CC BY
36Понимание частей речи как семантико-функциональных лексических парадигм
Айвазова Эльвера Рустемовна,
кандидат филологических наук, доцент кафедры иностранных языков, ФГБОУ ВО «Российский государственный университет правосудия», Симферополь, Республика Крым, E-mail: elvira.ayvazova@mail.ru
Рассмотрена сущность лексической парадигматики. Понимание частей речи как семантико-функциональных лексических парадигм учитывает 2 ряда признаков: 1. характер смыслового содержания; 2. выполнение определенных функций в той или иной сфере речевой деятельности. Замена названия лексико-грамматических разрядов слов (частей речи) на семантико-функциональные парадигмы вполне правомерна, т.к. при распознании природы и характера лексической системности особенно важным становится не навязывание языку привнесенным из вне классификационных критериев, а определение «какая классификация особенно настойчиво навязывается самой языковой системой», и здесь важность семантико-функциональных парадигм, освященных длительной традицией выделения частей речи трудно переоценить. Считая сущностной характеристикой слова, единство в нем лексического и грамматического значений, автор выделяет два вида лексических парадигм, семантико-функциональные классы, подклассы, разряды и лексико-семантические поля, группы и т.д. обусловленные семантико-функциональным и лексико-семантическим варьированием лексем.
Ключевые слова: части речи, лексическая парадигма, лексика, семантико-функциональные парадигмы, семантический анализ, лексическое значение, парадигма.
At the present time, when the question of the system organization of the lexical structure of the language has ceased to be debatable, the efforts of linguists are aimed at recognizing the nature and specificity of the lexical system. The researchers note that system relations in vocabulary have a qualitatively different character compared to system relations in phonetics and morphology [8, p. 5], and that " establishing system relations in vocabulary is more difficult than at other levels of the language» [6, c. 72].
The most relevant at the present stage is the establishment and description of types of lexical paradigms, which entails the actual recognition of the essence of the system of the vocabulary of the language.
The purpose of this article is to provide a theoretical basis for understanding parts of speech as semantic and functional paradigms of the vocabulary of a language.
The specific objectives of the study are: 1. definition of the lexical paradigm and its specificity; 2. description of the categorical meaning in the lexicon as an integral feature of the paradigm.
It is recognized that "the lexical-semantic system includes the entire field of semantic relations of lexical units, the originality of their group types and the nature of their interaction with each other (lexical par-adigmatics) and with elements of other subsystems of the language, the conditions and forms of language expression of the results of semantic variation of word signs (lexical syntagmatics)".
Paradigmatic relations in vocabulary determine the division of all lexical units into certain Microsystems-paradigms that are hidden, not directly observed, and only indirectly present in the form of the rules of its functioning in speech that are already contained in the lexical unit itself.
Traditionally, the term "paradigm" is associated with morphology, and then with phonology. However, with the recognition that paradigmatic relations permeate the entire language system, it became used in relation to syntax and lexicology.
Indeed, understanding the "paradigm" as a set of language units that are in relation to identification and opposition at the same time is quite acceptable for lexicology. "The systemic nature of the vocabulary of a language is found, first of all, in the distribution of words in certain semantically unified lexical groups -lexical and semantic paradigms. Each word of the language is included in a certain lexical-semantic paradigm, and, most often, due to its polysemy, not only in one" [10. c. 48]. All units of the lexical paradigm are identified by some sign, essential and basic, inherent in all members of the series without exception, and are
C3
о
CO "O
1=1 А
—I
о
C3 t; о m О от
З
ы о со
opposed by other (differential) signs. In grammar, the paradigm is always associated with a certain grammatical category, and acts as a means of implementing the grammatical meaning. The concept of a grammatical category is revealed only against the background of the paradigm [2, c. 117].
In the same way, the term "paradigm" should be considered in connection with the concept of a lexical category. In other words, a lexical paradigm is related to a lexical category, which in turn can be characterized as a lexical or lexico-grammatical meaning realized in opposed terms. A categorical value is a value inherent in the paradigm as a whole and in each unit of this paradigm, i.e. it is an integral feature of the paradigm.
