Working within the framework of the functional-communicative linguodidactic model of language [Amiantova et al. 2001] led us to the need to distinguish four levels in the language: 1) meaningful, 2) formal, 3) communicative [Bezyaeva 2004] and 4) the level of language mechanisms. Each of the levels seems to have its own sublevels, its own structure and its own means of expression. There are no rigid boundaries between the levels, the intersection zones are very extensive.

Informative The level (content space) reflects the national linguistic picture of the world and provides both the dictum content of our speech constructions and nationally determined systems of modus meanings. The main means of its expression is the lexicon of the given language in certain grammatical forms and syntactic constructions (see the syntactic classifications of the lexicon [Vsevolodova 2000]), which is already an inevitable and vast zone of intersection of levels, and its phraseology.

Level formal, Or Grammatical means It provides both the functioning of vocabulary in speech constructions (lexicon does not function outside of grammar), and, with no less power than in vocabulary and phraseology, the expression of the linguistic picture of the world and the concept sphere of native speakers of a given language. It includes sublevels traditionally allocated in our languages: phonetics, morphology, syntax. We attribute word formation not to morphology, but to vocabulary [Usikova 2005], and this is a sublevel of the zone of intersection of content and formal levels. For all its traditional character, this level is still far from being explored. Practice has shown that many fundamental aspects of all its sublevels have not been worked out.

Communicative The level contains systems of possible communicative tasks for a given language and ways to solve them. As for the content level, it is necessary to reveal the structure of this level, its

Units, systems of meanings - classes or categories of communicative tasks that are solved in the production of speech; and their set is different in different languages. This aspect is one of the most difficult. The main material unit of this level is the text: from a one-word telegram, dialogue to a scientific monograph and a novel, in unity with the extralinguistic conditions for its implementation - discourse. One of the main means of expression is intonation in conjunction with the syntax of the utterance.

Level language mechanisms Provides and "constructs" both the most informative and other functions of the language. This is an aspect of the functioning of the language as a single structure and rules for the production of speech. We now know of two classes of such mechanisms: Corrective responsible for the semantic and formal correctness of our speech, and Communicative, providing the solution of communicative tasks that are important for the speaker [Vsevolodova 2000]. Perhaps there are other mechanisms.

It can be said that the last three levels provide the optimal implementation of the content level, and that, in turn, is the basis of existence, the "semantic body" - and in this respect something material - of all other levels. And this level has been constantly in the field of attention of linguists since the first half of the last century, first in the form of logical (conceptual) categories, [Jespersen 1958, 57-62 ], [Meshchaninov 1945], and then in the form of more specific units. Speaking of logical categories, it is impossible not to highlight the concept of I. I. Meshchaninov, who, unlike F. Bruno and O. Jespersen, showed the deepest, in each language (or type of language), his penetration of logical categories into the very structure, the grammar of the language (This is easy see by comparing the above-mentioned works by O. Jespersen and I. I. Meshchaninov). It is on the concept of I. I. Meshchaninov that the approaches of our linguists to the study of the content level of the language are based, which allows us to approach the description of the language “from the meaning”, taking into account its closest connection with grammar.

Note that the “from meaning” approach was first practically implemented in the late 40s and early 50s of the last century by teachers of Russian as a foreign language, abandoning the linear (by parts of speech) presentation of Russian grammar to foreign speakers. They came from the needs of practice (providing active and multifunctional use of the language for foreigners directly in the process of learning the language, and not in the long term), from the realization that not all the meanings and meanings conveyed by our words and forms fit into the consciousness of the foreigner, and that, accordingly, the correlation of these senses and meanings should be the object of a comparative study. Therefore, the theory of functional-semantic fields (FSP) proposed by A. V. Bondarko in the 1960s [Bondarko 1967] gave our approach a theoretical basis and was not only “taken into service”, but also passed many years of testing both in practice teaching (which does not mean the study of the FSP as a unit of language in the classroom), and in numerous theoretical studies carried out within the framework of this language model (see about this in [Vsevolodova 2000]). This showed the explanatory power of the FSP theory and its undoubted scientific value. The adequacy of this theory within the framework of other models and directions was fully confirmed in the fundamental work "Theory of Functional Grammar" 1988 - 1996 (TFG), ed. A. V. Bondarko (hereinafter [Bondarko, TFG, 1]). Some theoretical provisions were clarified, while others were first formulated by A. V. Bondarko in the "Introduction" to this work [Bondarko, TFG, 1, 9-39 ]. It should also be noted the release of the collection “Problems of Functional Grammar. Field structures. - St. Petersburg, 2005, (hereinafter [PFG 2005]). Speaking above about units that are more specific than logical categories within the content level of the language, I had in mind precisely FSP as a nationally determined implementation of conceptual categories in each specific language.

Description of the categories of time, space, reason for the purpose of teaching Russian to foreign speakers [Vsevolodova 1975], [Vsevolodova, Vladimirsky 1982], [Vsevolodova, Yashchenko 1988], [Kotvitskaya 1990], [Lebedeva 2005], [Zhdanova 1998], [Pankov 2005 ] and others, as well as studies conducted in a broader aspect, regardless of teaching, revealed some features in the structure and types of FSP that are relevant for the characteristics of FSP within the framework of the above-mentioned language model and, I think, within the framework of the general concept of the field, which, in turn, allows us to propose some corrections both to the already existing descriptions of the types and structure of the FSP, and to our own statements made earlier, for example, in [Vsevolodova 2000]. At the same time, we rely on the position expressed by A. V. Bondarko that “The development of the theoretical foundations of functional grammar has a search character. The proposed interpretation of the principles of grammatical description and the system of initial concepts is a concept designed for clarification and development in the course of subsequent studies of functional orientation" [Bondarko, TFG, 1, 38 ]. It is from these positions that we wish to discuss certain points of interest to us. The subject of discussion in this article are the following questions:

2. Functional-semantic field and functional-semantic category. one. Field and category. Field structure and category structure The definition of FSP as semantic categories considered "together with the complex

Multi-level means of their expression in a given language" [Bondarko, TFG, 1, 31 ] is fundamentally important

Because it represents an organic unity for the language of two seemingly mutually exclusive structures - fields and categories1. At the same time, since the basis for the formation of the FSP is its substantive aspect, it is also fundamentally important for us to single out this aspect precisely as a category, that is, a system of oppositions of different levels, which, in my opinion, is explained by the specifics of the human mind: in order to objectify the observed phenomena, we should organize them in a certain way, categorize them. As for the structure of the field, this is a common structure for the universe (cf. the gravitational field, the electric field, etc.). Therefore, we will try to distinguish between such concepts as a field and a category, in particular, a functional-semantic field and a functional-semantic category (FSC), which in [Vsevolodova 2000, 76 -77 ] are not differentiated, although these units imply fundamentally different types of structuring.

