The paper studies such major methodological problem of modern lexicography as the description of semantics of lexical units. The lexicographic meaning of lexical units formulated according to the principle of reductionism is presented in explanatory dictionaries (listing a minimum features of denotation sufficient to express its meaning). However, “when formulating the description of a word meaning a lexicographer often relies on the personal understanding of either feature of a word”, due to which “the lexical content of many words is differently described in explanatory dictionaries”. This phenomenon demonstrates the principle of plurality of metalanguage description of mental units causing the difference in meanings of the same lexical units. The generalization method of dictionary definitions aimed at “the maximum complete description of the meaning of the studied word in the language system on the basis of all available explanatory dictionaries” and based on the theoretical principle of complementarity of dictionary definitions is developed to solve the problem of discrepancies of descriptions of meanings of one and the same lexical units. The generalization method of dictionary definitions shall be supplemented with contextual and experimental methods since the analysis of lexical units in speech context or psycholinguistic experiments reveal new semes, which were not recorded in any explanatory dictionary. Such complex study shall be conducted within componential semasiology. Using the example of semantic analysis of a toponym
Keywords: Lexicographic valuesemetoponympsycholinguistic experiment
The semantic analysis of linguistic units is one of most relevant topics in modern linguistics (Mimeau, Laroche, & Deacon, 2019; Grigoriev, 2018; Grosu, 2018; Norman & Mukhin, 2018; Babenko, 2018; Gray, 2018).
The number of different linguistic dictionaries is rapidly increasing at present.
Various works are devoted to modern problems of lexicography (Volkov, 2015; Generalova, 2015; Ivashchenko & Lyashchuk (Kazak), 2015; Kozulina, 2015).
The most important methodological problem of lexicography at the present stage of its development is the description of word semantics (Rudakova, 2015).
The present stage of linguistic science is characterized by “the strive towards complete, or even integrated, dictionary representation of system word relations, towards deeper and flexible representation of their semantics” (Goldin & Sdobnova, 2014, p. 57).
Traditionally word meaning is formulated in explanatory dictionaries according to the principle of reductionism: as a minimum set of denotation features sufficient to express its essence.
There are two problems. First, since “when formulating the description of a word meaning a lexicographer often relies on the personal understanding of either feature of a word”, due to which “the lexical content of many words is differently described in explanatory dictionaries” (Rudakova, 2015, p. 153). This phenomenon demonstrates the principle of plurality of metalanguage description of mental units causing the difference in meanings of the same lexical units (Sternin, 2012).
Second, the analysis of lexical units in speech context or psycholinguistic experiments reveal new features not recorded in any explanatory dictionary.
To solve the first problem, the Russian Voronezh Theoretical and Linguistic School developed the generalization method of dictionary definitions aimed at “the maximum complete description of the meaning of the studied word in the language system on the basis of all available explanatory dictionaries” (Rudakova, 2015, p. 154). The generalization method of dictionary definitions is based on the theoretical principle of complementarity of dictionary definitions, according to which due to various reasons the dictionary definitions of one and the same lexical units in the same dictionaries may express different denotative features, however complete lexicographic description of meanings is possible through generalization of dictionary definitions supplementing each other.
In addition to lexicographic analysis (generalization method of dictionary definitions) the solution of the second problem requires contextual and experimental methods of semantic analysis.
To achieve the accuracy of the analysis the study shall be conducted at the level of semes – meaning is described as a set of discrete semantic components – semes.
The possibility to divide the meaning of lexical units into semes was discovered in the middle of the 20th century. A seme is a microcomponent of the meaning of a lexical unit expressing certain specific feature of its denotation.
The ordered set of different semes (integrated, differential) forms a
The method of seme analysis (componential analysis) is used to study the meaning as an ordered set of semantic components (Vinogradova & Sternin, 2016, p. 19).
There are different methods of seme “extraction”: logical analysis of dictionary definitions, context analysis of the use of lexemes in texts, semantic interpretation of associative verbal reactions received during psycholinguistic association experiments.
The given study shows the possibility of componential analysis on the example of the semantics of a toponym
The analysis of dictionary definitions of a toponym
According to the principle of plurality of the metalanguage description of mental units a set of semantic components, the number of sememes of the same lexical units and definitions of the same meanings in dictionaries cannot coincide. There is a need to select authoritative dictionaries and to carry out the seme analysis of dictionary definitions.
