SEMANTIC FIELD AND LEXICAL SYSTEM (ON THE MATERIALS OF AZERBAIJANI AND RUSSIAN)

ABSTRACT

In the modern stage of linguistic development, studies based on the “semantic field” method are of great importance in determining the national mentality and the “cultural code” of the nation in terms of maximizing understanding. The study of language in terms of the “semantic field” creates conditions for analyzing the existing goals from different aspects during the communication process in the era of globalization. Considering that the lexical-semantic field plays a fundamental role in creating a system, when determining the semantics of a word in the dictionary, as well as within the text, we have regularly gone beyond the linguistic framework and turned to different aspects of literary studies, culturology, psychology, etc.

All this determines the prospects for studying the semantic field theory and its development dynamics in modern linguistics. The relevance of the current article also lies in the fact that during the study, the works of both local and foreign researchers on semantics and lexicology were addressed.

АННОТАЦИЯ

На современном этапе развития языка исследования, основанные на методе «семантического поля», имеют большое значение для определения национального менталитета и «культурного кода» нации с точки зрения максимизации взаимопонимания. Изучение языка в терминах «семантического поля» создаёт условия для анализа существующих целей с разных сторон в процессе коммуникации в эпоху глобализации. Учитывая, что лексико-семантическое поле играет основополагающую роль в создании системы, при определении семантики слова как в словаре, так и в тексте мы неоднократно выходили за рамки лингвистики и обращались к различным аспектам литературоведения, культурологии, психологии и т. д.

Всё это определяет перспективы изучения теории семантического поля и динамики её развития в современной лингвистике. Актуальность статьи заключается также в том, что в ходе исследования были рассмотрены труды как отечественных, так и зарубежных исследователей по семантике и лексикологии.

Keywords: semantic field; lexical system; core of the field; micro fields; periphery; Azerbaijani; Russian. 

Ключевые слова: семантическое поле; лексическая система; ядро поля; микрополя; периферия; азербайджанский язык; русский язык.

As we know, F. de Saussure emphasized the ideas about language and systematicity, and this idea already reflects a consistent position in modern linguistics. The description of the lexicon as a multifaceted, on the one hand, and as a systemic object, on the other hand, explains its existence as a distinct, but interconnected subsystem. According to most researchers, the study of the systematic relationship of lexical composition led to the emergence of the “lexical-semantic field theory”. Although in modern linguistics the study of this concept is accompanied by different methodological approaches and theoretical concepts, the main system-forming unit of the language is considered the lexical-semantic field. Within it, the semasiological and onomasiological aspects of the language intersect. This phenomenon occurs because the separation of the lexical-semantic field from the vocabulary of the language is carried out in two ways:

• The first method is related to the separation of general meaningful categories (quantity, place, movement, etc.) and the selection of multiform lexical units that differentially incorporate its various aspects. This method is characterized as onomasiological. Because onomasiology arises from an idea and studies its expressions.
• The second method assumes the selection of lexical units with a common invariant meaning in the semantic field and their combination (around blocks). We understood it as a semasiological aspect. Onomasiology and semasiology refer to different aspects of the analysis of language units:
• The path from sound to content, which is related to the meaning of the word, is called semasiology;
• The path from content to expression, which predicts the selection of words that convey a specific meaning, is called onomasiology.

The systematicity and sociality of language are interconnected and are conditioned by two possible directions in science: external sociolinguistics and internal semantic system. Linguists have long realized that in order to understand the realities surrounding us, it is necessary to study them within a system. First of all, this idea was reflected in the works of the famous scientist F. de Saussure: “Language is a system that obeys its own rules” [3]. The prof. N.Jafarov, speaking about the “materials” of the theory of language, based on F.de Saussure, puts forward the following idea: “The material of linguistics consists of all the facts of human speech activity, including both the developed form, or “literary language”, and the form of ordinary colloquial language. In general, all forms of expression, whether in primitive peoples or in civilized nations; whether in times of prosperity or archaic of this or that language, as well as in times of its crisis – at each stage” [2, p. 5].

The semantic field includes word combinations and lexical means belonging to different parts of speech, united by a common meaning and expressing selected semantic categories at the lexical level. The field is dominant in its structure. It is the main element that forms the semantic contours and boundaries of the field. That is why each lexical-semantic field has its own, individual composition or structure. Sometimes it is called the core by researchers. According to the researcher I.A.Sternin, very often core units differ from the periphery due to their differential functions and signs, because they (peripheral units) do not have the listed functions. When we say differential signs of semantics, we mean that they have some meaning. However, these signs do not necessarily condition the inclusion of the word in the core. Differentiation can act not as a main, but as an additional factor in the inclusion of units into the core. “The main sememes and archisememes will always belong to the “core”. The core signs are quite bright and can be characterized as follows: 1) The core sememe denotes a permanent sign of the subject. 2) The core sememe denotes a mandatory, indelible sign of the subject” [4, pp. 63-66].