Functional-semantic field "truth" in English aphoristics (on the example of gnomic statements)

FUNCTIONAL-SEMANTIC FIELD "TRUTH" IN ENGLISH APHORISTS (BY THE EXAMPLE OF GNOMIC STATEMENTS)

The subject of our study is English-language aphorisms, which, according to the modern aphorist J. Geary, are included in the so-called gnomic corpus of statements 1 . The meaning that the authors of sayings invest in aphorisms, maxims, maxims, judgments of a paradoxical nature and which is transmitted in certain semantic types of sentences, "What I say is right." As a result, the presupposition "enlightenment" determines the popularity of the aphoristic genre today, when people, due to lack of time, prefer to receive maximum information in the minimum amount. As a result, interest in various collections of worldly wisdom, guides on the path of life, in which instruction or advice in any circumstances E. M. Vereshchagin and V. G. Kostomarov, studying aphoristics in the linguistic and regional aspect, suggest using the term ʻaphoristic level of language 2 .

An alternative to the level model of the language system in relation to the material of the study seems to us to be a field model.

GS Shchur defined the field as a way of existence and grouping of linguistic elements with common invariant properties 3 . A. M. Kuznetsov sets out his vision of the “field” problem in more detail in the dictionary entry, where he describes the field as “a set of linguistic (mainly lexical) units united by a common content (sometimes also by a common formal indicators) and reflecting a conceptual, subject or functional the similarity of the designated phenomena” 4 . In our opinion, what should unite all varieties of an aphoristic fund naturally follows from the semantic presupposition `enlightenment', namely, the categorical situation in the sphere of modality is an imperative situation. A. V. Bondarko interprets it as a "typical content structure, the main elements of which are: the subject of the expression of will (C1), the subject-performer (C2), a predicate that reveals the content of the expression of will emanating from C1 and addressed to C2: an action is caused (in the broad sense) aimed at transforming a so far unreal situation into a situation that, according to the speaker’s intention should become real as a result of the caused action "5. In our case, the sign of beneficiation, an obligatory element of the imperative situation, acquires special significance 6. We are talking about the intended benefit that is predicted by the addresser, and in the process of transformation described above, can be extracted both by the speaker, and the addressee.The first expresses its value about orientation, and the second assimilates it, but in view of the gnomic (timeless) nature of the statements, the “prescription” exists in a “potentially actualizable form, that is, the necessity and expediency of always acting in a certain way” is stated 1 . For example: The art of leadership is saying no, not yes. It is very easy to say yes. Tony Blair.

At the same time, it is not imperativeness itself that comes to the fore, but evaluation 1: “it is right, good, it is advisable to do this, and not otherwise.” A. V. Bondarko classifies this type of imperative situation as peripheral. Nevertheless, both those and other statements are representatives of the FSP 'truth' as ​​an element of the semantic category of modality.

Domestic grammarians note the connection between the functional-semantic field and the speech act 8 . Indeed, the choice of linguistic means corresponds to the semantic orientation of the utterance, "the linguistic representation of specific meanings is regulated by certain constants of semantic categories that appear in certain variants, conditioned lexically and grammatically" 8 . In other words, in the pragmatic aspect, aphoristic microtexts are most appropriate to consider in the light of the field model of the language system.

As for the relations between constituents within the gnomological block, we propose to consider them from the standpoint of the theory of invariance, the founder of which is considered to be R. Jakobson, who used the variant-invariant approach in phonology. In this paper, an invariant is understood as “an abstract designation of the same entity in abstraction from its specific modifications of variants” 9 . According to the authors of "Aphoristics", the concept of "saying" 10 may be the ancestor of the concepts of `aphorism', `maxim' and others. , period) or metric (stanza) unity "11. In our opinion, it is very accurate to call the saying "a formula in which the social experience of an entire historical formation is concentrated", while the appearance of an aphorism is accompanied by "a noticeable fluidity of social life and a high degree of development of individuality "11. Hence the often anonymous nature of the saying or the authorship attributed to it, in the aphorisms, as already mentioned earlier, the author's personality is clearly expressed. For comparison, let's give an example of the saying A man S home is his castle and the aphorism Home is the girl S prison and the woman S workhouse G. B. Shaw.

However, edification, instruction is always (often so explicit that it approaches a truism) is present in the saying, and this undoubtedly makes it related to aphorism. It seems to us possible to consider the saying as an invariant in relation to the aphorism, which inherited from the first such characteristics as brevity, timelessness and didacticity. For example, Knowledge may have its purposes, but guessing is always more fun than knowing. W. A. ​​Auden.

An aphorism, on the other hand, can be a prototype in relation to aphorisms, maxims and maxims proper, that is, “the most typical case” 12 among other options.

A. V. Bondarko singled out the features that are essential for characterizing the concept of `prototype' in the light of the field theory of language, namely:

• 1) the greatest specificity is the concentration of specific features of a given object, “centrality”, in contrast to the sparseness of such features on the periphery (surrounded by the prototype);
• 2) the ability to influence derived variants, the status of "source of derivative";
• 3) the highest degree of regularity in the functioning of the linguistic means under consideration is a possible, but not obligatory feature 13 .

Here, we consider the remark of J. Lakoff regarding the empirical studies of the proponents of the prototype theory (Berlin, Roche, Hun, Mervis, B. Tversky) to be relevant: we are talking about the basic level of human interaction with the external environment, which is determined by specific Gestalt-based perception, mental imagery and motor activity. At this level, according to Lakoff, a person acts most successfully, effectively, and it is at this level that his experience is structured up to a conceptual understanding of reality (before the formation of a conceptual experience) 14 .

Due to the characteristic properties of aphorism as a prototype of the gnomological corpus of statements (and in this work they are the depth or philosophical nature, brevity, non-triviality of the judgment), the reader, first of all, experiences a slight “shock” from the fact that a new fresh vision of reality invades his mental space and superimposed on everything that was in this space before, namely:

• - directly given to us reality
• - the way we understand it;
• - fictional situations, situations depicted in paintings, presented in films, etc.;
• - past or future situations as we understand them;
• - hypothetical situations;
• - sphere of abstract categories 14 .

Let's consider the following with a specific example:

Keep away from people who try to belittle your ambitions. Small people always do that, but the really great make you feel that you, too, can become great. M. Twain.

Directly given reality is a stereotype that everyone should be “friends”.

Fictional situations are examples from literature and cinema that preach help to the morally weak.

Past or future situations are reflections on personal experience on this topic in the past and future.

Hypothetical situations of reflection from the field of "possible worlds", that is, for example, how would a person's life develop if he were next to a person stronger / weaker than himself.

So, the invariant of aphoristics as a whole is a saying, which is the ancestor of both aphoristic statements, and proverbs, and winged expressions, and any reproduced complete phrases.

