In modern linguistic literature, one can find many different definitions of the term "semantic field". So, for example, the Linguistic Encyclopedic Dictionary gives the following interpretation:
The lexico-semantic field is a term used in linguistics most often to refer to a set of language units united by some common (integral) lexico-semantic feature; in other words - having some common non-trivial value component. Initially, the role of such lexical units was considered to be units of the lexical level - words; later, descriptions of semantic fields appeared in linguistic works, including also phrases and sentences.
The dictionary of linguistic terms gives two definitions of the semantic field:
1. A set of phenomena or an area of reality that has a correspondence in the language in the form of a thematically united set of lexical units. The semantic field of time, the semantic field of space, the semantic field of emotional experiences and etc.
2. A set of words and expressions that form a thematic range and cover a certain range of meanings. Semantic time field: year, month, week, day, night, hour etc.; duration, duration etc.; long ago, recently, soon etc.
Linguist E.I. Dibrova gives the following definition:
The lexico-semantic field is a hierarchical organization of words, united by one generic meaning and representing a certain semantic sphere in the language [Dibrova 1997, 34].
Thus, from the above definitions, it can be distinguished that the semantic field is a hierarchical structure of a set of lexical units united by a common meaning.
The actual semantic structure of the field consists of the following parts:
The core of the field is represented by a generic seme (hyperseme). The field hyperseme is a higher-order semantic component that organizes the semantic deployment of the field around itself;
· The center of the field consists of units that have an integral differential value common with the core and row-positive units;
· The periphery of the field includes units that are the most remote in their meaning from the core, the general generic concept is pushed into the category of potential or probable semantics here. Peripheral units can have a contextual meaning if the field is built according to a specific text of the work. Usually the peripheral units of the field can come into contact with other semantic fields, forming a lexico-semantic continuity. language system. [Shmelev 1973, 65]
The semantic field has specific properties that I.I. Chumak Jun:
· The semantic field is formed by a set of values that have at least one common component (a common semantic attribute). This component is usually expressed by an arch-lexeme (hyper-lexeme), that is, a token with the most generalized meaning.
· In the LSP, microfields are distinguished - semantic associations, the members of which are connected by an integral feature, usually expressed by the dominant of the microfield (nuclear lexeme). The external structure of the microfield consists of the core and several areas, some of which can be located in close proximity to the core (near periphery), and others on the periphery of the microfield (far periphery).
· The internal structure of the field is understood as a set of correlations linking semantic units.
· The field is characterized by interdeterminability of elements, sometimes acting as interchangeability of these elements.
LSPs are not isolated from each other. Each word of the language is included in a certain LSP, and, most often, due to its ambiguity, not only one.
One semantic field can be included in another field for more than high level. [Chumak-Jun 1996.]
Currently, the term "semantic field" is increasingly being replaced by narrower ones. linguistic terms: lexical field, synonymic row, lexico-semantic field, etc. Each of these terms more clearly specifies the type of language units included in the field and the type of relationship between them. However, in many works, both the expression "semantic field" and more specialized designations are used as terminological synonyms. [Bondarko 1984, 76].
12. SEMANTIC FIELD
Vocabulary is a set of subsystems called semantic fields, within which words are connected by mutual opposition relations. The German scientist Jost Trier is considered the founder of the theory of the semantic field. According to this theory, for each “conceptual field” corresponding to a certain sphere of concepts (range of ideas), words are superimposed, as it were, dividing it without a trace and forming a “verbal” field. In this case, each word receives meaning only as part of the corresponding field. A native speaker fully knows the meaning of a word only if he knows the meanings of other words from the same field.
Example: let's compare three systems for assessing students' knowledge - systems A, B and C:
A: excellent, good, good, bad.
B: excellent, good, good, not quite good, bad.
S: excellent, good, good, enough, not quite good, bad.
Here, the same continuum of the quality of students' knowledge (conceptual field) is divided differently by three assessment systems (verbal fields), resulting in 3 semantic fields. If one does not know to which semantic field this or that assessment belongs, then it is hardly possible to establish its real value, i.e., the range of quality of students' knowledge that it covers.
In modern linguistics, the semantic field is defined as a set of linguistic units united by a common content and reflecting the conceptual, subject or functional similarity of the designated phenomena. The semantic field is characterized by the following main properties:
1) the presence of semantic relationships (correlations) between its constituent words;
2) the systemic nature of these relations;
3) interdependence and interdefinability of lexical units;
4) relative autonomy of the field;
5) the continuity of the designation of its semantic space;
6) the relationship of semantic fields within the entire lexical system (the entire dictionary).
Examples of semantic fields: time field, animal husbandry field, color naming field.
13. SEMANTIC VALENCE
We say that a certain word A has a semantic valence X if the word A describes a situation in which there is an obligatory participant who plays the role of X. The meanings of words associated with A and denoting obligatory participants in the situation described by the word A are called semantic actants of this word. The semantic actants of the word L fill the semantic valences of the word L. Although the concepts of actant and valence are often confused, they have a different logical nature. If the semantic actant of the word L is a certain meaning that is different from the meaning of L itself and is variable in the sense that it is different in different sentences with the word L, then the SV of the word L is a constant internal property of L itself, due to its meaning. The content of the SV word is the roles of the participants in the situation - agent, patient, instrument, place, etc. These roles are parts of the lexical meaning of the given word.
Let's take the floor punish. To determine what its ST and semantic actants are, one must do the same as we did in component analysis: analyze the situation denoted by this word. We can speak of punishment only when person B has committed misconduct C, and another person A causes B some harm D in order to force B himself to correct himself and henceforth not commit misconduct of type C. These A, B, C and D are mandatory participants in the situation of punishment, i.e. its semantic actants. If A, B, C and D are present in their respective roles and act: A - as the agent - the agent, B - as the person affected by the described situation - the patient, C - as the event and D - as the means of implementing the situation, what is happening can always be called punishment.
The number of semantic actants and the ST of the word = the number of variables in the description of its meaning, i.e. in interpretation.
Semantic actants and valencies of words must be distinguished from syntactic actants and valences. Sem.actants and valences are units and relations of the plan of the content of the speech segment, and synth.actants and valences are units and relations that characterize the plan of expression of the speech segment. The latter act as a signifier for the former.
If the word Y syntactically depends on the word X and at the same time the morpho-syntactic design of Y depends not only on the type of syntactic connection, its content, part of speech and form Y, but also specifically on X as a lexeme, then Y is a syntactant (complement) , otherwise - by definition or circumstance.
The main problem in determining the composition of the word CB is to correctly draw the line between the valences that link the meaning of the word with its actants, and the weaker type of semantic dependencies that link the meaning of the word with its circonstants. Usually guided by the following considerations:
1. The obligatory nature of the relevant aspects (participants) for the situation denoted by the word indicates that they are semantic actants. At the same time, aspects (participants) inherent in all situations in general, for example, such as time and place, which in most cases act as circ constants, are not considered actants. Accordingly, the optionality of one or another aspect (participant) for a situation, as a rule, indicates that it is
Sirconstant.
2. There are few semantic valences in a word, from one to three, less often four or more.
3. Semantic actants are characterized by idiomatic morphological expression: it depends not only on the content of the corresponding valencies, but also on the lexeme to which the actant belongs. So, a participant in a situation with the same semantic role of the addressee with the verb inform expressed by a name in the dative case, and with a verb notify- in the accusative. This is a clear indication that we are dealing here with a semantic actant.
The problem of determining the composition of the valences of a word is further complicated by the fact that, in addition to the syntactic optionality mentioned above, there is also a semantic optionality (optionality) of valency. Contrary to the very definition of CB, based on the allocation of mandatory participants in a situation, in a number of cases it is recognized that the composition of such participants may vary within certain limits. So, semantically optional is the valence of the goal in most verbs of directed, oriented movement.
14. CORRELATIONS OF THE SEMANTIC FIELD: SYNONYMY
The connections between the meanings of words in SP differ in the degree of generality. There are broad correlations linking
among themselves, elements within fields that are very different in terms of content. There are also correlations specific to some 1 conceptual area. Let us first consider the general types of correlations between words within the SP.
The group of synonymous correlations includes relations based on the complete or partial coincidence of verbal signifiers (multiple-valued words are considered in one of their usual meanings).
Words linked by synonymic correlation are called synonyms.
Depending on whether differences in the meaning of words are allowed at all, and if so, which ones are distinguished
varieties of synonymy and synonyms, denoted by the same term, but provided with a clarifying definition.
1) Correlation full (exact) synonymy connects words that do not reveal any semantic differences (they do not differ either in denotative, or in significative, or in pragmatic, or in synth.
plan). Exact synonymy is rare. Examples: throw-throw; look - look; everywhere, everywhere.
2) If the signifieds of two words coincide in everything except for the expressive-evaluative elements of their pragmatic layer, then
the relationship that connects them is called expressive-stylistic synonymy. Examples: run away - run away or English, policeman-cop.
3) About syntactic synonymy one can speak when words differ only in their syntactic meaning,
i.e., certain grammar or lexical restrictions on compatibility with other words. So, synth. synonymous with the word full in the meaning of the highest degree ( complete delight / failure / orphan) is the word round, which expresses the same meaning in only two words - orphan And fool.
Contrary to the generally accepted practice, according to which synonyms should belong to the same part of speech, syntactic synonyms should also be considered words that, coinciding in the denotative, significative and pragmatic layer, differ only in their belonging to a certain lexico-grammatical category, for example, the verb trust and name confidence, adjective Beautiful and name beauty.
Words that are close enough in meaning, but have differences that affect the denotative and significative layers of meaning, are called quasi-synonyms. Among the varieties quasi-synonyms hyponymy and incompatibility are especially highlighted.
Incompatibility closely related to hyponymy, since this is the relationship that connects cohyponyms. So, with regard to incompatibility, there are words mother And father, go And run away. These words are incompatible in the sense that they cannot at the same time characterize the same phenomenon, refer to the same object.
15. CORRELATIONS OF THE SEMANTIC FIELD: HYPONYMY
Hyponymic correlations, also called hypohyperonymic, or genus-species correlations, connect a word denoting a general generic concept with words denoting private subdivisions of this concept. A word expressing a more general concept is called a hypernym, and a word denoting a particular case, a type of a specified kind of objects or phenomena is called a hyponym. Words that have a common hypernym are called cohyponyms or
hyponyms. Yes, the word tree is a hypernym for words oak, ash, birch, palm, which are its hyponyms, and thus cohyponyms in relation to each other.
The denotation of the hypernym includes the denotation of the hyponym. Thus, the set of schools is a subset of the set of educational
establishments.
On the basis of genus-species correlations, one can build endocentric rows, in which each next word of the series is a hyponym in relation to the previous word and a hypernym in relation to the next one, for example: man - child - boy; move - go- trail. Tokens from such series can be used in speech for naming, nominating the same referent. Indeed, if any object can be named antonovka, then, due to the hyponymic correlations existing in the language, it can be called apple, fruit, object.
The speaker, wishing to point to some object, thus has a number of lexemes to choose from. different levels specificity, concreteness. What factors determine the choice? In each endocentric series built on the relation of hyponymy, one can single out a word corresponding to a neutral level of concreteness. Yes, to the question What
in your pocket? you can get three equally true answers: (a) Apple;(b) Antonovka;(V) Fruit. Of these, only (a) is neutral.
Words like apple, dog, cup, blue, run(as opposed to words like fruit, antonovka, animal, poodle, vessel, dark blue, move around, coward) designate classes of objects, properties and phenomena allocated to basic level categorization of reality. In other words, they correspond to the main, basic categories of human thinking.
We resort to names of a higher or lower level of precision only when the context requires it. This is possible in the following cases: 1) when the use of a base-level lexeme in given conditions can lead to misunderstanding (for example, if in these conditions a broader generalization is necessary - not “you can’t eat an unwashed apple”, but “you can’t eat unwashed fruit”)
2) when the use of a lexeme of the basic level of categorization will be redundant due to a very high degree of assignment of its referent in a communication situation, the speaker usually switches to a hypernym (for example, at a dog show, a jury member will rather say no Dog in great shape A Animal in excellent shape
The labeled level of accuracy when nominating an item is either under- or over-precision. The semantic effect of underdetermination, i.e., the use of a hypernym instead of a hyponym, is the obscuration of the semantic features that are absent in the hypernym, which are included in the significat of the hyponym (cf. Take a fruit instead of Take an apple.) The semantic effect of excessive precision is intensification, emphasizing the signs of a hyponym that are absent in the significate of its hypernym (cf. Take an antonovka instead of Take an apple.) In addition, we resort to the use of lexemes with a marked level of precision (in the direction of less specificity than it should be) in the following situations:
1) when expressing sympathy, cf. Poor child! Or Poor animal!