In terms of the experimental part we shall apply a complex of experimental methods (for example, a combination of free and directed association experiments) to ensure high degree of reliability of conclusions.
The subject of the study is the toponym
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study is to demonstrate the opportunities of the seme analysis for the description of meanings of lexical units developed within the Russian Voronezh Theoretical and Linguistic School.
Seven dictionaries were used to study the semantics of a toponym
Besides the analysis of dictionary definitions, the study covered experimental methods allowing “describing the semantics of a word, compensating insufficiency of dictionary description of meanings currently recognized by many linguists and psycholinguists” (Vinogradova & Sternin, 2016, p. 43).
Psycholinguistic experiments were carried out during 2018 (Makhaev, Polekhin, & Sternin, 2018a, 2018b).
Results of the analysis are presented in Table
The structure of the seme column: seme name; seme frequency equal to the number of its occurrence in dictionaries; index of seme intensity (IIs) revealed in the analysis of dictionary definitions and calculated according to the following formula:
Sem – number of semes in definitions of analyzed dictionaries
DIC – total number of analyzed dictionaries
Thus, the hyperseme “city” is specified in all analyzed dictionaries, therefore, its IIs equals 1 (7:7=1). IIs of the seme “in the Russian Federation” is equal to 0.14 (1:7=0.14).
Simes are shown in the table from the most to the least frequent (by IIs). The sign “+” in corresponding columns means that the seme is updated in this dictionary (the sema “On the bank of the Caspian Sea” is updated in DMGN, BEED, TDC, EF and CTD and respectively is not updated in GNW and HTDR). Table
Following the analysis of dictionary definitions 34 semes were defined, from which 2 semes are updated in all 7 analyzed dictionaries, 1 seme – in 5 dictionaries, 2 semes – in 4 dictionaries, 7 semes – in 3 dictionaries, 5 semes – in 2 dictionaries, 17 semes – only in 1 dictionary (Figure
In this case the theoretical principle of complementarity of dictionary definitions is confirmed.
Further the study shows the results of semantic interpretation of verbal associative reactions received during psycholinguistic experiments (Table
The structure of the seme column: seme name; seme frequency equal to the number of its occurrence in experiments; index of seme intensity (IIs) revealed through experiments and calculated according to the following formula:
n – number of examinees updating a seme in experiments
N – total number of examinees
Simes are shown in the table from the most to the least frequent (by IIs).
Following the results of experiments 40 semes were defined, from which only 2 semes were updated in all three experiments (“On the bank of the Caspian Sea” and “There is a citadel Naryn-Kala”); 30 semes are updated in one out of three experiments, and 8 – in two (Figure
It shall also be noted that 40% of semes (21 semes) are updated through tsNAE, 39% (20 semes) – through tsNAE -1, and 21% (11 semes) – through tsNAE -2 (Figure
In this case the thesis on the need to use several types of experiments is confirmed by psycholinguistic study. Some experimental methods allow identifying semes, which are not identified when the others are used. For example, in the given the study the semes “In the Russian Federation” (IIs=0.13), “In the Republic of Dagestan” (IIs=0.5) were updated only through tsNAE -2; semes “There are museums” (IIs=0.04), “The city is 2000 years old” (IIs=0.04) – only through tsNAE -1.
The study allowed revealing different quantity of semes regarding a toponym
This makes it possible to conclude that the explanatory dictionaries illustrate meanings in a certain (limited) volume.
The study of lexical units by experimental methods allow receiving thorough descriptions of their meanings.
- Babenko, L. G. (2018). Modeling of russian synonym semantics in a conceptual dictionary (on the basis ofdictionary entries of synonymic sets with emotive semantics). Voprosy Leksikografii. Russian Journal of Lexicography, 13, 81–99.
- BEES (2010). Big Encyclopedic electronic dictionary. Derbent. Retrieved from: http://slovonline.ru/slovar_ctc/ b-4/id-17883/derbent.html.
- DMGN (2006). Dictionary of modern geographical names. Derbent. Retrieved from: http://otpusk-info.ru/journey/dictionary/geographic-names/fc/slovar-196-1.htm#zag-1357.
- EF (2000). Encyclopedia “Fatherland”. Derbent. Retrieved from: http://history.niv.ru/doc/encyclopedia/ otechestvo/fc/slovar-196-1.htm#zag-2303).
