Service parts of speech. Meaning of service words in the dictionary of linguistic terms

FUNCTIONAL WORDS SERVICE WORDS, words that are not able to act independently as members of a sentence and serve to connect significant words in a phrase (for example, conjunctions, prepositions) or for their grammatical (syntactic) characteristics (for example, articles).

Modern Encyclopedia. 2000 .

See what "FUNCTIONAL WORDS" is in other dictionaries:

    Words that are unable to act independently as members of a sentence and serve to connect significant words in a phrase (for example, conjunctions, prepositions) or for their grammatical (syntactic) characteristics (for example, articles) ... Big Encyclopedic Dictionary

    Service words- FUNCTIONAL WORDS, words that are not able to act independently as members of a sentence and serve to connect significant words in a phrase (for example, conjunctions, prepositions) or for their grammatical (syntactic) characteristics (for example, articles). … Illustrated Encyclopedic Dictionary

    For function words in computer science, see Reserved word. Service words are lexically dependent words that do not have a nominative function in the language (they do not name objects, properties or relationships) and express various semantics ... ... Wikipedia

    official words- Parts of speech that do not name the phenomena of reality, but indicate the relationship that exists between these phenomena. Just like affixes, functional words denote grammatical meanings and serve significant parts of speech. They often ... ... Dictionary of linguistic terms T.V. Foal

    Service words- Functional words are lexically dependent words that serve to express various semantic and syntactic relations between words, sentences and parts of sentences, as well as to express different shades of subjective modality. S. s. ... ... Linguistic Encyclopedic Dictionary

    Words that are not able to act independently as members of a sentence and serve to connect significant words in a phrase (for example, conjunctions, prepositions), for their grammatical (syntactic) characteristics (for example, articles), to express various ... ... encyclopedic Dictionary

    Words that do not have a nominative function in the language (see Nomination) and serve to express various semantic-syntactic relations between significant words, in contrast to which they are not members of a sentence. AT… … Great Soviet Encyclopedia

    Service words- words used to express grammar. relations and performing services. auxiliary functions. First of all, services are related to the S.S. parts of speech, prepositions, particles and conjunctions. They are characterized by immutability, lack of morphological. categories, ... ... Russian humanitarian encyclopedic dictionary

    Same as particles of speech... Dictionary of linguistic terms

    Service words as philosophical terms- (connective words as philosophical terms) Functional words are an important source of replenishment of philosophical terminology, which traditionally was dominated by nouns and adjectives. Words with grammatical meaning, devoid of lexical ... ... Projective Philosophical Dictionary

Books

  • Picture dictionary of the Russian language, Yu. V. Vannikov, A. N. Shchukin. "Picture Dictionary of the Russian Language" - a guide for foreigners studying Russian. The dictionary consists of four sections (nouns, adjectives, verbs, auxiliary words), divided ...
  • Turkish grammar. Phonetics, morphology, etymology, semantics, syntax, spelling, punctuation. Volume 3. Service words, postpositions, conjunctions and particles, interjections, affixes, sentences, spelling rules, punctuation marks
  • Turkish grammar. Phonetics (ses), morphology (sekIl), etymology (kok), semantics (mana), syntax (cumle bIlgIsI), orthography (yazim kurallari), punctuation marks (noktalama IsaretlerI): Function words (edatlar, ilgecler), postpositions (edatlar , Genish E.. This book presents the entire grammar of the modern Turkish language.The book was written on the basis of fifteen years of experience in teaching Turkish to Russian…


Plan:

    Introduction
  • 1 general characteristics
  • 2 Classification
  • 3 In the languages ​​of the world
  • 4 Study
    • Notes

Introduction

For function words in computer science, see Reserved word.

Service words- lexically non-independent words, which do not have a nominative function in the language (do not name objects, properties or relations) and express various semantic-syntactic relations between words, sentences and parts of sentences. Opposed significant, or independent, words, differing from them, in addition to meaning, by the absence of morphological categories. Approaching inflectional morphemes, auxiliary words are on the verge of vocabulary and grammar and actually belong to the sphere of grammatical means of the language. They surpass significant words in frequency of use, but are inferior to them in number, making up a list close to closed.


1. General characteristics

Functional words are characterized by some common features. Phonetically, they, as a rule, are characterized by unstressedness (exceptions in Russian are particles Yes and No) and - in tone languages ​​- the absence of tone; gravitate towards monosyllabism if non-derivatives. Usually, function words are not divided into morphemes and do not constitute paradigms (which distinguishes them, for example, from linking verbs and auxiliary verbs in analytical forms such as Rus. I will read). From a syntactic point of view, they are distinguished by their inability to be members of a sentence (unlike allied words), however, they can be included in their composition along with significant words.


2. Classification

By origin, service words are divided into primitives(non-derivative), for example, Russian. in, to, at; and, a, or; would, same, already, - and non-primitive(derivatives): during; although; let, let's. Derivatives are former significant words that have lost their nominative meaning and syntactic properties characteristic of the corresponding parts of speech, and have become isolated from their other forms as a result of functional-semantic rethinking.

The number of digits of auxiliary words distinguished by the generality of functions varies depending on the language, and their semantics largely depends on the type of language: in analytic languages, auxiliary words (especially particles) take on the functions performed in synthetic languages ​​by affixes. In many languages ​​there are relative words(prepositions or postpositions), conjunctions, particles and articles.

The degree of development of some categories of service words is also associated with the state of its literary form, especially its written variety: for example, subordinating conjunctions are more common in written speech.


3. In the languages ​​of the world

4. Study

The term "service words" ( "service parts of speech") is characteristic primarily of the Russian grammatical tradition, in the history of which the scope of this concept fluctuated: F. I. Buslaev attributed to them pronouns, numerals, prepositions, conjunctions, pronominal adverbs and auxiliary verbs, A. M. Peshkovsky - only prepositions and conjunctions, L. V. Shcherba - verb copulas ( to be, be), prepositions, conjunctions, allied words. In academic grammar, the point of view of V. V. Vinogradov was fixed, according to which “particles of speech” belong to functional words: particles, prepositions and conjunctions.

In foreign linguistics, official and significant parts of speech are usually not opposed, although sometimes a category of relative words of words is distinguished, including articles, prepositions (postpositions) and conjunctions; The French linguistic tradition also refers to functional words and pronouns.


Notes

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Vasilyeva N.V. Service words // Linguistic Encyclopedic Dictionary / Ed. V. N. Yartseva. - M .: Soviet Encyclopedia, 1990. - ISBN 5-85270-031-2
  2. Ventzel T.V. Service words - slovari.yandex.ru/dict/bse/article/00072/10600.htm // Great Soviet Encyclopedia.
  3. 1 2 3 Service words - slovari.yandex.ru/dict/rges/article/rg3/rg3-1142.htm // Russian humanitarian encyclopedic dictionary.
download
This abstract is based on an article from the Russian Wikipedia. Synchronization completed on 07/12/11 23:33:34
Similar abstracts:

When studying the Russian language at school, quite often there are linguistic terms that are not always clear to schoolchildren. We have tried to compile a short list of the most used concepts with decoding. In the future, schoolchildren can use it when studying the Russian language.

Phonetics

Linguistic terms used in the study of phonetics:

  • Phonetics is a branch of linguistics that deals with the study of sound structure.
  • Sound is the smallest particle of speech. Highlight sounds.
  • A syllable is one or often several sounds pronounced on one exhalation.
  • Stress is the allocation of a vowel sound in speech.
  • Orthoepy is a section of phonetics that studies the norms of pronunciation of the Russian language.