2) when it is impossible (due to ignorance) or unwillingness to be more precise, cf. What's in your box? - Musical instrument;
3) to demonstrate that one is an expert in the relevant field by encountering a certain class of things on a daily basis, cf. pebbles instead of diamonds in the mouth of a jeweler.
16. CORRELATIONS OF THE SEMANTIC FIELD: CONVERSIVITY
Conversion (from the Latin conversio - change, transformation) in vocabulary is a way of expressing subject-object relations in sentences equivalent in meaning.
Converse correlation connects words denoting the same situation, but considered from the point of view of its different participants: win - lose, over - under, have - belong, younger - older, etc.
Thus, the same state of affairs can be described both as X ahead of Y by 10 points, and as Y behind X by 10 points, but in the first case, due to the use of the verb to get ahead of the protagonist, X is represented, and in the second verb to lag behind puts another participant in the center of attention - Y-a.
Converse relations, as an expression of the category of "opposites", relatively recently attracted the attention of linguists. But, despite this, a lot is devoted to them. scientific papers(M.I. Zhilyaeva, E.V. Zueva, Z.M. Kumakhova, Yu.D. Apresyan, M.V. Moiseev, etc.)
For the first time, the French scientist Ch. Bally pointed out the existence of conversion in the language. He considered conversion as two opposite concepts, enclosed in one whole.
Yu.D.Apresyan believes that the relations of conversity are characteristic primarily for verbs because only such words can be conversives, each of which has at least two valences. It was the verb that developed a special grammatical form of expressing converse relations - the form of the active and passive voice. However, every developed language has various more or less regular ways of forming conversives. Derived verbal nouns are a regular and productive source of lexical converses. From other parts of speech that have the properties necessary for the development of conversion relations, Yu.D. Apresyan singles out unions (He fell ill., and therefore the premiere did not take place; The premiere did not take place, because he fell ill.), nouns (Ivan's loss to Peter - Peter's gain from Ivan.) In addition to these converses, Y.D. Apresyan identifies other means of expressing conversion:
1. Grammatical voice.
2. Antonymic qualitative adjectives and adverbs with the meaning of size, physical property, speed, position in space and time, and so on in a comparative degree (He ran faster than me - I ran slower than him.).
3. Antonymic prepositions denoting a position in space or in conjunction with any pronoun (He came before me - I came after him.).
Conversibility as an independent category has become the object of linguistic analysis relatively recently. In the linguistic literature, it was noted that not only lexical units, but also units of other levels, as well as multi-level units can enter into conversion relations: LU - LU: buy - sell, buy - sell; LE - phrases: approve - to win approval, respect - win respect; phraseological units (PU) - LU: to alarm - to take alarm, pull your nose - be deceived and others.
17. CORRELATIONS OF THE SEMANTIC FIELD: ASSOCIATIVE RELATIONS
The presence of associative relations between words in the language is revealed in the course of psycholinguistic experiments, when the subjects are asked to write down all the words that they remember, come to mind in connection with the presented stimulus word. The resulting groups of words are called associative fields, the composition of which in different subjects reveals a significant degree of generality. There are even special dictionaries of associative norms, including for the Russian language.
Analyzing associative fields, we can see in their composition the words associated with the stimulus word by the considered correlations, but in addition to them we will also meet relations that are usually not classified as systemic relations in the lexicon. So, on the word-stimulus donkey a reaction in the form of a word is quite possible stupidity, to the stimulus word fly- reaction fast etc. Knowing about such a component of the pragmatic meaning of a lexeme as connotations, we immediately understand that relations of this type are based on the connotative information associated with the word. Naturally, in connection with the presence of each person, in addition to general cultural ones, also purely individual ideas associated with the denotation of a word (individual associations), a word can fall into the associative field of a lexeme in a particular native speaker, the semantic relationship of which to the word-stimulus can only be explained in terms of based on the person's personal experience.
Saussure: The associative groups formed in our minds are not limited to the rapprochement of members of a relationship that have something in common - the mind also grasps the nature of the relationships connecting them in each case and thereby creates as many associative series as there are different relationships. So, in “training”, “train”, “train”, etc., there is an element common to all members of the relation - the root; but the same word "training" can also fall into another row, characterized by the commonality of another element - the suffix: "training", "armament", "change", etc.
The association may also rest solely on the similarity of signifieds: "training", "instruction", "teaching", "education", etc., or, conversely, solely on the commonality of acoustic images. There is, therefore, either a commonality both in meaning and in form, or only in form, or only in meaning. Any word can always bring to mind everything that can be associated with it in one way or another.
One of the central questions of linguistics is the question of the consistency of language, which manifests itself in the totality of elements connected by internal relations. The lexical composition of the language is no exception. It is not a set of disparate units, but a set of interconnected relations traditionally presented in two perspectives: paradigmatic and syntagmatic. Due to this, it consists of semantic groups with different types of relationships.
The view of vocabulary as a system took shape, thus, in the so-called. the theory of the semantic field or lexico-semantic groupings. Two approaches to the study of vocabulary are consistent with them: semasiological (from word to concept) and onomasiological (from concept to word), which complement each other and are the main ones in the construction of the semantic field. The result of the description of vocabulary, aimed at identifying its systemic connections, is its classification, i.e. selection of various lexico-semantic groups of vocabulary.
A lexico-semantic group (in the broad sense) is usually a group of words that are “quite closely related in meaning”. However, such an understanding is rather vague, since different semantic groupings fit under it: synonyms, and even antonyms, and paronyms, and LSG itself, and thematic fields, etc. - i.e. everything that has a semantic affinity. Therefore, it is necessary to define concepts.
Under the lexical-semantic group (LSG) in the narrow sense, we mean a group of words united by the commonality of the categorical-generic seme (archiseme) and the commonality of part-speech attribution. For example: pine, oak, spruce, birch ... (LSG "trees"), red, yellow, green, blue ... (LSG "color"), run, rush, fly, swim ... (LSG "move), etc.
Let us consider in more detail the last example based on the component analysis of the semantics of the words included in the LSG:
RUN - “quickly” “move” “on the ground” “with your feet”
FLY - 1) "quickly" "move" "through the air" "wings"
2) "very" "quickly" "move around"
SWIM - "move" "on the water" "hands and feet"
Crawl - 1) "move" "on the ground" "body"
2) "very" "slowly" "move"
RACE - “very” “quickly” “move around”
We see that in LSG there is a common generic seme "to move", but the nature of movement and speed are different. With the identity of these semes, the words will be synonymous: RUN, FLY-2, RUSH. With the opposite of some signs of the called concepts (for example, speed), the words will be antonyms: CREEP-2 - FLY-2 (or RUSH). Thus, more particular semantic groups or series are included in LSG: synonyms and antonyms. All members of the LSG in relation to each other will be co-hyponyms (or co-hyponyms), because name species concepts of the same genus (MOVE). The generic word in relation to each member of the LSG will be a hypernym. And generic pairs (such as RUN - MOVE) are hyponyms. So in LSG there are several more types of relations: identities, oppositions, intersections, inclusions (see the types of oppositions in 2.2.2.). Yes, and the LSG themselves can be included in each other, like nesting dolls: "movement" - "movement" - "movement of a person", i.e. can be "micro" and "macro". In LSG, words are combined mainly on the basis of paradigmatics (oppositions).
Wider associations of words - thematic groups (TG): these are groups of words of different parts of speech, united by a common topic (hence the name). It observes different kinds connections: both paradigmatic and syntagmatic. For example, TG “sport” (football, goal, score, football, stadium, fan, etc.) or “trade” (trade, bargain, market, shop, buyer, seller, sale, sell, etc.) . TG includes different LSG. For example, LSG "trading establishments" (shop, shop, kiosk, boutique, supermarket), synonyms (purchase, buy), antonyms (expensive - cheap), hyponyms (shop - deli), conversives (purchase - sale), etc. . in TG "trade". Sometimes TG is called a thematic field, but the term "field" is also used in combination with "semantic field" (often as a synonym for thematic).
The semantic field (SP), or lexico-semantic field (LSP), is usually understood as “a group of words of one language, closely related to each other in meaning” (Yu.N. Karaulov) or “a hierarchical structure of a set of lexical units united by a common ( invariant) meaning and reflecting a certain conceptual sphere in the language” (L.A. Novikov). LSP is a broader association than LSG and even TG, although close to the latter. It also includes several LSH and other semantic associations of paradigmatic and syntagmatic type: for example, the field "color" includes both the LSH of the adjectives "color" (green, red, blue), and the LSH of the verbs "to show color" (to turn blue, redden, turn yellow), and nouns "color" (red, blue, yellowness). Or LSP "time" includes LSG "lengths of time" (hour, minute, second), and LSG "parts of the day" (morning, evening, noon), and LSG "season" (spring, summer, autumn), etc. .
However, a clear distinction between these concepts has not yet developed. For example, the lexical grouping "kinship" is called both a lexico-semantic group, a thematic group, and a semantic field, because it is very extensive and includes different types of vocabulary and even phrases like cousin. Therefore, everyone uses these terms to the best of their understanding. We will adhere to the indicated distinction between LSG and TG, as well as LSP. The latter are distinguished as subject-logical categories (TG, reflecting the division of the very picture of the world, its fragments) and semantic, conceptual (SP, reflecting conceptual spheres and relations).
The semantic field (for example, in the theory of Yu.N. Karaulov) has a field name (its name), a core (key words: usually synonyms and antonyms, as well as type combinations) and a periphery (words that are less closely related to the core semantically or stylistically) . Recall the example with the word FRIEND from the Dictionary of Associative Norms of the Russian Language. In fact, almost all the words from the answers of the informants form a field named FRIEND, the core of which will include its synonyms (comrade, friend, friend), antonyms (foe), derivatives (friendship, friendship), typical and stable compatibility (true, close , best, bosom), and on the periphery there will be the words brother and sidekick.
In linguistics, there are various types of semantic fields: lexical-semantic fields (LSF, discussed above), associative-semantic fields (ASF, compiled on the basis of an associative experiment), as well as functional-semantic fields (FSP, including lexical and grammatical meanings). For example, the SP "time" as LSP will include the words hour, year, minute; past, present, future, etc., as a result of an associative experiment, the ASP may also include, for example, the words ahead, money (as a realization of the precedent texts “time is forward” and “time is money”), and grammatical forms of expression of time: I went, I go, I will go.
The basic unit of a semantic field (its name) is, as already mentioned, a word in one of its meanings (LSV). Each LSV of a word is included in three types of semantic relations: paradigmatic, syntagmatic and associative-derivative. And around each is formed its own microfield. For example, SP EARTH-1 (“soil”) will include the words soil, sand, clay (paradigmatics), dig, dig, plow (syntagmatics), earthen, earthy, digger (derivatics); EARTH-2 ("land") - land, water, sea; saw, discovered; terrestrial, underground, amphibious; EARTH-3 ("country") - country, homeland, homeland; native, alien, seaside; countryman, foreigner. However, being connected with each other as LSV of one word, these joint ventures will also be included in the general joint venture EARTH. Those. epidigmatic relations between LSWs will also enter the field.
Thus, from the point of view of onomasiology, the entire lexical composition of a language is presented as a system of interacting semantic fields that form a complex and language-specific picture of the world for each language (for more details about LCM, see a special topic): the names of time, space, movement, degree of kinship, colors, plants, animals, human, etc. The organization of the joint venture is based on generic (hyponymic) relations.
Units that are homogeneous in meaning are combined into lexico-semantic groups (elementary microfields) and other lexical categories (synonyms, antonyms, etc.).
Lexical categories are divided into two aspects: semasiology and onomasiology. In the semasiological aspect, such categories as polysemy (intra-verbal category) are considered. In onomasiological - such categories as synonymy and antonymy (interword categories).
Lexical categories are defined on the basis of one or another opposition, semantic or formal. Depending on the consideration of PS or PV, words (or both) of LC can be divided into three types: 1) semantic (identified on the basis of PS, identity, similarity of semantics, meaning) - these include synonymy and antonymy, as well as hyponymy and conversion ; 2) formal (identified on the basis of only PV, form identities) - homonymy; 3) formal-semantic (identified on the basis of the similarity of PV and PS) - this is paronymy. According to this principle, you can build a definition of each of the LC:
Polysemy is a semantic relationship of internally related semes, formally expressed by the lexeme identity (PS + PV +): DOM-1 / DOM-2.
Synonymy is the relationship of identical (or close) semes, formally expressed by different lexemes (PS + PV -): EYES / EYES.
Antonymy is the relationship of opposed but intersecting semes, formally expressed by different lexemes (PS + PV -): YES / NO.