As T.V. Levina notes, “if variance is understood as the idea of ​​different ways of expressing any linguistic entity as a modification, variety, or as a deviation from a certain norm, then what is modified is understood as some sample, standard or norm, and a variant as a modification of this norm or a deviation from it. In this case, the opposition “variant invariant” is not introduced” 15 .

`Sample', `standard', `norm' in this study, any of these terms is applied to an aphorism as a carrier of protypical features in relation to the aphorism itself, maxims and maxims. In the light of the field theory of language, we propose to understand the prototype aphorism as an intension or core, the center of the field is 'truth', while the distinctive features of a maxim or maxim will be on the periphery of this field. Our hypothesis is confirmed by the reasoning of R. V. Langakker, who, characterizing the protypic model, in which the category is defined through the prototype, that is, a schematic representation of its typical representatives, emphasizes that the essence corresponding to the prototype belongs to the central members of the category. Entities that differ from the prototype can be assigned to a category as its peripheral elements if they are similar in some respects to the prototype. The opposition of the central and peripheral members of the category forms its internal structure. Membership in the category turns out to be relative, it depends on the distance of the element from the prototype” 16 .

In various studies devoted to aphorisms as linguistic phenomena, their key characteristics were indicated in the diachronic, linguoculturological, phraseological, lexico-grammatical, semantic-syntactic, stylistic, and functional aspects. On the basis of studies performed by O. A. Dmitrieva, T. I. Manyakina, E. Yu. Vaganova, V. Yu. Vasechko and others, the most characteristic features of aphorism as a prototype of aphoristic statements were identified, which, in our opinion, will be , form the core of the FSP "truth" in the gnomological corpus of the English language. This is brevity, completeness, depth of thought, non-triviality, the presence of an author. For example, The friendships which last are those while each friend respects the other "s dignity to the point of not really wanting anything from him. C. Connolly.

The peripheral parameters of the FSP `truth' are proposed to be:

philosophic, definitive, generalized nature of semantic categories and these signs will indicate that we have actually aphorisms. For example: Action is consolatory. It is the enemy of thought and the friend of flattering illusions. J. Conrad; The human self defines itself and grows through love and work.

postulate (categorical), explicitly expressed authorization, that is, the content-conceptual information is brightly colored by the subjective value of 11 (terms of I. R. Galperin), these characteristics seem to us to be serious grounds for singling out maxims into a separate group. For example: No man in his heart is quite so cynical as a well-bred woman. W. S. Maugham; I "ve learned that warmth, kindness and friendship are the most yearned commodities in the world. The person who can provide them will never be lonely.

the predominance of an imperative situation over an evaluative one at the syntactic level is a condition under which an aphoristic statement gets the right to be called a maxim. For example: Remember that when it really comes down to it, a few things are worth getting upset about; Don't worry about avoiding temptation...as you grow older, it will avoid you. W. Churchill.

In other words, in the first group, the existential and gnomic categorical situations of the FSP `truth' find their optimal expression, in the second, it is qualitative, and in the third, it is imperative at the syntactic level. The cases of convergence of these situations are realized in aphoristic statements, which at this stage can only be called aphorisms .

english aphorism gnomic saying

Notes

• 1 A Blog by James Geary. URL: http://www. jamesgeary.com/gnomology.php.
• 2 Vereshchagin, E. M. Language and culture. Linguistic and regional studies in teaching Russian as a foreign language / E. M. Vereshchagin,

V. G. Kostomarov. Ed. 2nd, revised. and additional M.: Rus. yaz., 1976. S. 50.

• 3 See: Shchur, G.S. Field Theories in Linguistics / Preface. M. M. Makovsky. Ed. 3rd. M. : Knizh. house "LIBROKOM", 2009. 264 p.
• 4 Kuznetsov, A. M. Field // Linguistics / ch. ed. V. N. Yartseva. 2nd (repr.) ed. "Linguistic Encyclopedic Dictionary" 1990 M .: Bolshaya Ros. Encycl., 1998. S. 380-381.
• 5 Theory of functional grammar. Temporality. Modality. L.: Science. Leningrad. Department, 1990. S. 80.
• 6 Akimova, T. G. Beneficial activity and ways of its expression in English imperative utterances // Functional typological direction in grammar. Imperative: proc. report conf. L., 1988. S. 7-9.
• 7 Theory of functional grammar. S. 86.
• 8 Problems of functional grammar. Categories of morphology and syntax in an utterance. SPb. : Nauka, 2000. S. 22.
• 9 Solntsev, V. M. Variation // Linguistics. pp. 80-81.
• 10 Fedorenko, N. T. Aphoristics / N. T. Fedorenko, L. I. Sokolskaya. M. : Nauka, 1990. S. 107.
• 11 Fundamental electronic library. Russian literature and folklore. Literary encyclopedia. URL: http://feb-web.ru/feb/litenc/encyclop/le4/le4-4401.htm.
• 12 Comrie, B. Tense. Cambridge etc., 1985. P. 19.
• 13 Bondarko, A. V. Theoretical problems of Russian grammar. SPb., 2004. S. 128-129.
• 14 Lakoff, J. Cognitive modeling. URL: http://kosilova.textdriven.com/narod/studia2/lakoff.htm.
• 15 Levina, T.V. Invariant in linguistics and invariant theory in language // Vestn. Kazakhstan, America. freedom. university 2005. No. 2. URL: http://www.vestnik-kafu.info/journal/2/53/.
• 16 See: Langakker, R. V. A model based on language use: per. from English. // Vestn. Moscow university Ser. 9. Philology. 1997. No. 4. This work is mentioned in the text of the document, see: Bondarko, A.V. Decree. op.
• 17 See: Galperin, I. R. Text as an object of linguistic research. Ed. 4th, sr. M. : KomKniga, 2006. 144 p.

Grammar, focused on the description of the patterns of functioning of grammatical units, is called functional grammar. Functional grammar considers a system of linguistic means of different levels that serve to express one or another meaning. In functional grammar, when describing language material, both the approach “from form to content” and the approach – from content to form.

The functional-semantic field is a system of multi-level means of a given language, interacting on the basis of the commonality of their functions, based on a certain semantic category. Examples of functional-semantic fields are the field of aspectuality, temporality, pledge, locativity, personality, pledge, comparativeness, etc. FSP includes not only grammatical units, grammatical classes and categories, but also other elements belonging to the same semantic category. (The FSP theory is being developed by A.V. Bondarko and his students).

The concept of a functional-semantic field is based on the theory of conceptual categories. FSP is a bilateral content-formal unity formed by the grammatical means of a given language (morphological and syntactic), together with lexical, lexico-grammatical, word-formation elements interacting with them, belonging to the same semantic zone. In contrast to the grammatical category, the standard of expression methods is not taken as a prerequisite here.