Spelling

When studying spelling, it is necessary to operate with the following terms:

  • Spelling - a section that studies the rules of spelling.
  • Spelling - spelling a word in accordance with the application of spelling rules.

Lexicology and phraseology

  • A lexeme is a vocabulary unit, a word.
  • Lexicology is a section of the Russian language that studies lexemes, their origin and functioning.
  • Synonyms are words that have the same meaning when spelled differently.
  • Antonyms are words that have the opposite meaning.
  • Paronyms are words that have the same spelling but different meanings.
  • Homonyms are words that have the same spelling but have different meanings.

  • Phraseology is a branch of linguistics that studies phraseological units, their features and principles of functioning in the language.
  • Etymology is the science of the origin of words.
  • Lexicography is a branch of linguistics that studies the rules for compiling dictionaries and their study.

Morphology

A few words about what Russian linguistic terms are used when studying the morphology section.

  • Morphology is the science of language that studies the parts of speech.
  • Noun - Nominal independent It denotes the subject that is being discussed and answers the questions: "who?", "What?".
  • Adjective - denotes a sign or state of an object and answers the questions: "what?", "what?", "what?". Refers to independent nominal parts.

  • A verb is a part of speech denoting an action and answering the questions: “what is he doing?”, “what will he do?”.
  • Numeral - indicates the number or order of objects and at the same time answering the questions: "how much?", "Which?". Refers to independent parts of speech.
  • Pronoun - indicates an object or person, its attribute, while not naming it.
  • An adverb is a part of speech denoting a sign of action. Answers the questions: "how?", "when?", "why?", "where?".
  • A preposition is a part of speech that connects words.
  • Union - a part of speech that connects syntactic units.
  • Particles are words that give emotional or semantic coloring to words and sentences.

Additional terms

In addition to the terms we mentioned earlier, there are a number of concepts that it is desirable for a student to know. Let's highlight the main linguistic terms that are also worth remembering.

  • Syntax is a section of linguistics that studies sentences: features of their structure and functioning.
  • Language is a sign system that is constantly in development. Serves for communication between people.
  • Idiolect - features of the speech of a particular person.
  • Dialects are varieties of one language that are opposed to its literary version. Depending on the territory, each dialect has its own characteristics. For example, okane or akanye.
  • Abbreviation is the formation of nouns by abbreviating words or phrases.
  • Latinism is a word that came to us into use from the Latin language.
  • Inversion - a deviation from the generally accepted word order, which makes the rearranged element of the sentence stylistically marked.

Stylistics

The following linguistic terms, examples and definitions of which you will see, are often encountered when considering

  • Antithesis is a stylistic device based on opposition.
  • Gradation is a technique based on forcing or weakening homogeneous means of expression.
  • Diminutive is a word formed with the help of a diminutive suffix.
  • An oxymoron is a technique in which combinations of words with seemingly incompatible lexical meanings are formed. For example, "a living corpse."
  • Euphemism is the replacement of a word related to obscene language with neutral ones.
  • An epithet is a stylistic trope, often an adjective with expressive coloring.

This is not a complete list of required words. We have given only the most necessary linguistic terms.

conclusions

When studying the Russian language, students now and then come across words whose meanings they do not know. To avoid problems in learning, it is advisable to have your own personal dictionary of school terms in the Russian language and literature. Above, we have given the main linguistic words-terms that you will encounter more than once when studying at school and university.

Plan

WORD AND ITS MEANING

1. The problem of the linguistic definition of the word

2. The problem of the essence of the word in philosophy

3. Linguistic and philosophical theories of the meaning of the word

4. Meaning of the word and concept

5. Semantic structure of the word

1. The problem of the linguistic definition of the word. Over the many years of its development, linguistics has accumulated more than 100 definitions of the word, but at the same time, “each of them is insufficient and in itself untenable” (I. E. Anichkov “On the definition of the word”).

1)Different approaches to the definition of the word. The unit of language, called the word, is the main, nodal, by definition Alexander Ivanovich Smirnitsky, with which all other units are connected in one way or another. Hence the special versatility of the word, which gives rise to the possibility of its various characteristics. These characteristics depend on which side we approach the word:

BUT) Phonetic word (phonic word) - this is a phonetically integrally formed complex of sounds (a complex of sounds united by stress, or a complex of sounds between two pauses). However, there are unstressed words in the language (most often these are auxiliary parts of speech - prepositions, conjunctions, particles), which phonetically adjoin the significant word. Such words are called clitics. They, together with the dominant significant word, form one phonological word:

[pd-mΛstom-li] - whether under the bridge.

According to traditional grammatical representations under, whether are words, but they do not have positional independence. "Left" clitics are called proclitics, and the "right" clitics enclitics.

B) Graphic word - is a sequence of letters between two spaces. However, even this seemingly simple definition does not fully correspond to the word as a real language unit. First, it only applies to written language. Secondly, there is some discrepancy between the design of a word in writing and its lexical and grammatical status, for example, some adverbs in Russian are written separately, in “two words”: tight, under the arm, with a bang etc., but from a lexical and grammatical point of view, these are not two words, but one (adverb), and the elements “in”, “under”, “on” are not prepositions, but prefixes (since with an adverb it cannot be prepositions, prepositions are combined only with case forms of nouns). Separate spelling in this case is nothing more than a tribute to the spelling tradition.

AT) Morphological word (word form) - a whole-formed complex of morphemes (or one morpheme), which has an independent meaning. However, the line between a word and a morpheme is not always clear. First, the language has many single-morphemic (single-rooted) words: so, here, all of a sudden and under. Secondly, service words are similar in their meaning and function to service morphemes (affixes). For example, particles would, let, being separate words, have phonetic whole-formation and independent meaning (conditional and imperative moods. However, moods (indicative and imperative) are expressed in Russian not with the help of official words, but with the help of affixes. Compare: brought-y(excerpt) - arrivals(command. 2. l. units) - let him bring(command. Z l. unit) - would bring(conditional).



Comparison of this series of word forms leads to the conclusion that would and let are similar in their functions to service morphemes, therefore combinations of the type would bring from a morphological point of view, they can be considered not as two words, but as one: as a form of the conditional mood of the verb bring.

G) Syntactic word (syntaxeme) - this word as a member of the sentence, i.e. as minimum syntactic unit allocated when dividing the sentence. However, it is known that one member of a sentence can be a combination of two or more words: grandfather with mother walked ahead of everyone; Under old age life is such a mess; Young woman with brown eyes flying gait passed past the windows trains. In addition, service words (prepositions, conjunctions, particles), as well as interjections, are not members of the sentence.

E) From the lexico-semantic point of view word (lexeme) - is the smallest nominative unit of the language, i.e., the smallest naming unit, the naming unit. This definition seems to come closest to the essence of the word: firstly, it delimits the word from the morpheme, the smallest meaningful units (the morpheme has a meaning, but this meaning is not “independent”, the morpheme does not denote objects, signs, actions, states, quantities, etc.); secondly, it delimits the word from the sentence, the smallest communicative unit(the word itself, not being part of a sentence, is not a communicative unit); thirdly, it delimits the word from the phrase (word - smallest nominative unit; the phrase is also a nominative unit, but not the least).

