CC BY
58детям: защищала нас от старших, следила, чтобы мы в морозы тепло одевались, чтобы не выскакивали на улицу» [Там же]; «.. .именно благодаря её обаянию я и выбрал немецкий язык - она была учителем немецкого» [2; с.15]; «крепкий предметник»; «исключительный организатор»; «.у него было лишь две отметки: «четыре» и «пять». Правда, мы знали, что получив четверку, не нужно сильно обольщаться, это скорее «два», в крайнем случае -«три» [2; с. 26].
Летние поездки в пионерский лагерь помогали взрослеть, учиться самостоятельности, умению находить общий язык с новыми приятелями. «В лагерях рождалась самая крепкая дружба, понимание взаимовыручки» [2; с.36]. Но и здесь не обходилось без приключений и шалости: однажды мальчики решили, что будет очень смешно, если они заведут в палату к девочкам лагерного коня по кличке Леша. Но когда Лешу еле удалось заманить в корпус и оказалось, что он слишком громоздкий для девчоночьей палаты, тут только ребята сообразили, что их затея не такая уж остроумная и смешная («Когда я был маленький, я тоже был в пионерском лагере»).
«Было еще одно замечательное изобретение во время летних каникул - лагерь труда и отдыха» [2; с. 37]. Школьники, не нарушая законодательства, могли «.неплохо провести время и заработать на какую-нибудь свою детскую мечту» [Там же].
Дом пионеров - место (пространство), где учащийся, посещая различные кружки, мог провести своё свободное время, раскрыть свой талант, заняться любимым делом или чем-то новым. Краеведческой работой занимались с удовольствием и младшие, и старшие школьники. Сбор материалов о шефах, о сражении красных и белых на Каменном острове, визиты к ветеранам Мамско-Чуйской экспедиции, были не просто увлекательными и познавательными, но и формировали чувство долга, ответственности, сплоченности, уверенности в себе, любви к малой родине («Завтра вырастает из вчера»).
Итак, короткий рассказ являет сугубо индивидуальную художественную организацию, это особое художественное явление, нередко одна из форм лирического переживания жизни.
Время в «Сережкиных рассказах» линейное, автобиографичное, историческое (1 сентября 1979 года - 25 мая 1989 года), развернутое в пространстве. Оно - своё, родное и понятное, близкое, со своими запоминающимися приметами. Пространственные характеристики воссоздаваемых в текст событий преломляются сквозь призму авторского восприятия. Автор одновременно является и повествователем, и героем; их позиции совпадают. Пространство незамкнутое, расширение мотивируется постепенным расширением опыта героя, его познанием окружающего мира. Во многих названиях рассказов заложены пространственно-временные характеристики: «Фото на память», «День гладиолусов», «»Мы ждем новую школу», «21 кабинет», «16 пятерок за 20 минут», «Пять километров позора», «Урок в противогазе», «Когда я был маленький, я тоже был в пионерском лагере», «Пятая четверть», «Завтра вырастает из вчера».
Благодаря свойствам, характеристикам и универсальности составляющих, хронотоп становится важным структурным компонентом организации художественного текста, проявляясь в его объективном, субъективном и непосредственном содержании.
^исок литературы
1. Бахтин М.М. Вопросы литературы и эстетики. Исследования разных лет. - М.: Худож. лит., 1975. - 502 с.
2. Подрядухин С.А. Серёжкины рассказы. -Иркутск: Издательство «Сибиряк», 2015. - 44 с.
3. Тюпа В.И. «Дракон» Е. Замятина и жанровая природа рассказа // Лицо и стиль: сб. науч. ст. Екатеринбург: Изд-во Урал. ун-та, 2009
4. Щукин В.Г. О филологическом образе мира (философские заметки)// Вопросы философии. - 2004. - № 10. - С. 47- 64.
LANGUAGE SYSTEMIC RELATIONS OF LEXICAL UNITS (SYNONYMIC SERIES, ANTONYMIC PAIRS, LEXICAL-SEMANTIC FIELDS, THEMATIC GROUPS)
Bragarnik-Stankevich O.
Associate Professor, PhD, Belarusian State University
Abstract
The purpose of this article is to consider the concept of language systemacy, as well as highlight the main organizational relations of lexical units. The main systematic groupings of vocabulary are synonymous series, antonymic pairs, lexical-semantic groups, lexical-semantic and lexical-phraseological fields, thematic and associative groups, etc.
Keywords: language system, synonymous series, antonymic pairs, lexical-semantic groups, lexical-phraseological fields.
In accordance with the ideas of modern linguistics, a language system is a set of linguistic elements that are in relations and connections with each other, forming a certain unity and integrity. Each unit of the language enters the system as a part of the whole, it is connected
with other units and parts of the language system directly or indirectly (through language categories). The language system is complex and multifaceted, both in use and in development.