Each FSP is based on a certain semantic category (functional-semantic category) - that semantic invariant (semantic dominant of the field), which unites multi-level linguistic means and determines their interaction. Thus, the semantic invariant of aspectuality, which consists in conveying the nature of the flow and distribution of actions in time, is revealed in the system of meaningful options, including such features as 'relation to the limit', 'phase' (denoting the beginning, continuation and completion of the action), 'perfection' , i.e. designation of the relevance of the consequences of the action.

The structure of the FSP is characterized by the ratio of the center and periphery. The core (center) of the FSP is the language unit most specialized for expressing a given semantic category. Usually the center of the FSP is one or another grammatical category. Thus, the core of the FSP of aspectuality in Russian is the category of aspect. The field kernel is the base value that is least dependent on context. The dominant elements of the field, the most specialized, the most frequent, are concentrated in the core. Context-related values ​​appear on the periphery of the field. For example, the past tense form of the verb in the statement I believed him is included in the core of the past tense field, and in the utterance So I believed him the same form, but not from the center of this field, but from its periphery with the meaning of 'expressive denial of the fact in the future.' weakly centered) fields based on a certain set of different linguistic means.Examples of polycentric FSP in the Russian language are the fields of beingness, state, subjectivity, objectivity, quality, quantity, possessivity, locativity, causes, goals, conditions, consequences, etc.

Fields in different languages ​​based on the same semantic category can differ significantly in their structure. Thus, in the Slavic languages, the center of the field of aspectuality is the grammatical category of aspect. In German, there is no aspect category as a grammatical category. The center of the field of aspectuality in the German language is various lexical and grammatical means with the meaning of limiting / non-limiting action.

In "article" languages ​​(English, German, French, Bulgarian), the center of the FSP of certainty/indefiniteness is the article. In these languages, this field is strongly centered. In languages ​​that do not have an article, this field is weakly centered, does not have a single grammatical center. In Russian, this field uses such means as pronouns, quantitative-defining adjectives, the word one as an indicator of uncertainty, word order, phrasal intonation, etc. For example, in a statement An old man looked out of the window word old man allows a different semantic interpretation regarding the sign of certainty/indeterminacy, depending on its unstressedness (theme function) or stress (rheme function). In a statement The old man looked out of the window word old man allows only one interpretation (certainty) with a neutral intonation.

Areas of intersection of fields are distinguished (ie areas of interaction of semantic elements of different fields). For example, the field of aspectuality intersects with the temporal and modal fields.

Groupings of functional-semantic fields in a given language form a system. The description of the system of functional-semantic fields of a particular language is carried out by functional grammar. The most important feature of functional grammar is that it develops a comprehensive, integrating approach to the analysis of linguistic phenomena.

©2015-2019 site
All rights belong to their authors. This site does not claim authorship, but provides free use.
Page creation date: 2016-02-16

UDC 415.21+415.22 BBK 81.2R-2+81.Eng-2

Vishnevsky Alexey Sergeevich applicant, Bryansk Vishnevsky Alexey Sergeevich

The Structure of the Functional-Semantic Field of Possessivity in the Russian and the English Languages

In this article, on a specific language material, the representation of the universal semantic category of possessiveness in the form of a macrofield is considered. The structure of the microfields included in its composition is described. The components of the core, near and far periphery are distinguished. The semantic volume of possessiveness is determined.

Based on the original language data the given article regards presentation of the universal semantic category of posessivity as a macrofield. The structure of the microfields it consists of is described. The components of the nucleus, the close and distant periphery are pointed out. The semantic scope of ability is defined.

Key words: possessiveness, functional grammar, semantic category, functional-semantic field.

Key words: possessivity, functional grammar, semantic category, functional-semantic field.

In the framework of this article, we consider possessivity from the standpoint of functional grammar, for which the concepts of the functional-semantic field (hereinafter FSP) and the functional-semantic category (hereinafter FSC) are fundamental.

The scientific novelty of this article lies in the fact that for the first time an attempt was made to implement a comprehensive comparative approach to describing the structure of the FSP of possession in two languages ​​of different structure (Russian and English) on a specific language material (B. Pasternak's novel "Doctor Zhivago" and its translation into English by Max Hayward and Mania Harari).

The theoretical significance lies in the possibility of applying these materials to the aspect-by-aspect description of the FSP of possessiveness in these languages. The results obtained contribute to the expansion and improvement of the theoretical basis of functional grammar, deepen and detail

the theory of functional-semantic fields, and also contribute to the development of comparative semantics and translation theory.

The practical significance lies in the fact that the materials of this article can be used in the creation of special courses on functional grammar, language theory, theory and practice of translation, as well as in teaching Russian and English as a foreign language.

Speaking about the FSK of possessiveness, it should be noted that today, due to its complexity and heterogeneity, there are several ideas about which relationships are considered possessive and form the FSK of the same name.

Some linguists reduce the semantics of possessiveness to the meanings of possession, possession, while others are inclined to an expanded understanding of this category as a connecting meaning, realized in combinations of very different semantics , . So, F. Gruber includes in the concept of possessiveness any relationship between two entities, closer than just juxtaposition in space. In such interpretations, the concept of possessiveness almost coincides with the category-hyperonym - relationality.

Speaking of possessive meanings, K.G. Chinchley argues that a person can be represented as the owner of not only any specific objects - the meaning of owning itself, - but also other objects (in the broad sense) that make up his “bio-cultural sphere” (H. Seiler's term) - the meaning improper possession.

According to Zhurinskaya, the category of possessiveness reflects the real-life connections between the objects of the external world, marked and categorized by our consciousness, for example, relations expressed by the oppositions “friend / foe”, “part / whole”. All languages ​​have one or another means of expressing the semantics of possession, but not in all languages ​​certain categorical features find a regular formal expression. For example, the meaning of inalienable belonging, grammaticalized in

languages ​​such as Melanesian, is also reflected in the Russian language, where there are no such grammatical means.

Considering the variety of shades of possessive relations, it seems appropriate to agree with the broad interpretation of A.V. Bondarko, who argues that possessiveness as a semantic category is a linguistic interpretation of a wide range of relations of possession, belonging, including the ratio of part and whole.

In accordance with the functional model of grammar, the semantic category is realized in the form of a functional-semantic field. In this article, by FSP we mean a grouping of grammatical and lexical units based on a certain semantic category, as well as various combined means of a given language, interacting on the basis of the commonality of their semantic functions.

A.V. Bondarko and representatives of the St. Petersburg Linguistic School distinguish two main structural types of FSP: monocentric and polycentric fields. The first type appears in two varieties: a) monocentric fields with an integral grammatical core, i.e., based on the grammatical category; this variety includes such fields as temporality (the center is the grammatical category of time); b) monocentric fields with a complex (heterogeneous) core, i.e., based on a complex of interacting linguistic means that can belong to different levels of the language system (morphological, syntactic, lexico-grammatical means); this variety includes, for example, the duration field.