However, this definition of the word is not complete and sufficient. It does not include: a) proper names, b) pronouns and pronominal (deictic) words, c) interjections, d) auxiliary words. These groups of words are not nominative units. Depending on the nature of the expressed meaning in modern lexicology, it is customary to distinguish five main classes of words:

first, lexically meaningful words, or words-names - these are words denoting (naming) objects, signs, actions, states, quantities and being members of a sentence; these words perform in the language nominative function and hence are nominative units;

Secondly, proper names are the words that perform in the language nominative-identifying function , i.e., serving to distinguish a given individual object from many similar ones (cf .: boy and Petya, city and Moscow);

third, pronouns and others deictic words (pronouns: he, this, this deictic adverbs: yes, there, there...) - these words do not perform a nominative function, they themselves do not name or designate anything; their function in speech: a) deictic (substitutive)- replace other significant words ( book, girl - she; Petersburg, in a room - here, there...); b) index - point to a known object or sign ( this one, that one, that one, the other one, there…);

fourth, interjections - words expressing emotions (delight, bewilderment, surprise ...), but not naming them; their function in speech expressive (expressive) ;

fifth, official words ; they are also not nominative units, since they do not name anything, but only serve to connect significant words or to clarify their meanings.

Thus, only words of the first class (word-names) fit the definition of a word as the smallest nominative unit of a language. True, this class includes the vast majority of the words of the language.

2)Linguistic reality of the word. The futility of attempts to give a complete generalizing definition of the word has led some linguists to the idea of ​​abandoning the very concept of the word as a linguistic unit. In foreign linguistics, such ideas were expressed, for example, in the works of F. de Saussure, C. Bally, American descriptivists, in domestic linguistics - A. I. Thomson, A. M. Peshkovsky and some. etc. The idea was expressed that it is possible to speak only about the “phonetic word”, “graphic word”, “lexical word”, etc., while the word simply does not exist at all. Charles Balli in the book "General Linguistics and Questions of the French Language" wrote about this: "It is necessary to get rid of the indefinite concept of the word."

But the linguistic reality of this unit is confirmed by the direct experience of the native speakers themselves, and when studying various linguistic facts, researchers always have to turn to the word in one way or another. American linguist Edward Sapir, noting the psychological reality of the word, wrote in his book "Language" that irrefutable proof "can be at least the fact that a naive Indian, completely unaccustomed to the concept of a written word, never feels serious difficulty when dictating a text to a linguist in his native language word by word.

3)Problems of separateness and identity of the word. The problem of the definition of the word was devoted to two articles entitled "On the Question of the Word" by an outstanding Russian Anglist Alexander Ivanovich Smirnitsky. The scientist identifies two problems directly related to the definition of the word: the problem of the word's separateness and the problem of the word's identity.

BUT) The word separation problem , according to Smirnitsky, “breaks down into two main questions: a) the question of the separability of a word, which at the same time is a question of the difference between a word and a part of a word (a component, a compound word, a stem, a suffix, etc.); and b) the question of the integrity of the word, which is at the same time the question of the difference between a word and a phrase. So, the word is standing between the morpheme and the phrase:

Having shown the difference between a word and a morpheme, on the one hand, and from a phrase, on the other hand, we will thereby give it definition : “It is obvious that the whole word differs from the part of the word by a certain semantic completeness, which the part of the word does not possess”; on the other hand, "unlike a phrase, a word can be characterized as having an integral form."

B) Word identity problem is to establish where we have the same word, and where - different words. Here, first of all, a clear line should be drawn between such concepts as: a) the word and its forms; b) the word and its variants; c) one word - different words.

a) Under word forms understand such varieties of it that differ only in grammatical features (grammatical meaning) and are treated as secondary, dependent on the original form ( table, table, table...).

b) All other varieties of the word that differ formally from each other, but do not differ semantically, should be characterized as word variants (condition - condition, diamond - diamond, oblivion - oblivion etc. under). Semantic or stylistic differences may arise between the options, and then they become different words - synonyms, paronyms, etc. Compare: baking, boiling(processes) - cookies, jam(products).

c) Variants cannot be considered words whose stems consist of different morphemes, even if they are identical in value. In this case, we have different words are synonyms(sorry - sorry, fox - fox) or paronyms(earth - earth) etc.

2. The problem of the essence of the word in philosophy. Philosophers posed two interrelated questions, arguing about the essence of the human word: a) what is the word - a conventional sign for denoting a thing, or is the word associated with the designated thing by nature; b) what is the nature of the meaning of the word (the "idea" contained in the word or conveyed by the word).

1) "Fusey" and "Theseus". For the first time in the history of European philosophical thought, the question of the essence of the word was raised by the ancient Greek philosophers: what are the words of the human language: or is the word associated with the thing designated by a natural (natural) connection, that is, that this thing is called precisely this, and not another in a word, not an accident; or the word is an arbitrary sign chosen by people by agreement to designate this or that thing. Depending on how philosophers answered this question, in ancient philosophy it is customary to distinguish two theories - “fusey” and “tesus”.

a) Supporters Fusei theories (Heraclitus, Pythagoras, Chrysippus, Cratylus, partly Plato, etc.) believed that the word reflects the essence of the thing, since it is connected with it “by nature” (physei). This theory was an echo of the mythological idea of ​​a rigid (natural) connection between a name and a thing. It had a sacred (cult) character and defended the belief that the utterance of words reflecting the innermost essence of things ensures the effectiveness of hymns, prayers, spells (hence, for example, the idea that uttering the name of the deceased can evoke his spirit, a wish to whom -something of death can really kill a person, with a word you can jinx it, cause damage, etc.). The rationale behind this theory is that it associated language with knowledge : the designation of a thing by a name is associated with the disclosure of the essence of this thing, with its knowledge, with the discovery of its essential features.

b) Supporters theories of "theses" (Democritus, Anaxagoras, Anaximenes, Empedocles, Hermogenes, Aristotle, etc.) believe that the word does not reflect the essence of the thing, since the name is assigned to the thing not “by nature”, but conditionally, by “contract”. "agreement" (thesei). Democritus proves the conditionality (arbitrariness) of names with the following main arguments: firstly, on the basis of the same name: different things can be called by the same name (homonyms); secondly, on the basis of multiplicity: the same thing can receive different names (synonyms); thirdly, on the basis of the change of names: things can change names; fourthly, on the basis of the lack of names: there are things that do not have names (that is, things that have not yet been discovered by people, not known to them); fifthly, on the basis of multilingualism: in different languages ​​the same thing is called differently. However, this, at first glance, ironclad argument does not take into account that names of the same name, polynomials, multilingualism, etc. are facts. language development : i.e., initially the name could be associated with the thing “by nature”, but then, due to various socio-historical circumstances, due to changes in the things and people themselves, the name (the name of the thing) could also change.

2) Plato's dialogue "Cratyl". A deeper (dialectical) solution to the problem of names and in connection with it the problem of the origin of language was given by Plato in the dialogue Cratylus. There are three participants in the dialogue: Hermogenes (a supporter of the "Tesei" theory), Cratylus (a supporter of the "Fusei" theory) and Socrates, who is called to resolve their dispute. Socrates agrees with both points of view, thus establishing antinomy (dialectical contradiction), which can be resolved only by going beyond its limits, by adopting some third point of view. According to Socrates, it turns out that, one side, the word and the thing are not similar to each other (the word "table" is not like the object itself), and therefore the connection between them is conditional, it is established by a person; Hermogenes is right in this sense. On the other hand, the “namer” (onomat) tried to find a suitable name for each thing, corresponding to the nature of this thing, and in this sense Cratyl is right.