Thus, in the lexical-semantic field there is a core containing the name of the field. The choice of lexeme or groups of lexemes for the name of the field is very important. The core of the field consists of lexemes that are bright, high frequency, general in meaning, stylistically neutral, emotionally-expressive and without temporal limitations, and minimally dependent on the context. The researcher can choose any lexeme as the core, but if the lexeme is chosen unsuccessfully and cannot attract a large number of lexemes, the results of the research will be very poor. In our opinion, in order to create a large lexical-semantic field, the nuclear lexemes should reflect the following features:

1) They must be sufficiently bright;

2) They must have a wide range of compatibility;

3) They must have permanent; obligatory and indelible features.

Another problem arises when trying to group all the units of the lexical system into areas, groups and other small-scale parts. In addition to the main - core lexemes of the system, there is always a widespread periphery, which also includes lexemes from other lexical-semantic groups that can only be included in the initial lexeme composition due to separate sememes. The transition from the core to the periphery is also carried out gradually - peripheral zones are determined, which are at different distances from the core. In this regard, the ideas about the periphery attract our attention: “The periphery is heterogeneous in terms of meaning. The absence of all the features characteristic of the core necessitates the concentration of lexemes in the “periphery”. The absence of one of the features we have listed places the lexical unit in the “near” periphery; the absence of all of them places it in the “far” periphery. Secondary and hidden semantics will belong to the periphery” [4, pp. 65-66].

As a result, we conclude that the passive lexicon of the vocabulary in the lexical-semantic field can be attributed to the periphery. The periphery creates instability for each subsystem, but it is precisely considered the basis for combining each subsystem into a single system. The main features of lexemes belonging to the near periphery are:

1. Low frequency in comparison with “core” and “center”;

2. Stylistically neutral;

3. Minimal context dependency;

4. No restrictions on use.

The far periphery includes both unambiguous and ambiguous lexical units, but not very frequently. In contrast to what we have mentioned above, this group of words includes lexemes that are more emotionally expressive and stylistically limited. Far periphery units are characterized by their low frequency, most of the ambiguous lexemes do not enter the field with their main meanings, and most of the words have a bright stylistic and emotionally expressive semantics. The far periphery also includes obsolete words, because they are functional or are used in a derived meaning other than the main meaning. This part of the field also includes lexemes that belong to another lexical-semantic group in the main meaning, but in a relevant (appropriate) meaning they constitute a periphery for the field under study in terms of meaning structure.

Referring to linguistic dictionaries, the concept of the “center” of a semantic field can be characterized as follows: “The core and the units that are united with each other by common, integral meanings; and the units that are separated from them by differential features are called “centers”” [5]. In short, the field consists of a core with near, far, and outer periphery, as well as field fragments.

Different lexical-semantic fields can differ in the number of their components and the degree of their interconnection with each other. This follows from the process of word composition formation. For many years, word semantics has absorbed various beliefs and misconceptions. All these semantic components, together with modern scientific-logical concepts, create an unusual connection. Vocabulary does not recognize division into parts from a logical-structural point of view. If we look at how these fields of the lexicon are organized, we will see that one field is wide and sufficiently filled, but the other is almost empty.

Researcher M.A.Bocharova, based on the famous Russian linguist R.Denisov, puts forward the idea that “there are “inclusion” relationships between lexical-semantic groups and semantic fields, and since lexical-semantic groups are within the semantic field, they can be characterized as micro fields. Thus, the semantic field will be considered a set of micro fields” [1, p. 64]. For example, he points out that the semantic field of “неискренность” (insincere behavior) includes several micro fields (“lie”, “slander”, “cruelty”, “betrayal”, “fraud, deceit”, “flattery”, “deception”, “hypocrisy”), each of which is divided into classes and subclasses. Then he emphasizes a number of clarifying features to define the “semantic field”: “breadth, semantic attraction (attraction); integrity; regularity; mutual determination (when one element of the field is very close to another); completeness; relative freedom and boundaries; continuity” [1, pp. 64-65].

The definition of the center and periphery is also of fundamental nature for the semantic field. At least three dimensions are represented in the semantic field: 1) Syntagmatic 2) Paradigmatic 3) Associative derivation [1, pp. 64-65]. Although the listed facts are intended for Slavic languages, they are not alien to the Azerbaijani language, which is part of the Turkic group of languages. Because the syntagmatic connection determines the connection of words within the same speech segment. For example; “Ağacların qara kölgələri getdikcə uzanırdı” (The black shadows of the trees were getting longer). In this sentence, words and word groups (shadow, black shadow, shadows of the trees) are syntagmatically connected.

