase: "initial confidence"). The confidence that he would not let me down gave me strength. In this case, the word connection is determined not by the fact that the word belongs to a part of speech, but by the peculiarity of its lexical meaning: the word “confidence” is distributed here as a synsemantic one that requires mandatory distribution - by a subordinate clause or word form (“confidence in being right”). The word connection is a sign of an undivided structure.

A determinant connection is a non-predictive connection, it is similar to the connection of an adverbial determinant in a simple sentence: the determinant refers to the predicative basis of a simple sentence; the subordinate part refers to the predicate of the main part (main or additional). For example: I understood you when I got to know you better. Wed: With time I understood you. A similar connection with any semantic union: I understand you because I think so myself. I understand you, although I have a different point of view. Determinant connection is a sign of a dissected structure.

A correlation connection has no analogues in a phrase and a simple sentence; it is a connection that is characteristic of a complex sentence. The classic case of correlation is the T-word in the main part and the corresponding K-word in the subordinate part: Ithat , whom nobody likes. Other manifestations of correlation: T-word in the main part - asemantic union ( It wasSo hot,what melted asphalt); The K-word in the subordinate clause correlates with the entire main clause ( Today Vasya was late,what never happened to him before). Correlation is possible both in non-segmented and dissected structures.

Already from the proposed description of the word it is clear that the structural-semantic types of words are heterogeneous and that this heterogeneity of the structure of words depends most of all on the nature of the combination and interaction of lexical and grammatical meanings. Semantic types of words are not placed in the same plane. Established in Russian grammar since the 18th century. dividing words into significant and official interesting as a symptom of the consciousness of the structural heterogeneity of different types of words.

Seven distinguishing features of function words were noted: 1) the inability to separate nominative use; 2) the inability to independently spread the syntagma, or phrases (for example, union and, relative word which, prepositions on, at etc. are unable by themselves, independently of other words, to construct or distribute a phrase or syntagma); 3) the impossibility of a pause after these words in the composition of speech (without a special expressive justification); 4) morphological indivisibility or semantic indecomposability of most of them (cf., for example, at, at, after all, here etc., on the one hand, and because to, then what, though etc. - with another); 5) inability to wear phrasal stresses (except in cases of opposition by contrast); 6) the absence of independent stress on most of the primitive words of this type; 7) the originality of grammatical meanings, which dissolve the lexical content of service words. This division of words into significant and auxiliary under different names - lexical and formal words (Potebnya), full and partial (Fortunatov) - was adopted in all works on Russian grammar. Along with these two general categories of words in the Russian language, researchers have long outlined a third category - interjections.

The traditional solution to the question of the main semantic-grammatical classes of words is different doctrines of parts of speech. But these teachings - for all their diversity - do not take into account the general structural differences between the main types of words. All parts of speech are placed in the same plane. More about this V.A. Bogoroditsky wrote: "It is necessary to pay attention to the subordination of some parts of speech to others, which is ignored in school grammars, and all parts of speech are put on the same line."

The identification of parts of speech should be preceded by the definition of the main structural-semantic types of words.

Classification of words should be constructive. It cannot ignore any side of the structure of the word. But, of course, lexical and grammatical criteria (including phonological ones) must play a decisive role. In the grammatical structure of words, morphological features are combined with syntactic ones into an organic unity. Morphological forms are settled syntactic forms. There is nothing in morphology that is not or was not previously in syntax and vocabulary. The history of morphological elements and categories is the history of the displacement of syntactic boundaries, the history of the transformation of syntactic breeds into morphological ones. This offset is continuous. Morphological categories are inextricably linked with syntactic ones. In morphological categories there are constant changes in relationships, and the impulses, pushes for these transformations come from syntax. Syntax is the organizational center of grammar. Grammar, immanent to a living language, is always constructive and does not tolerate mechanical divisions and dissections, since the grammatical forms and meanings of words are in close interaction with lexical meanings.

An analysis of the semantic structure of a word leads to the identification of four main grammatical-semantic categories of words.