The word is an instrument of knowledge, just as a drill or a weaving shuttle is an instrument of production. Good is the tool with which we successfully work on a thing (we cut well, drill, disassemble wool for fabric, etc.). Therefore, Socrates argues, it is good, right, that word that successfully names a given thing, ensures success in communication and in the knowledge of a thing, since speaking and cognition are also types activities (like weaving, carving, etc.). Therefore, to be successful, naming must reflect the essence of the thing. Plato gives specific examples of etymologies (the origin of words) that prove his thesis. Yes, the sound ρ (ro) vibrant, so this sound is used in words that represent movement: tromos - shiver, rein - flow, roe- flow. The smooth sound λ should express flexible, soft, for example, linaros- fatty, leros- smooth.

It turns out that the connection between a word and a thing is conditional, since it is established by a person, but at the same time it is unconditional (“natural”), since the word reflects the essence of the thing. Plato thereby singled out three sides in naming: a) the connection of the namer (onomatheta) and the name; b) the connection between the namer and the thing; c) the connection between a thing and a name. The task of the namer is to find, discover the true name of the thing, with the help of which one can successfully “act with the thing”, i.e. to find in the world of sounds those that have something in common with a given thing, in other words, to find objectively existing connection between a name and a thing. Thus, Platno was the first in the history of world linguistics to present the relationship between a word, a person (his consciousness) and a thing in the form semantic triangle , although, of course, the Greek philosopher did not draw any triangles.

3) The theory of "ideas" of Plato. In ancient philosophy, another important problem was also raised related to understanding the relationship between the word idea and the thing: the question of the nature of ideas (how do ideas exist, in things themselves or separately from them); and what place the human word occupies in relation to the idea. The first philosophical solution to this question goes back to Plato. Point of view Plato considered idealistic and boils down to the fact that there are two worlds - the world of ideas, which Plato called real (real, true) , and the world of concrete things, which he considered dependent on the world of ideas. According to Plato, it turned out that all individual material things that surround us (concrete tables, chairs, houses, trees) are only “shadows” of general concepts, general ideas (see, for example, the treatise “The State”, in which Plato figuratively describes this so: we are like people sitting in a cave with their backs to the exit, people pass by the cave, carry various objects, but we do not see these objects, but only see their shadows on the wall; Plato, thus, likens the things surrounding us to the shadows cast by ideas ). In other words, if there are specific tables, then there must be a general idea table, some ideal table, a table in general. And these general ideas exist before things and generate concrete things. The human word arises after things and is a reflection entities (i.e. ideas ) of one thing or another. As we have already said, in fact, it was Plato who first appeared the "semantic triangle": "thing - idea - name", all parts of which exist really and separately from each other, but at the same time are interconnected.

4) Aristotle's logic as a premise of grammar. Criticism of Plato's theory of ideas from a materialistic point of view was given by Aristotle . In his Metaphysics, he raised 6 objections to Plato's theory of ideas: firstly , doubling the world, Plato is likened to a man who, unable to count a small number of objects, decided to increase this number; secondly if there is an idea of ​​everything, then there is an idea of ​​nothing, non-existent; 3rd if ideas are not the same thing as things, then on what basis are both called by the same name; it is “similar as if someone called Callia and a piece of wood a man, not seeing any commonality between them”; 4th , each thing has many properties, and the recognition of the separate existence of ideas would mean the recognition that each object has several ideas; thus, along with the idea of ​​"man", there must be a separate idea of ​​"living being", "two-legged creature", etc.; in the 5th, ideas, being the essence of things, cannot exist apart from things; in the 6th If ideas, according to Plato, are eternal and unchanging, then where did movement come from in things?

Aristotle develops his understanding of the nature of ideas in the treatise “Categories”, where he identifies 10 general categories of being: “Of the words expressed without any connection, each means either a substance, or a quality, or a quantity, or a relation, or a place, or a time, or position, or possession, or action, or suffering. From a linguistic point of view, this can be seen as the beginning of the doctrine of parts of speech.

5) Nominalists, realists and conceptualists. The dispute between nominalists and realists in the Middle Ages was a continuation of the ancient dispute about the nature of ideas between Plato and Aristotle: a) Plato's point of view developed realists (John Scot Eriugena, Anselm of Canterbury and others), who recognized reality ideas and their existence apart from things. b) Aristotle's line continued nominalists (Pierre Abelard, Roscelin, William of Ockham, etc.), who believed that only individual bodies of nature really exist, ideas are formed through the knowledge of individual things and represent the “names of things” - “nomens”, hence the name - “nominalism”

For the subsequent development of linguistics, this dispute is important in two respects: a) it is connected with the question of the nature of the name: is the word a conditional (arbitrary) name for a thing (nominalistic point of view), or is a word an expression of the essence of a thing (realistic point of view); b) it is connected with the problem of the relationship between language and speech: is language a reality that exists independently of speech (realist point of view), or does language exist only in speech (nominalist point of view).

In the era of the late Middle Ages (XIII century), Thomas Aquinas, the largest philosopher of the Catholic Church, proposed a compromise solution: general ideas exist before things (in the divine mind), in things (as their essence) and after things in the human mind (as a result of the knowledge of these things and finding common features in them). This point of view is called conceptualism (lat. conceptus - concept), or moderate nominalism.

3. Linguistic and philosophical theories of the meaning of the word. The definition of a lexical meaning is as difficult as the definition of a word. There are many theories of lexical meaning, but depending on the philosophical views of linguists, all these theories can be combined into three main groups: nominalistic, realistic and conceptualist theories of lexical meaning (LZ). It is convenient to represent the relation between these theories in the form semantic triangle , whose vertices are Word, Idea and Thing. Representatives of nominalism, realism and conceptualism "place" the meaning of the word in different corners of this triangle.

1)Subject theories associated with philosophy nominalism . Nominalists put LZ in the "corner" Things. For them LZ is an object or phenomenon of reality (thing), for the naming of which a given word is used (sound complex). This view of the nature of meaning is common in logic. In linguistics, such an understanding was adhered to, for example, Hugo Schuhardt, Austro-German scientist, founder of the so-called "school of words and things." Schuchardt called the “thing” the meaning, and the word the designation. He believed that "the doctrine of language is either a doctrine of meaning or a doctrine of designation." The main drawback of this theory is that it looks for the meaning of a word outside of the word itself.

2)Conceptual theories associated with philosophy conceptualism. Conceptualists put LZ in the "corner" Ideas (concept of things ). For them, the LZ is contained in consciousness (individual and collective). These scholars base the definition of LZ on concept. LZ is the concept of an object or phenomenon of reality, for the naming of which this word is used. LZ, thus, moves from the sphere of the objective world, reality, "things" to the sphere consciousness. Indeed, only things already known (or known) by man can have names. Concept - it is a set of essential features of an object or phenomenon. Compare, for example, the concept of table: (1) an item (2) of furniture (3) in the form of a flat horizontal board (4) with legs (5) intended for cooking and eating, writing, and other things that are convenient to do on a flat surface. It seems that this is the lexical meaning of the word "table", and the lexical meaning is really identical to the concept, or (in a milder formulation) the concept is the core of the lexical meaning. This point of view is presented in the works of many linguists: T. P. Lomtev, Yu. S. Stepanov, D. N. Shmelev, S. D. Katsnelson, A. I. Smirnitsky and others. the definition of LZ given by A. I. Smirnitsky, which has become classic: “The meaning of a word is a well-known reflection of an object, phenomenon or relationship in the mind ..., which is included in the structure of the word as its so-called inner side, in relation to which the sound of the word acts as a material shell necessary not only to express meaning and communicate it to other people, but also for its emergence, formation of existence and development. Yu. S. Stepanov: “The meaning of a word is the highest level of reflection of reality in the mind of a person, the same level as the concept. The meaning of the word reflects the general and at the same time essential features of the subject, known in the social practice of people. The meaning of the word tends to the concept as to its limit. ”At the same time, the main flaw this theory has the same as the previous one: it looks for the meaning of the word outside the word itself.