Polycentric fields, based on a certain set of different linguistic means, are characterized by a division into several spheres, each of which has its own center and peripheral components. The core in polycentric fields is almost not expressed, in this case there is an intersection of several FSPs, which are microfields in semantic unity. Here A.V. Bondarko attributes taxis, existentiality, the field of

ie, subjectivity/objectivity, certainty/uncertainty, fields of concession, causes, conditions, consequences, comparisons, locativity and possessiveness, which covers the system of interacting means of a given language that serve to express a possessive relation and its various types. Following A. V. Bondarko, we will assume that the field of possession is polycentric.

The field has a special structure, it usually has a core, center and periphery, the elements of which can be part of adjacent fields, thus forming smooth transitions and forming entire field complexes. This is due to the fact that the constituents of the core have a complete set of features that are essential for a given field, and the elements of the periphery not only lack some of the features characteristic of the field (near periphery), but may also have features inherent in the components of neighboring fields (far periphery). The central part of the field includes the core and some transitional zone between the core and the periphery, since there is no clear boundary between them, as well as between adjacent fields. The specificity of the field structure lies precisely in the fact that, standing out by dominant features, the fields interact in language and speech, partly forming reserve zones for each other, creating conditions for the flexible, dynamic functioning of the language.

For the study of possessivity, it is especially important that there are FSPs that have a polycentric structure; The FSP of possessiveness is based on the grammatical categories of predicativity and attribution, the grammatical class of possessive adjectives, and other non-grammatical means. Therefore, it seems quite justified to interpret possessiveness as a macrofield, which includes fields of several levels, microfields that have independent content and expression plans within the framework of general semantics, but are dependent on their position in relations of particular and general with each other.

In the FSP of possession, it is customary to single out two centers, which is due to different ways of reflecting reality - predication and attribution,

associated with the corresponding types of means of expressing possessiveness - predicative and attributive. Attributive and predicative possessiveness are different types of possessive functions that also determine different types of linguistic means.

Depending on the above criteria and based on the principle of functional grammar, the FSP of possessivity distinguishes attributive and predicative microfields. Let's consider their structure on specific language examples.

I. In the predicative microfield, there are:

Core. This level is represented by constructions in which all elements of a possessive situation are explicitly presented: the possessor, the object of possession, and the possessive predicate. Nuclear possessive constructs, unlike peripheral ones, do not intersect with other FSPs; the possessive seme is expressed explicitly. Distinguished:

a) Constructions with the verb “to be” in Russian and the verb “to have” in English.

Now, in hindsight, it turned out that he had an extraordinary ability to acquire and retain knowledge gleaned from cursory reading [hereinafter 7].

He had an unusual gift, it now appeared, for reading quickly and remembering the information he picked up [hereinafter 15].

b) Constructions with the verb “to have” in Russian and the verb “to have” in English

I know how dear she was to you. But excuse me, do you have any idea how much she loved you?

1 know how much you loved her. But forgive me, have you any idea of ​​her love for you?

c) Constructions with verbs of possession: “possess / to possess”, “belong / to belong”, etc.

This man must have had some kind of gift, not

necessarily self-contained. The gift, visible in all his movements, could be the gift of imitation. Then everyone imitated someone.

He must certainly, Yury thought, be possessed of a remarkable gift, but it was not necessarily the gift of originality. His talent, which showed itself in his every movement, might equally be one of imitation.

The house in which the single Tiverzin lived with his mother and married younger brother belonged to the neighboring church of the Holy Trinity.

Tiverzin was unmarried and lived with his mother and his younger married brother. The tenements belonged to the neighboring Church of the Holy Trinity.

Near predicative periphery. In predicative constructions that belong to the near periphery, all three elements of the possessive situation are also present; there are no intersections with other FSPs. However, unlike nuclear constructions, the possessive seme is expressed implicitly, i.e. its explication requires a transformation. Distinguished:

a) Constructions with possessive actants (verbs like “to give / to give”)

What do they say? Disbanded the people. Pampering, they say. Is something possible with our brother? Ay fell asleep?

"What do you expect them to say? The peasants have got out of hand. They"ve been treated too well. That "s no good for the likes of us. Give the peasants rope and God knows we"ll all be at each other"s throats in no time. Get a move on there!"

b) Constructions with verbs of loss of possession: “to lose / to lose”.

But he felt so good after the faint that he did not want to part with this feeling of lightness and was afraid of losing it. And he thought that nothing terrible would happen if he prayed for his father some other time.

But his fainting fit had left him with such a sense of lightness and well-being that he was unwilling to risk losing it, and it occurred to him that nothing much would happen if he prayed for his father another time.

c) Constructions with prepositions “from / from”, “with / with”, “y / by”, etc.

On the train, in a second-class compartment, rode with his father, a barrister Gordon from Orenburg, a second-class schoolboy Misha Gordon, an eleven-year-old boy with a thoughtful face and large black eyes.

In a second-class compartment of the train which had stopped in the field across the river sat Misha Gordon ", who was traveling with his father, a lawyer from Orenburg. Misha was a boy of eleven with a thoughtful face and big dark eyes; he was in his second form at school.

Far predictive periphery. These are constructions of the border zone, which have an implicit possessive seme, but intersect with other FSPs: locativity, beingness, quality, etc. The following are distinguished:

a) Designs bordering on quality.

He was a strange boy. In a state of excitement, he spoke loudly to himself. He imitated his mother in his penchant for lofty matters and paradoxes.

He had certain oddities of character. When he was excited he talked aloud to himself, copying his mother's choice of lofty subjects and her taste for paradox.

b) Constructions bordering on locativity.

What is history? This is the establishment of centuries-old works on the consistent unraveling of death and its future overcoming. It is impossible to move forward in this direction without some uplift. These discoveries require spiritual equipment. The data for it are contained in the Gospel. Here they are. This is, firstly, love for one's neighbor, this highest form of living energy that overwhelms a person's heart and requires an outlet and squandering....

Now what is history? Its beginning is that of the centuries of systematic work dedicated to the solution of the enigma of death, so that death itself may eventually be overcome. Now, you can "t advance in this direction without a certain upsurge of spirit. You can" t make such discoveries without spiritual equipment and for this, everything necessary has been given us in the Gospels. What is it? Firstly, the love of one "s neighbor - the supreme form of living energy. Once it (energy) fills the heart of man it has to overflow and spend itself..

c) Reflexive constructions, the formal indicator of which in Russian is the affix -sya, and in English - the reflexive pronoun oneself.

A minute before the end, he ran into their compartment, grabbed Grigory Osipovich by the hand, wanted to say something, but could not, and, running out onto the platform, rushed from the train.

At the end, he had rushed into their compartment, seized Gordon by the hand, tried to tell him something but found he could not, and had dashed out into the corridor and thrown himself from the train.

