What is the expansion of semantic fields. Development of the vocabulary of mentally retarded schoolchildren through the formation and expansion of the semantic fields of word meanings. sour - tastes like lemon, vinegar, cranberry

- 143.50 Kb

align = "justify"> Methodological component the content of teaching vocabulary includes the necessary explanations, memos and instructions on the use of printed dictionaries, the form of maintaining individual dictionaries and cards with new vocabulary, on ways to reorganize and systematize the studied vocabulary.

Psychological component vocabulary learning content is associated with the problem of lexical skills and abilities. Following Professor R.K.Minyar-Beloruchev, we define the essence of a lexical skill as:

• the ability to instantly recall a standard word from long-term memory, depending on a specific speech task;
• include it in the speech chain.

To do this, we have to remember that words do not exist in our memory in isolation, but are included in a complex system of lexical-semantic relations, which integrates two types of structural relations at the level of a lexical unit - paradigmatic and syntagmatic.

Syntagmatic connections are the level of linear expansion, the level of syntagma, the connection of words in a phrase and a sentence. Syntagmatic associations are characteristic of younger students who associate the word "glass" with the word "milk", and the adjective "good" with the word "boy".

Paradigmatic connections are directly related to different levels of grammatical, phonetic and other paradigms (for example, the paradigm of forming plural nouns, reading vowels in different types of syllables, etc.). They represent a kind of vertical slice.

An important aspect is the semantic fields and microsystems, which include synonyms, antonyms, and other words that are close in context.

Psychologists argue that the perception and memorization of lexical units is associative in nature. Each new word enters into associative connections with existing words in long-term memory and, thanks to our experience, is perceived as familiar or unfamiliar.

For the formation of a lexical skill, the establishment of strong paradigmatic connections of words is absolutely necessary, since, as psychophysiological studies have shown, it is these connections that ensure the strength of memorization, and hence the instant recall of a word from long-term memory.

1.4. The concept of an individual semantic field

Groupings of words by proximity of meanings are called semantic or conceptual fields. Words are included in these fields regardless of the external form, sometimes even words of different parts of speech are combined into one field. Semantic fields combine words by the similarity or contiguity of their meanings. The first groupings are called lexical-semantic, and the second are thematic fields. Lexico-semantic fields combine words that have a common meaning. All words included in this field concretize one general concept, adding particular meanings to it.

When a student or student comes to us, he already owns a certain semantic field. We need to know what lies at the heart of it. Here age, social environment, education, profession, mental characteristics, even gender play an important role. The individual semantic field is closely interconnected with the information stock. The word “tree” in a botanist, genetic biologist, cabinetmaker, forester, storyteller and first grader will have a different semantic field.

As in a mosaic, here the same paint-words will each time be excluded into new patterns, either merging into large forms, then breaking up into small fragments, but it will be almost impossible to find two identical patterns-works from different people.

The term "semantic field" itself is now increasingly being replaced by narrower linguistic terms: lexical field, synonymous series, lexical-semantic field, etc. Each of these terms more clearly defines the type of language units included in the field and / or the type of relationship between them. Nevertheless, in many works both the expression "semantic field" and more specialized designations are used as terminological synonyms. The semantic field has the following main properties:

1. The semantic field is intuitively understandable to a native speaker and has a psychological reality for him.

2. The semantic field is autonomous and can be distinguished as an independent subsystem of the language.

3. Units of the semantic field are connected by one or another systemic semantic relationship.

4. Each semantic field is associated with other semantic fields of the language and together with them forms a language system.

Is it possible to expand the semantic field of students and, if possible, how? We'll talk about this in the next chapter.

Chapter 2. Ways of expanding the individual semantic field of learners

2.1. Semantic field expansion factors

It should be noted that the individual semantic field is not static, but has dynamics. A number of objective and subjective factors determine this dynamics in various directions, both towards expansion and contraction. We are only interested in the first, therefore, we will consider only those trends that are associated with this. Let's start with objective factors.

To do this, it is necessary to implement the following subjective factors that expand the semantic field. First, the word / words must be entered in a specific context. This forms the primary field, the association. The wider the associative connections of the word, the higher the percentage of memorization and the more varied the context of the use of the word.

The ability to use lexical units in speech presupposes that the lexical speaking skill has a combination of qualities such as automation, stability, flexibility, relative complexity and consciousness. When expanding the semantic field, the following factors are observed:

• the presence of students' need for the perception and use of new lexical units;
• anticipatory listening to phrases with a new lexical unit;
• imitation of phrases with a new lexical unit in the presence of a speech task;
• uniformity of phrases;
• regularity of presentation and generation of the same type of phrases in the process of automation;
• reliance on the mechanism of analogy when performing speech actions;
• error-free performance of speech actions (error prevention);
• a variety of “circumstances” of automation (situations, speech material);
• speech nature of the exercises.

As you know, the content of a concept consists of the attributes of objects reflected in consciousness. At the same time, as V.I.Svintsov emphasizes, we are talking about concept-forming features, that is, those essential features that make it possible to distinguish one object from others.

Depending on the nature of the objects presented in the concept, they distinguish between concrete concepts, reflecting real-life objects, and abstract ones, reflecting the properties and qualities of objects or the relationship between them.

In terms of volume, they distinguish between general concepts, the volume of which includes an indefinitely large number of objects (tree, cat, house, etc.), collective (vegetables, foliage, herbs, etc.) and single, the volume of which consists only of one object (Perm, Lipa Alisa, Germany, etc.)

Investigating the nature of foreign words, scientists distinguish 8 types of lexical units:

• international and loan words;
• derivatives and compound words, the components of which are familiar;
• words, the volume of meanings of which does not contradict the semantic volume of the word in the native language;
• words that are specific in their content for the target language;
• words in common with the native language of the root, but different in content;
• elephant and phrases, the individual components of which, although known, are idiomatic and dissimilar in meaning;
• words, the volume of which is wider than the volume of meanings of the corresponding word in the native language;
• words whose meanings are narrower than in the native language.

All these factors should be taken into account when increasing the individual semantic fields of learners.
2.2. Methods of vocabulary semantization

The process of mastering a word includes familiarization with the function of a word, its meaning, formal features, training in mastering words and the use of new lexical units in oral and written speech. Each of the stages of the process of mastering a word correlates with the stages of the formation of a lexical skill.

Naming the six most common methods of semantization, it should be noted that their choice depends on the characteristics of the word itself, the characteristics of the group of learners, as well as the linguistic and professional competence of the teacher.

1. Using visibility .

As you know, visibility is different: subject, pictorial, visibility by action, sound, contextual. The criteria for choosing a certain type of visibility are: availability, simplicity and expediency. When using pictorial clarity, one must be sure that the interpretation is unambiguous. The tree in the picture should be a collective image, without individual signs of this or that species, just like a picture with a parrot or a sparrow cannot be used to semantize the word "bird".

2. Semantization using synonyms / antonyms .

Knowing the word “beautiful”, learners can easily guess the meaning of the word “ugly” if they understand what the antonym is. However, there is one complication here. Complete synonyms are rarely found in the language. As a rule, each of the synonyms has a certain shade of meaning, which means its own connotation and use. This is often associated with the history of the language, the sources of borrowing words. It is here that an excellent opportunity opens up for the formation of both sociolinguistic and sociocultural competence of students, their involvement in serious and exciting work with the language being studied in the country of linguistics.

The way of acquaintance with new vocabulary by means of synonyms and antonyms is closely related to the use of word formation methods known to the learner.

3. Semantization using well-known word formation methods.

This method of semantization allows you to introduce a word into a certain paradigm, which contributes to the establishment of stronger paradigmatic connections of the given word, as well as the repetition of already learned words that are included in this category. This refers to:

1) suffix-prefix way of word formation,

2) word composition,

3) conversion.

Each of these methods also has a number of potential difficulties for the learners, which the teacher can anticipate and remove even before errors appear.

4. Translation / translation-interpretation of words involves active training of a given word in various contexts, if with the help of translation we most accurately convey the meaning of this word. Translation is often used in the older stages of schooling. This is especially necessary when semantizing non-equivalent vocabulary, as well as vocabulary with a specific background meaning.

5. Development of linguistic guess through the context.

Techniques here can be very different, from definitions in a foreign language to drawing up small figurative and understandable situations using new words. It is important that the context of the use of the word is unambiguous, understandable or easily deduced.

2.3. System of vocabulary exercises

Work description

Purpose of the research: to find out what methods of expanding the individual semantic field can be used.