However, according to D.N. Shmelev, "many words (taken in the same meanings) are simultaneously members of not one, but several lexical and semantic paradigms... in which they are opposed to other words on various semantic grounds" [14. c. 190]. Illustrating the spoken word river, in the definition of lexical meaning has to include an indication that this "pond" -first, a certain size, secondly, of some form, due to the nature of the water flow, and thirdly, of natural origin, the author points out that the first symptom of the way the river opposed to words like river, stream; in the second, such as the Strait, lake, sea, ocean, third -such as canal, pond, reservoir [14. c. 190].
Therefore, it is particularly important to identify relevant features that can be used to divide lexical units into paradigms. After all, it is possible to distinguish "non-essential" features and, consequently, the relations established on their basis will also be irrelevant for the lexical system. Even L.V. Shcherba wrote that "every classification implies some subjectivism of the classifier, in particular to some extent arbitrarily selected principium divisionis. There are many such division principles to choose from, and accordingly, if the goal is to "classify" words, many classifications of words can be arranged, more or less witty, more or less successful" [18, c. 78].
Reflecting on the parts of speech as one of the ways of classifying the lexical composition of a language, L.V. Shcherba wrote that in this question " the researcher does not have to classify words according to any scientific and very clever, but biased principles, but he must look for which classification is especially persistently imposed by the language system itself, or, more precisely, - for it is not a matter of "classification", - under which general category a particular lexical meaning is brought in each individual case, or even otherwise, what general categories differ in this language system" [18, c. 78-79].
V.V. Vinogradov expressed the same idea and on the same occasion, quoting the following statement of I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay: "... science should not impose alien categories on an object and should find 5 only what lives in it, determining its structure and com-§ position" [2, c. 38].
V.M. Zhirmunsky emphasizes that "the classifica-° tion of objects of science that exist in reality, nature i! or society, in fact, does not require the formal logical
sequence of the division principle, which is necessary for the classification of abstract concepts. It requires only a correct description of the system of signs that determine in their relationship this really existing type of phenomena" [4, c. 61]. Citing as an example of a "real classification" the division of vertebrate animals in Zoology into classes of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fish, which is not based on any single logical principle, the author points out that "the same real, not logical classification is the allocation of parts of speech as actually existing in the language of word classes" [4, c. 62].
We should agree with the opinion that a number of attempts to create a classification of parts of speech that would correspond to the basic rules of logical classification were not successful and "linguists are forced to return to the previous division, and now, as before, disagreements are reduced to disputes about the existence of some small divisions, for example, the words" categories of state" [5, c. 125-126].
The principle of classification by parts of speech, "imposed by the language system itself", fully applies to any classification of the lexical component of the language and should become the main one in the study of the system properties of vocabulary. When identifying the systematic lexical composition of a language, specific features and the nature of lexical par-adigmatics, it is necessary to proceed not from any a priori schemes imposed on the language or classification criteria introduced from the logic, but from signs that are determined by the essential characteristics of the constituents of this system.
The word as the main unit of the language-lexical and grammatical has two types of meanings: lexical, individual, which distinguishes this lexical unit from the entire set of lexical units of the language, and grammatical, combining words in a fairly large number of units represented in them classes or categories.
"Lexical meanings of a word are brought under grammatical categories. The word is an internal, constructive unity of lexical and grammatical meanings", writes V.V. Vinogradov [2, c. 18]. This property of lexical units, the close connection and deep interaction of lexical and grammatical meanings is emphasized in the works of A.A. Potebnya [8], L.V. Shcherba and many other linguists. Artificial dissection of these two aspects of meaning in the analysis of language vocabulary leads to its one-sided description. Only the recognition of the continuity and unity of lexical and grammatical meanings in a word can help to recreate the picture of lexical paradigmatics, and then systematicity, because "grammatical differences permeate the entire vocabulary, organizing it from within" [7, c. 128].
The most common grammatical feature contained in a word is the categorical meaning, so called because, in words of A.A. Potebnya, it is "an indication of one or more general categories, called grammatical categories, under which the content of this word is summed up on a par with the content of many others" [8, c. 35].