3)Ontological (or verbocentric) theories presented in philosophy realism. Realists put LZ in the "corner" The words . For a realist, LZ is not an idea or a thing, but it is the connection established by the people's consciousness between a certain complex of sounds and this or that thing (an object or phenomenon of objective reality). This connection is the inner side of the sound, which V. von Humoldt, and after him A. A. Potebnya, called inner form of the word. For example, LZ words table can be defined like this: something on stl given by people, having a flat surface, serving for convenient cooking and eating, writing and other human affairs. So, historically, the original meaning of the word table - ' any flooring. Thus, for a realist, the problem of the meaning of a word rests on the problem of its origin(etymology or internal form). In other words, linguistic side of the problem of meaning is the answer to the question why exactly this complex of sounds is used to designate a given object, or in another way: why this thing is called exactly this word, and not some other. That is how this question was formulated by Platonists, Stoics, and other philosophers and linguists of a realistic direction. This, of course, does not mean that the LZ is identical to the inner form, but it does mean that the inner form is core lexical meaning. Therefore, finding the inner form is the main task of studying the semantics of the word. It turns out that for scientists of this direction, the problem of LZ is an etymological and historical problem. Etymology (the study of the origin of words) and historical semasiology (the study of the historical development of word meanings) are at the center of lexical semantics for them. A scientific description of the meaning of a word must necessarily include: (a) an indication of its internal form and (b) an indication of the ways in which the further development of the semantics of the word proceeded from the internal form: what new semantic features "overgrown" the original meaning, identical to the internal form, what new meanings (derivatives, figurative) received a given word, and so on.

The main advantage of these theories is that they look for the lexical meaning "inside" the word itself, i.e. in sound. In Russian linguistics, this approach to the problem of meaning is represented by the works of A.A. Potebni, A. F. Loseva, V. V. Kolesova, A. M. Kamchatnova and others.

4. The meaning of the word and the concept. Already from the previous presentation it is clear that the meaning of the word is not identical to the concept. Let's take a closer look at the relationship between these categories. The main differences between meaning and concept come down to the following:

a) The concept is a category of thinking and is studied by logic; meaning is a category of language and is studied by linguistics (the corresponding section of linguistics is called lexical semantics, or semasiology); if there were complete correspondence between concept and meaning, then one of the terms would be superfluous, and one of the sciences would be superfluous.

b) The concept can not always be expressed with the help of a word, it is also expressed by other linguistic units, for example, phraseological units ( rake in the heat with the wrong hands, white flies= falling snowflakes), phrases ( oxygen deprivation, falling snow); the same concept can be expressed by different means - synonymous words, phrases, sentences: raining = drizzling = light rain; motel = hotel for autotourists; to ask = to ask a question; to get into a stupid position = to sit in a galosh = to sit in a puddle = to goof off etc. under. Meaning is always a property of a word as a linguistic unit.

c) The concept is basically international, since human thinking as a whole is one, proceeds according to the same laws among all peoples, and logic is an international science. Meaning is always nationally colored , because it is associated with the word of the national language. For the same concept in some languages ​​there may be a special word, in other languages ​​there may not be such a word; the same concept can be expressed by other means - a phrase, a phraseological unit. So, for example, in the languages ​​of the northern peoples there are special words for falling snow, lying snow, wet snow, last year's snow, etc.; there are no such words in the Russian language, but the corresponding concepts are available and are expressed in phrases; phraseological unit can be used to denote falling snow white flies.

d) Different words can denote the same concept, but their meanings will be different. For example, the concept of “something white, about something white” in Russian can be expressed in the following words: white, whiteness, turn white, white and etc.; however, the meaning of these words is different: white - attribute of a particular object ( White snow); whiteness - an abstract sign, not tied by thinking to a specific object ( All around is white); turn white - procedural, dynamic feature referring to a "moving", "seen" white object, or to an object becoming white ( A lone sail turns white; face turns white with anger); white - state of the environment Around white). Note that not all languages ​​have special words, as in Russian, to express these nuances of meaning.

e) The meaning is more meaningful than the concept, because it is associated with the material sound form of its manifestation, i.e. with the word as a linguistic unit. To illustrate this, let's consider some concept without "binding" it to the denoting word, i.e., consider the concept "to the word", without naming the word: "1) rudely, unceremoniously, 2) get rid of someone, 3) sending, sending it to another person or to another place. And now let's name the corresponding word: in Russian it is a verb kick back. It is clear that its LZ is wider than the conceptual content given above, since there is a figurative association with a soccer ball, which was sent very far, kicked at it with force. These associations arise for us in conjunction with the sound shell of a given word, precisely with this root ( football) and with this prefix ( from-). Wed another example: “1) incoherently, 2) unintelligibly, 3) very quietly, 4) uncertainly 5) talk about something” - verb mumble. It is the sound image of this verb (acoustic association) that conveys the meaning of incoherent babble more fully, more voluminously and more expressively. Alexander Afanasyevich Potebnya was the first in Russian linguistics to introduce the concept of inner form of the word. In European linguistics, in a slightly different sense, the concept of " internal form language » used by Wilhelm von Humboldt. Internal word form is the relationship between its sound (acoustic image) and meaning. Yes, the meaning of the verb kick off - rudely, unceremoniously, get rid of someone by sending, sending to another person or to another place, like a soccer player throwing a soccer ball far away with force(the highlighted component is an internal form).

f) Finally, the meaning, in contrast to the concept, can be complicated by various emotional-evaluative and stylistic components. Wed already given examples : kick off, mumble etc. under. Thus, the concept is not identical to the lexical meaning. In a sense, one can say that it poorer and narrower in lexical meaning.

g) However, this problem has another side. At one time, A. A. Potebnya proposed to distinguish between the “immediate” and “further” meanings of a word: “What is the meaning of a word? Obviously, linguistics, without deviating from achieving its goals, considers the meaning of words only up to a certain limit. Since all sorts of things are spoken of, without the limitation mentioned, linguistics would include, in addition to its undeniable content, which no other science judges, the content of all other sciences. For example, talking about the meaning of the word wood, we should go into the field of botany, but about the word cause or causal union - to interpret causality in the world. But the fact is that by the meaning of a word in general we mean two different things, of which one, which is subject to the conduct of linguistics, we will call nearest , and the other, which is the subject of other sciences - further meaning of the word. Only one closest meaning constitutes the actual content of the thought at the time of pronouncing the word.

In this way, the closest meaning is the lexical meaning of the word, and the further meaning is the concept. The closest meaning is based not on all the essential features of the object, but first on some one that accidentally fell into the field of consciousness of native speakers in the process of cognitive activity. For example, cow(proto-Slavic *korva) originally meant horned (cf. lat. corvu - horn). And gradually in the process of cognition it is enriched with new features. It is in this sense that the thesis of Yu. S. Stepanov should be understood that “the meaning of the word tends to the concept as to its limit” That's why meaning poorer and narrower concepts.