Research objectives:

1. Study the methodological literature on this topic.

2. Identify the factors and ways to expand the active vocabulary.

3. Consider the interdependence of the components of vocabulary learning.

Chapter 1. The role and place of vocabulary in teaching

foreign language

The purpose of learning vocabulary …………………………… p. 5
Principles of lexical skills formation ... p. 7
Linguistic, methodological and psychological components of vocabulary teaching ... p. nine
The concept of an individual semantic field. P. 12

Chapter 2. Ways of expanding the individual semantic field of learners

2.1. Semantic field expansion factors …… ..p. fourteen

2.2. Ways of vocabulary semantization ………………… p. 16

2.3. The system of lexical exercises ……………… .p. eighteen

2.4. Formation of receptive and productive lexical skills …………………………………. page 22

Conclusion ……………………………………………… ... p. 27

References ……………………………………… ..p. 29

Semantic field - a set of linguistic units, united by some common (integral) semantic feature; in other words - having some common non-trivial component of the value. Initially, the role of such lexical units was considered units of the lexical level - words; later, descriptions of semantic fields appeared in linguistic works, including also phrases and sentences.

One of the classic examples of a semantic field is a color designation field consisting of several color series ( Red– pink – pinkish – crimson; blue – blue – bluish –turquoise etc.): the common semantic component here is "color".

The semantic field has the following main properties:

1. The semantic field is intuitively understandable to a native speaker and has a psychological reality for him.

2. The semantic field is autonomous and can be distinguished as an independent subsystem of the language.

3. Units of the semantic field are connected by one or another systemic semantic relationship.

4. Each semantic field is associated with other semantic fields of the language and together with them forms a language system.

The field stands out core, which expresses the integral sema (archiseme) and organizes the rest around itself. For example, the field - parts of the human body: head, hand, heart- the core, the rest are less important.

The theory of semantic fields is based on the idea of ​​the existence of some semantic groups in a language and on the possibility of linguistic units entering one or several such groups. In particular, the vocabulary of a language (vocabulary) can be represented as a set of separate groups of words united by various relationships: synonymous (to brag - to boast), antonymic (to speak - to be silent), etc.

Elements of a separate semantic field are connected by regular and systemic relationships, and, therefore, all words of the field are mutually opposed to each other. Semantic fields may overlap or completely enter one into the other. The meaning of each word is most fully determined only if the meanings of other words from the same field are known.

A single linguistic unit can have several meanings and, therefore, can be assigned to different semantic fields... For example, the adjective Red can be included in the semantic field of color designations and at the same time in the field, the units of which are united by the generalized meaning "revolutionary".

The simplest kind of semantic field is paradigmatic field, the units of which are lexemes belonging to one part of speech and united by a common categorical seme in the meaning, between units of such a communication field of a paradigmatic type (synonymous, antonymic, genus-specific, etc.) Such fields are often also called semantic classes or lexico-semantic groups. An example of a minimal semantic field of a paradigmatic type is a synonymous group, for example a group speech verbs... This field is formed by verbs talk, tell, chat, chat and others. Elements of the semantic field of speech verbs are united by an integral semantic feature of "speaking", but their meaning not identical.

The lexical system is most fully and adequately reflected in the semantic field - a lexical category of the highest order. Semantic field - it is a hierarchical structure of a set of lexical units, united by a common (invariant) meaning. Lexical units are included in a certain SP on the basis that they contain an archiseme that unites them. The field is characterized by a homogeneous conceptual content of its units, therefore, its elements are usually not words correlated by their meanings with different concepts, but lexico-semantic variants.

All vocabulary can be represented as a hierarchy of semantic fields of different ranks: large semantic spheres of vocabulary are divided into classes, classes - into subclasses, etc., up to elementary semantic microfields. An elementary semantic microfield is lexico-semantic group(LSG) is a relatively closed series of lexical units of one part of speech, united by an archiseme of more specific content and a hierarchically lower order than the archiseme of the field. The most important structuring relationship of elements in the semantic field is hyponymy - his hierarchical system based on generic relations. Words corresponding to specific concepts act as hyponyms in relation to a word corresponding to a generic concept - their hyperonym, and as cohyonyms in relation to each other.

The semantic field as such includes words of different parts of speech. Therefore, the units of the field are characterized not only by syntagmatic and paradigmatic, but also associative-derivational relations. Units of SP can be included in all types of semantic categorical relations (hyponymy, synonymy, antonymy, conversion, derivational derivation, polysemy). Of course, not every word by its nature is included in any of the indicated semantic relations. Despite the great variety in the organization of semantic fields and the specificity of each of them, we can talk about some structure of the joint venture, which presupposes the presence of its core, center and periphery ("transfer" - the core, "give, sell" - the center, "build, cleanse" - periphery).

The word appears in the SP in all its characteristic connections and various relationships that actually exist in the lexical system of the language.

First of all, it should be noted that the individual semantic field is not static, but has dynamics. A number of objective) and subjective factors and determines this dynamics in various directions, both in the direction of expansion and contraction. We are only interested in the first, therefore, we will consider only those trends that are associated with this. Let's start with objective factors. When a student or student comes to us, he already owns a certain semantic field. We need to know what lies at the heart of it. Here age, social environment, education, profession, mental characteristics, even gender play an important role. The individual semantic field is closely interconnected with the information stock. The word “tree” in a botanist, genetic biologist, cabinetmaker, forester, storyteller and first grader will have a different semantic field. We accept our students as they are. But in the future, we can structure the work on the new vocabulary in such a way that the volume of the semantic field, not only in a foreign language, but also in the native language, increases qualitatively and quantitatively.

"Nature", "Man and His Environment", "Holidays", "Countries and Travels", "Books".

In many, but fortunately not in all textbooks, active vocabulary for each of the above topics lives in only one paragraph and, when moving to a new topic, disappears from the field of vision almost completely. And yet they are so easy to combine! After all, speaking about nature, we can also talk about books (books as a source of knowledge of nature, books as a reflection of nature, nature as a source of inspiration for writers, poets, musicians and artists, seasons and their reflection in the work of people of art, etc.). Talking about nature and different countries, everyone will also find something to say without repeating a friend. Here you can talk about the diversity of flora and fauna, how they are related to the culture of the country and its way of life, national cuisine, natural calendar, sacred animals; the list is endless. And how many interesting problems for discussion can be found at the junction of the topics "Nature and Holidays", "Nature and Man", etc.

As in a mosaic, here the same paint-words will each time be included in new patterns, then merging into large forms, then breaking up into small fragments, but it will be almost impossible to find two identical patterns-works from different people.

However, the success of creation depends primarily on what speech task the teacher sets. Our famous scientist A.R. Luria (Luria Alexander Romanovich(1902-1977) - psychologist, one of the founders of neuropsychology).

in his psychosemantic studies, he proved that the nature of the speech setting is capable of radically changing the nature and volume of the semantic field. Thus, the next factor influencing the positive dynamics of the semantic field can be considered the problematic nature of the speech setting. A speech attitude can narrow a statement to a monosyllabic answer, and it is also able to combine adjacent semantic fields into a generalized semantic field and provide a creative selection of all previously studied vocabulary in relation to a new speech task. The higher the level of problematicity, the more interesting the task and the more varied the answers. How can the semantic fields of the words "animals" and "musical instruments" be combined using a speech setting? For example, you can say the following: “We have to write a zoological symphony, not the music itself, but a small libretto to it. What animals would you choose as the main characters, how would you define their roles and what musical instruments would you give their parts to? " Or like this: "Let's remember in what literary works we met animals playing musical instruments, who played what, what caused the choice of these particular animals and musical instruments?" And even so: "Is it possible in life to meet animals playing musical instruments, and if so, which ones and where?" Now imagine what semantic groups of words can be actualized in the answers, whether the student's answer will reflect his individual semantic field and, in turn, contribute to its further development and enrichment due to connections with other semantic subsystems.

Determine which microsystems and fields are included in the semantic field of the word "horse" for a given student. I quote verbatim from a sixth grader at a competition organized by publishers of Cambridge textbooks for schools: “This is a mammal that has lived with humans for many centuries, although it was not among the first domesticated animals. The cavemen did not know it and did not use it, just like the ancient Aztecs. However, among the ancient Greeks, whose civilization is older than the civilization of the Aztecs, this animal was widely used, and not only for domestic purposes. It even took part in the Olympic Games. "

It will be useful for a novice teacher to practice drawing up problematic speech settings that combine various groups of previously studied vocabulary. This will help not only your students, but also yourself in updating your vocabulary.

