Features Of Verbs With The Root "Руб" And Their Vietnamese Equivalents
The article presents the results of a comparative study based on the analysis of the semantics of verb lexemes with the root "руб" as one of the segments of the semantic field "weapon" of the Russian language and their equivalents in Vietnamese. In the semantic field "weapons," the core, center, and periphery are distinguished. The most structured parts of this field are the core and the center, which is explained by both extralinguistic and linguistic factors proper. The clarity and transparency of the structure of the core and the center of the semantic field "weapon" are due to the presence of numerous clan-species paradigms (hyper-hyponymic series) in their composition. The core and center of this semantic field received a complete description of the studies performed during the period of active development of the structural-semantic paradigm in linguistics. The cultural specificity of the studied fragment of the Russian semantic field "weapons" was determined in the course of a comprehensive study of epidigmatics (dynamics of the internal form), word-formation nests, and means of expressing grammatical meanings. The revealed specific meanings of verb derivatives are essential for the accurate translation of Russian verbs into foreign languages. A study of the semantics and connotations of Vietnamese equivalents to Russian verb derivatives with the root "руб" showed a significant coincidence of the semantic field "weapons" in Russian and Vietnamese, not only at the core and center but also at the periphery
Keywords: Semantic fieldparadigmethnocultural specificityRussianVietnamese
Recently, the use of military vocabulary has intensified in the Russian language. So, lexicon units appear on the pages of the print media, in television and Internet communications, associated with the designation of the names of the combat arms, military units, names of military ranks and posts, equipment of military personnel, names of weapons, types of weapons. Researchers cause the politicization and militarization of public consciousness by political factors (Durdu & Ageeva, 2019). Military vocabulary as an object of scientific description can be a means of studying the state of modern society. However, military vocabulary can be a means of studying and comparing the ethnic mentality of different peoples and one person in its different historical periods. This feature is implemented through the analysis of the semantics of linguistic units. The analysis reveals the common and different in the semantic structure of the token. It becomes possible to determine the place of linguistic units in the structure of the semantic field as a fragment of the linguistic picture of the world of an individual ethnic group.
Weapon words-words as an integral part of military vocabulary have long remained in the sphere of interest of Russian scientists who studied the history of the appearance of such words, changes in their semantics, their place in the composition of military vocabulary (Balakin, 2014; Odintsov, 1984, 1988; Sheremetyev, 2003; Sorokoletov, 2018). As a fragment of the Russian linguistic picture of the world, the semantic field “weapons” was also studied not only in the structural-semantic sense but also in the linguistic-cultural aspect (Kanafiev, 2015). It was proved that in the Russian language, the semantic field “weapons” is formed by many internal lexico-semantic paradigms. The expansion of this semantic field is due to the open for the replenishment of the hyper-hyponymic series of nouns and nominative combinations of word-names of weapons and semantic derivation (Farkhutdinova & Yakupov, 2019). In foreign linguistics, word-names of weapons are usually considered in connection with the processes of metaphorization that occur in speech and the language of the media (Chilton, 1987; Michael & Katie, 2005). The study of linguistic pictures of the world of different nations opens up new opportunities for the study of the semantic field “weapons” as an ethnocultural phenomenon, reflecting the particular worldview of ethnic groups. This explains the appeal to the description of the semantic field “weapons” in Russian and Vietnamese.
The subject of the study was the dynamics of the internal form of the lexical units of the Russian language and the formation of derivative (figurative) values of the units of the field, due to which there is semantic diffusion at various levels of semantic associations. The research material was verbal lexemes with the root "руб" and their Vietnamese equivalents, extracted from explanatory dictionaries, as well as a file of text usage, compiled based on the Russian National Corpus and Vietnamese Internet sources.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study was to identify the linguistic and cultural specifics of the semantic field “weapons” in Russian and Vietnamese. The goal is realized through analysis and comparison of the dynamics of the words internal form that has taken place on the field periphery. These are the names of actions carried out through weapons. The identification of the linguocultural specifics of these lexemes is of practical importance. The correlation of values between field units and their equivalents in the Vietnamese language contributes to the translation accuracy from Russian into Vietnamese. The study was carried out as part of the project “Linguoculturology. The semantics of linguistic units”, implemented at Ivanovo State University since 2018.
