Сторінка
3

The semantic structure of the word ‘man’ in english and ukrainian languages

- next m. – meaning or meanings within the actual scope of semantic derivation of a lexeme, easily predetermined or expected by the core semantics (lexical prototype) of the word;

- nominative m. – also basic, main, direct, conceptual, cognitive meaning of the word, referring to objects, phenomena, actions and qualities in extralinguistic reality (referent) and reflecting their general understanding by the speaker (can be correlated with referential denotative, descriptive, factual, objective meaning.); realization of the word’s nominative capacity (to serve as a name for some extralinguistic entity). The nominative meaning also has the following ‘free’ authentic equivalents in English: essential, central, domain, primary, focal, pivotal, common, usual – which are mostly used to avoid repetition in speech and not as technical terms;

- nominative-descriptive m. – comes into being when the word is stretched out semantically as a result of semantic derivation to cover new facts and phenomena of extralinguistic reality;

- original m. – etymological m.;

- phraseological m. (phraseological bound meaning) – also idiomatic meaning – the meaning which is realized only in some phrases and belongs only to a given collocation – when a word is habitually associated together with another word to form a ‘natural-sounding’ combination: e.g. to raise becomes part of the phrase meaning ‘to show surprise’ in to raise one’s eyebrows (at smb.);

- pragmatic m. – semantic component of lexical m. (as distinct from conceptual meaning)which reflects the attitudes, emotions of the speakers (either personal or communal), so it can be regarded a correlative term to connotation;

- primary m. – which to the greatest degree is dependent upon or conditioned by its paradigmatic links, while such meanings as display a greater degree of syntagmatic ties are secondary;

- referential m.;

- secondary m.;

- significative m.;

- situational m.;

- specific m. – meaning of the specific term, correlates with the specific concept, a subordinate one in the hierarchical taxonomy;

- usual m. – meaning, accepted by the language-speaking community, fixed in dictionaries, reproduced in speech actualizations of the word.

2.3. Lexical meaning - notion The lexical meaning of a word is the realization of a notion by means of a definite language system. A word is a language unit, while a notion is a unit of thinking. A notion cannot exist without a word expressing it in the language, but there are words which do not express any notion but have a lexical meaning. Interjections express emotions but not notions, but they have lexical meanings, e.g. Alas! /disappointment/, Oh,my buttons! /surprise/ etc. There are also words which express both, notions and emotions, e.g. girlie, a pig /when used metaphorically/. The term "notion" was introduced into lexicology from logics. A notion denotes the reflection in the mind of real objects and phenomena in their relations. Notions, as a rule, are international, especially with the nations of the same cultural level. While meanings can be nationally limited. Grouping of meanings in the semantic structure of a word is determined by the whole system of every language. E.g. the English verb "go" and its Ukrainian equivalent "йти" have some meanings which coincide: to move from place to place, to extend /the road goes to London/, to work /Is your watch going?/. On the other hand, they have different meanings: in Ukrainian we say :"Ось він йде" , in English we use the verb "come" in this case. In English we use the verb "go" in the combinations: "to go by bus", "to go by train" etc. In Ukrainian in these cases we use the verb "їхати". The number of meanings does not correspond to the number of words, neither does the number of notions. Their distribution in relation to words is peculiar in every language. Development of lexical meanings in any language is influenced by the whole network of ties and relations between words and other aspects of the language.

In the process of nomination only the lexical meaning of a word is formed, unlike the grammatical meaning which is not always conditioned. We can define that reason for the generation of such units as to hand, to water, to face is the nomination of their original nouns. Their existence is caused by the nominative productivity and the syntactical function in the expression that is a characteristic of it. But such units as «coke» that means either Coca-Cola or coal derivative or cocaine can be decoded correctly only in the context.

So to be on coke in the expression ‘they are on coke’ might denote either they are drinking Coca-Cola or they have solid-fuel heating or they use cocaine. Despite the fact that to be on coke is the derivative from coke, its meaning in the new function is comparatively simple to explain. The example A Buy Nothing Day is similar. It's easy to decode in spite of the fact that the meaning of the components differs in a certain way from the original one and demonstrates some combination which is not typical.

Though in the abstract we don't make much of the fact that the context itself influences the function of a unit, it should be stressed that it's the context that is important for the decoding of verbalized information. The meaning or its change, intended by a producer of expression, can be illuminated by its context. G. V. Kolshansky defined the problem and the ways of solving it as follows: "Every word has the typical context that is predetermined by it, but not the other way round as is sometimes thought .". In this case the context is given the role of turning some standard into its varieties. On account of that every abstract standard of speech can be transformed and validated by: "its sound from the new stylistic point of view" .

From what has been said above we can derive the conclusion that the perceived meaning is decoded mainly with the help of context. If it is so, we can consider the context generating or changing its meaning. Though the role of the context is rather essential, we have to consider it as not so important, taking into account N.Chomsky's words: "Reference to context in phrase structure rules is restricted to rules such as that assign lexical items to their syntactical categories”.

The contextual predetermination of the syntactical form is displayed in its orientation towards macro- and microstructure of the expression (in other words, the so called "wide" and "narrow" context).

The category of foreseeing realized through the correlativeness and valency of language units in the structure of expression is relevant. The syntactical connections are considered from the point of view of how they reflect the features of lexical units. The syntactical features of a phrase mainly reflect the meaning of the words that are the central components of these phrases. Correlation between the difference of meaning of a word and the difference in syntactical construction including that word is also important.