__________________________________ EXERCISE

Look at this map-diagram of the study of the topic "Nature" by pupils of the 5th grade of the school with in-depth study of English. Try to formulate several speech attitudes aimed at combining adjacent semantic groups and microfields.

Ensuring constant updating of the learned vocabulary and its maximum rotation are the last factor that provides an increase in the semantic field. Indeed, it is much easier to increase the active vocabulary not by mechanically introducing new vocabulary, but by creatively applying what has already been learned in new contexts. The formation of a branched and stable semantic field significantly increases both the imagery of speech and its motivation, since in this case the student has WHAT to say. notice, that active dictionary - this is the vocabulary that a person constantly uses in oral communication, that is, those words that are “on the tip of the tongue,” as the English say. If the word is not used for a long time, then it turns into passive dictionary, that is, it can be recognized by reading and listening, but not used in speech. The boundaries between them are very flexible, they can change depending on a number of conditions, which were already mentioned earlier (factors that determine the volume of the semantic field). All of the above helps us answer the question:

HOW BETTER TO KNOW STUDENTS WITH A NEW WORD AND WHAT WAYS OF SEMANTIZATION ARE AVAILABLE IN THE ARSENAL OF THE TEACHER?

Naming the six most common methods of semantization, it should be noted that their choice depends on the characteristics of the word itself, the characteristics of the group of learners, as well as the linguistic and professional competence of the teacher.

1. Use of clarity. As you know, the clarity is different. Can be used subject visibility, that is, those objects that are in the classroom or may be at the teacher and students. You can attract pictorial clarity and clarity action, sound and contextual. The criteria for choosing a certain type of visibility are: availability, simplicity and expediency. Does a teacher need to buy toy furniture, draw intricate pictures with pens and pencil cases, a ceiling and floors, if all this can be shown, if not with a finger, then with a simple movement of the hand? Here I recall one funny incident from the teaching practice of students. The trainee introduced the students to the words on the topic "Clothes" only through pictures. When the turn came to the picture with the mittens, the young teacher christened them gloves and made the children repeat this word while looking at the picture. When asked why he did this, the teacher explained that he could not find pictures with gloves. It was in the fall, gloves and a scarf were in the briefcase and periodically fell out when the teacher opened it in search of a pen and lost pictures. Often, instead of depicting a verb with an action, the teacher tries to find or paint a picture where, as a rule, different characters perform different actions. This is not always effective, as the actions depicted can be called in different words, which will lead to confusion. When using pictorial clarity, or, more simply, pictures, one must be sure of the unambiguous interpretation. So, if you want to enter the word "tree" using a picture, then it cannot be birch or oak, tree or maple. The tree in the picture should be a collective image, without individual signs of this or that species, just like a picture with a parrot or a sparrow cannot be used to semantize the word "bird". Using pictorial clarity, the teacher must make sure that the proposed picture is clearly visible to all students, that it is aesthetically pleasing, in other words, in medical terms, it does not so much heal as it cripples. Therefore, today in the classroom, many teachers switch to the use of video visualization, where action and sound are combined, object and situational clarity, where with the help of a freeze frame one can visually highlight that moment, object, expression of feeling, etc., which need to be semanticized. But if you don't have a video, don't be upset. Other methods remain in your arsenal.

2. Semantization using synonyms / antonyms. With the word “beautiful”, students can easily guess what the word “ugly” means if they understand what the antonym is. However, there is one complication here. Complete synonyms are rarely found in the language. As a rule, each of the synonyms has a certain shade of meaning, which means its own connotation and use. This is often associated with the history of the language, the sources of borrowing words. It is here that an excellent opportunity opens up for the formation of both sociolinguistic and sociocultural competence of students, their involvement in serious and exciting work with the language being studied in the country of linguistics.

I would like to give an example of one of the lessons, after which the teacher regretfully said that the whole lesson plan went down the drain, but at the same time he and all his students left the lesson inspired to analyze linguistic phenomena and their connection with the history of the country, both native and and the target language. It all started with the harmless word "mansion", which in English has a French root ("mansion"). The teacher explained that the word “house” could be synonymous with this word, but it was necessary to add “big and rich house”. The students murmured and expressed their dissatisfaction with the fact that there are so many "extra" words in the language. And then the teacher explained the history of this word in an accessible way. Recalling the Norman conquest of England, the fact that French was the dominant language of the ruling classes for several centuries, he showed how the two languages ​​interacted. Sometimes French borrowing completely supplanted the English word, which is why about 70% of the vocabulary in English is French. At the same time, out of 70% of French borrowings available in dictionaries, only 20% are actively used in speech, and the rest do not have a high frequency. And sometimes it was the other way around, but often both words got along in the language, retaining their connotation of meaning. Thus, the English word "house" has many meanings and a very high frequency of use, while the French "mansion" is used in a very narrow sense. Here the teacher asked the children to explain why this happened. The answers were unequivocal - the rich Normans lived in large and luxurious houses, hence the modern meaning. Fired up with linguistic research, the students were asked to give a few more examples of such borrowings. Remembering the proverb "Saxons breed it - Normans eat it", the teacher gave examples with the names of animals and meat of these animals. The name of the animal itself has an Anglo-Saxon root, and the name of the meat of this animal is French: pig - pork, sheep - mutton, etc. The conversation ended with the conclusion that in any modern language one can find numerous borrowings from other languages, but the context their use in different cultures can be different. And one more important conclusion was made by the students in this lesson. As it turned out, the period of the Norman conquest of England almost coincided with the period of the Tatar-Mongol conquest of Russia and in the fate of the peoples of our two countries at that time, as in the fate of the development of languages, there were common moments.

The method of acquaintance with new vocabulary through synonyms and antonyms is closely related to the use of word formation methods known to students.

3. Semantization using well-known word formation methods. This method of semantization allows you to introduce a word into a certain paradigm, which contributes to the establishment of stronger paradigmatic connections of the given word, as well as the repetition of already learned words that are included in this category. This refers to:

1) suffix-prefix way of word formation,

2) word composition,

3) conversion.

Each of these methods also has a number of potential difficulties for students, which the teacher can anticipate and remove even before errors appear.

__________________________________ EXERCISE

What potential student mistakes can you foresee if Semantization builds on existing analogies using

Negative prefixes / suffixes im- / in- / un- / dis - / - less, etc .;

Compositions;

Conversions.

Will they be errors at the level of form, meaning or use?

These English words can provide a certain hint, a clue: die, inexperienced, present, advise, blackbird, impolite, meaningful.

4. You can just translate the word, which is also quite justified if in the future it is supposed to actively train the given word in various contexts or the given word is not of great interest from the point of view of the listed methods of semantization, if with the help of translation we most accurately convey the meaning of this word. Translation is often used in the older stages of schooling. (Why do you think?) However, sometimes it is not just translation that is required, but translation-interpretation. it

especially necessary for the semantization of non-equivalent vocabulary, as well as vocabulary with a specific background meaning.

_________________________________ EXERCISE

Continue the list of non-equivalent vocabulary:

Subbotnik, Komsomolets, GULAG; marshmallows, casseroledish, pot-luck dinner.

Explain the specifics of this background vocabulary:

Manilovshchina, dinner, trick or treat, How do you do ?, to entertain, to go shopping.

5. You can not translate the word yourself, but to ask one or all learners find a word in a dictionary / different dictionaries,

including mono- and bilingual dictionaries, dictionaries of synonyms, etc., by organizing a competition for the speed and correctness of the translation. This method is especially good in a classroom where students are not familiar with various types of dictionaries, are still poorly oriented in the system of their construction, do not know how to work with the alphabet, do not understand that the same word can have several meanings and the translation depends on the context. Using this method, we can solve several important tasks of teaching a foreign language, and most importantly, with its constant and directed use, we will be able to form the skill of independent work, do

of our students over time as independent users, to shift the emphasis from "teach" to "learn."

__________________________________ EXERCISE

Which of these words would you suggest students find on their own in the dictionary and why? How can the age and level of language competence of students influence your choice?

Unit, affection, tender, concern, desire, equal, to provide, to exist, to argue, to share, to keep.

6. However, the most difficult for a teacher and the most important for the practical mastery of a language is such a way of semantization as development of language guess through context.