II. In the attributive microfield there are:

attribute core. This level is represented by constructions in which two elements of a possessive situation are explicit: the possessor and the object of possession. Due to the specifics of the attribute function, the possessive predicate is not expressed. Nuclear possessive constructs, unlike peripheral ones, do not intersect with other FSPs; the possessive seme is expressed explicitly. Distinguished:

a) Constructions with possessive pronouns in Russian and English.

They began to climb up to the house, leaving a wet trail behind them, like two water-carrying barrels. Their road lay along a dusty rise, swarming with snakes, not far from the place where Nike had seen copperhead in the morning.

They walked home, leaving watery tracks like two water-carts. Their way took them up the dusty slope swarming with snakes near the place where Nicky had seen the grass snake that morning.

b) Constructions with possessive adjectives in Russian and possessive case in English.

Yura kept turning right and left. Above the lawns, like an auditory hallucination, hung the ghost of my mother's voice; it sounded to Yura in the melodic turns of birds and the buzzing of bees.

He kept turning to right and left. Like an aural hallucination his mother's voice haunted the lawns, it was in the buzzing of the-bees and the musical phrases of the birds.

c) Genitive phrases, which in Russian are expressed using the genitive case, and in English - using the preposition of or the possessive case.

In the summer of 1903, on a tarantass, Yura and his uncle rode through the fields to Duplyanka, the estate of a silk-spinning manufacturer and a great patron of the arts, Kologrivov, to the teacher and popularizer of useful knowledge, Ivan Ivanovich Voskoboynikov.

One day in summer 1903, two years after his mother's death, Yura was driving across fields in a two-horse open carriage with his Uncle Kolya. They were on their way to see Ivan Ivanovich Voskoboynikov, a teacher and a writer of popular textbooks, who lived at Duplyanka, the estate of Kologrivov, a silk manufacturer and a great patron of the arts.

Near attributive periphery. In constructions that belong to the near periphery, all three elements of the possessive situation are also present, but the possessive seme is expressed implicitly, and transformation is required for its explication. Distinguished:

a) Constructions with adjectives with the semantics of possessed

From this rule the boy was a bitter and painful exception. The feeling of preoccupation remained his ultimate spring, and the feeling of carelessness did not relieve or ennoble him. He knew this inherited trait in himself and, with suspicious alertness, caught signs of it in himself. She upset him. Her presence humiliated him.

From this general rule the boy, Misha, felt himself to be a bitterly unfortunate exception. Anxiety was his mainspring and no such unconcern as the rest of the world shared, relieved and ennobled him. He knew this hereditary trait in himself and watched for it with a morbid self-consciousness. It distressed and humiliated him.

b) Adjectives with the semantics of the absence of the possessed.

His father, terrorist Dementy Dudorov, was serving hard labor, on the highest pardon in return for hanging, to which he was sentenced. His mother, from the Georgian princesses Eristovs, was an eccentric and still young beauty,

forever addicted to something - riots, rebels, extreme theories, famous artists, poor losers.

His father was the terrorist Dementiy Dudorov, condemned to death by hanging but repried by the Tsar and now doing forced labor. His mother was a Georgian princess of the Eristov family, a spoilt and beautiful woman, still young and always in the throes of an enthusiasm for one thing or another-risings, rebels and rebellions, extremist theories, famous actors or unhappy failures.

Far attribute periphery. These are constructions of the border zone, which have an implicit possessive seme, but intersect with other FSPs: locativity, beingness, quality, etc. The following are distinguished:

a) Designs bordering on quality

Every time this nervous man calmed down, his lawyer and neighbor in the compartment came for him from the first class and dragged him into the saloon car to drink champagne.

Each time that this nervous wreck of a man calmed down, his traveling companion had come from their first-class coach to fetch him and drag him off to the restaurant car to drink champagne.

b) Constructions bordering on locativity

From the whole park with its ponds, lawns and manor house, the manager's garden was fenced off by a thick hedge of black viburnum.

A thick hedge of blackthorn separated the manager's lodge and garden from the park, with its lawns and artificial lakes, which surrounded the house.

Thus, based on the fact that in Russian and English the conceptual category of possessivity is realized at different language levels (morphological, lexical, syntactic) and is a functional-semantic macrofield that is polycentric, this macrofield can be described as consisting of two microfields : predicative and attributive. In each of them, a center (core), a near periphery and a far periphery are distinguished. A more detailed description of the macrofield structure is

sessionivity requires a detailed analysis of the means of the core and periphery of both microfields, which should be the subject of a separate study.

Bibliographic list

2. Bondarko, A.V. Functional Grammar Theory: Locativity. Beingness. Possession. Conditioning [Text] / A.V. Bondarko. - St. Petersburg, Nauka, 1996. - 225 p.

3. Wolf, E.M. Some features of pronominal possessive constructions (Ibero-Romance languages) [Text] / E.M. Wolf. // Categories of being and possession. - M., Nauka, 1977. - p. 144-193.

4. Zhurinskaya M.A. Nominal possessive constructions and the problem of inalienable belonging. [Text] / M.A. Zhurinskaya. // Categories of being and possession. - M., Nauka, 1977. - p. 194-258.

5. Zhurinskaya M.A. On the expression of the meaning of inseparability in the Russian language. [Text] / M.A. Zhurinskaya. // Semantic and formal variation. - M.: Nauka, 1979. - p. 295347.

6. Ivanova, T.A. Ways of expressing possessive relations in Russian in comparison with other Slavic languages ​​(based on translation). [Text] / T.A. Ivanova. // Slavic Philology. IV. - L., Publishing house of Leningrad State University, 1979. - p. 35 - 43.

7. Pasternak, B. L. Doctor Zhivago [Text] / B. L. Pasternak. - St. Petersburg.: Crystal, 1999. - 5b0s.

8. Pisarkova, K. Possession as a grammatical problem (on the example of the Polish language) [Text] / K. Pisarkova. // Grammar description of Slavic languages. - M., Nauka, 1974. - p. 171-176.

9. Seliverstova O.N. Existentiality and possessiveness in language and speech. [Text]: diss. doc. philol. Sciences. 02/10/19. / IS HE. Seliverstov. - M., 1983. - 318s.

10. Theory of functional grammar: Introduction. Aspectuality. Temporal localization. Taxis [Text] - L.: Nauka, 1987. - 347 p.

11. Theory of functional grammar: Quality. Quantity [Text] - St. Petersburg: Nauka, 1996. - 262 p.

12. Chinchley, K.G. Possession field and possessive situations [Text] / K.G. Chinchley // Theory of Functional Grammar: Locativity. Beingness. Possession. Conditioning. - St. Petersburg, Nauka, 1996. - p. 100 - 118.

13. Shatkovskaya, N.V. Possessive structures in modern Russian. [Text]: author's abstract. diss. cand. philol. Sciences. / N.V. Shatkovskaya. - M., 1979, 28 p.

14. Gruber, F.S. Lexical structures in syntax and semantics. /F.S. Gruber. - Amsterdam, North Holland, 1976, 310 p.

15. Pasternak, B. Doctor Zhivago. / B. Pasternak. - London, Vintage Books, 2002. -

16. Seiler, H. Possession as an operational dimension of language. / H. Seiler. - Tubingen, Gunter Narr Verlag, 1983, 320p.

1. Bondarko, A.V. Grammar Category and Context / A.V. Bondarko. - Leningrad.: Nauka, 1971. - 115 p.

2. Bondarko, A.V. Theory of Functional Grammar: Locativity. Being. Possessivity. Causality / A.V. Bondarko - SPb.: Nauka, 1996. - 225 p.

3. Chinchley, K.G. The Field of Possessivity and Possessive Situations / K.G. Chinchley // Theory of Functional Grammar: Locativity. Being. Possessivity. causality. - SPb.: Nauka, 1996 - P. 100-118.

4. Gruber, F.S. Lexical Structures in Syntax and Semantics / F.S. Gruber. - Amsterdam, North Holland, 1976. - 310 p.

5. Ivanova, T.A. Means of Expression of Possessive Relations in the Russian Language in Comparison with Other Slavic Languages ​​(On the Material of Translation) / T.A. Ivanova. // Slavic Philology. - Leningrad: LSU Publishing House, 1979. - P. 35 - 43.

6. Pasternak, B.L. Doctor Zhivago / B.L. Pasternak. -St. Petersburg: Kristal, 1999. -560 p.

7. Pasternak, B. Doctor Zhivago / B. Pasternak. - London, Vintage Books, 2002. -512 p.

8. Pisarkova, K. Possessivity as a Grammatical Problem (by the Example of the Polish Language) / K. Pisarkova. // Grammatical Description of Slavic Languages. - M.: Nauka, 1974. -P. 171-176.

9. Seiler, H. Possession as an Operational Dimension of Language / H. Seiler. - Tubingen, Gunter Narr Verlag, 1983. - 320 p.

10. Seliverstova O.N. Existence and Possessivity in Language and Speech : Ph.D. thesis. 02/10/19. /O.N. Seliverstova - M., 1983. - 318 p.

11. Shatkovskaya, N.V. Possessive Constructions in the Modern Russian Language : Ph.D. thesis. Synopsis. /N.V. Shatkovskaya. - M., 1979. - 28 p.

12. Theory of Functional Grammar: Introduction. Aspectivity. Temporary localization. Taxis - Leningrad: Nauka, 1987. - 347 p.

13. Theory of Functional Grammar: Qualitativity. Quantitativity - SPb.: Nauka, 1996.

14. Wolf, E.M. Some Peculiarities of Pronominal Possessive Constructions (Iberian-Roman Languages) / E.M. Volf // Categories of Being and Possession - M.: Nauka, 1977. - P. 144193.

15. Zhurinskaya, M.A. Nominal Possessive Constructions and the Problem of Imprescriptible Possession / M.A. Zhurinskaya // Categories of Being and Possession - M.: Nauka, 1977. - P. 194-258.

16. Zhurinskaya, M.A. On Expression of the Meaning of Imprescriptibility in the Russian Language / M.A. Zhurinskaya // Semantical and Formal Variation. - M.: Nauka, 1979. - P. 295-347.

UDC 81’36 BBK 81.02 C 17

Samarina N.V.

Postgraduate student of the Department of German Philology and Methods of the Moscow Humanitarian Pedagogical Institute, e-mail: [email protected]

Functional - semantic field as an object of study in modern grammar

(Reviewed)

Annotation:

Such a concept as a functional-semantic field is considered. The structures of the functional-semantic field and the functional-semantic category are compared. It is concluded that among the existing grammatical works there is a theme of functional-semantic fields, which is focused on solving the problems of developing representation issues both on the material of one language, and when comparing the categories of certainty/uncertainty, quantity, and comparativeness.

Keywords:

Functional-semantic field, functional-semantic category, categories of certainty / uncertainty, quantitative, comparative.

Post-graduate student of German Philology and Techniques Department, Moscow Humanitarian Pedagogical Institute, e-mail: [email protected]

Functional-semantic field as an object of study in modern grammar

The research deals with such a notion as a functional-semantic field. The structures of the functional-semantic field and the functional-semantic category are compared. It is inferred that there exists a variety of functional-semantic fields which focus on a solution of representation issues basing on the material of one language as well as on comparison of several languages ​​with such categories as definiteness/indefiniteness, quantitiveness and comparativeness.

Functional-semantic field, functional-semantic category, categories of definiteness/indefiniteness, quantitiveness, comparativeness.

In modern grammar, there is a constant interest in the study of various phenomena of the language from functional positions, when linguistic analysis is carried out within the framework of the field approach. This article offers an overview of modern studies of language units of the level, when they are considered as a functional-semantic field.

According to I.V. Arkhipova and A.V. Bondarko, a functional-semantic field is a grouping of grammatical and “structural” lexical units, as well as various combined (lexico-syntactic, etc.) means of a given language, based on a certain semantic category interacting based on the commonality of their semantic functions. Each field includes a system of types, varieties and variants of a certain semantic category, correlated with various formal means of their expression. Functionally - semantic fields are bilateral unities, they have not only a plan of content, but also a plan of expression.

The concept of a functional-semantic field is associated with the idea of ​​a certain space. In the conditional space of functions and means, the configuration of the central and peripheral components of the field is established, zones of intersection with other fields are distinguished. In a grammar based on the concept of a functional-semantic field, the principle of consistency extends to the following aspects of analysis:

a) consideration of the field as a system of a special type (heterogeneous in terms of structural-level features of its components);

b) analysis of the structure of the studied unities (monocentric and polycentric); c) interpretation of the content plan of the functional-semantic field (based on a complex of distinctive features) as a multi-stage hierarchical system of semantic variability (subcategorization), correlated with the variability of means of formal expression;

d) study of mutual connections (intersections) of functional-semantic fields, consideration of their complexes and groupings, and, ultimately, representation of a certain set of functional-semantic fields as a system;

e) study of the systemic organization of semantic functions.

Linguists distinguish two main structural types of the functional-semantic field: monocentric and polycentric.

The first type comes in two varieties:

a) monocentric fields with an integral grammatical core, i.e., based on the grammatical category;

b) monocentric fields with a complex (heterogeneous) core, i.e., based on a complex of interacting linguistic means that can refer to different levels of the language system (morphological, syntactic, lexicogrammatic means).