However, as was shown in points (e) and (e), there is something in the meaning that is not in the concept, and in this sense it is richer than the concept. Consequently, relations of intersection, partial overlap, but not identity, are established between meaning and concept.

Sometimes for the "closest meaning" the terms "everyday concept", "naive concept" are used, and for the "further meaning" - "scientific concept"; but this is not entirely accurate. Under the "further meaning" Potebnya understood the totality of essential and non-essential features of a given object or phenomenon, not only discovered by science, but also by faith, intuition, experience, including personal experience, the totality of our (and my personal) knowledge about this subject . Therefore, "the closest meaning of the word folk"(is common to all representatives of a given people)," meanwhile, the further, each one is different in quality and quantity of elements, - personally».

5. Semantic structure of the word. Along with lexical, a word can have grammatical, derivational (word-forming) and stylistic meanings. Lexical, grammatical, derivational and stylistic meanings together form semantic structure of the word . Any word of the language has lexical and grammatical meanings, but sometimes lexical and grammatical meanings can be so closely merged that they cannot be separated from each other (for example, in service words - prepositions, conjunctions, some particles). Derivational (or derivational) meaning is only derived words , i.e. words formed (produced) from other words - producing. Stylistic meaning is also not characteristic of all linguistic units, but only stylistically colored .

1)Lexical meaning define as the connection established by the people's consciousness between the object or phenomenon of reality and an integrally formed complex of sounds. There are different classifications types of lexical values :

a) From a diachronic point of view, meanings are distinguished historically primary and secondary (derivative, portable) . Primary the meaning is formed at the moment of the birth of the word and is initially identical to the internal form of the word ( table -'flooring', fire -‘shoot arrows’); but gradually enriched with more and more new semantic features, expanding its content and at the same time narrowing the volume: table - a piece of furniture with a flat wooden board on legs, intended for… fire - shoot arrows, bullets, cannonballs, shells, rockets .... Derived value arises on the basis of the primary as a result name transfer . There are two main ways of transferring the name - metaphor and metonymy:

- metonymy (Greek renaming), metonymic name transfer - transfer of a name from one object or phenomenon to another based on their adjacency: table in the meaning of ‘food’ (i.e. what is on the table) we have a fish table today; this family has a poor table; or table in the meaning of ‘department, institution’ ( Passport Office);

- metaphor (Greek transfer), metaphorical transfer of the name - transfer of a name from one object or phenomenon to another based on their similarity: fire‘cast a glance’ (shoot eyes).

b) From a synchronic point of view, values ​​are distinguished motivated and unmotivated at this stage of the historical development of the language. Motivated name meanings that can be explained (motivated) by reference to other meanings or to the internal form of the word. So, the meanings of derived words are motivated, since they can be explained, interpreted by reference to the generating word ( table - small table; baby elephant - young elephant; yolk- the inside of the egg yellow color); motivated are portable values ​​( the nose of a man is the bow of a ship). unmotivated is the lexical meaning of words with a lost (erased, obscured) internal form ( house, table), most of the borrowings fall into the same category ( notebook, cutlet).

c) From the point of view of compatibility possibilities, they distinguish free and bound values . The most authoritative classification of these types of meanings belongs to V. V. Vinogradov:

- free- these are such meanings that in no way limit the compatibility of the word: “basically, the circle of use of the nominative meaning of the word, the circle of its connections corresponds to the connections and relations of the objects themselves, processes and phenomena of the real world, for example: drink water, kvass, tea, cider, grape juice etc.; stone house, basement, foundation, floor, shed etc.; squint, squint eyes , syllabic verse, versification»; in the last two cases ( squint and syllabic) the compatibility of words is, of course, limited, but this limitation comes from reality itself, from real connections and relationships between objects and phenomena;

- phraseologically related meanings are such figurative meanings of words that limit the use of a word only to a certain phraseological combination; e.g. using an adjective maiden in the meaning of bad is limited only by the combination maiden memory; ticklish in the meaning of uncomfortable, awkward - only combinations sensitive issue, position, situation; a word with a phraseologically related meaning may lose its direct meaning altogether and occur only as part of a phraseological combination ( bosom - friend, friend, girlfriend);

- syntactically related meanings are those meanings that limit the use of a word to a certain syntactic position, in the function of a certain member of a sentence; so, the figurative meaning of the word rooster(bully, bully) Vinogradov defines it as “predicative-characterizing”, i.e. for the word rooster in this sense, the function of a predicate (predicate) with the meaning of the characteristic is typical: Peter is such a cock!. This does not mean that transposition is impossible, and the word in this sense cannot be used in another syntactic position (cf.: It's better not to mess with this rooster Petya), but such use is secondary and the predicative-characterizing function is present here in a latent (folded) state;

- constructively determined meanings are those meanings that restrict the use of a syntactically dependent word to a certain form; e.g. verb combination hope limited to forms of the accusative case with a preposition on (on God, on a miracle, on comrades, on rain ...), verb compatibility admire - instrumental forms ( nature, girl, children, architecture…), in other words, compatibility here is limited not lexically, but grammatically. “A constructively determined meaning is characterized by the subject-semantic incompleteness of its disclosure in the forms of the word itself: it is fully realized only in its inherent syntactic construction - in combination with other words, the number and composition of which can be unlimited.”

2)grammatical meaning - this is an abstract, generalized meaning, accompanying the lexical one and characterizing large classes of words (word forms). Thus, grammatical meaning differs from lexical meaning in three main properties:

a) This value is abstract (abstract, generalized); cf. e.g., the meaning of the subject, object, number, type; the lexical meaning is characterized by greater specificity, therefore it is sometimes called the "real" meaning of the word.

b) This meaning is common to huge classes of words (e.g. nouns dog, room, wife, road, son and many others. others that have no similarity in lexical meaning are united by the common grammatical meaning of the direct object; Verbs make, write, read, kill, cook, come and many others. others are united by the common meaning of the perfect form); Each word has its own lexical meaning.

c) The grammatical meaning is accompanying nature(the term of A. I. Smirnitsky): it, as it were, accompanies the lexical meaning of the word; lexical meaning is the semantic core of a word, and grammatical meaning helps to establish semantic relationships between words in a sentence; that's why it's also called relational(lat. relatio - attitude).

3)Derivational meaning (word-forming meaning) - this is an abstract meaning characteristic of groups of words formed in the same way with the help of the same derivational means (prefix, suffix, etc.). Words formed in the same way using the same means and having a common derivational meaning refer to the same derivational type (model). Wed: glass holder, candlestick, snowdrop, bearing, sidelight, stretcher ... - words formed in a prefix-suffix way using a prefix under- and suffix -Nick and having a derivational meaning "an object under something".