Techniques here can be very different, from definitions in a foreign language to drawing up small figurative and understandable situations using new words. But, as with the use of visualization, it is also important here that the context of the use of the word is "transparent", that is, unambiguous, understandable or easily deducible. If this cannot be achieved with these words, then it is necessary either to abandon this method of semantization, or to try to combine it with other of the methods listed here.

__________________________________ EXERCISE

What needs to be added to the following definitions to make the meaning of the word clear? Is it possible here to combine several ways of semantization, if so, which ones?

Market - We buy food at the market.

Look for - I am looking for my pen.

Clothes - In the morning we put on our clothes.

Ask questions to check if you understand the words correctly, bypassing the translation. Then try to provoke their use by the students themselves by creating different contexts of use.

Once again, I want to emphasize that there are no good or bad ways to familiarize yourself with new vocabulary. It all depends on the word itself, its form, meaning and use, on the difficulties that it can potentially pose for students. You can remove them as much as possible already at the first stage of acquaintance with the word, and after all, everyone knows that retraining is more difficult than teaching. My son has long voiced the English word "cucumber" as [cucumber]. That is how he read it on his own and for a long time did not want to part with the knowledge he had acquired with such difficulty.

But at one time, P. Hackboldt said that the role of the methodists' choice of a method of semantization was greatly exaggerated. Much more important is how this word will be worked out and in what contexts we will be able to include it. The strength of memorizing the word depends on the nature of the training.

SYSTEM OF LEXIC EXERCISES

We have already partially considered issues related to the formation of the semantic field of students and the possibilities of influencing its dynamics. Let us consider more specifically the system of lexical exercises, built on the principle "from simple to complex", that is, from the level of a word, phrase, sentence to the level of superphrasal unity.

Varlamova Iraida Yurievna, speech therapist at Krasnoufimskaya SKOSH

Language teaching in special (correctional) educational institutions sets the task of actively mastering the verbal speech of students with developmental disabilities for the purpose of communication.

Linguistic communication in its various forms can be carried out in the presence of a certain stock of words and the ability to use them, therefore, work on vocabulary becomes especially important.

Mastering the lexical aspect of the language causes significant difficulties for mentally retarded students, since the word itself is, by the definition of A.G. Zikeeva "the basic unit of language is a very complex, multifaceted and multidimensional phenomenon." It "intersects phonetic, morphological, lexicological, syntactic, socio-ethnographic interests."

In the special literature, the problems of the development of the lexical side of speech in mentally retarded children are highlighted in sufficient detail, such as limited vocabulary, inaccuracy in the use of words, difficulties in updating the vocabulary, the predominance of a passive vocabulary over an active one, the lack of formation of the structure of the meaning of a word, a violation of the process of organizing semantic fields.

And although by the senior grades, most mentally retarded schoolchildren have a correction of violations of the sensory and motor levels of speech, complete elimination of violations of the phonetic side of speech, at the same time, the language and semantic levels of these children do not reach the norm, and despite the various methods used in the educational process and methods of working on a word, a system of exercises aimed at their active assimilation, the problem of vocabulary development still remains relevant.

I work on the development of the vocabulary of the mentally retarded through the formation of the semantic fields of words. The methodological basis of this technology was the works of A.R. Luria and O.S. Vinogradova. On the basis of their theory, she developed a technology for the development of a vocabulary through the formation and expansion of semantic fields and applied it to teach children with intellectual disabilities.

What is a "semantic field"?

According to A.R. Luria: “a complex of associations arising around one word is a“ semantic field ”. Associations are the relationship between individual views in which one of the views calls the other. The semantic field allows a person to quickly select words in the process of communication. And if we have forgotten a word and it seems to be spinning "on the tip of the tongue", we are looking for it among the "semantic field".

Each speech therapy lesson is structured taking into account the systemic vocabulary and the semantic meaning of the word. For each word I assign 2 - 3 lessons, on a lexical topic - up to 10 lessons.

In the first lesson, the main word (usually we select it from a riddle or short rhyme), we correlate it with the subject, consider its lexical meaning (students work with an explanatory dictionary), establish associations and select related words. Next, we work on modeling the semantic field: we select words-actions, words-signs. At first, children learn to model a small semantic field associated with a certain situation, and then gradually expand it with secondary members of the sentence and, using the modeled semantic field, make up sentences, and then a mini-essay. So, for example, when studying the lexical topic "Autumn", we gradually model the semantic fields of words: "Autumn", "leaves", "cloud", "rain".

Stage 1.
Working with a dictionary: Autumn is the season following summer and preceding winter.

Stage 2.
Semantic field modeling.

Stage 3.
Drawing up sentences for the formed semantic field. Performing tasks to correct the lexical and grammatical structure of speech.

Stage 4.
Writing mini-essays.

The use of the technology for the formation of semantic fields in work increases students' motivation to learn the Russian language, improves the quality of written work, helps to expand vocabulary, improve coherent speech skills, and strive for students to achieve their own result in the process of writing mini-essays.

In senior grades (8-9) we form semantic word fields that further contribute to the successful socialization of students: "Meeting", "Pharmacy", "Travel".

Warning: No images in specified directory. Please check the directoy!

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

1. Development of the theory of the lexical-semantic field

1.1 Historical foundations of the theory of the lexical-semantic field

Field - a set of linguistic, mainly lexical units, united by a common content and reflecting the conceptual, objective or functional similarity of the designated phenomena.

Scientists drew attention to the possibility of coexistence of different types of lexical associations back in the 19th century. Some possibilities of the field structure of vocabulary were noted during the construction of thesauri. The initial theoretical understanding of the concept of a field in a language was contained in the works of J. Trier, G. Ipsen, where it received the name “semantic field”.

A characteristic feature of a semantic field is the presence of a common (integral) semantic feature that unites all units of the field and is usually expressed by a lexeme with a generalized meaning (archilexeme). For example, the sign "movement in space" in the semantic field of the verbs of movement: walk, run, drive, swim, fly, etc. friend, for example, "speed", "method", "environment" of movement. Integral semantic features in certain conditions can act as differential. For example, the attribute "relationship of kinship", combining the terms of kinship "father", "mother", "son", "daughter", etc., becomes differential when moving to the semantic field, including designations and other relationships between people such as "colleague "," Fellow traveler "," classmate "," boss ", etc. This is one of the types of communication of the semantic field in the vocabulary (hierarchical). The interconnection of semantic fields within the entire vocabulary is also evidenced by the belonging of a polysemantic word to different semantic fields. Thus, the semantic field is characterized by the connection of words or their individual meanings, the systemic nature of these connections, the interdependence and interdependence of the field, the continuity of the semantic space, visibility and psychological reality for the average native speaker. The structure of semantic fields is usually investigated by the method of component analysis, oppositions, graphs, combinatorial methods, etc.

1.2 Component analysis of LSP taste in primary semantics

The development of the method of component analysis in time coincided with the growth of interest in the theory of the semantic field, which in its improvement showed more and more points of contact with the ideas of component analysis. The meaning and purpose of component analysis are revealed to a large extent in the application to lexical groupings of the field type. The method of component analysis, therefore, “needs” a semantic field to function. On the other hand, the theory of the semantic field gravitates towards this method, since the application of component analysis to the study of semantic fields is one of the most economical approaches.

Within the framework of component analysis, procedures related to the use of lexicographic data have been significantly developed. The reference to lexicographic sources provides, as a rule, well-processed and therefore convenient material for the subsequent more thorough analysis of the facts.

When determining the composition of the lexical-semantic field of adjectives of taste, the elementary scheme of the definition “having taste” was used as an identifying formula.

In the process of determining the lexical-semantic field of adjectives of taste, 6 situations turned out to be possible:

1. Adjectives directly correspond to the identifying formula "having taste" (sweet, salty, bitter, sour, etc.). The formula is also valid in transformation: "to be ... of taste" (delicious), including the transformation with the implicit verb to be: "similar to ... in taste" (eg sugar). This also includes cases when this formula has the opposite meaning - "tasteless" or "tasteless" (unsweetened, insipid).

2. Adjectives, in the definition of which the formula "having taste" receives a causative semantic increment - "acquiring taste" (rancid).