Hyponymy is a relationship of generic inclusion, formally expressed by different lexemes (PS + PV -): HOUSE / STRUCTURE.
Paronymy is the relationship of similar but not identical semes, formally expressed by similar but not identical lexemes (PS + PV +): FACT / FACTOR.
Conversion is a semantically inverse relationship, formally expressed by different lexemes (PS + PV -): PURCHASE / SALE.
Homonymy is a relationship of internally unrelated semes, formally expressed by identical lexemes (PS - PV +): KEY (1) / KEY (2).
CHAPTER 1
FIELD STRUCTURE.
1.1. The question of field structures in the language system.
1. 2. Nuclear-peripheral relations in the Vremya LSP.
1. 3. The space of the extreme periphery of the LSP "Time".
1. 4. Structural and semantic features of LSP constituents
1.5. Historical and cultural factors that determined the idioethnic originality of the temporal vocabulary and phrasemics of the Cossack dialects.
1. 6. Conclusions.
CHAPTER 2. SEMANTIC OPPOSITION CONCRETE-ABSTRACT TIME.
2. 1. Microfield "Specific time".
2. 1. 1. Daily circle.
2.1. 1. 1. Expression of daily time by single lexemes.
2.1.1.2. Expression of daily time in stable combinations.
2. 1.2. Units of time within a week and a month.
2. 1.3. Annual circle.
2. 2. Microfield "Abstract time".
2. 3. Microfield "Age".
2. 4. Conclusions.
CHAPTER 3. MICROPOLIE "RITUAL TIME" AND ITS
PRAGMATIC POTENTIAL.
3.1. Ritual time as a form of implementation of the cyclic model.
3. 2. Cossack folk calendar as a form of translation of ritual time.
3.3. Basic units of ritual time and their pragmatic properties.
3. 4. Temporal organization of the wedding ceremony.
3. 5. Temporal organization of the funeral and memorial rite.
3. 6. Conclusions.
Recommended list of dissertations
Emotive Fragment of the Don Cossack Dialectal Worldview: Structural-Semantic and Ethnolinguistic-Culturological Aspects 2010, candidate of philological sciences Grigoryeva, Natalya Alexandrovna
Lexico-semantic field "Clothes" in the Don Cossack dialect: ethnolinguistic and linguoculturological aspects 2008, candidate of philological sciences Kalinina, Margarita Vladimirovna
Speech as a basic value in the linguistic consciousness of the Don Cossacks: on the material of the Don Cossack dialects 2008, candidate of philological sciences Yurchenko, Svetlana Arkadievna
Lexico-semantic field "Fishing" in the Don Cossack dialects 2012, candidate of philological sciences Krapivina, Maria Sergeevna
Ethnolinguistic and cultural foundations of dialect phrases of the Don 2003, Doctor of Philology Brysina, Evgenia Valentinovna
Introduction to the thesis (part of the abstract) on the topic "The lexico-semantic field "Time" in the Don Cossack dialect: the ethnolinguoculturological aspect of the study"
In linguistics early XXI century one of the main is the question of the relationship of language and culture. modern science about language is actively developing directions in which the language is seen as the "cultural code of the nation". The researchers point out that the language chief keeper and a carrier of ethno-cultural information, an exponent of a certain national mentality. The language fixes the historical past of the nation, the way of life, traditions, customs of people, the national and cultural identity of the character and the unique psychology of the people, the value priorities and the originality of the spiritual life (Maslova 2001: 9; Teliya 1996: 235).
Based on this understanding of the relationship between language and culture at the end of the 20th century. established and is actively developing a new scientific direction- linguoculturology, the object of which is the interaction of a language acting as a translator of cultural information, and culture as historical memory people. Ethnolinguistics is closely related to linguoculturology, the subject of which is language in its relationship with the ethnic group, the place and role of language in society.
In the aspect of linguoculturology and ethnolinguistics, the worldview of the people at each synchronous section of its history is not homogeneous: the cultural-national palette is characterized by a plurality of attitudes, comprehension of similar situations or phenomena from different positions, so that different sides of situations or different situations fall into the focus of speakers of any language. manifestations of the phenomenon. Stereotypes, as a rule, do not belong to the whole nation as a whole, but to some of its social and dialect groups. Therefore, modern linguistics explores not only the features of the linguistic reflection of the world by large groups - a nation, people, ethnic group, but also a territorially limited society, and there is already experience in describing and modeling the linguistic picture of the world on lexical dialect material.
Thus, research in regional linguistics has also become the focus of new scientific paradigms. Raised in last years The attention of scientists to the problems of the development and functioning of folk dialects is largely due to the awareness of their importance as guardians of the originality of national linguistic pictures of the world and the significant contribution of dialects to national speech cultures (Goldin 1997: 3).
According to E.V. Brysina, the territorial dialect is a means of communication for the population of a historically established region with specific ethnographic features and serves as a universal form of accumulation and transmission of the ethno-cultural originality of the linguistic picture of the world of dialect speakers, which manifests itself, first of all, at its lexical and phraseological level (Brysina 20036: 6).
Each ethnic group differs only in its inherent ways of perceiving the surrounding reality, which are formed on the basis of their own practical development of the world, based on traditions and customs, taking into account the cultural settings and the specifics of ethnic consciousness. And one of the most important components of ethnic consciousness is people's ideas about time. They reflect not only the biological rhythms of the life of an ethnic group, but also the stages of its cultural development, the pace of its evolutionary movement. In the ways of perception and awareness of time, many cultural stereotypes are revealed that reflect common features in the vision of the world by representatives of one or another ethnic group (Dmitryuk 2000: 208).
According to A.Ya. Gurevich, time, along with such significant concepts as space, reason, being, fate, etc., belongs to the defining categories of human consciousness, which in each individual culture are interconnected and form a “model of the world” - a kind of “grid of coordinates” , through which people perceive reality and build an image of the world that exists in their minds. A person is not born with a sense of time, its temporary and spatial concepts always determined by the culture to which he belongs” (Gurevich 1969: 105). Therefore, we can talk about the ethnic originality of the perception of time by representatives of a particular society.
Temporal semantics is presented in the Russian language as a complex interaction of grammatical and lexical means, and the latter are of particular interest today as building material, forming a temporal fragment of the language picture of the world. Many aspects related to linguistic means of expressing temporality have long attracted the attention of linguists. Thus, in a number of works of an etymological nature, the origin of individual temporary lexemes is traced (V.F. Zhitnikov, V.V. Kolesov, M. Vasmer, P.Ya. Chernykh, N.M. Shansky, etc.). From the point of view of the systemic organization of vocabulary, temporary lexemes were considered in the works of M.V. Vsevolodova, D.G. Ischuk, V.V. Morkovkina, G.S. Shchura and others. Finally, in a number of works, temporal lexemes are considered as significant components of the language picture of the world, the features of the perception of time by the Russian linguistic consciousness, the functional features of temporal words, etc. are studied. These are the works of J1.P. Akhmerova, A.A. Zaliznyak, J1.H. Mikheeva, N.I. Tolstoy, S.M. Tolstoy, A.D. Shmeleva, E.S. Yakovleva and others.
Dialect linguistic means of expressing temporality are of interest to scientists-dialectologists. Structural and semantic features of dialect lexemes and phrases, ways of verbalizing time in a dialect, models of time existing in dialects, etc. are considered in the works of S.M. Belyakova, E.V. Brysina, L.I. Ivashko, M.M. Kondratenko, I.A. Podyukova, S.A. Tsapenko and others.
The study of the most significant fragments of the linguistic picture of the world of dialect speakers, in particular that fragment of it that is associated with the perception of time, seems to be relevant, as it contributes to the comprehension of the ethno-cultural specificity of dialect vocabulary and phrasemics, the semantics of which reflected the worldview of the Cossack sub-ethnos.
In addition to the great interest of linguists in modeling linguistic pictures of the world or individual fragments of these pictures, the study of the specifics of a linguistic personality, linguistic consciousness, etc., questions of the systemic organization of language remain relevant. The problem of the systemic organization of vocabulary is significant and present stage development of linguistics. The objective existence of the lexico-semantic system of the language is recognized by the majority of scientists, however, the lexicon as a fairly integral and organized system in a certain way requires further description. One of the possible ways to study the systemic connections of lexical units, according to researchers, is to isolate semantic fields and determine their semantic structure (Krivchenko 1973: 99). In this study, an attempt is made to comprehensively describe the temporal fragment of the dialectal linguistic reality in the systemic (namely, field) and ethnolinguoculturological aspects.
The above factors determine the relevance of the dissertation research.
The object of our study is the Don dialect vocabulary and phrasemics, reflecting the ideas of the Cossacks about time.
The subject of the study is the ethno-cultural content and originality of lexical and phraseological means of expressing temporality.
The work is based on the following hypothesis: the linguistic means of expressing the category of temporality in the Cossack dialects of the Don have an ethnocultural originality, which is due to both linguistic and extralinguistic factors and finds a special expression in the Don dialect vocabulary and phrasemics.
Purpose of the work: to reveal the ethnolinguistic and cultural features of the lexical-semantic field "Time" in the Don Cossack dialect.
In connection with this goal, the following tasks are solved:
1) to develop a field model of the temporal space of the Don Cossack dialects;
2) to reveal the nuclear-peripheral relations that constitute the lexical-semantic field "Time";
3) to determine the structural and semantic features of the analyzed group of language units;
4) highlight the main historical and cultural factors that determined the idioethnic originality of the constituents of the modeled field;
5) to reveal the ethnocultural originality of the Cossack dialect vocabulary and phrasemics associated with the perception of time; pragmatic potential of units of time.
The methodological basis of the study is linguo-philosophical provisions on the interaction of language and culture; the postulate about the relative social determinism of language; general linguistic principles of the system-structural organization of the language and units of the language system. Theoretical basis researches represent fundamental works in the field of linguoculturology (Yu.D. Apresyan, A.D. Arutyunova, A. Vezhbitskaya, V.A. Maslova, Yu.S. Stepanova, V.N. Telia and others), ethnolinguistics (N. I. Tolstoy, S.M. Tolstoy, M.M. Kopylenko and others), linguistic picture of the world (S.M. Belyakova, I.B. Levontina, JI.H. Mikheeva, N.I. Tolstoy, A. D. Shmeleva, E.S. Yakovleva and others), the doctrine of the dialect as a territorial variety of the language and the repository of its history, developed in the works of R.I. Avanesova, L.I. Barannikova, V.E. Goldina, L.L. Kasatkina, R.I. Kudryashova, L.M. Orlova and others, the ideas of thematic, lexico-semantic, ideographic grouping of vocabulary, developed by L.M. Vasiliev, Yu.N. Karaulov, G.S. Shchur and others.
The implementation of the tasks set was carried out using the following methods and techniques: a) a descriptive method with techniques for observing, interpreting and classifying the material under study; b) the method of ethnolinguistic and cultural analysis developed by E.V. Brysina and suggesting scientific interpretation language material based on the explication of information on history, culture, data social organization the corresponding sub-ethnos; methods of dialectography (collection, processing and linguistic interpretation of dialect material based on research intuition); c) elements of the method of component analysis (comparison of dictionary definitions, isolation of integral and differential semes), with the help of which common semantic components were established between the field name and specific units, the distribution of core and peripheral constituents of the field was carried out; d) the method of quantitative calculations, which makes it possible to clarify the ratio of different types of lexical dialectisms, the types of phrases in the composition of set expressions.
The scientific novelty of the work is determined by the fact that for the first time a comprehensive ethnolinguoculturological analysis of the temporal vocabulary and phrasemics of the Don Cossack dialects, presented in the form of a lexico-semantic field, was carried out in it, and the structure and properties of the elements of the "Time" field were described, its ethnolinguoculturological features were revealed.
The theoretical significance of the study lies in the fact that it makes a certain contribution to the development of the problem of ethnolinguistic description of lexico-semantic fields in general and the lexico-semantic field "Time" in particular. Such an analysis makes it possible to characterize the vocabulary of any fragment of reality, taking into account both the systemic and ethnolinguistic and cultural approaches, and therefore to describe it taking into account the entire amount of information.
The practical value of the dissertation lies in the possibility of using the results of the work in the practice of teaching Russian dialectology, courses in linguoculturology and ethnolinguistics, when reading special courses on the ethnocultural originality of dialect vocabulary and phrasemics, in compiling dialect dictionaries and a dictionary of the spiritual culture of the Don Cossacks.
