The concept "good" in the English-language picture of the world

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

National Pedagogical Drahomanov University (Ukraine, Kyiv)

The Department of Foreign Languages for Professional Purposes

Faculty of Ukrainian Philology and Literature

The article deals 'with research of the systematic organization of units of the lexical-semantic field of good in English and the determination of the peculiarities of the expression of the notion of good in the language. The vast majority of the concept «good» are of the occasional character, whose functions are determined predominantly from the context. Lexical-semantic field of concept «good» is represented by various lexical and grammatical classes, 'which are combined on the common base good, resulting in them explicitly or implicitly. Field approach allowed to re-veal the systemic connections and hierarchical relationship between units in the lexical-semantic field good, to establish an internal system structure fields studied languages, and to high good their differences and similarities.

Keywords: concept, context, good, lexical-semantic field, language, meaning.

Анотація

Здійснено дослідження системної організації одиниць лексико-семантичного поля добра в англійській мові та визначення особливостей вираження поняття добра на мові. Переважна більшість поняття «добро» оказіонального характеру, функції яких визначаються переважно з контексту. Лексико--семантичне поле концепту «добро» представлено різними лексичними та граматичними класами, які об'єднуються на загальній базі добра, є результаті чого вони є явними або неявними. Полевий підхід дозволив виявити системні зв'язки та ієрархічні зв'язки між одиницями в лексико-семантичному полі «добро», встановити внутрішню структуру системи, вивчати області вивчення мов, а також добре відрізняти їх відмінності та схожість.

Ключові слова: концепт, контекст, добро, лексико-семантичне поле, мова, значення.

The scientific studying of the language itself, the needs of accurate translation, and the special requirements of scientific language regarding monosemantic unequivocal expression have motivated attempts to determine the meaning of«meaning» explicitly.

Good, as a complex and multidimensional phenomenon of mental, emotional life, has a high axiological status in many humanitarian and non-humanitarian disciplines: philosophy, religion, ethics, aesthetics, literary criticism, art history, psychology, anthropology, sociology, political science, and many others.

Modern linguistic studies reflected only some aspects of the study of the concept good, analysis of conceptual metaphors that underlie typical metaphorical expressions in one language or material in comparing two languages (G. Lakoff, Z. Koevesces, М. Emanatian, A. D. Shmelev), prototype modeling concept good (B. Fehr), study associates verb meaning «good.» (S. Martinek), research relevant semantics of verbs (O. A. Kornilov), specialities in good paremiology representation of a language (S. H. Vorkachev, L. Ye. Vilms), study the concept good in the unity of its system-linguistic ties (H. P. Dzhindzholiya), specialities in the use of direct and indirect speech in communication of good (N. Kushnir), characteristic features of nomination in the discourse of GOOD (C. J. Bruess, J. C. Pearson).

Lexemes of different parts of speech are integrated into the lexical and semantic field good on the basis of the common term good presented explicitly or implicitly. Semantic paradigmatic relations of the words in the lexical- semantic field good are reflected in equipollent and privative links as well as oppositions of identity of good in its constituents and the hierarchy of the field.

The aim of the article is to find out the system organization of units of the lexical and semantic field of good in English and define features of expressing the concept good in language.

The relevance of the topic is that the notion of the concept good is poorly investigated and requires better scientific reflection.

To achieve this aim it is necessary to accomplish the following tasks:

- to reveal the key features of semantic structure of units of the lexical and semantic field of good English;

- to identify the components of the lexical and semantic field that express the concept good;

- to determine the composition of linguistic units of the lexical and semantic field of good in modern English.

Any concept can not be interpreted deeply without interfering with it in the context.

With regard to the first starting point, linguistics, about the middle of 20th century, context began to move from peripheral positions to the centre of theoretical interest. It is worth emphasizing three characteristic elements in this variegated picture of building the category «context»:

1. The idea that context is not just an environment, but represents active linguistic surroundings;

2. The understanding that context is not only a factor- monosemantizer, but has other functions as well, e.g., it is an active connotator.

3. The observation that even within linguistics, the notion of context ceases in a sense to be a purely linguistic category and acquires psychological, sociological, cultural, and also logical and philosophical features [4, p. 25].

In grammatical contexts it is the grammatical (mainly the syntactic) structure of the context that serves to determine various individual meanings of a polysemantic word. One of the meanings of the verb make, e.g. «to force, to enduce», is found only in the grammatical context possessing the structure to make somebody do something or in other terms this particular meaning occurs only if the verb make is followed by a noun and the infinitive of some other verb (to make smb. laugh, go, work, etc.) [6, p. 49].