3. Adjectives, the definitions of which are based on the complete synonymous identification of a given word and a metasword:

appetizing = tasty

4. Adjectives, the definitions of which are based on the synonymous identification of a given word and a metasword with the addition of intensifiers:

tasty = very tasty

luscious = too sweet

5. Adjectives, the definitions of which are built by synonymously identifying a given word and several metasls:

savory = spicy + spicy

savory = tasty + appetizing

6. Adjectives whose definitions include synonyms in combination with elements belonging to other semantic areas:

spicy = spicy + aromatic

Based on the above criteria, the following adjectives (in alphabetical order) were selected in the studied lexical-semantic field:

appetizing, tasteless, tasty, astringent, bitter, gourmet, sour, sweet and sour, tasty, tasteless, tender, unsweetened, spicy, piquant, insipid, cloying, rancid, spicy, sugar, sweet, sweet, savory, salty, malty, tart, refined.

The denotative side of the semantics of the studied adjectives is found in the lexicographic material, firstly, due to the indication of the taste sensation as a special aspect of the real world. Secondly, in addition to this indicator common to all adjectives taste, for some of them a starting point is indicated, a certain worked out in time and socially fixed norm. The norm is a denotative element of semantics, taken in the objectively established standard concept of a given quality, in our case, a sensation produced by taste. Lexicographically, it finds expression in meta words that orientate to the generally known, familiar for a given culture, the results of everyday experience. According to the 17-volume Dictionary of Modern Russian Literary Language:

bitter - tastes like mustard, cinchona

sour - tastes like lemon, vinegar, cranberry

sweet - tastes like sugar, honey

malty - tasting malt

In some definitions, denotative orientation is reinforced by the introduction of detailed indications:

spicy - roots, leaves

tart - fruits, berries

Speech realizations of the studied words represent a lot of material in order to judge the denotatively oriented semantics of the studied adjectives. Let us compare the contexts in which the reference to the norm emphasizes the features of the object characterized in the denotative aspect.

Such indicators should also include lexical elements (mouth, tongue, lips, etc.), which further reinforce the denotative basis of the context.

The meaning of the adjective is revealed as a certain result of the cognitive activity of a person who selects in his mind the idea not only of objects of the real world, but also of their signs (qualities). We are talking about a nominative approach, which consists in turning the facts of reality into facts of the language system, into meanings and categories, reflecting the social experience of native speakers. At the same time, the concept of the actant abilities of a word allows us to consider the semantics of adjectives against the background of its communicative potential.

Thanks to denotative elements, adjectives of taste are semantically oriented towards objects united by certain specific sensory properties. But these objects stand out insofar as they affect the person, causing a certain reaction from his side. A qualitative feature expressed by an adjective presupposes the presence of a subject perceiving this feature.

The analysis made it possible to distinguish three types of evaluative features in the semantics of adjectives of taste:

1. Sensory-hedonic trait corresponding to the identifier “pleasant / unpleasant”. For example: tasty, sweet, tasty, appetizing, savory, but bitter, rancid, sugary.

2. Sign of intensity corresponding to the identifier "strong". For example: pungent, spicy, savory, sour, tart, bitter.

3. An attribute of specificity corresponding to the identifier "characteristic / lacking characteristic taste". For example: salty, sour, bitter, delicious, but insipid, tasteless.

It should be emphasized that evaluativeness permeates the entire semantic area of ​​adjectives of taste. In other words, there are no elements in this lexico-semantic field that do not combine denotative and evaluative features in their primary semantics.

At the same time, they have two possible forms of combining denotative and evaluative elements in semantics. In the first case, the assessment is combined with a detailed denotative characteristic, represented by both integral ("having taste") and differential features ("like sugar", "like salt", "like wormwood", etc.).

In the second case, the evaluative side is further enhanced in connection with the elimination of differential denotative features, for example, in the semantics of the adjective tasty there is only an integral denotative feature "having taste" and an evaluative feature "pleasant".

The evaluative moment in the semantics of adjectives of taste determines important features of their systemic organization. Evaluation enters into this vocabulary as a factor that enhances the structural ordering of this field.

This is reflected in the fact that clear synonymous and antonymic expressions, usually considered as fundamental properties of the systemic organization of vocabulary, are established in the studied field precisely on the basis of the assessment. Such is, for example, the group of synonyms appetizing, tasty, tasty, savory, sweet. In the Dictionary of synonyms of the Russian language, the semantic invariant of this group is classified as follows: "One that gives pleasure when eating due to its qualities." When describing the semantics of each of these synonyms, the ratio of denotative and evaluative features is preserved, but it is important to emphasize that their specification is entirely based on evaluative elements. The denotative features common to their semantics (the idea of ​​taste, circumstances and attributes under which this sensation manifests itself - food, dish, etc.) are taken out, as it were, outside brackets, and evaluative differentiating features come to the fore. Delicious is, first of all, pleasant; delectable - gratifying; appetizing - causing desire (to eat); savory - very tasty (taking into account the explanatory transformation - very pleasant). Within this synonymous group, the adjective sweet deserves special attention. In the general dictionary, as has been shown, the denotative aspects of its meaning (the taste characteristic of sugar) are reinforced by the indication: "as opposed to salty, sour, bitter." At the same time, these signs are accompanied by an element of evaluativeness - a pleasant one. The dictionary of synonyms of the Russian language emphasizes: “sweet in this case (ie as a synonym for adjectives tasty, tasty, appetizing, savory) has a broader meaning: very good, best and therefore tasty”.

The evaluative factor turns out to be decisive in the formation of such an important systemic property of the lexical-semantic field as its hyper-hyponomic structure. Some adjectives of taste have tendencies to expand their semantic potential, which leads them to move to higher positions in the hierarchical relation. In this case, there is an increase in the systemic-structural rank of the word and an increase in its hyperonymic properties. These are the adjectives sweet and bitter. Let's note, firstly, that these words as antonyms weakened their connections with the denotative basis and strengthened the evaluative content ("pleasant" and "unpleasant"). Secondly, the assessment of positivity or negativity gained, as it were, more independence, breaking away from immediate sensation and extending its meaning to other taste impressions. These adjectives have largely lost their specialization, have expanded their semantic scope, approaching in this respect the adjectives-hyperonyms tasty and tasteless. In other words, they acquired hyperonymic properties on the basis of evaluativeness and in some cases actually began to mean "pleasant in relation to the taste" (sweet) and "unpleasant in relation to the taste" (bitter).

1.3 The theory of D.N. Shmeleva on regular (epigmatic) transfers of meanings within the lexical-semantic field

shmelev semantics spanish adjective

Shmelev in his theory considers the approach to lexical units as units, the meaning of which is determined by paradigmatic connections. This approach made it possible to concretize the concept of the "systemic" vocabulary, ie. made it possible to put forward more substantiated provisions on the different nature of systemic connections within various lexical groups.

Observations of the paradigmatic and syntagmatic connections that exist between different units of vocabulary lead to the establishment of an important regularity that determines the paradigmatic and syntagmatic fixation of the word.

This regularity can be defined as follows: the degree of paradigmatic fixation of a word as a lexical-semantic unit is inversely related to the degree of its syntagmatic fixation. In other words, the more definite the place of a word (in a given meaning) in the lexical-semantic paradigm, the less it is connected syntagmatically. And vice versa.

Paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations determine the own significance of each language unit, no matter what “level” it belongs to. At the same time, it seems obvious that the intra-lingual relations of bilateral units are not limited to their linear (syntagmatic) and associative (paradigmatic) connections.

Due to the fact that each of these units has a material "form" and a semantic "content", it is, to some extent, a concentration of these two-way connections, uniting it, on the one hand, with rows of "formally" close words, on the other - with those points of the "semantic space" with which its own semantic "content" comes into contact in one way or another. Thus, the semantic structure of each individual polysemantic word can be considered as a reflection of this type of relationship, which can be called epigmatic, or derivational (in the broadest sense of the word).

Connections that unite whole thematic groups of words, as well as condition their own semantic structure of many of them, represent one side (side of content) of those intra-lexical relations that were designated as epigmatic.

The other side of these relations (the side of the form) is due to the formal lexical connections of one word with other words.

When some meanings are qualified in dictionaries as "portable", this indicates that they are perceived in connection with some other meanings, i.e. are derivationally "linked".

It should be noted that the opposition of "bound" and "free" meanings is not absolute. The phenomenon of "simplification" of the semantic gap between words with the same basis, the so-called reverse word formation, is modified and complicated by the relations between the members of the derivational series and between the series themselves. For example:

machine> driver

typewriter> typist

And if necessary, designate a man typing on a typewriter, we get the following:

driver

In the same way, changes occur in the semantic structure of a word, as a result of which the relationship between the original and derived meanings of words changes: when the original meaning is displaced, the derivational “connectedness” of the derived meaning is gradually destroyed, thus we can talk about different degrees of “connectedness”.