For example, a categorical grammatical feature that combines all verbs within one part of speech is the
sign of "action", understood in the broadest sense. The same kind of generalized features form the semantic basis of other parts of speech.
Defining the categorical meaning of a lexical-grammatical class of verbs as "action" is conditional, since a verb can express a state, relation, process, event, and so on - this question should be the subject of independent research and description. Now it is important to emphasize that "the presence of common features in the meaning determines the typical ways of functioning of words belonging to the same class in the sentence, creates a uniformity of their syntagmatic characteristics. So all verbs as elements of a grammatical class have a unique function of a simple predicate, the ability to agree with a noun in the nominative case, manage nouns in indirect cases, and attach adverbs to themselves.
When considering the correlation of lexical and categorical grammatical meanings in a word, linguists note "non-independence", "complementarity" of the grammatical meaning, but it is not easy to determine its general and essential features. The statement that the grammatical meaning always has one or another (depending on the structure of the language) language expression, i.e. a formal expression, and the lexical meaning is expressed by a separate word or phrase correctly, but not enough, since there are words that Express only the grammatical meaning. The distinction between the two types of meaning in terms of content, in which the lexical meaning is defined as "specific", "essential", and the grammatical meaning as "general", "generalized", is also not clear enough. A word can have any general or abstract concepts as its content, for example, "relation", "category", "possibility", etc.
The most concise explanation of the relationship between lexical and grammatical meanings in a word is given by M.I. Steblin-Kamensky: "apparently, the most significant difference between grammatical and lexical meanings is that they play an unequal role in relation to our thinking in the process of speech. The fact that the main sign of meaning is a certain attitude to our thinking has been pointed out by many grammarians, though usually only briefly". Lexical meanings form the main material of our thought, and only in this sense are they "real" or "objective", i.e., not in the literal sense, but in a very specific, figurative sense. Grammatical meanings, however, give our thought a formality. Not without reason, therefore, the first are also called by some grammarians "basic", "self-signifying", and the second - "accompanying", or "formal". Thus, in relation to our thinking in the process of speech, the main property of grammatical meanings could be called "independence". This "lack of independence " is manifested primarily in the fact that they are not the subject of our thought, that our thought is never focused on them, that they do not name or fix the content of our thought, as do lexical meanings, but only accompany and formalize lexical meanings; in a word, that they are a form in relation to the content of our thinking" [10, c. 13].
It is appropriate to note here that in view of the "lack of independence" of categorical grammatical
meanings, their establishment should be preceded by an analysis of lexical meanings. "The definition of lexical meanings of a word already includes an indication of the grammatical characteristic of the word," writes V.V. Vinogradov [2, c. 18].
It has already been emphasized above that the categorical grammatical meaning of a word not only determines which category a particular word falls under, but also determines its functioning. Moreover, there is the view that "the grammatical meaning cannot be determined otherwise than by the description of its func-tions»" Consequently, belonging of a word to one or another lexico-grammatical category is determined by its semantic and functional features. Therefore, parts of speech are also called semantic-functional classes or categories. This term does not contradict the traditional definition of parts of speech as lexical and grammatical classes, but is more accurate, since, as B.A. Serebry-annikov emphasizes, "parts of speech are simply distinguished by semantic and functional characteristics. Of course, other criteria for distinguishing them should also be taken into account if the structure of a given language allows them to be taken into account, but these are not the defining features of them" [9, c. 27].
Reflecting on the parts of speech, B.A. Serebryan-nikov also writes: "In determining the parts of speech, the doctrine of functional-semantic categories should be based. This is the most important thing. A secondary object of study is the various degrees of mor-phologization of parts of speech, which give a very diverse picture in different languages. Weak morphological design does not mean that there is no discharge. Functional-semantic categories-the basis of the doctrine of parts of speech" [9, c. 27].
This point of view is in good agreement with the views of L.V. Shcherba. Further, L.V. Shcherba emphasizes the importance of the meaning for determining the partly belonging of the word: ". if in a language system a category has found its full expression, then one meaning alone compels us to bring a particular word to this category: if we know that cockatoo is the name of a bird, we are not looking for formal signs to recognize a noun in this word" [14, c. 80-81].