Research sources are:
Dialect dictionaries: Dictionary of Russian Don dialects (first edition - 1975-1976, second edition (volume 1) - 1991), Big explanatory dictionary of the Don Cossacks (M., 2003), card file of the Dictionary of Don dialects of the Volgograd region ( SDGV), located at the Department of General and Slavic-Russian Linguistics of the Volgograd State Pedagogical University(VSPU);
Works of local writers - A.S. Serafimovich, B.P. Ekimova, E.A. Kulkina, and others - reflecting the history and life of the Don Cossacks.
The material for the analysis was the author's card index, which includes 1118 units of temporal vocabulary and phrasemics of the Don dialects, collected by continuous sampling from the indicated sources. In the concept of temporal vocabulary and phrasemics, we include words and phrases with a temporary meaning (chrononyms), as well as names associated with age stratification. Due to the fact that one of our tasks is to model the lexico-semantic field "Time", then for the sake of completeness of the study, such dialect units were involved, in the semantic structure of which the meaning of temporal reference is expressed by one of the differential or potential semes, i.e. which are not actually signs of time.
Provisions for defense:
1. Dialectal designations of time can be constructed into a field model - the lexical-semantic field "Time", which is represented by a set of units interconnected by a semantic community and structural relationships. According to its structural and semantic organization, the "Time" field claims the status of a macrofield and is represented by a number of microfields, or functional-semantic zones, the constituents of which reflect different hypostases of time perception. As part of the "Time" field, we consider the following microfields: "Concrete time", "Abstract time", "Ritual time", "Age, or Life time".
2. Inside the microfields, nuclear, perinuclear and peripheral elements are distinguished. The nuclear elements include units that are direct designations of time, the semantics of which is not complicated by any additional meanings. The perinuclear space is filled with units in the semantic structure of which the temporal seme is the nuclear seme, but there are also some connotative semes. The zone of the near periphery consists of units that indirectly or indirectly contain an indication of time, expressed explicitly, and the temporal seme as one of the differential ones. The far periphery is formed by units in which the indication of time is represented by one of the differential semes, but expressed implicitly. In the extreme periphery there are such elements that, in their nuclear semantics, belong to other lexico-semantic fields, but contain the seme "time" as a potential or peripheral one.
3. To express temporal semantics in Don dialects, literary, colloquial and dialect language means are used; among the latter, a certain part is made up of inter-dialect vocabulary and phrasemics. Lexical dialectisms are represented different types. Most of the dialectisms have a transparent internal form and are structurally and semantically motivated.
The ideas of the Cossacks about time in different forms were reflected in the semantics of set expressions. Some stable expressions denote time itself; the basis of other stable turnovers was the names of everyday objects and phenomena, associatively reflecting the concept of time; a significant number of units containing temporal lexemes serves to express non-temporal concepts.
Ethnocultural information is presented in the semantics of dialect phraseological units both explicitly and implicitly.
4. The idio-ethnic originality of the Don temporal vocabulary and phrases is largely determined by the historical and cultural factors of the formation and functioning of the Cossack sub-ethnos: the leading role of the military activity of the Cossacks; the interruption of the cultural traditions of the ancestors of the Slavs, in particular, the secondary importance of agricultural labor on early stages formation of the Cossack sub-ethnos; the heterogeneity of Cossack dialects in general, as well as temporal vocabulary and phrasemics in particular.
5. The ethno-cultural originality of temporal vocabulary and phrasemics is manifested primarily at the semantic level and is reflected in the non-traditional and non-standard images (from the position of the carrier literary language), which formed the basis of the names, the nature of metaphors. The ethno-cultural content is possessed by those dialect temporal units, in the semantics of which the features of the formation, development and life of the Cossack sub-ethnos are reflected. Culturally marked, first of all, are actually dialect vocabulary and phraseology, ritual dialect units, geortonyms.
Approbation of work. The main provisions and results of the study were discussed at regional scientific and practical conferences on local history (Volgograd, February 2005, 2006); at conferences of young researchers of the Volgograd State Pedagogical University (VGPU, November 2004, 2005); at the III International scientific conference"National-cultural component in the text and language" (Minsk, April 2005); at the III All-Russian scientific and practical conference "Problems of studying the living Russian word at the turn of the millennium" (Voronezh, October 2005); at the International Scientific Conference "Language and Society in Synchrony and Diachrony", dedicated to the 90th anniversary of the birth of prof. J.I. I. Barannikova (Saratov, November
2005); at interuniversity dialectological readings "Regional vocabulary in the historical and cultural aspect" (Arzamas, November 2006); at the Second International Scientific Conference "Russian literature in the context of modern integration processes" (Volgograd, April 2007) and were reflected in 9 articles and abstracts of one report.
Work structure. In accordance with the genre, the dissertation consists of an introduction, three chapters, a conclusion, a list of references, a list of dictionaries and textual sources, a list settlements in which information was collected, and applications.
Similar theses in the specialty "Russian language", 10.02.01 VAK code
Lexical and phraseological dialect units that characterize a person by mental abilities in the Don dialect: systemic organization and motivational relationships 2012, candidate of philological sciences Shkabara, Natalya Ivanovna
Adverb in the Don Dialects: Lexico-Semantic and Structural Aspects of the Study 2008, candidate of philological sciences Bochkareva, Elena Vladimirovna
Verbalization of Spatial Relations in the Don Dialects as a Reflection of the Ethnocultural Consciousness of the Cossacks 2012, candidate of philological sciences Nenkina, Elena Vyacheslavovna
The concept of "time" in the Kumyk and Russian language pictures of the world 2009, candidate of philological sciences Sultanova, Lyudmila Yurievna
The image of time in the dialect picture of the world: On the material of the vocabulary and phraseology of Russian old-timer dialects in the south of the Tyumen region 2005, Doctor of Philology Belyakova, Svetlana Mikhailovna
Dissertation conclusion on the topic "Russian language", Lalaeva, Diana Igorevna
1. The Cossacks' ideas about time combine its various characteristics, but the most relevant for dialect speakers, as residents countryside, is a cyclic model of time associated with the life of nature and agricultural activities. It is used when observing the weather, carrying out various seasonal work; Moreover, it plays an important role in organizing the annual time. In the perception of the daily and annual cycles by the Cossacks, a certain isomorphism is observed, which is also due to the fact that the idea of cyclicity occupies a large place in the human mind.
2. A vivid expression of the cyclic model is the Cossack agrarian calendar, which in general inherits the traditions of the original Russian folk calendar, but also has its own characteristics, caused by the specific conditions for the formation of the Cossack sub-ethnos. So, in the conditions of the break of the agricultural cultural tradition in the Cossack calendar, the days (and, accordingly, their names) turned out to be unclaimed, to which the dates for the start and end of the main agricultural work were timed.
3. The concept of ritual time includes following characteristic- this is the time that stands out from the everyday flow of time with its marking, special significance for the native speaker (time public holidays, posts and other iconic segments of various durations). The selection of this aspect of time implies the existence of a potential semantic opposition ritual - everyday. The units of ritual time are segments of different duration: these are very small intervals in the morning and evening dawns; most often a day coinciding with a holiday; periods of fasting; the length of time from Christmas to Epiphany and a week after Trinity; leap year. All units of ritual time have pragmatic properties, since they give a person a certain type of behavior, which involves the fulfillment of formulaic prescriptions (beating with a willow twig in Verbokhlest), all kinds of restrictions and prohibitions, etc.
Considered as part of the LSP "Time", the microfield "Ritual time" has its own field organization, contains nuclear and peripheral elements, represented by the semantics of both the units of time themselves and units that are indirectly related to time. The total number of constituents of the "Ritual Time" microfield is 256 units, which accounted for 23% of the total number of LSP "Time" units; the nucleus and perinuclear part contain 127 units, 129 units are located on the periphery.
4. The wedding and funeral rites of the Cossacks have their own clear temporal organization. Lexico-phraseological means that nominate the main moments of the wedding and funeral in time belong to the near periphery of the LSM "Ritual Time" and form two independent functional-semantic zones within it, within which its own field hierarchy is possible. These linguistic units express temporal semantics in different ways. In some of them, the significance of temporal attachment is significantly felt; in other words and expressions, the semantics of time is not expressed explicitly, but through specific images; some units serve as designations for weddings or funeral rituals held at one time or another, and therefore contain only a hint of the time. Set expressions differ in figurative characteristics, expressive possibilities and the degree of semantic unity. Almost all of them are devoid of evaluative ™ and perform a nominative function in the dialect.
List of references for dissertation research candidate of philological sciences Lalaeva, Diana Igorevna, 2007
1. Alefirenko, N.F. Field structuring of the lexical-phraseological space / N.F. Alefirenko // Field theory in modern linguistics: materials of scientific-theor. seminar. Ufa: Bashk. state un-t, 1999. - Ch. V. -S. 17-19.
2. Alefirenko, N.F. Controversial problems of semantics: monograph / N.F. Alefirenko. Volgograd: Change, 1999.-274 p.
3. Alefirenko, N.F. Poetic energy of the word. Synergetics of language, consciousness and culture / N.F. Alefirenko. M.: Academia, 2002. - 394 p.
4. Alefirenko, N.F. Theory of language. Introductory course: textbook. allowance for students. philol. specialist. higher textbook institutions / N.F. Alefirenko. M.: Ed. center "Academy", 2004.-368 p.
5. Antonyakova, D. Phraseological units of the Russian language associated with customs and rituals: author. dis. . cand. philol. Sciences / D. Antonyakova. Rostov n / D., 1995. - 15 p.
6. Apresyan, Yu.D. Distributive analysis of meanings and structural semantic fields / Yu.D. Apresyan // Lexicographic collection. -M., 1962.-Iss. V.-C. 53.
7. Apresyan, Yu.D. Lexical semantics. Synonymic means of the language / Yu.D. Apresyan. M.: Nauka, 1974. - 367 p.
8. Arutyunov, S.A. Language-culture-ethnos / S.A. Arutyunov, A.R. Bagdasarov and others. M.: Nauka, 1994. - 286 p.
9. Arutyunova, N.D. Time: models and metaphors / N.D. Arutyunova //
10. Logical analysis of language: Language and time: Sat. Art. / resp. ed. N.D. Arutyunov. M., 1997. - S. 51-61.
11. Arutyunova, N.D. Language and the human world / N.D. Arutyunov. M.: Languages of Russian culture, 1999. - 896 p. + (1) l. - (Language. Semiotics. Culture.).
12. Archipenko, N.A. Vocabulary of the mythological system of the Don Cossacks as a part of spiritual culture: author. dis. . cand. philol. Sciences / N.A. Archipenko. Rostov n / D., 2000. - 21 p.
13. Archipenko, N.A. Folk demonology of the Don Cossacks / N.A. Archipenko // Traditional culture: scientific. almanac. 2004. -№4.-S. 67-76.
14. Astapenko, T.D. Life, customs, rituals and holidays of the Don Cossacks of the XVII-XX centuries. / Etc. Astapenko. Bataysk: Bataysk. book. publishing house, 2002. -248 p.
15. Akhmerova, L.R. Functional features of words with a common meaning of time in modern Russian: author. dis. . cand. philol. Sciences / L.R. Akhmerova. Kazan, 2004. - 22 p.
16. Babaeva E.V. The internal form of the word and the conceptual approach to the language / E.V. Babaeva // Linguistic personality: sociolinguistic and emotive aspects: Sat. scientific tr. Volgograd - Saratov: Change, 1998.-S. 126-134.
17. Babushkin, A.P. Types of concepts in the lexical and phraseological system of the language / A.P. Babushkin. Voronezh: Voronezh Publishing House, University, 1996. - 104 p.
18. Balakhonova, L.I. To the question of the status of vernacular and dialect vocabulary / L.I. Balakhonova // Vopr. linguistics. -1982. No. 3. - S. 104-110.
19. Bankevich, V.V. On the question of the relationship between lexico-semantic and thematic groups / V.V. Bankevich // Semantics of words and sentences: interuniversity. Sat. scientific tr. L., 1985. - S. 30-35.
20. Bakhtin, M.M. Forms of time and chronotope in the novel / M.M. Bakhtin // Issues of Literature and Aesthetics: Research different years/ MM. Bakhtin. M.: Artist. lit., 1975. - 504 p.
21. Belyakova S.M. Time modeling in Russian dialects / S.M. Belyakova // Rus. lang. in school 2005. - No. 1. - S. 87-90.
22. Belyakova S.M. The image of time in the dialectal picture of the world: on the material of the vocabulary and phraseology of Russian old-timer dialects in the south of the Tyumen region: author. dis. . Dr. Philol. Sciences / S.M. Belyakova. - Yekaterinburg, 2005. 41 p.
23. Berdyaev, N.A. The meaning of history / N.A. Berdyaev. M.: Thought, 1990. - 173, (2) p.
24. Berezovich, E.JI. On the ethnolinguistic interpretation of semantic fields / E.JI. Berezovich // Vopr. linguistics. 2004. - No. 6. - S. 3-24.