In some cases, there is a relationship of "mutual connectedness" between the members of the series. So, we have no reason to establish relations of semantic derivation for different meanings of the word earth. Meanwhile, the interdependence of these values ​​is undeniable. It is confirmed by the intersection of derivational derivational series (some derivatives are simultaneously included in different series, let us compare the earth in combinations of the globe, the earth's crust, bowing to the earth), as well as diffuseness, the possibility of interpenetration of these meanings in certain contexts.

Derivational connectedness can be interpreted as motivation. The derived meaning is somehow motivated by the original meaning. Motivation, understood as the (full or partial) derivability of the meaning of a complex whole from the meaning of the parts of this whole, cannot be extended to insignificant units, i.e. by units of the phonological level. However, there is no guarantee that at the level of vocabulary we will find fully motivated units, since words are minimal significant units that have an independent meaning, and, therefore, are intended to convey all the meanings necessary in all situations , which must be equally understood by speakers and listeners, and therefore, be motivated.

Specific words are fixed in the language, but not specific combinations of words are fixed, but the formulas of these combinations. Thus, each word, in addition to the paradigmatic and syntagmatic connections that characterize its lexical meaning, is in derivational relations with other words - both along the line of semantic associations and along the line of word-formative convergence. The fact that both of these lines are not separated, but, on the contrary, merge into one "axis" of the meaning of the word is indicated, first of all, by the interconditionality of associative-semantic and word-formation moments, which manifests itself in the fact that, on the basis of certain associative-thematic fields that determine the direction of semantic transpositions of the incoming into these fields of words, word-formation "replicas" of the corresponding associations arise.

The interconnection of these moments is also indicated by cases of contamination, the so-called false etymology, the possibility of occasional rethinking of words.

The ability of a word to enter simultaneously into different lexical-semantic paradigms (and, accordingly, into syntagmatic combinations with other words) finds a correspondence in the derivational branching of a given word, i.e. in the ability of its various meanings to enter into different derivational series.

Genuine relations of derivation and convergence, based on random sound coincidences, are not separated in language itself by a clear boundary. The word conjures up misleading meanings with sounds and meanings. One of the manifestations of the general pattern is the speaker's desire to find "meaning", i.e. motivation of the new word. The sound form of words is not perceived by the speaker as something conditional, external in relation to the content of the word. In practical speech, the sound of words is often simply not noticed by the speaker. At the same time, it is essential that the less often a word is, the more perceptible its sound form (if the word is completely unfamiliar, only it is weighty). Consequently, there is also an opposite pattern. By making the sound form perceptible, we thereby force us to perceive the word as such in a new way, and therefore its meaning. Since the new is learned through the known, it is natural that the new words that arise in front of us, we try to somehow correlate with the units of the language already familiar to us. More often than not, the only way to do this is to clarify the internal motivation of the word, i.e. or the decomposition of a word into its constituent elements, or the discovery of those differential signs of the meaning of this word known to us, which formed the basis of its new (for us) semantic application. The desire to motivate a lexical sign usually manifests itself precisely when learning new words. For example: - Why is a seagull called a seagull, it does not drink tea; - No wonder the word horror comes from the snake, we have them everywhere here.

When establishing new convergences that are not characteristic of the word as such, speakers can change the sound form of the word, as if clarifying its internal form, and thereby, introducing additional expressive-semantic shades into the word. This includes cases known as "folk etymology." Among them there is a characteristic case of altering the sound form, in which only one part of the word is “motivated”. Wed spinjak (spin - explained through the back, - jacq is not motivated), goulvar (ghoul - through walking, - var is not motivated).

Accidental sound proximity of two words can be caused by the appearance of a third, combining their sound and semantic features. Phonetic-semantic contamination, as a result of which peculiar hybrid words appear, is usually possible in cases where the sound similarity of words is supported for the speaker and their semantic similarity. For example: humiliate = respect + adore;

maneuver = maneuver + regulate + veil

These examples relate to the field of individual word use and word creation. However, similar processes of semantic convergence and interaction of externally close words that occur in speech can be fixed in the language itself. In this case, the sound similarity of the word with some other words predetermines its semantic transformation.

In the first chapter, we found out that any lexical-semantic field has a certain integral feature, on the basis of which lexical units are part of this field. At the same time, this integral feature acts as a differential feature in relation to other lexico-semantic fields, i.e. separates this field from many other fields.

We also determined that the most optimal method for studying LSP is the method of component analysis, since it refers to lexicographic sources, which provides well-processed material for close analysis of facts.

In addition, in the first chapter, we identified some patterns and features that determine the paradigmatic and syntagmatic fixation of the word.

2. Evaluative basis of the epigmatic system of the lexical-semantic field of adjectives of taste in Spanish

2.1 Linguistic valuation theory

The most important feature in the assessment is that there is always a subjective factor in it that interacts with the objective one. Any value judgment presupposes a subject of judgment, i.e. the person from whom the assessment comes and its object, i.e. the item or phenomenon to which the assessment relates. The subjective component assumes a positive or negative attitude of the subject of assessment to his object ("like / dislike"), while the objective component of the assessment is guided by the own properties of objects or phenomena, on the basis of which the assessment is made. For example:

Me gusta esa pelicula (subjective assessment)

Esa es una pelicula buena, es filmada con talento (objective assessment)

The ratio of the subjective and the objective is the main problem around which the debate about the essence of values ​​and the nature of value judgments unfolds. The history of the study of evaluation is characterized by a constant struggle between two directions, one of which is based on the idea that the main thing in the evaluation is the subject in his relation to the object, and the other is considered the main one for evaluating the properties of the object. These directions seem to be essential for the study of assessment from a linguistic standpoint.

The first direction found its most explicit expression in the concepts of emotivism, where evaluative values ​​are considered only as an expression of the subject's emotions, as the subject's relation to the object. Proceeding from the subjectivity of the assessment, supporters of emotivism believe that the assessment can not be considered either true or false. It is also obvious that, according to this concept, the emotional side in the assessment is primary, and the rational side is secondary.

The opposite direction rests on the idea that estimated values ​​are to be regarded as belonging to objects, and thus they are not relationships but properties. Evaluative properties are objective reality and are inherent in actions and states of affairs. Within the framework of these concepts, it is assumed that the evaluative properties follow as a logical conclusion from the descriptive ones, since the evaluation is based on objective features of objects and phenomena. Accordingly, an emotional assessment follows from a rational one.

The further development of the ideas of two directions and the desire to find a way out of the contradictions that arise with a one-sided approach gave impetus to the study of the semantics of adjectives as the main type of feature words. So, P. Nowell-Smith, considering the question of under what conditions a given word is used and for what purpose, divides adjectives into the following groups:

A - indicate that the object has some properties that can call emotions (el vestido es comodo)

D - included in the description (el vestido es rojo)

G - denote a property that should entail some action (el vestido es vulgar).

This division is conditional, since adjectives of one group in appropriate contexts can act as functions of another.

The interaction of the subject of assessment with its object forms the basis of the classification of private assessment values ​​proposed by N.D. Arutyunova. Among the partial estimates, three groups are distinguished, which include seven digits.

The first group is sensory assessments, they are divided into:

1) sensory-gustatory (hedonistic) - what you like: agradable, sabroso, atractivo;

2) psychological, among which they differ:

a) intellectual assessments: interesante, ameno, banal;

b) emotional: alegre, deseado, agradable;

The second group is sublimated, or absolute, estimates:

1) aesthetic assessments based on the synthesis of sensory and psychological: bello, hermoso;

2) ethical assessments, implying norms: moral, bondadoso, vicioso;

The third group is rationalistic assessments associated with the practical activities of a person:

1) utilitarian: provechoso, nocivo;

2) normative: correcto, normal, sano;

3) teleological: efectivo, acertado, inutil;

As you can see, the analysis of the assessment in its own linguistic terms also relies on the understanding of the subjective and objective aspects of the meanings of the evaluative words and statements in their relationship. In value judgments, the subjective and the objective are inextricably linked, both sides increase / decrease in inverse proportion to each other.

2.2 Estimated and descriptive components of meaning. General and specific assessment

In linguistic evaluative structures, the subjective and objective properties described above are in a complex interaction. Considering expressions such as una manzana roja, redonda, madura; un cuaderno grande, antiguo, it is obvious that they are talking about those features of objects that are their own properties. On the contrary, such combinations as una manzana buena, un cuaderno admirable do not report the properties of the paintings themselves, but about those that the subject of assessment ascribes to them. The first row of adjectives can be called descriptive, and the second one is evaluative.