The purpose of this article is to consider the concept of language systemacy, as well as highlight the
main organizational relations of lexical units. The principle of language units systemacy was substantiated and introduced into linguistics by F.de Saussure. The language, according to the scientist, is "a system, all the elements of which form a whole, and the significance of one element stems only from the simultaneous presence of others" [8, p. 120].
Many researchers (V.V. Vinogradov, F.P. Filin, D.N. Shmelev, and others) point to the systematic relations in the language as a whole and in vocabulary in particular. For example, D. N. Shmelev wrote that language should be considered as a complex device. When studying it from different points, various units of the language are distinguished. Moreover, as the scientist emphasizes, "units that are studied in different sections of the language science" enter into certain relations with each other [10, p. 5]. One of the language levels is vocabulary, which "is a complex system consisting of groups of words that are different in origin, terms of use and stylistic significance" [10, p. 8].
In a general sense, a linguistic system is understood as "a multitude of linguistic elements of any natural language that are in relations and connections with each other, which forms a certain unity and integrity" [14, p. 452].
The relevance of this article is determined by the fact that language systemacy is considered as one of the fundamental problems of modern linguistics in general, and vocabulary in particular. Paradigmatically organized lexical-semantic formations are the manifestation of systematicy in the language and its lexical subsystem. As the well-known linguist M. M. Pokrovsky noted on this issue, "words and their meanings do not live a separate life, but unite (in our minds) in different groups, and the basis for the grouping is similarity or direct opposition to the main meaning" [6, p. 82].
In language lexical system words can be connected by a commonality or opposition of meaning, stylistic properties; common types of word formation, origin, attribution to active or passive vocabulary and other relations. The systematic organization of vocabulary is based on word semantics.
The system in vocabulary is manifested in the following aspects:
1) in the semantic structure of the word, reflecting its relation to reality;
2) in the word production relations, word connections with other words in their form, the relation of a word to a particular general or private lexico-grammat-ical category (parts of speech, nest of words);
3) in semantic relations and relations of a word with other words: synonymy, antonymy; associations of words into lexical-thematic groups, separate terminological series, semantic microsystems;
4) in contextual, semantic and phraseological relations of words: the presence of stable compatibility of words in speech, certain uniform types of this compatibility;
5) in combining, grouping words according to their stylistic properties [15, p. 30].
The most important manifestation of the vocabulary systemacy is recognized as the possibility of dis-
tinguishing various semantic associations in it: synonymous series, lexical-semantic groups, lexical-semantic and lexical-phraseological fields, thematic and associative groups, etc.
The synonymic series are treated as a group of synonyms united around one main member - dominant. The dominant has the most common meaning, it can usually replace other synonyms in certain contexts, and in the stylistic sense it is, as a rule, an inter-style unit. In the opinion of Z. D. Popova and I. A. Sternin, "since the denotative-significative and selectional commonality of lexical units is the basis of synonymy, the synonymic series refer to such groupings of vocabulary that are characterized by an isomorphic or close to that in their structure ratio of intralinguistic and extra-linguistic connections between lexemes. Orientation to linguistic or extra-linguistic relations for a synonymous series, in contrast to the semantic field and the lexical-semantic group, is an irrelevant sign "[7, p. 29-30].
G.S. Schur defines synonymous series as functionally invariant groups of elements that have common properties and close functions (communicative, stylistic, emotional and aesthetic) [9, p. 218-219].
D.N. Shmelev understands by synonyms "words whose diverging semantic features are only those features that can be stably implemented in certain positions" [11, p. 130].
The next type of lexical grouping is antonymic pairs, which are "microsystems which consist of two antonymic words and do not have a common name expressed by a word or phrase". The basis of the antho-nymic pair is "extra-linguistic connections of denotates and intralinguistic connections of words, and its units have contrast distribution" [7, p. 33].
A large lexical grouping in the lexical system of the language is the lexical-semantic field (LSF), which is a combination of a significant number of words in one or more parts of speech, united by a common concept (seme). The composition of the field distinguishes nuclear (most uniquely performing the function of the field and the most frequent ones) and peripheral elements.
The linguistic encyclopedic dictionary defines the lexical-semantic field as "a term used in linguistics most often to denote a set of linguistic units, united by some common (integral) lexical-semantic attribute; in other words, having some common non-trivial component of meaning. Initially, the role of such lexical units was ascribed to the units of the lexical level - words; later in linguistic writings appeared descriptions of semantic fields, which included phrases and sentences "[14, p. 379].