Derivational value (DZ) is characterized by the following main properties:

a) DZ has two manifestations: it is individual for each word and at the same time characterizes a whole group of words, but such groups (word-forming types) are much smaller than grammatical groupings. Wed: snowdrop -‘something under the snow’; under-… -nick –‘something under something’. In the first case, one speaks of a DZ of a given particular word, in the second case, one speaks of a DZ of a word-formation type (model).

b) DZ is more abstract than LZ, but less abstract than GZ.

c) DZ is determined by the semantic relationship of the derivative with the generator: snowdrop - ‘ something that is under the snow»’, cup holder -‘something that is under a glass'. The DZ of a word is expressed not by the root and not by the affix, but by the totality of the root morpheme and affix.

d) DZ can coincide with LZ. Wed: house'little house'; fox cub‘fox cub’; Muscovite‘resident of Moscow’; Gypsy‘woman, ethnically gypsy’; start talking‘start talking’. In all such cases, the LZ of a word is the sum of the meanings of its constituent morphemes. This type of LZ is called non-phraseological (non-idiomatic). If LZ is not equal to DZ, then this type of word semantics is called phraseological (idiomatic) . Wed: yolk - DZ: ‘something yellow’; IL: ‘the inner nuclear part of the egg is yellow’; boletus - DZ: ‘something under a birch’; LZ: ‘mushroom, usually growing under birch trees’. The LZ of the word in such cases has some semantic increment in comparison with the DZ. LZ can significantly move away from DZ as a result of complex metaphorical rethinking: henpecked - DZ: ‘something under the heel’; LZ: ‘a man who obeys a woman in everything, as if he was under her heel’.

e) DZ can be extremely close to the GZ; there are cases regarding which scientists do not have a unity of views - one should talk about grammatical or derivational meaning (that is, about shaping or word formation). So, for example, in Russian the following are ambiguously evaluated:

Formations with subjective evaluation suffixes ( house - house, house, house, domino; son, son, son...);

Feminine formations from nouns with the meaning of person using regular suffixes ( gypsy - gypsy, student - student, athlete - athlete, student - student ...);

Formations from quality adjectives with the meaning of a weak, incomplete manifestation of quality ( white - whitish, stupid - stupid ...)

and a number of others; some scientists consider these formations to be new derivative words (i.e. house and house - different words) and, consequently, this type of meaning is derivational; other scholars consider these formations to be forms of a single word ( house and house - forms, varieties of the same word) and, therefore, this type of meaning is grammatical.

4)Stylistic meaning (=stylistic connotation, stylistic coloration) - this is a property of a language unit (its content or sound form), which limits its use to a certain style (or styles). From this point of view, all words can be divided into two groups: a) stylistically neutral , the use of which is in no way stylistically limited, possible in all styles ( eyes, lips, face, eat); b) stylistically colored having stylistic restrictions in use: eyes, mouth, face, eat(High style) - Zenki, nurses, mug, eat(low style).

Stylistic meaning is also called connotation (lat. connotatio - meaning, concomitant meaning); thus, the dependence of this meaning is emphasized: it always accompanies the lexical one, is its “shadow”. It is often very difficult to separate stylistic from lexical meaning. Compare, for example, the remark of A. A. Reformatsky about the words forehead, lips, cheeks, on the one hand, and Church Slavonicisms forehead, mouth, cheeks and under. – on the other hand: “it is not only a matter of stylistic differences. Their words correspond to anatomical concepts, Church Slavonic words have nothing to do with anatomical concepts. The old rhetoricians correctly assessed this, explaining that brow - this is not a part of the skull, but a "receptacle of thought", eyes - not an organ of vision, but a "mirror of the soul", mouth - it is not an organ for eating, but "a source of the words of the wise," etc. D. N. Shmelev also writes about this. Wed, for example, march - it’s not just “go”, but “it’s important, solemn to go”, eat - it’s not just “eat”, but “eat greedily, a lot, with champing, splashing saliva ...”. Thus, the stylistic meaning here merges with the lexical one, turning out to be one of its families. However, semantic (semantic) differences between stylistic variants can be quite pale, almost indistinguishable (cf. such pairs: shore - coast, hail - city, cold - cold and some etc.). All this allows us to talk about relative independence stylistic meaning.

In the stylistic meaning, the following components are usually distinguished:

a) functional style, determining the belonging of a word to a particular style;

b) emotional appraisal, determines the attitude of the speaker to the subject of speech. Appraisal - this is the attitude of the speaker to the object or phenomenon named by the word; compare: eyes (+) - zenki (-); evaluativeness can also be non-emotional (intellectual), in which case the word, as a rule, is stylistically neutral: beautiful (+) - ugly (-);

in) expressive (lat. expressio - expressiveness), associated with the speaker's desire to "decorate" speech. In the most general way expressiveness can be defined as updating the internal form linguistic unit (i.e., the relationship between sound and meaning). For example, a verb talk non-expressive, and verbs chatter and mumble expressive (because they show the connection between sound and meaning), verbs crackle and Twitter in the meaning of ‘to speak’ are expressive (since they actualize the connection between direct and figurative meanings). The main component of expressiveness is imagery. Figurative means, trails (Greek tropos - turn) - words and expressions used in a figurative sense. Wed freeze(unshaped) - dumbfounded -‘freeze, become motionless, like a pillar' (figurative); hinder, hinder(unshaped) - put a spoke in wheel- to hinder, hinder just as sticks inserted into wheels hinder the movement’ (figurative). The highlighted element in interpretations of meanings is the internal form of given words and expressions.

Literature:

1. Reformatsky A. A. Introduction to linguistics. M., 2007. Chapter II. Lexicology.

2. Maslov Yu. S. Fundamentals of linguistics. M., 2004. Chapter III, Lexicology.

3. Smirnitsky AI On the question of the word: The problem of "separation of the word" // History of Soviet linguistics. Reader. / Comp. F. M. Berezin. M., 1988.

4. Smirnitsky AI On the question of the word: The problem of "identity of the word" // Ibid.

5. Anichkov I. E. On the definition of the word // Anichkov I. E. Works on linguistics. M., 1997.

6. Berezin F. M., Golovin B. N. General linguistics. M., 1979. Chapter VII. The problem of the meaning of a linguistic sign

7. Zemskaya E. A. Word formation // Modern Russian language / Ed. V. A. Beloshapkova. M., 1997.

8. Katsnelson S. D. The content of the word, meaning and designation. M., 2004.

9. Kolesov VV Philosophy of the Russian word. SPb., 2002. Part I. Chapter 1.

10. Levitsky Yu. A. General linguistics. M., 2007. The concept of meaning.

11. LES. Articles "Denotation", "Designatus" ("Designated"), "Lexical meaning of the word", "Lexicology", "Grammatical meaning", "Connotation".

12. Potebnya A. A. From notes on Russian grammar // Zvegintsev V. A. History of linguistics in the 19th and 20th centuries. in essays and extracts. Part I. M., 1960.