The question of the differentiation of two series of traits in their relationship to each other is highly controversial. Obviously, the intrinsic properties of objects are not devoid of a subjective aspect. So, a ripe apple presupposes a subjective (socially conditioned) idea of ​​this property, the big picture presupposes social stereotypes known to the subject of assessment. The most "objective" are the signs of color and shape, however, they also have a subjective aspect. On the other hand, actual evaluative definitions are based on the properties of objects and in this sense also cannot be considered purely subjective (cf. un dia hermoso, i.e. solar, no hace frio). According to the ratio of subjective and objective factors, properties are arranged on a continuous scale, at one end of which there are, for example, features such as triangular, aluminico, and at the other - actually evaluative ones: notable, magnifico.

Adjectives that combine evaluative meaning with descriptive ones form a continuous series, where these two meanings are combined in different proportions. The process characteristic of adjectives - the acquisition of qualitative features by relative adjectives - means a shift in the scale of the ratio of objective and subjective, descriptive and evaluative. Evaluative meanings especially often arise when the object of evaluation is somehow connected with the sphere of a person, a person, since almost any feature of a person can imply an assessment; Wed: a stone house - a stone look; round table - round eyes; red pencil - red nose. The qualitative meanings of such adjectives often imply a metaphor.

The ratio of evaluation and description varies depending on the syntactic position. A typical position, where descriptive and evaluative meanings are differentiated, is the predicative one, in which, as you know, feature semes are actualized and strengthened. Descriptive words that do not have a qualifying meaning “do not like” the predicative position, cf. medical ethics, but this ethic is medical.

Another typical context for evaluative values ​​is combinations with an increase in the truth of a feature, with adjectives such as verdadero, autentico, etc. For example, es un pintor (classification); es un pintor verdadero (score).

The evaluative meaning is actualized in expressive utterances with the exclamation word? Que! and similar words:? Que buena cabeza !;

The context of the question? Que? Is of the opposite nature, where the answer may contain only descriptive words, but not purely evaluative words, since the latter do not carry information about the object:? Que pelicula has mirado? - Francesa.

The problem of the relationship between description and assessment has one more aspect - this is the question of the primary or secondary character of assessment and descriptive features. Note that descriptive features turn out to be primary when it comes to evaluative conclusions. Let us compare, for example, the assessment and its motivations: Me gusta ese libro porque es interesante e divertido, but not Ese libro es interesante e divertido porque me gusta - the properties of the object motivate the assessment, but not vice versa.

The logical primacy of the descriptive feature and the secondary value of the assessment are also reflected in the order of the components of such statements as El es tonto y me lo aflige, but not Me lo aflige y es tonto.

2.3 Expression function and evaluation word substitution function

The presence of subjectivity in the assessment, on the one hand, and an indication of the properties of the object, on the other, allows us to separate the two functions of evaluative words - the function of expression and the function of substitution.

The combination of the function of expression and the function of substitution concerns mainly the general concept of “good / bad”. The notation ese libro es bueno, el es una persona mala expresses the relationship of the subject to the object of evaluation (function of expression). In another function, substitutions, the evaluative words "good / bad" indicate certain sets of properties, being, as it were, generalizing names of a class of properties with a certain sign, "+" or "-"; so, saying that el lepizero es bueno mean a number of its qualities, such as the degree of softness of the lead, that it is comfortable to hold, etc.

The function of expression in evaluative statements comes to the fore in those cases when the subject indicates with their help his relation to the object. Performing the function of substitution, general evaluative words characterize the degree of conformity or inconsistency of an object with a stereotype. Thus, un coche bueno implies that it meets all the requirements that apply to a stereotype, and un coche malo indicates a deviation from it for the worse.

2.4 Valuation truth problem

The question of the truth of evaluative statements is connected with the relationship between the subjective and the objective in the assessment, i.e. the question of whether it is generally possible to speak about the truth / falsity of an assessment, and, if so, on the basis of which truth or falsity is attributed to value judgments. This issue is resolved in different ways, depending on the general views on the assessment.

For a long time, it was generally accepted that value statements are neither true nor false, since they cannot be verified by reference to reality. This view is due to the presence of a subjective aspect in the assessment and is characteristic of the concept of subjectivity.

Classical logic assumes that every statement is true or false and every disjunction of the form "P or not P" is true (the law of the excluded middle). Thus, el tren llego and el tren no llego form a pair where one statement is true and the other is false. Let us compare, however, the statements of el tren es comodo and el tren es incomodo. It is difficult to verify their truth or falsity. It can depend both on the criteria of convenience and on the subject of the assessment. The higher the degree of subjectivity of the assessment, the more difficult it is to judge its truth. Evaluations in which the words bueno, malo, mejor, peor perform only the function of expression are neither true nor false. They don't describe anything and they don't say anything. However, the presence of a descriptive factor in the assessment, reflecting the objective aspects of objects and events, made us assume that the question of truth should be posed differently for different types of assessments. According to these concepts, value judgments about functions (cuchillo es bueno) can be considered true or false. At the same time, the solution to the question of the truth of hedonistic assessments depends on the type of utterance. The judgment ese manzana es sabrosa is not unambiguous: expressed as the opinion of one person, it, it implies something like “this apple seems tasty to me”, while the same assessment presented as a message about the state of things in the real world (“this apple is tasty "), can be true or false, since we are no longer dealing with the actual value judgment, but with the judgment about the assessment.

As you can see, the question of the truth of assessments is posed in dependence on the subject-object relationship and on the degree of subjectivity of the judgment. In this regard, a proposal was put forward that the truth of value judgments is not discrete (yes / no), but should be presented as a continuum, but in which statements are located from true to false. Statements that fit at non-endpoints of the scale can be considered vague. This point of view is based on the general concepts of fuzzy sets. Another approach to this problem is developed within the framework of the semantics of "possible worlds" and the so-called propositional attitudes, reflecting the relationship of the individual to the state of affairs. The development of these ideas led to the idea that value statements can be true or false, depending on their relationship to the "possible worlds" of the subject of the assessment. This approach seems to be the most adequate for linguistic analysis, since it draws attention to a number of linguistic features of evaluative structures proper.

In theories that include the concept of "possible worlds", it is assumed that the opinion is always expressed within the framework of the conceptual system of the native speaker. That part of this system, which is associated with assessments, includes ideas about the stereotype, the rating scale and, most importantly, the subject of assessment included in the assessment structure. The statement about the assessment implies that the corresponding opinion is included in the "possible world" of the subject and may not coincide with the opinions of other subjects in their "possible worlds". Juan considera que ese libro sea interesante - statements can be considered as true regarding the conceptual worlds of their subjects. Hence the possibility of disputes about the ratings: Me parece que la abitacion sea buena. - Y para mi es mala, with each statement being considered as true from the point of view of its subject.

2.5 Property of the evaluative predicate

1) Emotiveness (evaluativeness)

In the complex interaction of the subject of assessment and its object, a component can be distinguished, which implies the relationship of the subject to the object, considered regardless of what properties the object has. This component can be called "evaluative" or "emotive".

"Evaluation" is the main feature of the predicate r in the structure A r B and is realized in two values ​​- good / bad. This feature is present in any evaluative statements and can be combined with other features related to both the subject and the object. The cause of emotion is an object of evaluation by the subject of emotion: what I am happy with is good (from my point of view), what I am indignant with is bad. Evaluativeness comes to the fore in evaluative expressions such as? Que encanto !, in utterances that include affective words such as hermoso, perfeto, detestable, vil, etc.

It is important, however, to emphasize that evaluativeness is present in all evaluative expressions, reflecting the presence of the subject in them. For example: La manzana me parece sabrosa - the subject expresses his positive attitude towards the apple (but in addition, the word sabrosa implies that the apple has some properties that cause this relationship). Compare also: El me parece simpatico and El es una persona simpatica, in the first example the relation of the subject to the object is emphasized, i.e. the emotive aspect of the assessment, in the second - the properties of the object itself.

Allocation of the emotive component of the assessment is often conditional, it is the result of the preparation of the semantics of a word or statement in a linguistic description, since in most cases emotiveness is integral to the designation of the properties of an object.