The basis of the semantic field structure is the generic relations of the components of this field: hypo-nyms and hyperonyms. This type of relations completely builds the field semantics. Elements having a semantic community and interconnected by systemic relationships form a field. Constituent parts that make up the field are called microfields. In this case, the vertical organization of the field is the structure of the mi-crofields, and the horizontal one is the relationship of the microfields. The composition of the field distinguishes nuclear (most uniquely performing the function
of the field and the most frequently used) and peripheral elements. With the partial overlapping of similar fields, zones of gradual transitions are formed, which is the law of the field organization of the language system. A semantic field is a collection of semantic units having a fixed similarity in some semantic layer and connected by specific semantic relations [12, p. 106].
E.I. Dibrova offers the following definition of the concept under consideration: "The lexical-semantic field is a hierarchical organization of words, united by one generic meaning and representing a certain semantic language sphere" [3, p. 78].
The onomasiological property of the semantic field is that it is based on the generic seme, or hy-persem, denoting a class of objects. The semasiological characteristic of the field is that the members of the field are related to each other by integral-differential characteristics in their values. This allows them to be combined and distinguished within the same field.
The semantic field structure itself is represented by the following components:
1) the core of the field is represented by a generic seme (hypersem). The field hypersem is a semantic component of a higher order, which organizes a semantic field deployment around itself;
2) the center of the field is formed by units, which have an integral, common with the core and adjacent units, differential meaning;
3) the periphery of the field consists of units that are the most distant in meaning from the core, the generic term here is pushed into the category of potential or probabilistic semantics. Peripheral units may have contextual meaning if the field is built on a specific text. Usually, peripheral field units can come into contact with other semantic fields, forming the lexical-semantic continuity of the language system.
I.I. Chumak distinguished the following properties of LSF:
1. LSF is formed by many meanings that have at least one common component (a common semantic attribute). This component is usually expressed as an ar-chilexeme (hyperlexeme), i.e. lexeme with the most general meaning.
2. Microfields (semantic associations), which members are connected by an integral attribute, usually expressed by the dominant microfield (nuclear lexeme), are distinguished in the LSF. The external structure of the microfield is formed by the nucleus and several domains, some of which can be located in close proximity to the nucleus (near periphery), and others on the periphery of the microfield (distant periphery).
3. The internal structure of the field is a set of correlations, which link semantic units.
4. The field is characterized by the interdependence of elements, sometimes appearing in the form of interchangeability of these elements.
5. LSFs are not isolated from each other. Each word of the language is included in a particular LSF, and, most often, due to its polysemy, not only in one.
6. One LSF can be included in another field of a higher level [2, p. 12].
L.M. Vasiliev understood the lexical-semantic field is as a paradigmatic structure. Lexical units as
components of such a structure are interconnected by opposing relations, while the obligatory (nuclear) and optional (peripheral) places in such a structure are occupied by word classes united by one or another semantic category or subcategory [13].
A large lexical group is the thematic group, which is defined as a set of units of one or different parts of speech, united by one area of activity, one situation, topic. The basis of the thematic group are extra-linguistic relations of objects and phenomena. According to L.M. Vasiliev, the thematic groups "should include only such classes of words that are united by the same typical situation or one topic, but a common identifying (nuclear) seme is not mandatory for them" [13, p. 105]. An important feature of a thematic group is the diversity of relations between its members or their absence. The identifier of a topic group is usually a word or phrase that is not part of the group.
In the dictionary of O.S. Akhmanova, a thematic group is defined as follows: "words on the basis of semantic connections are combined into a thematic series, and they are contrasted to each other according to one semantic features with a commonality of others" [1, p. 118].
One of the first to introduce the concept of "thematic group" was F. P. Filin, who understood it as "... a group of words united on the basis of a classification of the realities themselves, and not of lexical-semantic relations. Replacing one of the words of a thematic group with another over time does not lead to a change in the meaning, stylistic coloring of the words of the same group, which indicates the almost complete absence of semantic connections between the words of the group in the language at the certain stage of its development "[5, p. 526].
I. V. Kremenetskaya gives the following three main criteria for combining words into a thematic group. Words can be combined in one thematic group, if there are:
1) relations between objects denoted with words;
2) relations between these words, such as genus-species, part-whole;
3) related contexts [4, p. 95].
Thus, the vocabulary is characterized by a systematic organization. The main systematic groupings of vocabulary are synonymous series, antonymic pairs, lexical-semantic groups, lexical-semantic and lexical-phraseological fields, thematic and associative groups, etc.
References
1. Akhmanova, O.S. Dictionary of linguistic terms / O.S. Akhmanova. - Ed. 2nd. -M.: Publishing house of the Soviet encyclopedia, 1969. - 608 p.
2. Chumak-Jun, I.I. The lexical and semantic field of color in the language of poetry; I.A. Bunina: composition and structure, functioning: phd thesis / I.I. Chumak-Run. - Kiev, 1996. - 27 p.