13. Potebnya A. A. Thought and language // Ibid.

14. Stepanov Yu. S. Fundamentals of general linguistics. M., 1975. Vocabulary and semantics. Chapter I

15. Shmelev D. N. Modern Russian language. Vocabulary. M., 1977. Chapter I. The word as a unit of vocabulary.

  • SERVICE WORDS
    - lexically dependent words that serve to express various semantic-syn-taken relations between words, sentences and parts of sentences, 472 COMPLEX and also ...
  • SERVICE WORDS in the Big Encyclopedic Dictionary:
  • SERVICE WORDS
    words, words that do not have a nominative function in the language (see Nomination) and serve to express various semantic-syntactic relationships between significant ...
  • SERVICE WORDS in the Modern Encyclopedic Dictionary:
  • SERVICE WORDS in the Encyclopedic Dictionary:
    words that are not able to act independently as members of a sentence and serve to connect significant words in a phrase (for example, conjunctions, prepositions) or ...
  • SERVICE WORDS in the Modern Explanatory Dictionary, TSB:
    words that are unable to act independently as members of a sentence and serve to connect significant words in a phrase (for example, conjunctions, prepositions) or for ...
  • OFFICE in the Dictionary of Economic Terms:
    LAND ALLOCATIONS - in the Russian Federation - a special type of land use. S.e. n. are provided for agricultural use to certain categories of employees of enterprises, institutions ...
  • OFFICE in the Big Russian Encyclopedic Dictionary:
    SERVICE WORDS, words that are not able to act independently as members of a sentence and serve for communication are famous. words in a phrase (e.g. conjunctions, ...
  • THE WORDS in the Dictionary of synonyms of Abramov:
    cm. …
  • THE WORDS in the New explanatory and derivational dictionary of the Russian language Efremova:
    pl. 1) The text of the vocal work. 2) trans. unfold Empty talk...
  • THE WORDS in the Explanatory Dictionary of Efremova:
    words pl. 1) The text of the vocal work. 2) trans. unfold Empty talk...
  • THE WORDS in the New Dictionary of the Russian Language Efremova:
  • THE WORDS in the Big Modern Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language:
    pl. 1. Text of the vocal work. 2. trans. unfold Empty talk...
  • LEXICAL MEANING OF THE WORD in the Linguistic Encyclopedic Dictionary:
    - the content of the word, reflecting in the mind and fixing in it the idea of ​​\u200b\u200bthe object, property, process, phenomenon, etc., L. ...
  • AFFIX in the Linguistic Encyclopedic Dictionary:
    (from lat. affixus - attached) - service morpheme, the minimum building element of the language, attached to the root of the word in the processes of morphological derivation ...
  • INTRODUCTORY WORDS in the Dictionary of Linguistic Terms:
    Words that are not formally related to the members of the sentence, are not members of the sentence and express the attitude of the speaker to what is being said, indicating the source ...
  • HEIDEGGER in the Dictionary of Postmodernism:
    (Heidegger) Martin (1889-1976) - German philosopher, one of the greatest thinkers of the 20th century. Born and raised in a poor working-class Catholic family. …
  • ART in the Lexicon of non-classics, artistic and aesthetic culture of the XX century, Bychkov:
    (Greek - techne, Latin - ars, English and French - art, Italian - arte, German - Kunst) One of the universal ...
  • JAPANESE in Encyclopedia Japan from A to Z:
    For a long time it was believed that the Japanese language is not included in any of the known language families, occupying in the genealogical classification of languages ​​...
  • ISH 39
  • HAGIOGRAPHY in the Orthodox Encyclopedia Tree.

  • Chronicles serve as the main source of Russian history from ancient times to the middle of the 16th century (and in some cases even further). …
  • Derzhavin Gavriil Romanovich in the Brief Biographical Encyclopedia:
    Derzhavin, Gavriil Romanovich - famous poet. Born July 3, 1743 in Kazan, in a family of small estate nobles. His father is an army...
  • POTEBNYA in the Literary Encyclopedia:
    Alexander Afanasyevich is a philologist, literary critic, ethnographer. R. in the family of a petty nobleman. He studied at a classical gymnasium, then at Kharkov University ...
  • ENGLISH LANGUAGE in the Literary Encyclopedia:
    lang. mixed. In its origin, it is associated with the western branch of the Germanic group of languages. (cm.). It is customary to share the history of A. Yaz. on the …
  • VESSEL in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, TSB:
    a ship, a floating structure designed to perform certain economic and military tasks, scientific research, water sports, etc. Classification C. By ...
  • WORD (UNIT OF LANGUAGE) in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, TSB:
    the most important structural and semantic unit of the language, which serves to name objects, processes, properties. Structurally, S. consists of morphemes (including ...
  • THE PASSPORT in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, TSB:
    (from French passeport, originally - permission to travel through the port), 1) in the USSR - a document proving the identity of citizens of the USSR in ...
  • HOUSING LAW in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, TSB:
    law, a part of civil law that regulates the procedure for providing residential premises, conditions of use and disposal, as well as changes and termination of their use. …
  • ADMINISTRATIVE AND MANAGEMENT EXPENSES in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, TSB:
    expenses, expenses for the maintenance of the administrative apparatus and its maintenance. They include the costs of maintaining public authorities and state ...
  • LINGUISTICS
    linguistics, otherwise linguistics (from Latin lingua, language), glottis or glottology (from Greek ??????, ?????? - language) - in the narrow sense ...
  • JUDICIAL CAPACITY in the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Euphron:
    In the types of ensuring the correctness of the administration of justice, the law, on the one hand, specifies the conditions that must be met by persons appointed to the position of a judge, ...
  • STATE SERVICE in the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Euphron:
    I The system of state S., which currently exists in various European states, is the result of a long historical process, which is in close ...
  • SEMASIOLOGY in the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Euphron:
    (gram.) a department of the science of language, belonging to the least developed and considering the meaning of words and formal parts of a word (Greek ??????? = sign, ...
  • in the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Euphron:
    constitute a special category of acts that may not be committed by all citizens, but only by state or public authorities. Their main…
  • POSTAL SIGNS in the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Euphron:
    are issued by the Post Office and serve to facilitate the payment of fees for mailed items. To pay for the forwarding of letters are used ...
  • AWARDS in the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Euphron:
    for distinctions, mainly military, existed in Greece and Rome, where they consisted mainly in the award of honorary distinctions: wreaths ...
  • CANDIDATE in the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Euphron:
    The Romans called Candidatus a person who was looking for some kind of public office (quaestor, aedile, praetor, consul), as a sign of which he put on a toga of brilliant white ...
  • LIVES OF THE SAINTS
  • DERZHAVIN in the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Euphron.
  • GOTHIC ARCHITECTURE in the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Euphron:
    (pointed architecture). - The end of the XII and the beginning of the XIII century. were marked by important changes in the political and social situation of Western Europe: ...
  • JAPAN*
  • LINGUISTICS
    linguistics, otherwise linguistics (from Latin lingua, language), glottis or glottology (from Greek ??????, ?????? ? language)? in tight...
  • LANGUAGE AND LANGUAGES in the Encyclopedia of Brockhaus and Efron.
  • SEMASIOLOGY (GRAMM.) in the Encyclopedia of Brockhaus and Efron:
    ? a branch of the science of language, belonging to the least developed and considering the meaning of words and the formal parts of a word (Greek ??????? = ...
  • CRIMINAL ACTS BY OFFICE OR SERVICE in the Encyclopedia of Brockhaus and Efron:
    ? constitute a special category of acts that may not be committed by all citizens, but only by state or public authorities. Main…
  • CHINA, STATE IN ASIA in the Encyclopedia of Brockhaus and Efron.
  • SLOVAK
    words"tsky, words"tskaya, words"tskoe, words"tsky, words"tsky, words"tskoy, words"tsky, words"tsky, words"tsky, words"tskoy, words"tsky, words"tsky, words" tsky, words"tsky, words"tsky, words"tsky, words"tsky, words"tsky, words"tsky, words"tsky, ...
  • VOCABULARY in the Full accentuated paradigm according to Zaliznyak:
    words "rny, words" rny, words "rny, words" rny, words "rny, words" rny, words "rny, words" rny, words "rny, words" rny, words "rny, words" rny, words " rny, words "rny, words" rny, words "rny, words" rny, words "rny, words" rny, words "rny, ...
  • CHANGES WHICH THE SPELLING COMMISSION DECIDED TO REJECT in the Rules of the Russian language:
    on 01.10.2001 1) § 9, paragraph 2 Write in sequence without the letter d before e common nouns with the -er component; …

RELATED ARTICLES