Studying the semantic field, we encounter such questions as what essences and entities this field serves to name, what defined realities it reflects. The main sign for the field is the determination of the core, the center and other components that form the periphery based on them. The elements included in the core act as the leading components of the field. These elements are considered as the leading components because “they are maximally specialized to express the general concept, the invariant meaning carried by the field” [6, p. 58]. According to prof. I.Tahirov, the Russian linguist V.G.Admoni takes a pair as a basis for contrasting intra-field relations: “The completeness and intensity of signs (for the center), the gradual weakening of that completeness and intensity (for the periphery)” [6, p. 55]. Verbs in the mentioned field can be included in the lexical units of other fields. This indicates that semantic fields are closely interconnected. For example, the verb “cummaq” (to rush) can mean “vurmaq” (to hit) in a specific contextual situation:

Bəy əsəbi halda əlində qamçı ilə nökərin üstünə cumdu.

(In a state of anger, the master rushed at the servant with a whip in his hand. (to hit him))

Summarizing the ideas, the multifaceted nature of the “center-periphery” opposition can be noted by the following features:

- maximum concentration of specific features (in the center) and their dilution in the periphery;

- concentration of connections at one point (in the center) - their weakening in the periphery;

- high specialization of a specific language tool or system of tools (in the center) - reduced role in the implementation of the general semantic function (in the periphery);

- regularity and high-frequency functionality of a given language element (in the center) - less or unstable regularity (in the periphery).

If we look at the “semantic field” in a broad sense, it seems that phraseology is also included here. According to academician V.V.Vinogradov, consistent phraseological expressions act as equivalents to ordinary words. The researcher shows that consistent expressions are located near the word as a semantic unit with a more complex structure and act as equivalents. The following conclusion follows from his observations: “There are syntactically organized words and various types of phraseological units that separated from independent word combinations and joined lexical units. For example, думу думать – размышлять (to think); от А до Я – сначало до конца (from beginning to end), etc.” [7, p. 28]. Although the same type of facts are not widespread in the Azerbaijani language, but it is possible to face with them. For example: döyüşü uduzmaq – məğlub olmaq (lose the battle – be defeated); fikrə getmək – düşünmək (imagine - think); göz gəzdirmək / nəzər salmaq – baxmaq (view something / glance at - examine) etc.

Thus, a semantic field with a complex linguistic structure, like a special language system, is a way of reflecting objective reality and a system of mutual relations of objects in it. It is considered a way of organizing a model of the real environment as a large system-structured unit. The main feature of the field is its integrity. Because it is precisely it that organizes the inclusion of one complex unit into another. The units of the lexical-semantic field are combined in such a way that they have a hierarchical structure represented by semantic networks related to certain conceptual fields. It combines not only single language elements with common integral features (single lexemes, lexical-semantic variants), but also lexical paradigms of different levels and scope, and in this way each unit of the field forms a completely paradigmatic complex there. The application of this concept allows us to divide the language environment into homogeneous components, each of which consists of units that are closely related to each other. Currently, the study of the lexical system of a language opens the way to the synthesis of already structured and described lexical-semantic fields, allows us to fill in the specific gaps that arise between the paradigms under consideration and to combine the latter among interlevel semantic fields. The semantic organization of the lexical system is currently considered one of the most pressing tasks in linguistics and has not yet found its full solution.

References:

1. Bocharova, M.A. (2012) Semanticheskoe pole kak sposob sistemnogo opisaniya leksiki // Vestnik RUDN, Voprosy obrazovaniya: yazyki i specialnost, №4. -s.63–66 (In Russ.)
2. Japharov, N. (2019) Dildan dilchiliya. – Baki: Elm ve Tahsil, -216 s. (In Azerb.)
3. Sossyur, F. (1977) Trudy po yazykoznaniyu. –Moskva: Progress, – 695 s. (In Russ.)
4. Sternin I.A. (1985) Leksicheskoe znachenie slova v rechi.  – Voronezh: Voronezhskij universitet, –137 s. (In Russ.)
5. Shchur, G.S. (1974) Teoriya polya v lingvistike. – Moskva. – 256 s. (In Russ.)
6. Tahirov, I. (2007) Azerbaycan ve Ingilis dillerinde zaman kategoriyasi, monographiya. - Baki: Nurlan, - 324 s. (In Azerb.)
7. Vinogradov, V.V. (1986) Russkij yazyk: Grammaticheskoe uchenie o slove. uch.posob.d.vuzov. – Moskva: Vyssh.shk., – 640 s. (In Russ.)