3. Dibrova, E.I. Modern Russian: Theory. Analysis of language units: / E.I. Dibrova. - M.: Academia, 2008.
4. Kremenetskaya, I.V. Thematic group as a paradigmatic association of words / I.V. Kremenetskaya // Lingua mobilis. - 2009. - No. 3 (17). - P. 94 - 98.
5. Philin, F.P. On the lexical-semantic groups of words / F.P. Philin // Essays on the theory of linguistics.
- M.: Nauka, 1982. - P. 227 - 239.
6. Pokrovsky, M.M. Selected works on linguistics / M.M. Pokrovsky. - M.: Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1959. - 382 p.
7. Popova, Z.D. Field structures in the language system / Z.D. Popova, I.A. Sternin, E.I. Belyaeva et al.
- Voronezh: Publishing House of Voronezh, Univ., 1989. - 196 p.
8. Saussure, f de. The course of general linguistics / F. de Saussure // Transactions in Linguistics. - M.: Nauka, 1977. - 695 p.
9. Schur, G.S. Field Theory in Linguistics / G.S. Schur. - M.: Nauka, 1974.- 254 p.
10. Shafikov, S.G. The theory of semantic field and component semantics of its units / S.G. Shafikov. -Ufa: Publishing House of BashSU, 1999. - 92 p.
11. Shmelev, D.N. Problems of semantic analysis of vocabulary / D.N. Shmelev. - M.: Publishing house LKI, 2008. - 280 p.
12. Varina, V.G. Lexical semantics and the internal form of a linguistic sign / V.G. Varina. - M.: Nauka, 2002. - 308 p.
13. Vasiliev, L.M. Theory of Semantic Fields / L.M. Vasiliev // Questions of Linguistics, 1971. - No. 5.
14. Yartseva, V.N. Linguistic Encyclopedic Dictionary / V.N. Yartseva. - M.: Russian language, 1990. - 687 p.
15. Zinovieva, E.I. The main problems of describing vocabulary in the aspect of Russian as a foreign language. Textbook / E.I. Zinovieva / Chief ed. K.A. Rogova. - Ed. 2nd, add. - SPb.: Filol. Faculty of St. Petersburg State University, 2005.
ОСОБЕННОСТИ ПЕРЕВОДА ЧЕТЫРЕХ ВИДОВ АСПЕКТА НА ПРИМЕРЕ МУЛЬТВИЛЬМА
«КОРОЛЬ ЛЕВ»
Булатбаева К.Р.
Карагандинский государственный университет им. Е.А. Букетова, г. Караганда, Республика Казахстан магистрант факультета иностранных языков (Научный руководитель - канд. филол. наук, ассоциированный профессор Какжанова Ф.А.)
FEATURES OF THE TRANSLATION OF FOUR TYPES OF ASPECT ON THE EXAMPLE OF THE
CARTOON «LION KING»
Bulatbayeva K.
Academician Y.A. Buketov Karaganda State University,
Karaganda, Kazakhstan student of master degree of foreign languages faculty (Supervisor - candidate of philological sciences, associate professor
Kakzhanova F.)
Аннотация
Аспектуальные (видовые) значения глагола описывают особенности развертывания ситуации во времени (длительность, повторяемость, ограниченность) или выделяют те или иные временные части и фазы ситуации (к примеру, начальную стадию, действие в период определенного времени, результат). Вид выражает аспектуальные характеристики действия в противоположных моментах, а именно: завершенность/незавершенность, процессуальность/мгновенность, однократность/многократность. В данной статье мы рассмотрим способы перевода с английского языка на русский язык четырех основных категорий вида глагола на примере мультипликационного фильма «Король Лев» («Lion King»).
Abstract
Aspectual (form) meanings of the verb describe the specifics of the situation's unfolding in time (duration, repeatability, limitation) or highlight certain temporal parts and phases of the situation (for example, the initial stage, action during a certain time period, result). The view expresses the aspectual characteristics of the action in opposite moments, namely: completeness / incompleteness, processuality / instantaneous, single / multiple. In this article we will look at ways of translating from English into Russian the four main categories of the type of verb using the animated film "The Lion King" as an example.
Ключевые слова: аспекты, глагол, неопределенный, длительный, совершенный, длительно-совершенный, король лев, перевод.
Keywords: aspects, verb, indefinite, continuous, perfect, perfect-continuous, lion king, translation.
Актуальность темы статьи обусловлена тем, что выделение категории вида глагола в английском языке и способ его перевода на русский язык всегда был и остается дискуссионным вопросом. Лингвисты по-разному трактуют понятие вида ан-
глийского глагола. И вопрос его правильной передачи с одного языка на другой во многом зависит от правильности понимания происходящего действия в первоисточнике и его передачи для заинтересованной аудитории.