25. Blinova, O.I. Russian dialectology. Vocabulary / O.I. Blinova. Tomsk: Publishing house of Tomsk, un-ta, 1984. - 134 p.
26. Bogdanov, V.V. Semantic-syntactic organization of the sentence /
27. B.V. Bogdanov. L .: Publishing house Leningrad. un-ta, 1977. - 204 p.
28. S.M. Prokhorova. Minsk: MSLU, 2005. - Part 2. -S. 173-175.
29. Brutyan, G.A. On the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis / G.A. Brutyan // Vopr. philosophy, - 1969, - No. 1.-S. 11-23.
30. Brysina E.V. Culture code in the semantics of dialect phraseological units / E.V. Brysina // V.I. Dal and Russian regional lexicology and lexicography: materials of Vseros. scientific conf. Yaroslavl, 2001a. -WITH. 112-119.
31. Brysina E.V. Expressive and expressive means of the dialect: textbook. allowance for a special course / E.V. Brysina. Volgograd: Change, 20016. -131 p.
32. Brysina E.V. Ethnocultural idioms of the Don Cossacks: monograph / E.V. Brysina. Volgograd: Change, 20036. - 293 p.
33. Brysina E.V. Ethnolinguoculturological foundations of dialect phrases of the Don: dis. . Dr. Philol. Sciences / E.V. Brysina. Volgograd, 2003c. - 543 p.
34. Brysina E.V. Lexicology. Lexicography. Phraseology: textbook.-method. allowance / E.V. Brysina, L.A. Shestak. Volgograd: Change, 2004. - 235 p.
35. Buylenko, I.V. Peripheral elements of the lexical-semantic group (based on the verbs of motion) / I.V. Buylenko, V.I. Suprun // Lexico-grammatical units in language and speech: Sat. scientific tr. -Volgograd, 1993a. pp. 43-55.
36. Buylenko, I.V. The core and periphery in the microfield "movement in space" / I.V. Buylenko, V.I. Suprun // Onomasiological aspects of semantics: Sat. scientific tr. Volgograd: Change, 19936. - S. 58-68.
37. Buylenko, I.V. Structuring of nuclear-peripheral relations in the semantic field "movement": dis. . cand. philol. Sciences / I.V. Buylenko. Volgograd, 1995. - 176 p.
38. Buslaev, F.I. Historical essays on Russian folk literature and art / F.I. Buslaev. M., 1961. - T. 1: Russian folk poetry. - 643 p.
39. Weisgerber, J.L. Native language and the formation of the spirit / I.L. Weisgerber. -2nd ed., rev. and additional M.: Editorial URSS, 2004. - 229 p.
40. Vasiliev, L.M. Theory of semantic fields / L.M. Vasiliev // Vopr. linguistics. 1971. - No. 5. - S. 105-113.
41. Vasiliev, L.M. Modern linguistic semantics: textbook. allowance for universities / L.M. Vasiliev. -M.: Higher. school, 1990. 175, (1) p.
42. Vezhbitskaya, A. Language. Culture. Cognition / A. Vezhbitskaya; resp. ed. M.A. Krongauz. M.: Rus. dictionaries, 1997. - 411 p.
43. Vezhbitskaya, A. Understanding cultures through keywords / A. Vezhbitskaya; per. from English. HELL. Shmelev. M.: Yaz. Slavs, culture, 2001. 288 p. - (Language. Semiotics. Culture.).
44. Veidiia, T.I. Dialect word in the paradigm of ethnolinguistic studies / T.I. Vendina // Lexical atlas of Russian folk dialects: materials and research 1999. St. Petersburg, 2002. -S. 3-15.
45. Vinogradov, V.V. The main types of phraseological units in the Russian language / V.V. Vinogradov // Russian language. M.-L., 1947. - S. 21-28.
46. Vlaskina T.Yu. Folk knowledge of the Don Cossacks / T.Yu. Vlaskina, N.A. Archipenko, N.V. Kalinicheva // Traditional culture: scientific. almanac. -2004.-№4.-S. 54-66.
47. Vlaskina T.Yu. Funeral and memorial customs and rituals of the Don Cossacks / T.Yu. Vlaskin // Traditional culture: scientific. almanac. -2004.-№4.-S. 35^47.
48. Vorkachev, S.G. Linguoculturology, linguistic personality, concept: the formation of an anthropocentric paradigm in linguistics / S.G. Vorkachev // Philol. Sciences. -2001. No. 1. - S. 64-72.
49. Vyzhletsov, G.P. Axiology of culture / G.P. Vyzhletsov. SPb., 1996. -150 p.
50. Gak, V.G. Space of time / V.G. Gak // Logical analysis of language: Language and time: Sat. Art. / resp. ed. N.D. Arutyunov. M., 1997. - S. 122-130.
51. Gvozdarev, Yu.A. The problem of the relationship of language, nation and culture of the people / Yu.A. Gvozdarev // Humanitarian sciences at the turn of the millennium. -Krasnodar, 1988. -Ch. 3. -S. 63-70.
52. Gvozdarev, Yu.A. Language is the confession of the people / Yu.A. Gvozdarev. M.: Rus. lang., 1993.-143 p.
53. Gerd, A.S. Introduction to ethnolinguistics: a course of lectures and a reader / A.S. Gerd. St. Petersburg: Publishing House of St. Petersburg. un-ta, 2001. - 488 p.
54. Gnutova, L.I. To the study of the Don calendar rituals: the celebration of the New Year / L.I. Gnutova, B.N. Protsenko // Traditional culture: scientific. almanac. -2004. - No. 4. S. 48-53.
55. Goldin, V.E. Theoretical problems of communicative dialectology: dis. in the form of scientific report . Dr. Philol. Sciences /
56. V.E. Goldin. Saratov, 1997. - 52 p.
57. Gomulov, V.I. On the correlation of the concepts of "Cossack", "Cossacks" and subethnos / V.I. Gomulov // Some problems of the history of the Cossacks of the Volgograd region. Volgograd, 1997. - S. 7-11.
58. Gorbatenko, O.A. The system and functioning of the lexemes of the Russian language with the meaning of time units in the light of the doctrine of the language picture of the world: author. dis. . cand. philol. Sciences / O.A. Gorbatenko. -Taganrog, 2001.-22 p.
59. Gordeev, A.A. History of the Cossacks / A.A. Gordeev. M.: Culture, 1991. - 342 p.
60. Grammar of the modern Russian literary language / ed. ed. N.Yu. Shvedova. M.: Nauka, 1970. - 768 p.
61. Humboldt, V. Language and Philosophy of Culture / V. Humboldt. M.: Progress, 1985.-451 p.
62. Humboldt, W. Selected writings in linguistics / V. Humboldt; per. with it., ed. and with preface. G.V. Ramishvili; afterword: A.V. Gulygi, V.A. Zvegintsev. 2nd ed. - M.: Progress, 2001. - 396, (2) p.
63. Gurevich, A.Ya. Time as a problem of cultural history / A.Ya. Gurevich // Vopr. philosophy. 1969. - No. 3. - S. 105-116.
65. Gurevich, P.S. Man and his values / P.S. Gurevich // Man and his values: Sat. Art. M., 1988. - Part 1. - S. 1-15.
66. Dmitryuk, S.V. The image of time in the minds of the speakers of Russian and English cultures/ S.V. Dmitryuk // Linguistic consciousness: formation and functioning. M., 2000. - S. 208-212.
67. Dobrovolsky, D.O. National and cultural specificity in phraseology / D.O. Dobrovolsky // Vopr. linguistics. 1998. - No. 6. -S. 48-55.
68. Dobrydneva, E.A. Communicative-pragmatic paradigm of Russian phraseology: monograph / E.A. Dobrydnev; scientific ed. N.F. Alefirenko. Volgograd: Change, 2000. - 224 p.
69. Dolgikh, N.G. Semantic field theory at the present stage of development of semasiology / N.G. Dolgikh // Philol. Sciences. 1973. - No. 1. -S. 89-98.
70. Don Cossacks in the past and present. Rostov n / D., 1997.
71. Zhitnikov, V.F. Lenis, gossip, prosecutor's office. / V.F. Zhitnikov // Rus. speech.-1992.-No. 1.-S. 96-98.
72. Zaliznyak, A.A. Time of day and activities / A.A. Zaliznyak, A.D. Shmelev // Logical analysis of language: Language and time: Sat. Art. / resp. ed. N.D. Arutyunov. M., 1997. - 352 p.
73. Zaliznyak, A.A. Key ideas of the Russian language picture of the world: Sat. Art. / A.A. Zaliznyak, I.B. Levontina, A.D. Shmelev. M.: Yaz. Slavyan, culture, 2005. - 544 p. - (Language. Semiotics. Culture).
74. Zametalina, M.N. Functional-semantic field of beingness in synchrony and diachrony: monograph / M.N. Zametalina. Volgograd: Change, 2002. - 228 p.
75. Zanozina, L.O. Terminology of calendar rites of the annual cycle in ethnolinguistic coverage (on the material of the Kursk region): dis. cand. philol. Sciences / L.O. Zanozina. Kursk, 1991. - 212 p.
76. Zanozina, L.O. Names of Kursk calendar holidays and festive periods / L.O. Zanozina // Lexical atlas of Russian folk dialects: materials and research 1999. St. Petersburg, 2002.1. pp. 95-97.
77. Zelenina, E.I. Babin's Day / E.I. Zelenina, I.A. Sedakova // Slavic antiquities: ethnolinguistic dictionary: in 5 volumes / under the general. ed. N.I. Tolstoy. M.: Intern. relations, 1995. -T. 1: A - D. - S. 122-125.
78. Ivanova, N.N. Folk signs in the dialect dictionary / N.N. Ivanova // Questions of regional linguistics: Sat. scientific tr., dedicated to memory of prof. JI.M. Orlova / scientific. ed. and comp. R.I. Kudryashov. Volgograd: Change, 2002.-S. 156-158.
79. Ivashko, L.A. Vocabulary / L.A. Ivashko // Russian dialectology / ed. prof. ON THE. Meshchersky. M.: Higher. school, 1972. - S. 262-290.
80. Ivashko, L.A. Essays on Russian Dialect Phraseology / L.A. Ivashko. -L .: Leningrad Publishing House. un-ta, 1981. 111 p.
81. Ignatenko, O.P. Means of secondary nomination of the spatial position of an object (on the material of verbs and verb phraseological units modern Russian language): Abstract of the thesis. dis. . cand. philol. Sciences / O.P. Ignatenko. Volgograd, 2004. - 16 p.
82. Illustrated history of the Cossacks. Reprint, ed. - Volgograd: Vedo, 1994.-544 p.
83. Ishchuk, D.G. Lexico-semantic field as an expression of the conceptual idea of time in the language (on the Russian-Slavic material): Author. dis. cand. philol. Sciences / D.G. Ischuk. SPb., 1995. - 16 p.
84. Kabakova, G.I. Age / G.I. Kabakov // Slavic antiquities: ethnolinguistic dictionary: in 5 volumes / under the general. ed. N.I. Tolstoy. M.: Intern. relations, 1995. -T. 1: A - D. - S. 405-407.
85. Kade, T.H. The semantic field "Man" in the Kaban dialect /
86. T.H. Kade, I.N. Ponomarenko // Lexical atlas of Russian folk dialects: materials and research 1998. St. Petersburg, 2001. - P. 219-222.
87. Calendar customs and rituals in the countries of foreign Europe: Historical roots and development of customs: Sat. Art. / resp. ed. S.A. Tokarev. -M.: Nauka, 1983.-222 p.
88. Calendar customs and rituals of the peoples of East Asia: Annual cycle / otv. ed. R.Sh. Dzharylgasinov. M.: Nauka, 1989. - 359 p.
89. Kandaurov, I.M. Don Cossacks: A Literary and Historical Chronicle of Their Life, Feats and Tragedies / I.M. Kandaurov. Volgograd: Stanitsa-2, 2003.-368 p.
90. Karasik, V.I. Cultural dominants in the language / V.I. Karasik // Linguistic Personality: Cultural Concepts: Sat. scientific tr. Volgograd, 1996. - S. 3-16.
91. Karasik, V.I. Language circle: personality, concepts, discourse / V.I. Karasik. Volgograd: Change, 2002. - 476 p.
92. Karaulov, Yu.N. The structure of the lexico-semantic field / Yu.N. Karaulov // Philol. Sciences. -1972. No. 1. - S. 57-68.