Another meaning of this verb «to become», «to turn out to be» is observed in the contexts of a different structure, i.e. make followed by an adjective and a noun (to make a good wife, a good teacher, etc.) [5, p. 52].

It is of interest to note that not only the denotation but also the con- notational component of meaning may be affected by the context. Any word which as a language unit is emotively neutral may in certain contexts acquire emotive implications. Compare, e.g., fire in to insure one's property against fire and fire as a call for help. A stylistically and emotively neutral noun, e.g. wall, acquires tangible emotive implication in Shakespeare's Midsummer Night's Dream (Act V, Scene 1) in the context «О wall, О sweet and good wall».

Words in thematic groups arejoined together by common contextual associations within the framework of the sentence and reflect the interlinking of things or events. lexical grammatical concept good

In linguistic contexts co-occurrence may be observed on different levels. On the level of word-groups the word question, for instance, is often found in collocation with the verbs raise, put forward, discuss, etc., with the adjectives urgent, vital, disputable and so on [4, p. 9].

It can be easily observed that the main factor in bringing out this or that individual meaning of the words is the lexical meaning of the words with which heavy and take are combined. To describe the meanings of the word handsome, for example, it is sufficient to combine it with the following words - a) man,person, b) size, reward, sum. The meanings «good-looking» and «considerable, ample» are adequately illustrated by the contexts. Description of the concept good in English language pictures of the world, on the basis of subject-conceptual, figurative and symbolic values, led to an important conclusion about the universal process of comprehension of reality the of English languages.

There is no doubt that good is one of the most common imperative-evaluative concepts of morality and a category of ethics. V. Dahl defines this concept: Good that is honest and useful, as opposed to evil and good = all good, useful, serving to our happiness. The definition of one concept through another allows us to regard them as semantic doublets [13, p. 65].

The roots of the identity between good and good can be found even in antiquity. Even then, the blessings were divided into external and internal, and the latter, in turn, into the bodily and the soul. Ancient philosophers, Plato and Aristotle, who introduced the concept good into science, identified it with happiness, the components of which are the moral perfection of the soul, as well as wealth, luck, health and some phenomena uncontrollable to man, perceived as positive .fertility, fertile climate and etc.

Already in the naive picture of the world, good and evil stand out as the basic semantic concepts of the so-called dualistic myths. Each character in these myths refers either to the positive beginning as the bearer of good, or to the negative one as the carrier of evil. Often good and evil do not have direct names, but are denoted by the symbols of the parties - the «left» (associated with evil) and the «right» (associated with good), or the lower (dark) and upper (light) worlds. Later, the same motif of the dark kingdom - the embodiment of evil, will meet in medieval literature - Lucifer (Satan) - the king of darkness [8, p. 15].

Plato first realizes the universal meaning of the good, and the idea of the good occupies a central place in his teaching, it is the basic principle by which the entire ideal world is built. However, in real life, the good loses its exclusivity and can only be understood through evil as its opposite [10, p. 11].

Thus, good and its opposite - evil become the basic evaluative concepts that determine the axiological aspects of human activity. Good anthropocentric - acts as a referent of actions, correlated with higher values, appealing to the ideal. Thus, good is connected with the spiritual world of man, with his good [3,p. 47].

The main feature of units of lexical-semantic field of good in the English language is the complex and multidimensional nature of semantic structure. The generalized abstract concept good in the English lexical system has a complex structure and is presented by lexical semantic field, which consists of a nucleus zone of periphery and filled with relevant lexical material.

Nuclear unit field in the test material is a lexem good (n), which expresses the meaning of all positive in nature or useful as a result of the action: The Colonel laughed all the more. He was going to get all the good out of this (OED) [l,p.62].

Analysis of the concepts good within the English cultural sphere is realized a space within the linguistic and cultural areas. The analysis procedure was proposed by S. Stepanov. This researcher has identified three «layers» of this concept:

1) basic, current indication;

2) additional or more additional «passive» features that are already outdated, «historical»;

3) internal form, typically unconscious, embodied in the external audio form. The essential characteristics of «active» layer concept actually exists for all users of a given language (of the culture) as a mean of understanding and communication.

In additional, «passive» signs of its content concept is relevant only for certain social groups, while in all cases be updated «historical», «passive» features of the concept are mainly actual for communication between people within a given social group, within communicating between them, rather than outward from the other groups [6, p. 36].