- Generalova, E. V. (2015). Problems of lexicographic representation of adjectives (based on the Dictionary of everyday Russian of Moscovia of the 16–17th centuries and other historical dictionaries). In Modern problems of lexicography: conference materials (pp. 50–51). St. Petersburg: Nestor-History.
- Goldin, V. E., & Sdobnova, A. P. (2014). “Dictionary” and “psycholinguistic” representation of meanings: search for compliances. Questions of psycholinguistics, 22, 56–67.
- Gray, A. R. (2018). The Semantics of Glory: A Cognitive, Corpus-Based Approach to Hebrew Word Meaning. Journal For The Study Of The Old Testament, 5, 249–249.
- Grigoriev, A. V. (2018). Semantics of the word in old russian Drevnyaya Rus-Voprosy. MedievistikI, 4, 116–120.
- Grosu, E. (2018). The influence of the cultural context and the broadening of the semantic sphereof the terms two concrete cases. European Journal of Science and Theology, 5, 113–22.
- Ivashchenko, V. L., & Lyashchuk (Kazak), I.A. (2015). Models of representation of multivalent terms in Ukrainian linguistic lexicography. In Modern problems of lexicography: conference materials (pp. 81–82). St. Petersburg: Nestor-History.
- Kozulina, N. A. (2015). About the draft of explanatory dictionary of new esoteric terms. In Modern problems of lexicography: conference materials (pp. 95–96). St. Petersburg: Nestor-History.
- Makhaev, M. R., Polekhin, N. A., & Sternin, I. A. (2018a). Voronezh and Derbent in regional language consciousness. Culture of communication and its formation. Voronezh: RHYTHM.
- Makhaev, M. R., Polekhin, N. A., & Sternin, I. A. (2018b). Degree of development of a toponym Derbent (according to linguistic association experiments). Bulletin of Social Pedagogical Institute, 1, 44–51.
- Mimeau, C., Laroche, A., & Deacon, S. H. (2019). The relation between syntactic awareness and contextual facilitation in word reading: What is the role of semantics? Journal of Research in Reading, 1, 178–192.
- Nikonov, V. A. (1966). Concise toponymical dictionary. Moscow: Mysl.
- Norman, B. Yu, & Mukhin M. Yu. (2018). Lexical and grammatical semantics: a corpus-based statistical study of lexical semantic groups. Sibirskii Filologicheskii Zhurnal, 3, 178–191.
- Pospelov E. M. (1999). Historical and toponymical Dictionary of Russia. Pre-Soviet period. Moscow: Profizdat.
- Pospelov, E. M. (2002). Geographical names of the world: Toponymical dictionary. Moscow: Russian dictionaries, Astrel, AST.
- Rudakova, A. V. (2015). Generalization of dictionary definitions in the description of integrated lexicographic word meaning. Bulletin of Dagestan Scientific Center, 58, 152–156
- Sternin, I. A. (2012). Problem of non-uniqueness of metalanguage description of mental units in linguistics. Linguoconceptology and psycholinguistics, 5, 8–17.
- TDC (2011). Toponymical dictionary of the Caucasus. Derbent. Retrieved from: http://otpusk-info.ru/journey/dictionary/kavkaz/fc/slovar-196-1.htm#zag-854
- Vinogradova, O. E., & Sternin, I. A. (2016). Psycholinguistic methods in the description of word semantics. Voronezh: Istoki.
- Volkov, S. S. (2015). Notes on meta language of author’s lexicography. In Modern problems of lexicography: conference materials (pp. 38–41). St. Petersburg: Nestor-History.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
About this article
28 December 2019
Print ISBN (optional)
Sociolinguistics, linguistics, semantics, discourse analysis, science, technology, society
Cite this article as:
Selmurzaeva, K., Abdulazimova, T., Ireziev, S., Vagapov, A., & Makhaev*, M. (2019). To A Problem Of Complex Description Of Semantics Of Lexical Units. In D. Karim-Sultanovich Bataev, S. Aidievich Gapurov, A. Dogievich Osmaev, V. Khumaidovich Akaev, L. Musaevna Idigova, M. Rukmanovich Ovhadov, A. Ruslanovich Salgiriev, & M. Muslamovna Betilmerzaeva (Eds.), Social and Cultural Transformations in the Context of Modern Globalism, vol 76. European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences (pp. 2067-2074). Future Academy. https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2019.12.04.277