93. Karaulov, Yu.N. General and Russian ideography / Yu.N. Karaulov. M.: Nauka, 1976.-355 p.
94. Karaulov, Yu.N. Linguistic consciousness, linguistic picture of the world, mentality / Yu.N. Karaulov // Tower of Babel-2: The Word. Text. Culture. Annual Readings in memory of the book. N.S. Trubetskoy 2002-2003 "Eurasia at the crossroads of languages and cultures." M., 2003. - S. 17-28.
95. Knyazev, M.N. The past and its reflection in the folklore picture of the world of Russian proverbs / M.N. Knyazev // Problems of studying the living Russian word at the turn of the millennium: materials III Vseros. scientific-practical. conf. -Voronezh: VGPU, 2005. Part II. - S. 136-140.
96. Kovshova M.L. Cultural interpretation in procedural presentation / M.L. Kovshova // Semantics of language units: dokl. VI Intern. conf. -M., 1998.-T. 1.-S. 264-266.
97. Kodukhov, V.I. Introduction to linguistics / V.I. Kodukhov. M.: 1. Enlightenment, 1979.-351 p.
98. Yu1.Kolesov, V.V. The history of the Russian language in stories / V.V. Kolesov. 3rd ed., revised. - St. Petersburg: Avalon: ABC Classics, 2005. - 224 p.
99. Kondratenko, M.M. Semantic structure of time designations in Yaroslavl dialects / M.M. Kondratenko // Lexical atlas of Russian folk dialects: materials and research 1992. St. Petersburg, 1994. -S. 91-100.
100. Kondratenko, M.M. Designations of time units in the dialects of the Yaroslavl-Kostroma Volga region / M.M. Kondratenko // Lexical atlas of Russian folk dialects: materials and research 2001-2004. - St. Petersburg: Nauka, 2004. S. 256-260.
101. Yu4.Konon, V. The people in the coordinates of culture / V. Konon // Neman. -1995. -#2. -WITH. 31-40.
102. Yu5.Kopylenko, M.M. Fundamentals of ethnolinguistics / M.M. Kopylenko. - Almaty: Eurasia, 1995. 171 p.
103. Yub.Korolkova, V.A. Semantics of temporality in dialect speech (based on Smolensk dialects) / V.A. Korolkova // Herald of Kostroma state university them. ON THE. Nekrasov. -2007. T. 13. Spec. issue - S. 86-89.
104. Kortava, T.V. Semantics of the category of time / T.V. Kortava // Semantics of language units: dokl. V Intern. conf. M., 1996. - T. I. - S. 230-231.
105. Yu8. Kostromicheva, M.V. Thematic group"child" in Oryol dialects / M.V. Kostromicheva // Lexical Atlas of Russian Folk Dialects (Materials and Research) 2005 / Institute of Linguistics, Research. St. Petersburg: Nauka, 2005.-p. 216-221.
106. Yu9.Krasnykh, V.V. Ethnopsycholinguistics and linguoculturology: a lecture course / V.V. Red. M.: Publishing house "Gnosis", 2002. -282 p.
107. P.O.Krasukhin, K.G. Three models of Indo-European time based on vocabulary and grammar / K.G. Krasukhin // Logical analysis of language: Language and time: Sat. Art. / resp. ed. N.D. Arutyunov. M., 1997. - S. 62-77.
108. Krivchenko, E.L. On the concept of "semantic field" and methods of its study / E.L. Krivchenko // Philol. Sciences. 1973. - No. 1. - S. 99-103.
109. Krongauz, M.A. Semantic typology: time and space / M.A. Krongauz // Language and Culture: Facts and Values: On the 70th Anniversary of Yuri Sergeevich Stepanov / ed. ed. E.S. Kubryakova, T.E. Janko. M.: Yaz. Slavyan, culture, 2001. - S. 325-333.
110. All year round. Russian agricultural calendar / comp. A.F. Nekrylov. M .: Pravda, 1991. - 496 e .: ill.
112. Kudryashova, R.I. The word of the people. Dialects of the Volgograd region in the past and present / R.I. Kudryashov. Volgograd: Change, 1997. -124 p.
113. Kudryashova, R.I. Specificity of language processes in dialects of an isolated type (based on the Don Cossack dialects of the Volgograd region): monograph / R.I. Kudryashov. Volgograd: Change, 1998.-93 p.
114. Kudryashova, R.I. Semantics of the word weather in Volgograd dialects / R.I. Kudryashova, T.N. Kolokoltseva // Lexical atlas of Russian folk dialects: materials and research 1998. St. Petersburg, 2001. - P. 174-178.
115. Kuznetsov, A.M. National-cultural originality of the word / A.M. Kuznetsov // Language and culture: coll. reviews. M., 1980. - S. 53-58.
116. Kuznetsova, E.V. Motivational potential of the dialect word (based on the meteorological vocabulary of the Don dialects): dis. . cand. philol. Sciences / E.V. Kuznetsova. Volgograd, 2005. - 333 p.
117. Kulkova, M.A. The problem of definition and classification folk signs/ M.A. Kulkova // Problems of studying the living Russian word at the turn of the millennium: materials of the III All-Russian. scientific-practical. conf. Voronezh: VGPU, 2005.-Ch. II.-S. 146-151.
118. Lebedeva, N.I. Russian peasant clothes of the 19th century 20th century / N.I. Lebedeva, G.S. Maslova // Russian. Historical and ethnographic atlas.-M., 1967.-S. 193-267.
119. Levitsky, V.V. Experimental methods in semasiology /
120. B.V. Levitsky, I.A. Sternin. Voronezh: Voronezh Publishing House, University, 1989. -191, 2. p.
121. Vocabulary and phraseology of Russian dialects of Siberia / ed. ed. A.I. Fedorov. -Novosibirsk: Nauka, 1982. 144 p.
122. Vocabulary of Russian folk dialects: Sat. Art. / ed. F.P. Owl. -M.-L., 1966.-223 p.
123. Leontiev, A.N. The image of the world / A.N. Leontiev // Selected psychological works: v2 vol.-M.: Pedagogy, 1983.-T. 2.-S. 251-261.
124. Listopadov, A.M. Ancient Cossack wedding on the Don. Rites and verbal texts/ A.M. Falling leaves. Rostov n / D., 1947.
125. Likhachev, D.S. Conceptosphere of the Russian language / D.S. Likhachev // Izv. RAN. Ser. lit. and yaz. M., 1993.-T. 52, No. 1.-S. 3-10.
126. Logical analysis of language. Cultural concepts: Sat. Art. / resp. ed. N. D. Arutyunova. M., 1991.-204 p.
127. Logical analysis of language: Language and time: Sat. Art. / resp. ed. N.D. Arutyunov. -M.: Indrik, 1997.-352 p.
128. Maslova, V.A. Linguoculturology: textbook. allowance for students. higher textbook institutions / V.A. Maslova. M.: Ed. Center "Academy", 2001. - 208 p.
129. Matkheeva, L.B. Religious and ritual vocabulary in the dialects of the Old Believers (Semei) of Transbaikalia / L.B. Matheeva // Lexical atlas of Russian folk dialects: materials and research 1999. St. Petersburg, 2002.1. pp. 123-128.
130. Makhracheva, T.V. Lexico-semantic aspect of the folk calendar of the Tambov region (on the example of the Easter holiday) / T.V. Makhracheva //
131. Problems of studying the living Russian word at the turn of the millennium: materials of the III All-Russia. scientific-practical. conf. Voronezh: VGPU, 2005. -Ch. III.-S. 86-100.
132. Meshcheryakova Yu.V. Language and culture the essence of interconnection and mutual influence / Yu.V. Meshcheryakova // Linguistic personality: problems of cognition and communication: Sat. scientific tr. / ed. ON THE. Krasavsky. - Volgograd: College, 2001. - S. 165-171.
133. MO.Mirtov, A.V. Cossack dialects / A.V. Mirtov. Rostov n / D .: "Sevkavkniga", 1926. - 32 p.
134. Mikhail, 3. Ethnolinguistic methods in the study of folk spiritual culture / 3. Mikhail // Slavic and Balkan folklore. M.: Nauka, 1989.-S. 174-192.
135. Mikheeva, L.N. Time in the Russian language picture of the world: linguoculturological aspect: dis. Dr. Philol. Sciences / L.N. Mikheev. -M., 2004.-29 p.
136. Mokienko, V.M. Slavic phraseology: textbook. allowance for philol. specialist. un-tov / V.M. Mokienko. M.: Higher. school, 1980. - 207 p.
137. Mokienko, V.M. Images of Russian speech. Historical and etymological essays on phraseology / V.M. Mokienko. St. Petersburg: Folio-Press, 1999. - 459 p.
138. Morkovkin, V.V. Experience of the ideographic description of vocabulary (Analysis of words with the meaning of time in the Russian language) / V.V. Morkovkin; ed. A.A. Novikov. M.: Publishing House of Moscow. un-ta, 1977. - 168 p.
139. Nikitina, T.G. Problems of studying the ethno-cultural specifics of phraseology / T.G. Nikitin. Pskov, 1998. - 205 p.
140. Ritual poetry: calendar folklore. M.: Rus. book, 1997. -576 p.
141. Orlov, JI.M. Russian dialects of the Volgograd region / JI.M. Orlov. -Volgograd, 1984. 93 p.150.0ssovetsky, I.A. Vocabulary of modern Russian folk dialects / I.A. Ossovetsky. -M.: Nauka, 1982. 198 p.
142. Podyukov, I.A. Folk phraseology in the mirror of folk culture: textbook. allowance / I.A. Podyukov. Perm, 1991. - 125 p.
143. Field structures in the language system / scientific. ed. Z.D. Popov. Voronezh, 1989.- 198 p.
144. Popova, Z.D. Lexical system of language: textbook. allowance / Z.D. Popova, I.A. Sternin. Voronezh: Voronezh Publishing House, University, 1984. - 148 p.
145. Postovalova, V.I. Linguoculturology in the light of the anthropological paradigm (on the problem of foundations and boundaries of modern phraseology) / V.I. Postoval ova // Phraseology in the context of culture. M.: Yaz. Russian Cultures, 1999. - S. 25-33.
146. Potaenko, N.A. Time in language (experience of complex description) / N.A. Potaenko // Logical analysis of language: Language and time: Sat. Art. / resp. ed. N. D. Arutyunova. -M., 1997.-S.113-121.
147. Pronstein, A.P. The nature and characteristics of the settlement of the Don region in the XVIII century. / A.P. Pronshtein // Scientific reports of higher education. historical sciences. 1960. -№1. - S. 92-93.
148. Propp, V.Ya. Russian agricultural holidays (experience of historical and ethnographic research) / V.Ya. Propp. L., 1963.
149. Protsenko, B.N. History of spiritual culture of the Don region / B.N. Protsenko. Rostov n / D .: Publishing house Rost, un-ta, 1993.
150. Protsenko, B.N. Conspiracies, amulets, traditional medicine, beliefs, signs. Spiritual culture of the Don Cossacks / B.N. Protsenko. Rostov n / D .: Publishing house Rost, un-ta, 1998.-322 p.
151. Protsenko, B.N. Wedding ceremony of the Don Cossacks in time and space / B.N. Protsenko // Traditional culture: scientific. almanac. -2004.-№4.-S. 26-34.
152. Radzievskaya, T.V. About some words of time in the Ukrainian language / T.V. Radzievskaya // Logical analysis of language: Language and time: Sat. Art. / resp. ed. N.D. Arutyunov. M., 1997. - S. 36^13.
153. Radchenko, O.A., Zakutkina N.A. Dialectal picture of the world as an idioethnic phenomenon / O.A. Radchenko, N.A. Zakutkina // Vopr. linguistics. 2004. - No. 6. - S. 25-47.
154. The role of the human factor in the language: Language and picture of the world: Sat. Art. / resp. ed. B.A. Serebrennikov. -M.: Nauka, 1988.-215 p.
155. Runaev, Yu.V., Nabokov, V.N. Military-patriotic traditions in spiritual world Cossacks. Volgograd: KVVAUL, 1997. - 188 p.
156. Russian grammar: in 2 volumes / ch. ed. N.Yu. Shvedova. M.: Nauka, 1980 -T.I: - 784 e.; T.P: -710 s.
157. Russian dialectology / ed. prof. ON THE. Meshchersky. M.: Higher. school., 1972.-303 p.
158. Russian dialectology: textbook for students. philol. fak. higher textbook institutions / S.V. Bromley, L.N. Bulatova, O.G. Getsova and others; ed. L.L. Kasatkin. M.: Ed. center "Academy", 2005. - 288 p.
159. Russian people, their customs, rituals, traditions, superstitions and poetry / coll. M. Zabylin. Reprint, reproduction ed. 1880 - M.: Book: Printshop, 1990 - 616 p.
