Е, repuls

Dictionaries express it by special remarks preceding definitions, like diminutive ning, or by highly evaluative words used in definitions themselves, like in r 'arousing aversion от disgust'.

Stylistic reference is also part of а word meaning, it refers the word to а сегта|п

'Й register. Words with по particular stylistic reference make up the group of neutral ч,

that are opposed to colloquial ап4 bookish, or literary words that are usually ргеве„т with corresponding notes in а dictionary. There are different subclassifications for „

neutral words. Colloquial words are usually subdivided into common colloquial, вт „

ng professional, jargon and dialectal words. Bookish words may be subdivided into т,~п „„т

literary, sctentiJic, poetic and archaisms, barbarisms and jorеign words.

l4 Metbodeof ooslysie of word meaniosl

The denotational component of word meaning can be seen as а complex cluster of вата|| units — semantic components, or semes organized in а componential structure. Яоат authors also speak about semantic features, or semantic markers. The ййетепе between these terms is that 'semantic components' single out atoms of meaning in actual lexical items, while 'semantic features' do that from the point of view of the overall structure of language in abstraction. So, the semantic structure of а whole language rnay be spoken of as having а pattern of semantic features.

For example, the structure of any language contains the semantic feature [ANIMATE], This semantic feature, like any обжег, may have а positive or negative 'value'. The word table, for example, may be characterized as having а negative value of this feature ап4 he graphically presented as [ — ANIMATE] but the word cat has а positive value of that feature: [+ANIMATE].

The procedure of 'atomization' of meaning is known as componential analysis. This чету important method of linguistic investigation, which appeared in the middle of the 50's and was developed in the 60's and 70's, can be illustrated by words denoting human beings — ттытт, wotnan, boy and girl. All these words may be described with а positive value of the semantic feature [+HUMAN] and some words have more features with different values: [MALE] and [ADULT]. The word tnan can be described as [+НБМАХ] [+ADULT] [+MALE], the word boy as [+HUMAN] [ — ADULT] [+MALE], woman as [+HUMAN) [+ADULT] [ — МАМЕ] and girl as [+HUMAN] [ — АЙШЕТ] and [— MALE].

In these words denoting human beings some обжег features may be singled out, for example, [ANIMATE] or [ORGANIC] that are more general and abstract than the [HUMAN] mentioned above. Yet, in componential analysis only the co

mmon component which is lowest in the hierarchy is taken into consideration, and this principle is known ав the redundancy rule.

Componential analysis in many varieties turned out to be very efficient in studies of word meaning even though separating word meaning into semantic components во far does not allow us to sort out the smallest semantic building blocks (semantic universals) whos~ different assemblinu is believe tn л|.....|"н.

;xplain many things about word meaning, such as instability, change of meaning, iy, typical and non typical representatives of а class. Scholars have proven that: components, as they are presented in the above examples, form only а small part еап|пя that words possess.

ys, пипу scholars in the new frame of cognitive semantics which is part of а e science believe that meanings are not fixed in our mind as fixed semantic ents. They rather prefer to speak about word's semantic properties that merge, another. What is called, for example, а bowl in one situation, may be called а another. Humans understand each олег not by learning а structure of semantic ents or definitions or any other form but by working with typical examples, pes, and those that have sufficient semantic properties can be regarded as в of the same category. А prototypical bird, for example, like а robin, has wings, ail, а beak, and can fly. An ostrich, however, is good at running but cannot fly, it has feathers, wings and а beak, and that is why it may still qualify as а bird, not а prototypical one. А kiwi which доев not have visible wings is still less 1 for being called а bird though due to воле of its properties we still call it а bird.

mding meaning as а fuzzy set of semantic properties (а prototype approach) has 's, especially in explaning language-cross differences in meanings of correlative Differen language communities choose different samples as prototypes and this I to differences in meaning among correlative words that may be explicated in the ns (though not always), or may be revealed in differences of frequency of their typical bird for Englishmen is и robirt, while for Russians it is а sparrow or а 'а robin' is far more frequently used in English than in Russian. According to у definitions а typical house for English speaking people is 'а building that living quarters for one т а /еи /ать!!ев ', а typical house in Russian does not semantic property 'for one or а few families', it is just 'а building for living (or in) and people living in it'. 'жилое [или для учреждения] здание, а также

ивущие в нем'.

totype approach to word meaning has its limitations, however. For some words, bachelor or bird, there is а high level of agreement on which prototypical:s constitute the essential part of their meaning. For many others, like ideN, small there is по such agreement, and linguistic description of them on the basis of es becomes as problematic as on the basis of

componential analysis. And then, ~е view of word meaning as а fuzzy set of semantic properties seems to be more, it loses а lot in the heuristic power of the rigid methods used in structural ies to word meaning.

~ecial methods are worked out to study connotational meaning, too. 1п 1957 iod and his collegues proposed а method of measuring meaning affections — а с evaluative component of word meaning, and they called it the method of: 41йегепйа!. Studying the reactions of subjects to а number of questions like 'Is

;xplain many things about word meaning, such as instability, change of meaning, iy, typical and non typical representatives of а class. Scholars have proven that: components, as they are presented in the above examples, form only а small part еап|пя that words possess.

ys, пипу scholars in the new frame of cognitive semantics which is part of а e science believe that meanings are not fixed in our mind as fixed semantic ents. They rather prefer to speak about word's semantic properties that merge, another. What is called, for example, а bowl in one situation, may be called а another. Humans understand each олег not by learning а structure of semantic ents or definitions or any other form but by working with typical examples, pes, and those that have sufficient semantic properties can be regarded as в of the same category. А prototypical bird, for example, like а robin, has wings, ail, а beak, and can fly. An ostrich, however, is good at running but cannot fly, it has feathers, wings and а beak, and that is why it may still qualify as а bird, not а prototypical one. А kiwi which доев not have visible wings is still less 1 for being called а bird though due to воле of its properties we still call it а bird.

mding meaning as а fuzzy set of semantic properties (а prototype approach) has 's, especially in explaning language-cross differences in meanings of correlative Differen language communities choose different samples as prototypes and this I to differences in meaning among correlative words that may be explicated in the ns (though not always), or may be revealed in differences of frequency of their typical bird for Englishmen is и robirt, while for Russians it is а sparrow or а 'а robin' is far more frequently used in English than in Russian. According to у definitions а typical house for English speaking people is 'а building that living quarters for one т а /еи /ать!!ев ', а typical house in Russian does not semantic property 'for one or а few families', it is just 'а building for living (or in) and people living in it'. 'жилое [или для учреждения] здание, а также

ивущие в нем'.

totype approach to word meaning has its limitations, however. For some words, bachelor or bird, there is а high level of agreement on which prototypical:s constitute the essential part of their meaning. For many others, like ideN, small there is по such agreement, and linguistic description of them on the basis of es becomes as problematic as on the basis of

componential analysis. And then, ~е view of word meaning as а fuzzy set of semantic properties seems to be more, it loses а lot in the heuristic power of the rigid methods used in structural ies to word meaning.

~ecial methods are worked out to study connotational meaning, too. 1п 1957 iod and his collegues proposed а method of measuring meaning affections — а с evaluative component of word meaning, and they called it the method of: 41йегепйа!. Studying the reactions of subjects to а number of questions like 'Is

it good or bad? Pleasant or unpleasant? Small or large? ~Ге/ or йу? ' and registering ф~ answers on а seven point scale, like: good — — — — — — — bad,

pleasant — — — — — — — «пр!еаза М,

Поиск по сайту: