XII Международная студенческая научная конференция Студенческий научный форум - 2020

New problems in the field of the phraseology, acting from the outside, demand a serious reorientation in this linguistic discipline. After, so – called, “cognitive turn” in linguistics the condition and a structure of knowledge of various types are considered exclusively in linguistic aspect. According to Dobrovolsky’s last proceedings this new aspect has appeared for the general problem lexicon extremely relevant, has led to expansion metalinguistical toolbox lexical semantics, has introduced many alternative decisions at structurization of the lexicon.

Modeling of semantic attitudes in paremy by means of the conceptual device of the cognitive linguistics.

Borders of a class of paremies are based on an individual stock of proverbs of the speaker. The native speaker operates with subjective quantity of proverbs on which periphery ambivalent decisions are possible.

At first it is necessary to acquire firmly, that phraseological units represent lexicalized verbal combinations, which essentially gaining in the mental lexicon as the whole and don’t shown every time. Reserves of human memory and its operative capacity are limited. The description of phraseological systems as separate language module in traditional linguistics has cognitive – motivational reasons: it is more purposeful and economical for cognitive processings of language expressions is accumulation of phraseological units as units of the lexicon. If corresponding attributes in traditional phraseological research are rechecked on the “class forming” to the status and, proceeding from this prospect, evolve and are sorted, so in cognitive theories of phraseology they will be considered as attributes, any of which is not necessary or sufficient to found a category of paremies.

In its center there is a proverb, while sayings, aphorisms, maxims, slogans etc. are form periphery. The category “paremy” is based on the concept of “family similarity” that means various combinations of attributes, form a basis for assignment of expression of the idiomatic category. In the sum they establish the abstract standard of paremies. Deviations from paremies are not just possible , but moreover, normal. The paremy does not form any homogeneous class, it includes a plenty of elements which can be qualified as a radial category.

Properties of the radial category

It has the center and periphery;

It has representatives – prototypes, which are defined on the basis of several attributes;

3) These attributes are in related attitudes with each other and are penchant for gradation.

“Class forming” attribute

Though the idea of that attribute is doubtful, and because of this the usual language carrier does not know corresponding concepts and cannot know, which criterion to use to identify the paremy.

In the majority of languages the class of free word – combinations opposed to a class of the phraseological word – combinations defined as «the unproductive word – combinations functioning as ready units, i.e. taken outside by the speaker in a stream of speech as known steady connections of words» [3; 202]. These are word – combinations of the type in English:

in the long run (вконечномсчете) [4; 53]

I’myourman (я к вашим услугам) [5; 86]

Unlike free word – combinations phraseological units are inherent (though in a various degree) by integrity, stability, equivalence to a word, and also by the syntactic monofunctionality. The functional – semantic affinity of a phraseological unit to a word is also clearly seen in the following phenomenon: phraseological combinations enter into the lexical – semantic oppositions underlying various system of groupings of lexicon (synonymic, antonymic, thematic, etc.), replacing absent lexemes with the same value in language. The following fact is indicative to the same: phraseological units, as well as words, can have the connected values, i.e. they can be used only with the certain circle of words or even with a word [1; 48].

Many linguists (A.V.Kооnin, V.L.Arkhangelsky, V.P.Zhukov, A.G.Nazaryan) in the researches put forward the thesis about inadequacy of phraseological and lexical semantics as phraseological value represents the phenomenon which is more complex, than lexical value. In this connection, the linguistic typology of values has replenished with a new taxonomical unit – phraseological value.

In the literature, devoted to phraseological research, a lot of attention is given to a parity and differences in structure of phraseological and lexical values (ОсловообразовательномзначенииСЗ – см. Раздел 1, 1.1.). A.G.Nazaryan sees these differences in all three components of value: in the denotational plan phraseological semantics is narrower and more particularly lexical, on a line of significate the difference is shown in that phraseological units express aspectual concepts, and lexical units – gender concepts, on a line of connotation – the connotational component in phraseological units, unlike words, is dominating [2]. Other linguists explain specificity of phraseological semantics in a different way: the contradiction between real meaning of phraseological units and etymological meaning of its components (Zhukov), various character of internal form of phraseological units and words (Rayhshreyn), the new elementary senses inherent only phraseological units as a language sign of an extralinguistic situation, stability of phraseological meaning [1; 307].

The most well known definition of phraseological value is the definition given by A.V.Kооnin: «Phraseological value is the invariant information expressed semantically complicated, by differently executed units of language, not formed on generating structural – semantic models of variable combinations of words» [4; 21]. A.M. Meleroich offers his own treatment of phraseological meaning: “Phraseological value is the language value of the special type which has fixed after steady combination of words, to some extent abstracted from semantics of the language elements forming the form of its expression, and as a result it not distributed directly and completely between words which are a part of the phrase”. Hence, as, first, phraseological units, as well as lexical units, express concepts, secondly, as meaning is «concept, connected by a sign», thirdly, in spite of the fact that lexical unit represents unadulterated executed sign, and phraseological unit – separately executed, so we can say, that phraseological unit’s meaning nevertheless has lexical character.

The problem of a parity of «figurative language and a figurative idea» in phraseological combinations has been considered by R.Gibbs. In connection with the fact, that separate components, which are able to be decomposed to phraseological units, brings the contribution to a general meaning of such expressions; value of each component is extracted and then it is combined with values of other components according to syntactic rules of language. On the other hand, strict elemental analysis of indecomposable phraseological combinations (for example, back number, big gun, etc.) badly helps to understand transferred meaning of such expressions. R.Gibbs comes to the conclusion, that people understand many phraseological units owing to the base knowledge of metaphoriticy (permanent metaphorical knowledge). At the same time, R.Gibbs emphasizes, that different levels of understanding of figurative expressions are found, and extraction of deep conceptual knowledge is not always possible, especially with dead metaphors, though it, undoubtedly, is used to understand why it is spoken so, not in the other way [3; 442 -443].

For deeper studying the semantics of phraseological combinations it is necessary to allocate various kinds of semes: usual, occasional, integrated and differential, nuclear and peripheral, explicit and implicit, constant and likelihood, positive and negative, etc. In particular, A.B.Kunin writes about prototypical sems, entering into compound of phraseological units with the strongly pronounced internal form [5; 194]. In phraseological combination back number «отсталыйчеловек» prototypical sems “old” and “number” (newspapers, magazine) are isolated, in phraseological combination dirty dog “подлец” – “dirty” and “dog”, these phraseological units contain a negative estimation. Given phraseological units have been formed according to certain prototypical situation which was gradually forgotten, but expressions continue to function. Example of a phraseological unit with a positive estimation is the combination big gun «важнаяперсона» in which prototypical sems “big” and “gun” are isolated. In English phraseology we can also find phrases with mixed estimation (negative and positive simultaneously): rough diamond «необработанныйалмаз» - about the person possessing latent, not revealed advantages. The comparative analysis of a phraseological combination and its prototype enables to establish in dynamics the semic structure of a phraseological unit and hierarchy peculiar to it.

Categorization during the phrase forming, consist of formation perceptional gestalt formations with the subsequent integration of a category of reflected object and a category of the object nominated by a derivative, has its own specificity.

For language objectification of the conceptual structure the linguistic sign, which use in a context of phraseological verbalization leads to “collision” of two cognitive formations, is selected: conceptual structure of the object requiring a phraseological nomination, and conceptual structure of language sign selected for verbal of reflected object [2; 88 - 89].

Semantic variants of the categorical attributes of different levels are presented, in opinion of some linguists (Alefirenko, Popova, Sternin, Boldyrev, Dekatova) various types of sems. So, during phraseologisation of combination нимногонимало categories «average quantity by something» and «enough something» are integrated, being subcategories of a global category “quantity”. At a semantic level the result of this process is shown in the following phenomena: the archeseme of the phraseological unit becomt prototypes archesems of words – components of this phraseological unit.

One of the primary aims of cognitive linguistics is research of the «process of reflection and fixing of the basic stages of evolution of the corresponding concept in the semic structure of the word» [3]. Thus it is important to remember, there is no direct correlation between conceptual system and system of language, i.e. the system of thinking is duplicated by the system of language which, repeating the basic structural features of the first system, at the same time, essentially differs from it. At a certain stage of knowledge of the world the system of thinking and system of language prove themselves as «two codes mutually assuming and supplementing each other» [2].

Литература

Красных В.В. Этнопсихолингвистика и лингвокультуралогия. М.: Гнозис, 2002. -284 с.

Мурясов Р.З. Опыт анализа оценочного высказывания / Р.З. Мурясов, А.С. Самигуллина, А.Л. Федорова // Вопросы языкознания. – 2004. - №5 – с. 68 – 79.

Попова З.Д. Общее языкознание. Учебное пособие / З.Д. Попова, И.А. Стернин. – 2-е изд., перераб. и доп. –М.: АСТ: Восток – Запад, 2007. – 408 с.

Sagit Shafikov. Ural – Batur. // Ватандаш – соотечественник – compatriot, 2001, №1, 116 – 130 б.

Sagit Shafikov. Ural – Batur. // Ватандаш – соотечественник – compatriot, 2001, №2, 136 - 162 б.

Код для цитирования: Скопировать