1. First of all, a category stands out words-names, by the traditional definition. All these words have a nominative function. They reflect and embody in their structure objects, processes, qualities, signs, numerical connections and relationships, circumstantial and qualitative-consequential definitions and relationships of things, signs and processes of reality and are applied to them, pointing to them, designate them. Adjoining words-names are words that are equivalents, and sometimes substitutes for names. Such words are called pronouns. All these categories of words form the main lexical and grammatical fund of speech. Words of this type form the basis of syntactic units and unities (phrases and sentences) and phraseological series. They serve as the main members of the sentence. They can - each separately - make up a whole statement. The words belonging to most of these categories are grammatical and combined complexes, or systems, of forms. Different forms or modifications of the same word are associated with different functions of the word in the structure of speech or utterance.

2. Parts of speech are opposed by particles of speech, connective, function words. This structural-semantic type of words is devoid of a nominative function. He is not characterized by "subject relatedness". These words relate to the world of reality only through and through the medium of words-names. They belong to the sphere of linguistic semantics, which reflects the most general, abstract categories of existential relations - causal, temporal, spatial, target, etc. They are closely connected with the technique of language, complicating and developing it. Linking words are not "material", but formal. in them the "real" content and grammatical functions coincide. Their lexical meanings are identical with grammatical ones. These words lie on the verge of vocabulary and grammar, and at the same time on the verge of words and morphemes. That is why Potebnya called them "formal words" and Fortunatov - "partial".

3. The third type of words differs markedly from the two previous structural types. This is modal words. They are also devoid of a nominative function, like linking words. However, many of them do not belong to the same extent as connective, functional words, to the field of formal linguistic means. They are more "lexical" than link words. They do not express the connections and relationships between the members of the sentence. Modal words seem to be wedged or included in the sentence or lean against it. They express the modality of the message about reality or are the subject-stylistic key of speech. The sphere of assessments and points of view of the subject on reality and on the methods of its verbal expression finds its expression in them. Modal words mark the inclination of speech towards reality, due to the point of view of the subject, and in this sense they are somewhat close to the formal meaning of verb moods. As if modal words introduced into the sentence or attached to it are outside both parts of speech and particles of speech, although in appearance they can resemble both of them.

4. The fourth category of words leads to the sphere of purely subjective - emotional-volitional expressions. To this fourth structural type of words belong interjections, if we give this term a slightly wider meaning. The intonational, melodic peculiarities of their form, their lack of cognitive value, their syntactic disorganization, their inability to form combinations with other words, their morphological indivisibility, their affective coloring, their direct connection with facial expressions and expressive gesture sharply separate them from other words. They express emotions, moods and volitional expressions of the subject, but do not designate or name them. They are closer to expressive gestures than to words-names. Whether interjections form sentences is a matter of debate. However, it is difficult to deny the meaning and designation of "sentence equivalents" behind interjectional expressions.

So, there are four main structural and semantic categories of words in the modern Russian language: 1) words-names, or parts of speech, 2) connective words, or particles of speech, 3) modal words and particles, and 4) interjections.

Each meaningful unit of language is a two-sided entity, a unity of form and content. Not every sound complex can be called a word: kolkil, murmil. Tiltil- in Russian a meaningless set of sounds, and in the Chernihiv dialect of the Ukrainian language - ‘just past moment’ (right now). From a poem by I. Tokmakova: And I came up with a word, A simple word - "plim" .. Here jumps and jumps Plim, plim, plim And Plim means nothing ... Thus, the word must have content - its lexical meaning. The meaning of a word depends not only on its relationship with the phenomena of reality, but also on its relationship with the lexical system of the language as a whole.

The semantic structure of a word is its semantic structure.

To determine the structure of the meaning of a word, it is necessary to establish what elements it is composed of. For example, when determining the structure of the meaning of the word grandson elements can be distinguished: 'blood relative', 'direct relative', 'relative through generation', 'male relative'. As an adjective tall there is an indication that it is: a) ‘possessing extension in space’; b) ‘having a significant length, i.e. situated above some middle line’; c) ‘located in the vertical direction’; d) ‘upwards’; e) ‘neutral in expressive and stylistic coloring’.

Components of the meaning of a word, or its semantic features (semes) are not equivalent. Some indicate the main element in the meaning of the word, others specify, differentiate the meaning. The components of the first type can be called basic, the second - differential.

When the meaning of a word changes, changes occur in its semantic structure: some components of the meaning are weakened, while others, on the contrary, are activated, come to the fore. Yes, adjective tall used in combination with nouns yield, level, rate etc., acquires the meaning of ‘big, significant’, i.e. the main component of the meaning ‘extended in space’ is neutralized, and the differential one, indicating the degree of extent (‘significant, above average’), becomes the main one. At the same time, the component positive evaluation, hidden, not speaking clearly in the direct meaning of the word, becomes distinct, comes to the fore.