The range of the corpus is quite broad. Hundreds of examples might be found: good, glimmering, bright, unobscured, lucid, shine, illumine, radiant, day, deep, etc. [2,p.35],

The stereotypical view of the good that is present in the English value picture of the world and reflected in the meanings of the word good and its etymon as conformity to the standard I norm which reflects the moral imperative and determines the moral, comfort, high quality and sufficiency correlations with the Christian ethics presented in the culture English ethnos.

The conceptual category of good, formed around the concept good, is structured by the periphery center scheme and includes a superordinate category of good and four subordinate categories.

Lexically expressed subordinate categories pleasure / satisfaction, morality, quality / high standard, quality / quantity/ quality advantages are variants of the superordinate category, not generated, but motivated by it. Extensions are distinguished by the semantic links of the verbalizing lexemes and are also structured according to the periphery center scheme [8, p. 25].

The boundaries of the subordinate categories are blurred, their central members overlap with the good concept, combining the categories of super- and subordinate levels [11, p. 26].

So, this would be the structure of the semantic field. Within each category, lexical units hold a different type of opposition and are neutralised, according to their semantic components, in a given context. Concordances with lexeme good help to reveal three conceptual metaphors:

Knowledge is good,

Goodness is good,

Happiness is good.

The most frequent was a metaphor knowledge is good. Peculiarity of microfield is a great number of equipollent opposition and as a result there are ideographic synonyms. So the lexem goodness - kindness are united in common opposition by common sems «benefit», «advantage». These elements are ideographic synonymous, they differ in their semantics, which results in differences of semantic components of their values. Sem «tenderness», «fondness», «affection», «good» there is indication to the affection, admiration, affection, good'. A lady for whom he had once entertained a sneaking kindness [11, p. 25].

Ideographic synonyms are also lexical units virtue - excellence, goodness -- generosity.

The structure includes four zones of microfield: happiness, pleasure, good, good, as they contain the most common semantic components of the nucleus, and their nuclear units related to key lexem good by immediate semantic connections and are core elements of the fields: good(n) ^ good(adj.) ^pleasure; good (n) ^ good (adj.) ^ happiness good ^ benefit ^ kindness ^ good; good ^ benefit ^ kindness ^ good.

The nuclear unit of good (n) of all the lexical-semantic fields and key lexemes happiness of specified microfield represent a common understanding of the good intentions, positive feelings. To describe the paradigm of semantic field good, it was collected body of lexemes, which included a wide range of units: glimmering, bright, unobscured, lucid, shine, illumine, radiant, darken'd, night, day, deep, depth, darksome, starless, opacous, gloomy, dim, dawn and others [12, p. 35].

As a key lexeme good is interpreted through units benefit and pleasure, and thus shows them direct semantic relationships, it allows the kernel to include lexical-semantic field good units, which are combined in microfield benefit and satisfaction. The number of lexemes of nuclear microfields is 30 lexemes, 126 sems (35% of the common core unit of good) - microfield benefit and 25 lexemes, 86 sems (26% of the common key token) - microfield/ии [9, p. 32].

The structure of the nucleus and microfields have lexemes of denoting positive feelings, emotions, signs and results of human activities aimed at achieving good. Active in the microfield of happiness (20 units, 64 sems, 37 of which have common kernel) are a semantic components «happiness», «happy», «luck», «success».

All these instances hold a privative relation based on the bipolar structure: +good/-good. In pure semantic terms, if we decompose each unit into its smallest constituents (semes), we will conclude that each word has one feature in common j - either good or - good-but also charactereistics which are intrinsic to each lexical unit and which differentiates them from the rest [8, p. 25].

These characteristics allow each word to have its own semantic status and be neutralized in a given context: good: (+good), (+bright). bright(+good), (+fullintensity), (+shining). radiant (+good), (+shining), (good in all directions).

As we see, they share a common feature, which is the one responsible for bringing all these lexemes into one paradigm. However, within that paradigm, each unit neutralizes in a given context due to the existence of other distincitive semes which are characteristic of each lexeme [7, p. 27].

Between units of field it is installed paradigmatic semantic relation, which appear in the privative relations and oppositions of identity. This provided an opportunity to examine all sems set as a whole, which has a certain structure.

Conclusions

Theory of lexical and semantic fields is fundamental in the study of the system of relations in language and one of the basic education in the lexical system. Systematic study of language as an open diffuse system requires consideration of its units in the interaction and their structural representation that is realized in the semantic analysis of all correlations within the lexical and semantic fields in their relationship.