2) Emotional and rational assessment

The question of which factor in the assessment is primary - emotional or rational, is one of the leading in axiology and often turns out to be decisive for opposing subjectivism and objectivism in the theory of assessments. For emotivists, the primary is emotion, the immediate reaction to the event, which determines the assessment. On the contrary, objectivists believe that judgments are hidden in emotions and that in any case, emotions and attitudes depend on our judgments about the state of affairs. If the opinion about him changes, then emotions also change.

In natural language there can be no purely emotional assessment, since language as such always presupposes a rational aspect; Wed a sigh as an expression of the emotion of grief and a linguistic expression? Que pena !, where there is a designation for the concept "pena". Thus, the separation of the purely rational and the purely emotional in language is conditional. Language has the means to: a) distinguish between emotional and rational assessment; b) note the different reactions of the addressee to them; c) differentiate these two types of assessment when interpreting it.

Emotional assessment is usually expressive. Rational valuation involves value judgment and expressions that take into account that nature of valuation. Compare: Considero que todo este bien and? Bien !. Rational assessment is not expressive. However, an emotional reaction is always possible to a rational assessment, if the assessment somehow affects the interests of the addressee: Te comportas de manera detestable. -? Calumnia!

From direct expressions of emotional and rational evaluation, one should distinguish its interpretations, which describe different types of evaluative relationships. In this regard, some researchers suggest talking about the language that describes emotions and the language that expresses them. Sayings like? Que dia tan hermoso !; ? Que tipo tan feo !, do not describe emotions, but express them.

Interpretation describes both rational and emotional assessment. When the assessment is presented as emotional, the emotional state of the subject is interpreted; Wed immediate assessment:? Que magnifico espectaculo! and interpretation: El sintio admiracion por el espectaculo. As rational, the assessment is interpreted by referring to the opinion or attitude of the subject: El espectaculo le parecio interesante.

Emotional and rational in the assessment implies two different sides of the subject's relationship to the object, the first - his feelings, the second - opinion.

3) Expressiveness

Expressiveness is viewed as a property not of individual words, but of statements as a whole. Expressiveness is expressed by the intonation structure and exclamation form of the sentence. Expressiveness is associated with emotional assessment and occurs when the assessment appears as a direct reaction to the event. Expressiveness is a characteristic feature of speech acts, where assessment is the main illocutionary force; Wed:? Es vergonzoso lo que has hecho! - condemnation, sign "-"; ? Eres un hijo bueno! - approval, sign "+".

Thus, the expressive and actually evaluative aspects of the meaning of a word or utterance exist independently of each other. So, in particular, an aesthetic assessment does not imply necessarily expressiveness: the utterance es bello does not entail estoy emocionado, etc., it can be a pure statement, compare: Es bello pero me deja indiferente and, conversely,? Estoy conmovido! does not mean that it is beautiful at all. Emotiveness in our understanding also does not imply necessarily expressiveness: for example, Me gusta su plan is an assessment, where emotivity is the leading factor, but there is no expressiveness.

4) Affectivity

Evaluative expressions or statements are characterized by a special property - the degree of interest of the subject. Compare, for example: Es interesante and Es estupendo; Quiero and Adoro etc. This property can be called affectivity.

Affectivity is expressed in different ways, and in particular with intensifier words. Thus, es tonto, es muy tonto and es incrediblemente tonto differ precisely in the affective position of the subject. Obviously, the degree of intensity of intensifiers and other similar units is not the same, they are located, like all other elements related to the evaluative structure, on a decreasing / increasing scale, where the degree of the subject's involvement in the statement is different, cf. Es rico and Es muy rico.

Among evaluative expressions, a special class of words stands out that contain affectivity in their meaning: admirable, imposible, espantoso, horrible, etc. In the semantics of these words, assessment is combined with intensification, and the emotive aspect of meaning comes to the fore. These words are not combined with intensifiers, since they occupy an extreme position on the quality scale and do not imply movement along this scale. You cannot say Esa pelicula es muy estupenda, but you can say Esa pelicula es completamente estupenda, since it is the extreme degree of the feature that is amplified here.

5) Intensification

A characteristic feature of the expression of the assessment is the possibility of its intensification and de-intensification, reflecting the movement along the assessment scale., Cf. bien, muy bien, extraordinariamente bien, no muy bien, bastante bien, etc. Movement occurs in the "+" zone and in the "-" zone, and in both zones intensification is possible (strengthening of the sign "good" or the sign of "bad") and de-intensification (weakening of the sign "good" or the sign "bad") ... Intensifiers make up long, loosely organized rows of units, indefinitely correlated with each other. Intensification can be expressed in the semantics of words, cf. tonto - loco, querer - adorer.

The means of intensification in natural languages ​​are extremely diverse. In addition to "pure intensifiers", there are many linguistic expressions that combine intensification with other meanings - qualitative features, affectivity, etc. Fixed expressions are widely used as intensifiers: odiar con toda el alma, es mas tonto que pichote, etc. The means of weakening the trait, de-intensification are also very diverse: Es un poco bobalicon; Es bastante amable etc. Intensification and de-intensification are asymmetric, their pragmatic characteristics and role in communication do not coincide.

Conclusion

Summing up, it should be noted that we examined the historical foundations of the theory of the lexical-semantic field, that any lexical-semantic field has a certain integral feature, on the basis of which lexical units are part of this field. At the same time, this integral feature acts as a differential feature in relation to other lexico-semantic fields, i.e. separates this field from many other fields.

We also carried out a component analysis of LSP taste, which is the most optimal method for studying LSP, since it refers to lexicographic sources, which provides well-processed material for close analysis of the facts.

In addition, we drew attention to some patterns and features that determine the paradigmatic and syntagmatic fixation of the word.

We also considered the positions of E.M. Wolf in relation to different types of assessment found in adjectives together with the primary, i.e. descriptive semantics. We found out the peculiarities of distinguishing such assessments as rational, aesthetic, hedonistic, etc.

In addition, we examined the structure of the estimated semantics of the Spanish LSP taste, gave a classification of the estimated values ​​of the Spanish LSP taste.

Posted on Allbest.ru

...

Similar documents

Development of the theory of the lexical-semantic field (LSP). Shmelev's theory of regular transfers of meanings within the lexical-semantic field. Evaluative basis of the LSP epigmatic system of adjectives of taste in Spanish. Linguistic valuation theory.

term paper added on 10/12/2013


The concept of the "decision" phenomenon in psychology and linguistics. Basic guidelines for decision making. The concept of the lexical-semantic field in the English language. The ratio of the phenomena "decision" and "choice". Near periphery of the lexical-semantic field "Decision".

term paper added 06/18/2012


Laughter as a philosophical, cultural and social phenomenon. The composition and structure of the lexical-semantic field "Lachen" / "Lächeln" in modern German, the compatibility of these nouns. The lexico-semantic group of verbs denoting the state of laughter

thesis, added 09/17/2014


Component analysis of lexical units as a method for studying semantics. Definition and structure of the semantic field, its specific properties. Component analysis of the semantic field "dwelling" (names of entire buildings) in English and Russian.

thesis, added 07/10/2015


Systems approach in linguistics. Semantic field and its main characteristics. The concept of good and evil as objects of linguistic research. The study of the semantics of good and evil on the material of the Russian language. The structure of the semantic field "good / evil".

term paper, added 10/31/2011


Analysis of the theory of the semantic field, typological properties: the relationship of elements, the regular nature of relationships between elements. The essence of the semantic field "dishes" in the modern Russian language. Features of the organization of the grouping of language elements.

term paper added on 05.24.2012


The semantic field in linguistics and the principles of its construction. Evolution of the semantic field "clothing" in the Russian language and historical changes in its microfields. Structural and semantic features of the semantic field "clothing" in the Russian and Old Russian languages.

thesis, added 10/15/2010


The concept of a field in linguistics. The role of lexical and semantic factors. Connotation and denotation. Semantic features in the intension. Curriculum Vitae of E.P. Remark. Lost generation in the novels of the writer. Lexical-semantic field "Wein".

thesis, added 04/21/2015


Research of semantic groupings in the framework of classical and cognitive linguistics. The principles of constructing the lexical-semantic field. Construction and comparative analysis of the lexical-semantic fields "freedom" and "freedom" in the Russian and English languages.

thesis, added 03/25/2011


The lexico-semantic field is a manifestation of consistency in vocabulary. Combinations of lexical units by semantic basis. The structure of the lexical-semantic field "Clothes" in S. Kinsella's novels about a shopaholic. The use of vocabulary in teaching a foreign language.