160. Ryabov, S.I. History of the native land XVI-XIX: Book. for the teacher / S.I. Ryabov. -Volgograd: Nizh.-Volzh. book. publishing house, 1988. 144 p.
161. Ryabtseva, N.K. Axiological models of time / N.K. Ryabtseva // Logical analysis of language: Language and time: Sat. Art. / resp. ed. N.D. Arutyunov. M., 1997. -S. 78-95.
162. Savchuk, G.V. Reflection in Russian phraseology of the spatial model of the world: author. dis. . cand. philol. Sciences / G.V. Savchuk. Eagle, 1995.-23 p.
163. Sapozhnikova L.M. Cultural component of the lexical meaning of proper names and their adjectival derivatives / L.M. Sapozhnikova // Vocabulary and culture. M., 1990. - S. 86-91.
164. Sergeev, F.P. On the nature of the interaction between the dialects of Russian and Ukrainian in conditions of mixed settlement / F.P. Sergeev // Questions of Russian dialectology. Kuibyshev, 1965. - S. 49-71.
165. Sergeev, F.P. Fundamentals of linguistic research / F.P. Sergeev. - Volgograd: Change, 1997. 163 p.
166. Sorokin, Yu.A. Language, consciousness, culture / Yu.A. Sorokin, E.F. Tarasov, N.V. Ufimtseva // Collection of scientific papers. M., 1991. - Issue. 326.
167. Ways of nomination in modern Russian / otv. ed. D.N. Shmelev. M.: Nauka, 1982. - 296 p.
168. Stepanov, Yu.S. Time / Yu.S. Stepanov // Constants: Dictionary of Russian culture / Yu.S. Stepanov. Ed. 3rd, rev. and additional - M.: Acad. Project, 2004. - S. 228-248.
169. Sternin, I.A. Lexical meaning words in speech / I.A. Sternin. -Voronezh, 1985.- 170 p.
170. Suprun, V.I. Features of the application of the field approach to the analysis of onomastic space / V.I. Suprun // Field theory in modern linguistics: materials of scientific-theor. seminar. Ch. V. - Ufa: Bashk. state un-t, 1999. S. 134-139.
171. Suprun, V.I. Onomastic field of the Russian language and its artistic and aesthetic potential: monograph / V.I. Suprun. Volgograd: Change, 2000. - 172 p.
172. Tan Aoshuang On the model of time in the Chinese language picture of the world / Tan Aoshuang // Logical analysis of language: Language and time: Sat. Art. / resp. ed. N.D. Arutyunov. M., 1997. - S. 96-106.
173. Telia, V.N. Metaphorization and its role in creating a linguistic picture of the world / V.N. Telia // The role of the human factor in language. Language and picture of the world. -M, 1988.-S. 173-203.
174. Telia, V.N. Russian phraseology: semantic, pragmatic and linguoculturological aspects / V.N. Telia. M.: Yaz. Russian culture, 1996.-286 p.
175. Field theory in modern linguistics: materials of scientific-theor. seminar. -Ufa: Bashk. state un-t, 1999. Part V. - 204 p.
176. Tikhonov, A.N. Parts of speech lexical and grammatical categories of words / A.N. Tikhonov // Questions of the theory of parts of speech. On the material of languages of various types.-L .: Nauka, 1968.-S. 156-167.
177. Tokarev, G.V. The concept as an object of linguoculturology (based on the representation of the concept "Labor" in Russian) / G.V. Tokarev. - Volgograd, 2003. -230 p.
178. Tolstaya, S.M. On the pragmatic interpretation of ritual and ritual folklore / S.M. Tolstaya // Image of the world in word and ritual. Balkan Readings-l.-M., 1992.-S. 215-229.
179. Tolstaya, S.M. Time / S.M. Tolstaya // Slavic Antiquities: Ethnolinguistic Dictionary: in 5 volumes / ed. ed. N.I. Tolstoy. M.: Intern. relations, 1995. -T. 1: A - D. - S. 448-452.
180. Tolstaya, S.M. Time as an instrument of magic: compression and stretching of time in the Slavic folk tradition / S.M. Tolstaya // Logical analysis of language: Language and time: Sat. Art. / resp. ed. N.D. Arutyunov. M., 1997.-S. 28-35.
181. Tolstaya, S.M. Mythology and axiology of time in Slavic folk culture / S.M. Tolstaya // Culture and History. Slavic world. M., 1997.-S. 62-79.
182. Tolstaya, S.M. Folk calendar / S.M. Tolstaya // Slavic mythology: encyclopedia. dictionary. 2nd ed., rev. and additional - M.: Intern. relations, 2002. - S. 212-214.
183. Tolstoy, N.I. From the experiments of the typological study of the Slavic vocabulary / N.I. Tolstoy // Vopr. linguistics. 1963. - No. 1. -S. 29^5.
184. Tolstoy, N.I. On the subject of ethnolinguistics and its role in the study of language and ethnicity / N.I. Tolstoy // Areal research in the linguistics of ethnography. Language and ethnos: Sat. scientific tr. -M., 1983. S. 180-190.
185. Tolstoy, N.I. Language and folk culture: Essays on Slavic mythology and ethnolinguistics / N.I. Tolstoy. M.: Indrik, 1995. - 512 p.
186. Tolstoy, N.I. Time magic circle (according to the ideas of the Slavs) / N.I. Tolstoy // Logical analysis of language: Language and time: Sat. Art. / resp. ed. N.D. Arutyunov. M., 1997. - S. 17-27.
187. Tolstoy, N.I. Language and culture / N.I. Tolstoy // The language of folklore: textbook-method. allowance. Tomsk: Ed. TSU, 2005. - S. 47-58.
188. Toporov, V.N. Space / V.N. Toporov // Myths of the peoples of the world: encyclopedia: in 2 volumes / ed. S.A. Tokarev. Moscow: Bolshaya Ros. Encycl., 2003. - T. 2: K-Ya. - S. 340-342.
189. Trubetskoy, N.S. Story. Culture. Language / N.S. Trubetskoy. M., 1995. - 798 p.
190. Ufimtseva, A.A. Theories of the "semantic field" and the possibility of their application in the study of the vocabulary of the language / A.A. Ufimtseva // Questions of the theory of language in modern foreign linguistics. M., 1961.-S. 42.
191. Ufimtseva, A.A. The role of vocabulary in human cognition of reality and the formation of a linguistic picture of the world / A.A. Ufimtseva // The role of the human factor in language. Language and picture of the world. M., 1988. -S.108-140.
192. Ufimtseva, N.V. Russians: the experience of another self-knowledge / N.V. Ufimtseva // Ethnocultural specifics of linguistic consciousness. M., 1996.-S. 139-162.
193. Ufimtseva, N.V. Ethnic character, self-image and linguistic consciousness of Russians / N.V. Ufimtseva // Linguistic consciousness: formation and functioning.-M., 2000.-S. 135-171.
194. Fedosov, Yu.V. Description of the structure of the semantic field "temperature" / Yu.V. Fedosov // Field theory in modern linguistics: materials of scientific-theor. seminar. Ufa: Bashk. state un-t, 1999. - Part V. - S. 155-157.
195. Filatova, V.F. Ritual vocabulary of time and space (based on the dialects of the eastern part Voronezh region) / V.F. Filatova // Lexical atlas of Russian folk dialects: materials and research 1992.-SPb., 1994a.-S. 105-111.
196. Filatova, V.F. Semantics of subject ritual vocabulary / V.F. Filatova // Lexical atlas of Russian folk dialects: materials and research 1993.-SPb., 19946.-S. 81-91.
197. Filatova, V.F. Rite and ritual vocabulary in the ethno-linguo-semiotic aspect (based on the dialects of the eastern part of the Voronezh region): author. dis. cand. philol. Sciences / V.F. Filatov. Voronezh, 1995. - 228 p.
198. Filatova, V.F. On the semiosphere of traditional folk spiritual culture / V.F. Filatova // Lexical atlas of Russian folk dialects: materials and research 1994. St. Petersburg, 1996. - P. 76-80.
199. Phraseology in the context of culture / otv. ed. V. N. Teliya. M., 1999. - 333 p.
200. Frumkina, P.M. Constants of culture continuation of the topic / P.M. Frumkin // Language and Culture: Facts and Values: On the 70th Anniversary of Yuri Sergeevich Stepanov / ed. ed. E. S. Kubryakova, T. E. Yanko. - M.: Yaz. Slavs, cultures, 2001. - S. 167-177.
201. Heidegger, M. Being and time / M. Heidegger; per. with him. V.V. Bibikhin. -2nd ed., rev. St. Petersburg: Nauka, 2002. - 451 p.
202. Tsapenko, S.A. Features of the conceptualization of the daily circle in the Russian language picture of the world: author. dis. . cand. philol. Sciences / S.A. Tsapenko. Arkhangelsk, 2005. - 26 p.
203. Chavchavadze, N.Z. Culture and values / N.Z. Chavchavadze. Tbilisi: Metsniereba, 1984.- 171 p.
204. Chan Van Ko Time and Eastern astrology / Chan Van Ko // Logical analysis of language: Language and time: Sat. Art. / resp. ed. N.D. Arutyunov. -M., 1997.-S. 107-112.
205. Human factor in language: Language mechanisms of expressiveness / otv. ed. V.N. Telia. -M.: Nauka, 1991. -214 p.
206. Chepasova, A.M. Reflection of spiritual culture in phraseological units / A.M. Chepasova // Russian language as a state language: materials of the Intern. conf. Chelyabinsk: Chelyab publishing house. state ped. in-ta, 1988. - S. 17-32.
207. Schur, G.S. Field theory in linguistics / G.S. Schur. M.: Nauka, 1974. - 256 p.
208. Yavorskaya, G.M. "Time" and "Chance": a fragment of the semantic field of time in the Slavic languages / G.M. Yavorskaya // Logical analysis of language: Language and time: Sat. Art. / resp. ed. N.D. Arutyunov. M., 1997. -S. 44-50.
209. Language. Culture. Ethnos. M.: Nauka, 1994. - 233 p.
210. Yakovleva, E.S. Fragment of the Russian language picture of time / E.S. Yakovleva // Vopr. linguistics. 1994a. - No. 5. - S. 73-89.
211. Yakovleva, E.S. Fragments of the Russian language picture of the world (models of space, time and perception) / E.S. Yakovlev. M.: Gnosis, 19946.-344 p.
212. Yakovleva, E.S. To the description of time in the picture of the world of a native speaker of the Russian language / E.S. Yakovleva // Semantics of language units: dokl. V Intern. conf. M, 1996. - T. II. - S. 242-245.
213. Yakovleva, E.S. Hour in the system of Russian names of time / E.S. Yakovleva // Logical analysis of language: Language and time: Sat. Art. / resp. ed. N.D. Arutyunov. M., 1997.-S. 267-281.
214. Cultural models in language and thought / Ed. By Hjlland D., Quinn N. Cambridge, 1987. XII.1. LIST OF DICTIONARIES
215. Big explanatory dictionary of the Don Cossacks. M.: Rus. dictionaries: Astrel: ACT, 2003. - 608 p.
216. Glukhov, V.M. Dictionary of the Don dialect and colloquial phraseology (based on the dialects of the Ilovlinsky district of the Volgograd region): manuscript / V.M. Glukhov. 200 s.
217. Dahl, V.I. Dictionary of the living Great Russian language: in 4 volumes / V.I. Dahl M.: Rus. yaz., 2002.
218. V.I. Dal-M.: Rus. yaz., 2002.
219. Don Historical and Ethnographic Dictionary. Program. M., 1998. - 132 p.
220. Zemtsov, S.N. Dictionary of words and expressions that existed among the Don Cossacks: manuscript / S.N. Zemtsov. 1991. - 132 p.
221. Isaev, M.I. Dictionary of ethnolinguistic concepts and terms / M.I. Isaev. 3rd ed. - M.: Flinta: Nauka, 2003. - 200 p.
222. Linguistic encyclopedic dictionary / ch. ed. V.N. Yartseva. -M.: Bolshaya Ros. Encikl., 2002. 709 e.: ill.
223. Maslov, V.G. Dictionary of the dialect of Dobrinka (based on the dialect of Dobrinka of the Uryupinsk district of the Volgograd region) / V.G. Maslov. Shuya, 1993.- 177 p.
224. Mirtov, A.V. Don dictionary. Materials for the study of the vocabulary of the Don Cossacks / A.V. Mirtov. Rostov n / D., 1929.
225. Myths of the peoples of the world: encyclopedia: in 2 volumes / ed. S.A. Tokarev. Moscow: Bolshaya Ros. Encycl., 2003. - T.l: A-K. - 671 e.; T. 2: K-Ya. - 719 p.