The specificity of the functional-semantic field of the monocentric type is most clearly expressed in the structure with an integral grammatical core. As for the functional-semantic field with a complex (heterogeneous) core, in some respects they are close to the polycentric functional-semantic field. This refers to the absence of a single integral system of grammatical forms, the plurality of heterogeneous linguistic means that form the center of the field. Polycentric fields are characterized by division into several spheres, each of which has its own center and peripheral components. Any system has a sign of integrity. Its manifestations in different systems may differ in essential features. In the functional-semantic field, this attribute characterizes the content of the field, based on a certain semantic category.

As for the means of formal expression, their totality is devoid of integrity, since they belong to different language levels and are heterogeneous in their structure.

The definition of functional-semantic fields as semantic categories considered “together with a complex of multi-level means of their expression in a given language” is fundamentally important, since it represents an organic unity of two seemingly mutually exclusive structures for a language - a field and a category. M. Vsevolodova considers it important to highlight the meaningful aspect of the functional-semantic field as a category, that is, a system of oppositions of different levels. To objectify the observed phenomena in the language, it is advisable to organize and categorize them in a certain way. The linguist distinguishes between such concepts as functional-semantic field and functional-semantic category.

Fundamental differences in the structure of the functional-semantic field and the functional-semantic category do not mean their incompatibility. On the one hand, as shown by V.A. Plungyan, the categories themselves within the language have a field structure with a pronounced center having dominant grammes, for example,

articles to express the category of certainty/indefiniteness of substantives in the article languages, and periphery, for example, a set of very different means for performing the same function in Slavic languages. At the same time, the Russian category of certainty/uncertainty, firstly, has its own dominant - indefinite pronouns with markers of the degree of uncertainty, which is not in the article languages, and, secondly, serves a much more powerful area of ​​the language, marking not only the category of substantiveness: anyone, anything, anyone, anything, someone, something, someone, something, some, many, but also adjectives: some, some, some something, something, and adverbiality: somehow, somehow, somehow, somehow, and specially space and time: somewhere, sometime, somewhere, ever, somewhere , once, somewhere, sometime, once (= a long time ago / very soon); and even quantitative (numerality): some, some, several, many.

M. Vsevolodova emphasizes that this is a much more powerful category, which has not yet received proper understanding and description in grammars (The main attention of Russianists is focused on the differences in the values ​​of particles-markers of uncertainty). Perhaps the category of certainty/indefiniteness, which until now has been conceptualized primarily through article languages, has a more complex and more interesting structure in both article and non-article languages.

KN Simonova devotes her dissertation research to a comparative analysis of linguistic means of implementing the functional-semantic field of quantity in English and Russian.

She notes that a systematic approach to the study of the phenomena of language is reflected in the comparative analysis of languages. Grammatical phenomena that at first glance coincide in the two languages ​​in their main features do not completely overlap one another. When conducting contrastive studies, one usually either considers a set of similar forms in the compared languages ​​and then determines the range of meanings they express (analysis “from form to content”), or identifies the types of transmission of the studied category in two languages ​​(analysis “from content to form”). However, the first approach does not always guarantee a complete characterization of the compared languages: in addition to the absence of formal correlates, there can always be values ​​transmitted by means of other levels. Currently, in contrastive linguistics, the second approach “from content to form” prevails, which manifests itself in the selection of a concept that borders on universal conceptual categories and the consideration of the forms of its transmission in two languages. The system-structural approach, recreating the structures of individual grammatical categories, reveals the relationship between them to identify the grammatical system of a given language. The functional-semantic approach, based on the system-structural approach, shows the mechanism of the functioning of language units. As part of a comparative analysis of the functional-semantic field in the studied languages, the system analysis is transferred to the functional plan. The functional-semantic field of quantity - becomes a specific subject of analysis, in which similarities and differences are highlighted. In the Ph.D. thesis of A.V. Nikolaeva, which examines the functional-semantic field of comparativeness in modern English, the inventory of language means that form the peripheral zones of this field is studied in detail. In addition, the interaction of the functional-semantic field of comparativeness with systems of other functional-semantic fields is analyzed. The work defines the types of comparative categorical situations, the features of the functioning of the constituents of this field in the national variants of the English language.

Thus, the functional-semantic field is a grouping of lexical and grammatical units based on a certain semantic category, as well as various combined language tools that interact on the basis of the commonality of their semantic functions. In grammar, in the study of functional

semantic fields, the principle of systematic linguistic analysis is taken as a basis. The field is considered as a system of a special type, its structure is established, the plan of its content is interpreted, mutual connections (crossings) of functional-semantic fields are studied, the systemic organization of semantic functions is established. Modern grammar pays sufficient attention to comparing the structure of the functional-semantic field and the functional-semantic category. Among the available grammatical works, the topic of functional-semantic fields is noted, which is focused on solving the problems of developing issues of representation both on the material of one language, and when comparing languages ​​of the categories of certainty / uncertainty, quantity, comparativeness in other languages.

This circumstance emphasizes the relevance of studying grammatical phenomena in the system of functional-semantic fields.

Notes:

1. Bondarko A.V. Fundamentals of functional grammar. URL: http: //www.ru sl ang.ru/doc/conf_text_subtext 10_chronicle.pdf.

2. Vsevolodova M. Functional-semantic fields and functional-semantic categories (On the question of the structure of the content space of the language) // Linguistic Studios: zb. Sciences. prats. / ukl. A. Zagnitko and in. Donetsk, 2007. VIP. 15. S. 1-5.

3. Plungyan V.A. Grammatical categories, their analogues and substitutes: dis. ... Dr. Philol. Sciences. M., 1998. 256 p.

4. Plungyan V.A. General morphology. Introduction to the problems M.: URSS, 2003. 342 p.

5. Simonova K.N. Functional-semantic field of quantity in modern English in comparison with the Russian language: author. dis. ... cand. philol. Sciences. Rostov n / a, 2003.

6. Nikolaeva A.V. Functional-semantic field of comparativeness in modern English: Ph.D. dis. ... cand. philological sciences Rostov n/a, 2002.

1. Bondarko A.V Foundations of functional grammar. URL: http://www.ruslang.ru/doc/conf_text_subtext10_chronicle.pdf.

2. Vsevolodova M. Functional and semantic fields and functional and semantic categories (On the problem of the structure of the language semantic space) // Linguistic student i ї: zb. sciences. prats. / ukl. A.Zagnitko ta in. Donetsk, 2007. Issue 15.

3. Plungyan V.A. Grammatical categories, their analogues and substitutes: Dissertation abstract for the Dr. of Philology degree. M., 1998.

4. Plungyan V.A. general morphology. Introduction to perspective. M.: URSS, 2003.

5. Simonova K.N. The functional-semantic field of quantitativeness in modern English in comparison to Russian: Dissertation abstract for the Candidate of Philology degree. Rostov-on-Don, 2003.

6. Nikolaeva A.V. A functional-semantic field of comparativeness in modern English: Dissertation abstract for the Candidate of Philology degree. Rostov-on-Don, 2002.