Because of all the above, there are reasonable grounds to consider parts of speech as semantic-functional classes of words as lexical paradigms, which in turn are divided into semantic-functional subclasses and categories. It is necessary to mention the actual lexical-semantic paradigms that are detected in the vocabulary of any language, such as semantic fields, lexical-semantic groups, and the like. The specificity and nature of the relationship between semantic-functional and lexical-semantic paradigms of the language's vocabulary should be the subject of an independent description.
11. Steblin-Kamensky M.I. About the main signs of grammatical meaning. Controversial Linguistics. L.: from Leningrad. Univ., 1974. P. 3-19.
12. Shmelev L.N. Problems of semantic analysis of vocabulary (based on the material of the Russian language). M.: Nauka, 1973. 280p.
C3
o
CO "O
1=1 A
—I
o
C3 t; o m o
OT
3
u o
CO
13. Shmelev D.N. Modern Russian language. Vocabulary. M.: Education, 1977. 334p.
14. Shcherba L.V. On the parts of speech in the Russian language. In the book. Shcherba L.B. Language system and speech activity. - L.: Nauka, 1974. P. 77-100.
understanding parts of speech as semantic-functional lexical paradigms
Ayvazova E.R.
The Russian State University of Justice
The nature of lexical paradigm is considered. Parts of speech are determined as semantic-functional paradigms in lexics. Two sets of indications: 1. character of semantic content; 2. definite functions in this or that sphere of speech activity are taken into consideration. Replacing the name of lexico-grammatical categories of words (parts of speech) with semantic-functional paradigms is quite legitimate, because when recognizing the nature and nature of lexical systematicity it becomes especially important not to impose on the language brought from outside the classification criteria, but to determine "which classification is especially persistently imposed the linguistic system itself, "and here the importance of semantic-functional paradigms sanctified by the long tradition of distinguishing parts of speech can hardly be overestimated. Considering the essential characteristic of the word, the unity of the lexical and grammatical meanings in it, the author distinguishes two types of lexical paradigms, semantic-functional classes, subclasses, categories and lexical-semantic fields, groups, etc. caused by semantic-functional and lexical-semantic variation of lexemes.
Keywords: parts of speech, lexical paradigm, vocabulary, semantic-functional paradigms, semantic analysis, lexical meaning, paradigm.
References
1. Akhmanova O.S. Essays on general and Russian lexicography. - Moscow.: State educational and pedagogical publishing house ministry of education of RSFSR, 1957. - 296p.
2. Vinogradov V.V. Russian language (grammatical doctrine of the word) Ed. 2nd. - M.: Higher School, 1972. - 613p.
3. Gukhman M.M. Grammatical category and structure of paradigms. - Research on the general theory of grammar. - M.: Science, 1968.
4. Zhirmunsky V.M. On the nature of the parts of speech and their classification. in the book. Zhirmunsky V.M. General and Germanic linguistics. - L.: Nauka, 1976. - P. 60-82.
5. Ivanova T.F. Partial nesting of words in the educational explanatory dictionary for foreigners. Problems of educational lexicography. - M.: From Moscow. Univ., 1977. - P. 72-84.
6. Kuznetsova E.V. Stepwise identification as a means of describing the semantic relationships of words. Questions of metalin-guistics. - L.: Publishing House of Leningrad State University, 1973. - P. 84-94.
7. Makovsky M.M. Theory of lexical attraction (experience of a functional typology of lexical and semantic systems). - M.: Nauka, 1974. 252p.
8. Potebnya A.A. From notes on Russian grammar.v. 1-2. - M.: Uch-pedgiz, 1958. 500p.
9. Serebryannikov B.A. The reducibility of the world's languages, taking into account the specifics of a particular language, the purpose of the description. In the book. Principles for describing the languages of the world. - M.: Science, 1976. P. 7-52.
10. Steblin-Kamensky M.I. On the question of the parts of speech. Controversial Linguistics. L.: from Leningrad. Univ., 1974. P. 19-34.
o d
u
CM CM