226. Ozhegov, S.I. Explanatory dictionary of the Russian language / S.I. Ozhegov, N.Yu. Shvedova. -M.: Azbukovnik, 1999. 944 p.
227. Slavic mythology: encyclopedia. dictionary. 2nd ed., rev. and additional - M.: Intern. relations, 2002. - 512 p.
228. Dictionary of dialects of the Moscow region. M., 1969. - 598 p.
229. Dictionary of Russian Don dialects: in 3 volumes. Rostov n / D .: Publishing house Rost, un-ta, 1975-1976.
230. Dictionary of Russian Don dialects. T. 1.-Rostov n / D., 1991.
231. Dictionary of Russian folk dialects / ch. ed. F.P. Owl. L .: Nauka, 1968. - Issue. 3. - 360 e.; 1969. - Issue. 4. - 356 e.; 1979. - Issue. 15. - 400 e.; 1981.-Iss. 17.-384 p.
232. Dictionary of Russian folk dialects / ch. ed. F.P. Sorokoletov. St. Petersburg: Nauka, 2002. - Issue. 36. - 344 p.
233. Dictionary of the Russian language: in 4 volumes / USSR Academy of Sciences, Institute of Russian. lang.; ed. A.P. Evgenieva. 3rd ed., stereotype. - M.: Rus. lang., 1985. - T.l: A - I. -696 e.; 1986. - V.2: K - O. - 736 e.; 1987. - T. 3 .: P - R. - 750 e.; 1988. -T. 4: S-Ya.-800 p.
234. Dictionary of modern Russian folk dialect (village Deulino, Ryazan district, Ryazan region) / ed. I.A. Osovetsky. M.: Nauka, 1969.-612 p.
235. Stepanov, Yu.S. Constants: Dictionary of Russian Culture / Yu.S. Stepanov. - Ed. 3rd, rev. and additional M.: Acad. Project, 2004. - 992 p.
236. Fasmer, M. Etymological dictionary of the Russian language: in 4 volumes / M. Fasmer; lane with him. and additional HE. Trubachev. 2nd ed., ster. - M.: Progress, 1987.
237. Philosophy: encyclopedia. dictionary / ed. A.A. Ivin. M.: Gardariki, 2004.-1072 p.
238. Phraseological dictionary of the Russian literary language: in 2 volumes / comp. A.I. Fedorov. Novosibirsk: Nauka, Sib. ed. firm RAN, 1995.
239. Phraseological dictionary of the Russian language / ed. A. I. Molotkova. -M.: Rus. yaz., 1986.
240. Chernykh, P.Ya. Historical and etymological dictionary of the modern Russian language: in 2 volumes / P.Ya. Chernykh. 7th ed., ster. - M.: Rus. lang.: Media, 2006.
241. Yaroslavl regional dictionary: textbook. allowance: in 10 issue. Yaroslavl: YaGPI im. K.D. Ushinsky, 1981-1991.
242. LIST OF LITERARY SOURCES
243. Danilov, I.P. Donskoy chebor: miniatures / I.P. Danilov. Volgograd: Nizh.-Volzh. book. publishing house, 1988. - 192 p.
244. Ekimov, B.P. Stories: Private investigation: a story / B.P. Ekimov; foreword V. Vasiliev. M.: Artist. lit., 1991.-415 p.
245. Ekimov, B.P. Works: in 3 volumes / B.P. Yekimov. Volgograd: State. institution "Publisher", 2000. - Vol. 1. - 608 e.; T.2. - 624 e.; T. 3. - 624 p.
246. Kogitin, V.V. Tales-retellings / V.V. Kogitin. Volgograd: Stanitsa, 1996.-240 p.
247. Kulkin, E.A. The Forgiven Age: Trilogy: Downfall: a novel / E.A. Kulkin. -Volgograd: State. institution "Publisher", 2000. 752 p.
248. Serafimovich, A.S. Collected Works: in Ut. / A.S. Serafimovich. -M.: GIHL, 1947-1948.
250. Sukhov, N.V. Cossack: a novel / N.V. Sukhov. Volgograd: N.-Volzh. book. ed., 1970.-576 p.
251. Turgenev, I.S. Novels and stories / I.S. Turgenev. M.: Artist. lit., 1965.-200 p.
Please note the above scientific texts posted for review and obtained through recognition of original texts of dissertations (OCR). In this connection, they may contain errors related to the imperfection of recognition algorithms. There are no such errors in the PDF files of dissertations and abstracts that we deliver.
Introduction to work
Relevance The work is due, first of all, to the need for a comprehensive study of temporal semantics, which is one of the most important and complex aspects of the language picture of the world and the modeling of which is associated with many debatable issues. In addition, a comparative perspective of considering the problem in two developed linguistic and cultural systems contributes to solving a number of issues related to the effectiveness of various types of practical activities (language teaching, compiling dictionaries, improving translation, increasing the level of mutual understanding of peoples).
The theoretical basis of the study the works of domestic and foreign scientists in such areas as the theory of lexical semantics and lexicography (Yu. D. Apresyan, L. G. Babenko, B. Yu. Gorodetsky, F. Dornseif, Yu. M. Kobozeva, R. del Moral, V. V. Morkovkin, P. M. Roger, A. D. Shmelev and others), linguoculturological approach and theory of intercultural communication (L. Boroditsky, O. A. Kornilov, F (Marcos-Marin, A. de Miguel, Yu. S. Stepanov, B. Whorf, E. Hall, K. Hammond, etc.). The work was also based on the results of cognitive (J. Lakoff, R. Nunez,
G. Rudden, V. Evans, etc.) and psycholinguistic (S. V. Dmitryuk, A. A. Zalevskaya, D. Casasanto, D. Slobin, B. Tversky, etc.) studies.
One of the significant trends in modern scientific development is the integration of various fields of knowledge. The study of temporal semantics is also impossible without an interdisciplinary approach, since time - the basic category of human existence and consciousness - must be considered from the point of view of a hierarchy of deeply interconnected temporalities. Thus, it is relevant for us to highlight the problem of time in the works of philosophers, psychologists, anthropologists, and also (albeit to a lesser extent) in natural science research.
object research are multi-level units
temporal thesaurus of the Spanish and Russian languages (words and clichéd constructions built on their basis).
Subject of study- regularities of the structural organization of the semantic field TIME and functional regularities of the processes of its use (in the aspect of intercultural communication).
Target research - to determine both general and national-specific features of the temporal thesaurus in the Spanish and Russian languages and to identify the communicative mechanisms of the functioning of its units.
To achieve this goal, it is necessary to solve the following tasks:
describe the main methodological principles scientific research of the category of time and various approaches to it in linguistics and related sciences;
to characterize the main temporal models that form the image of time in the minds of the carriers different languages and cultures;
to analyze the ways of structuring the lexico-semantic area of time in the existing ideographic dictionaries of the Spanish and Russian languages;
highlight the main semantic microfields as an empirical basis for the study and select key temporal lexical units in them;
to build the optimal interpretation of the selected vocabulary for the set goal based on a critical analysis of dictionary definitions and a component analysis of meanings;
to analyze samples of intercultural communication in terms of similarities and differences in the organization of ideas about the temporal picture of the world, as well as to identify and classify typical clichéd constructions with temporary vocabulary;
identify and classify communication difficulties for native speakers of the Russian language associated with the Spanish vocabulary of time; analyze their sources in terms of verbalization and understanding of the communicative intent.
Hypothesis research is that pragmasemantics
temporal lexical units of Russian and Spanish in a number of ways
characterized by both common (often universal) features and
national-specific features that cause difficulties
different order in intercultural communication. Relationship of vocabulary and
discourse can be explained on the basis of a little-studied phenomenon
cliched constructions, the study of which is also of undoubted practical interest.
Methodology This study is based on the concept of semantic fields and thesauri as tools for language modeling of the world, as well as on the theory of intercultural communication, which considers the actualization of the studied semantic units in the discourse of two languages. To solve the tasks set, the potential of corpus linguistics is involved, as well as methods comparative semantics, formal logic, component analysis of meanings, ideographic
vocabulary classification, pragmatic modeling, selective survey of native Spanish speakers.
Scientific novelty The results of the study are determined by the insufficient study of the semantic structure of the temporal thesaurus in a comparative sense and its communicative properties at the intercultural level. At work for the first time:
the dual nature of the category "thesaurus" is considered (the objectively existing organization of vocabulary in language memory and, on the other hand, its reflection in specialized dictionaries);
the definition of the temporal thesaurus is given in order to remove contradictions in the comparative analysis of the content of the semantic fields TIME / THEMRO;
the semantic structure of the temporal thesaurus in two languages is modeled with the help of cliched constructions as a special tool for the pragmasemantic organization of vocabulary;
held comparative analysis lexical temporality in the worldviews of these languages from the point of view of intercultural communication;
a classification of communicative difficulties associated with the actualization of units of the Spanish temporal thesaurus in speech by native speakers of the Russian language is given.
Theoretical significance The work is determined by its contribution to the improvement of lexicography, especially of the ideographic type, to the development of the theory of the communicative effectiveness of the dictionary, as well as to the development of studies of culturally significant semantic fields in the languages of the world. The vocabulary processing procedures presented in the study can also be used in relation to other semantic fields.
Practical value research is due to the applicability of its results to such areas of linguistic practice as the training of translators, the creation of educational dictionaries and teaching aids, development of intercultural contacts and mutual understanding between nations. Conclusions and
thesis materials can be used in the preparation of lectures on the semantics and typology of languages.
Reliability The results of the study are ensured, first of all, by the representativeness of the analyzed material and a careful approach to its selection.
Actually linguistic material dissertation is the temporal vocabulary, reflected with the help of advanced metalinguistic means of modern lexicography in various dictionaries of two languages (with the involvement of English as well) - about 6.5 thousand words and 2.5 thousand clichéd constructions.
source speech material are the Spanish text corpora Corpus del Espaol, Corpus de Referencia del Espaol Actual (CREA) and the National Corpus of the Russian Language, linguistic sites and language Internet forums. The total volume of the used array of texts of different stylistic orientations ( fiction, media texts, Internet correspondence, recording of dialogues) in the studied languages amounted to more than 25,000 pages.
Reliability is also ensured by the use of comparative methods of pragmatically oriented semantic analysis of the units of the studied fields, as well as the experience of both domestic and foreign lexicography of the ideographic type. The effectiveness of the path we have chosen is confirmed by the fact of the prevailing way of presenting the vocabulary of time in the most authoritative monolingual and bilingual dictionaries: they actively use the pragmatic implementation of lexical units in various clichéd constructions.
The following provisions are put forward for defense:
1. The area of time in the existing ideographic dictionaries of the Russian and Spanish languages is structured differently, depending on the approach to the ideographic description of vocabulary in Russian and Spanish-language scientific
schools. To remove contradictions, it is advisable to use the term "temporal thesaurus" when comparing the vocabulary of time in two languages.
The values of the units of the Russian and Spanish temporal thesauri, in addition to constant information, often include variable (pragmatic) information, which for both studied languages manifests itself through certain linguistic phenomena in clichéd constructions. Such constructions serve as a tool for pragmasemantic modeling of lexical temporality.
In the systemic aspect, the high pragmatic potential of the units under study is manifested through an extensive network of semantic relations, and in the functional aspect, due to their information richness, which is updated in certain discourse contexts.
The pragmatics of the studied vocabulary of time, universal in its foundations, has a national-specific implementation associated with the choice of dominant units and differences in the pragma-semantic content of equivalents. The primary source of such specificity is the semiotic discrepancy between national temporal stereotypes and codes.
A comparative study of the pragmasemantics of language units with the meaning of time, from the point of view of the main culturally distinctive features, makes it possible to identify and systematize the communicative difficulties that a native speaker of the Russian language faces in intercultural communication; the model of comparative analysis of the units of the Spanish and Russian thesauri of time, developed in the thesis, can be used to prevent and overcome communication failures.
Approbation of the dissertation. The main provisions of the dissertation were repeatedly discussed at the meetings of the Department of Linguistic Semantics of the FSPE MSLU (2011-2015), with the involvement of specialists from the Department of Lexicology in English FSPN MSLU (2015) and covered in three publications on the research topic with a total volume of 2.2 p.l. in publications included in the "List of Russian peer-reviewed scientific journals and publications in which
be published the main scientific results of dissertations for competition degrees doctor and candidate of sciences”, as well as in the report at the International Scientific Conference “Events in Communication and Cognition” (May 19-20, 2016, Moscow, MSLU).
Thesis structure determined by its purpose, objectives and logic of the study. The dissertation consists of an Introduction, three chapters, a Conclusion, a bibliography (a list of cited literature, used dictionaries and Internet sources) and four appendices.