Lexical-semantic field of good is represented by various lexical and grammatical classes, which are combined on the common base good, resulting in them explicitly or implicitly. Field approach allowed to reveal the systemic connections and hierarchical relationship between units in the lexical- semantic field of good, to establish an internal system structure fields studied languages, and to enrich good with their differences and similarities.

Investigated units of lexical-semantic field of good in English exhibit a high degree of intimacy, but not completely identical, and are in relation intersection because reality is not reflected in the two languages in the same way. This is due to different ways of life of peoples and cultural heritage of nations, the nature of their thinking and perception of reality.

Nuclear part of lexical-semantic field of good in English express the essence of all lexical-semantic field of semantics appears more concrete semantics for peripheral tokens, which revealed more than differential sem. Peripherals field is rather vague boundaries. This reflects the structural openness lexical-semantic field of good that enables permanent entry in the field of new warehouse units.

The structure of the lexical-semantic field of good in both languages are abstract linguistic units, among which there are recorded synonymous (56 in English). Other content of words synonymous series of investigated field in English characterizes their structures of different semantics.

The common feature of lexical-semantic field of good in two languages is that between nuclear elements it is recorded a higher degree of semantic proximity and prevalence synonymous relationships as opposed to peripheral units of outstanding in low degree of semantic proximity. The core of the lexical-semantic field good is characterized by a maximum concentration of essential features of field, concentration of paradigmatic semantic relations, while the periphery is marked by sparsity signs and weakening ties with the core units, display some degree of isolation.

The study is not exhaustive. Prospects for further study of linguistic units to describe the concept good can be determine their characteristics in comparative perspective, as well as studies of lexical-semantic field of good in diachrony.

References

1. Barhudarov L. S. Mova і pereklad / L. S. Barhudarov. - M.: Mizhnarodnividnosyny, 2001. -235 s.

2. Bezpojasko О. K. Gramatyka ukrai'ns'koi' movy. Morfologija / О. K. Bezpojasko, K. G. Gorodens'ka, V. M. Rusanivs'kyj. -K.: Lybid', 2003. - 336 s.

3. Vorkachjov S. G. LingvokuTturologija, jazykovaja lichnost', koncept: stanovlenie antropocentricheskoj paradigmy v jazykoznanii / S. G. Vorkachiov // Nauch. dokl. vyssh. shk. Filol. nauki. - 2001. - №1. -S.64-72.

4. GumboTdt V. Izbrannye trudy po jazykoznaniju / V. GumboTdt. -M.: Progress, 1984. -400 s.

5. GumboTdt V. О razlichii stroenija chelovecheskihjazykov і ego vlijanii na duhovnoe razvitie chelovecheskogo roda // Zvegincev V. A. Hrestomatija po istoriijazykoznanija XIX-XX vekov. - M., 1956.

6. Zeleneckij A. L. SravniteTnaja tipologija osnovnyh evropejskih jazykov: ucheb. posobie / A. L. Zeleneckij. - M.: Akademija, 2004. - 252 s.

7. Ivanenko N. V. Koncept dobra u konteksti filosofii' movy // Naukovi zapysky. Serija Filologichni nauky (movoznavstvo). - Kirovograd: RVC KDPU im. V. V. Vynnychenka, 2002. - Vyp.44. - S.136-140.

8. Levickij Ju. A. Teoreticheskaja grammatika sovremennogo anglijskogo jazyka / Ju. A. Levic'kij. - IzdateTstvo Permskogo universiteta, 2004. - 156 s.

9. Levyc'kyj A. E.Porivnjal'na gramatyka anglijs'koi'taukrai'ns'koi' mov / Ju. A. Levyc'kyj. -K.: Osvita Ukrai'ny, 2007. - 136 s.

10. Levyc'kyj A. E. FunkcionaTni zminy v systemi nominatyvnyh odynyc' suchasnoi' anglijs'koi' movy: Avtoref. dys... dok. filol. nauk: 10.02.04/ KDLU. - KyiV, 2009. - 37 s.

11. Charteris-Black J. The Blackbird on the Shoulder - Gender & Metaphors of «Depression». Paper presented at the «7th International Conference on Researching and Applying Metaphor (RaAM 7)» on «Metaphor in Cross Cultural Communication», held at the University of Extremadura, Spain, 2008. - 145 p.

12. Clark B. Stylistic analysis and relevance theory // Language and Literature. 2006. -Vol.5.-№3. - P.10-15.

13. Meyer Ch. F. English Corpus Linguistics: An Introduction. - Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. - 185 p.

Размещено на Allbest.ru