The semantic structure of an unambiguous word is reduced to its seme composition.

The complexity of the semantic structure of a word determines the possibility of developing new meanings as a result of changes in the structure of the meaning, in the ratio of its constituent semantic components. Words take on multiple meanings.

The semantic structure manifests itself in its polysemy as the ability to name (designate) various objects (phenomena, properties, qualities, relationships, actions and states) with the help of internally related meanings. The simplest unit (element) of the semantic structure of a polysemantic word is its lexico-semantic variant ( LSV- Al-dr Iv. Smirnitsky), i.e. lexical meaning associated with other lexical meanings by certain relationships. In the semantic structure of a word, lexico-semantic variants are connected with each other due to the common internal form, mutual motivation, derivation from each other. The connection between the meanings of a polysemantic word is felt by the speakers and is based on the fact that these meanings have a common part- the same semantic features - semes. Therefore, the meanings of a polysemantic word are motivated and can be explained one through the other. For example, in the word stroller 3 meanings are distinguished: 1) ‘four-wheeled sprung carriage with convertible top’; 2) ‘a small hand cart for children to ride’; 3) ‘a small cart, wagon special purpose’ (motorcycle with a sidecar). These meanings are closely related: the second and third arose on the basis of the first by the similarity of function.

Therefore, in dictionaries, each preceding LSV determines the interpretation of the subsequent one. For example, a circle 1) "a part of the plane bounded by a circle, as well as the circle itself"; 2) "an object in the shape of a circle" ( rescue, rubber circle); 3) "a closed area, within the outlined boundaries of which something happens and develops" ( range of responsibilities, interests, issues); 4) "a group of people united by common interests, connections" ( circle of acquaintances, friends; in your circle); 5) "a social set of persons of predominantly intellectual, creative work" (broad circles public, literary, journalistic circles; about diplomatic circles: in the circle of scientists, specialists) and others. Here, the hierarchically main LSV 1), in the content of more the inner form appears; with this LSV, all other LSV words are metaphorically (by similarity of form) a circle. At the same time, the idea of a circle is present in the interpretation of the meanings of all LSV words and internally links them into a single whole.

The basis for highlighting the main and private meanings (or otherwise: the main and private LSV) is the different nature of the interaction with the context, i.e. a piece of text that is necessary and sufficient to determine one or another meaning of the word. The main value in least degree context conditioned. The word in the main (first in dictionaries) meaning is semantically the simplest in its content (cf. water"transparent colorless liquid") and therefore has the widest and free compatibility with other lexical units. All other meanings of the word (its LSV) act as private ones. In private meanings, in comparison with the main word, the word is much more conditioned by the context, it attaches its elements to itself and, therefore, is semantically more complex (for example, water 2) "mineral, carbonated, fruit drink", i.e. water + containing mineral salts; saturated with gas; made from fruits), while it is characterized by a limited, selective compatibility: mineral, seltzer, carbonated, fruit water.

Along with the usual dictionary meanings (main, particular), in the semantic structure of the word, the general meaning is distinguished as its invariant: it is the coinciding part of the content of all meanings (LSV) of the word, something constant, unchanging in them. It is extremely generalized and semantically simple content and is a linguistic abstraction useful for semantic analysis language units.

In the semantic structure, certain meanings (LSV) can die off. For example, the meaning of "beautiful" in an adjective common Slavic in origin red(cf. Red Square) was historically original, the main one in the word formed from the same stem as the word beauty. In the meaning of color, the word red began to be used later, in the era of the separate existence of the East Slavs. languages. This meaning became the main one in the semantic structure of the word, leading to its partial restructuring. At the same time, the semantic structure of the word is constantly enriched with new meanings, because a word is a unit of an “open” lexical system, for example. the meaning of "a person who swims in open water in winter" in the word walrus(cf. walrus section), "productive forward player in football, hockey" in the word bombardier(cf. top scorer of the season) and etc.

Portal for the student. Self-training

Seven hallmarks of service words

Basic grammatico-semantic categories of words

The semantic structure of a word is its semantic structure.

RELATED ARTICLES