In work, systematic methods help to analyze the combat units of the language and the multiple units of storing information about the world around us: the semantic field method used in describing vocabulary and allow describing the relationship and interaction of language and culture. The use of this method concerning the lexical system of the Russian and Vietnamese languages is motivated by the fact that the lexical-semantic level of the language is most affected by reality. He most clearly conveys the uniqueness of the semantic image of the model of the world and expresses “the structuredness of the world from human comprehension” (Wendina, 2007, p. 37). In the course of analysis, this method was supplemented and refined by the method of component analysis and conceptual analysis of different types of language and speech units representing concepts, as well as by the method of lexicographic portraiture.
The epidigmatic relations between the constituents of the semantic field "weapons" allow considering the dynamics of the internal form and the formation of figurative values of the units of the field, due to which there is semantic diffusion at different levels of semantic associations.
The term epidigmatics (from the Greek. Epidosis – "increment, growth") was introduced into the theory of word-formation by Shmelev (2002). Shmelev proposed this term as the third dimension of the lexical-semantic system of the language, along with syntagmatic and paradigmatics. Epidigmatic relationships reflect the ability of a word to enter simultaneously into various lexical-semantic paradigms. This opportunity is based on word formation and the processes of its semantic development. That is, at the epidigmatic level, the units of the semantic field form a particular set of hierarchically derived values connected by some common value component (Shmelev, 2002). For example, the Russian verb charge has a primary, obviously "weapon" meaning 'to prepare a weapon for battle, putting shells, ammunition in it.' This verb is derived from a polysemous noun charge and has its derivatives lexemes (recharge). The same verb has a different meaning 'to fill with some feeling, mood.' It does not form a word-building correlation with reload (compare with the English ("general technical") verb load 'to put many things into a vehicle or machine' and Vietnamese the verb nạp' đưa vào, lắp vào để sử dụng' ('enter, add (smth inward to use'). It is important to note that both lexical and semantic variants of the verb are not isolated, but are connected by a standard component of meaning.
In metaphorical transfer by the similarity of form, an objective (fetish) way of perceiving the world (or: a culture code) is produced. The most relevant with the dynamics of the internal form of the members of the semantic field "weapons" is the action cultural code. The cultural code is traced in metaphors based on the similarity of sound and action. Words with weapons semantics serve as linguistic means by which the interpretation of various actions is conveyed. A metaphor implemented within the framework of the promotional cultural code is also productive for designating the actions themselves carried out by weapons. This means that epidigmatics connects the members of the "weapon" semantic field with the constitutions of other associations, not only at the exit from the semantic field but also at the entrance to it (that is, during the "relocation" of words from other fields). So, purely household vocabulary is actively used for nomination of automatic weapon actions, which is observed, in particular, in colloquial speech. For example, scribbling 'sewing on a sewing machine' and 'shoot (with automatic weapons),' water лять make it flow, pour' and 'direct something in large quantities.' Thus, the epidigmatic dimension makes it possible to include units of different parts of speech in the peripheral segments of the semantic field.
All types of systemic relations are closely intertwined in the semantic field. At the same time, some of the tokens call specific processes and properties of weapons. For example, shoot, bomb, detonate and rifle, explosive, gunshot. In this case, the semantic organization of other words is not so limited, as can be judged by the vast epidigmatic and syntagmatic potentials of these units, more precisely, their individual lexical and semantic variants. A non-linguistic factor determines the lexical units: chopping with a sword – chopping with a chisel, stabbing with a knife – stabbing with a hammer, nuclear warhead – nuclear reaction. In this case, it is also worth considering the variability of the word in the semantic association. In this case, it is also worth considering the variability of the word in the semantic association.
The word-formation nest is one of the most important paradigms in the language system. It is the derivation of the external form (word formation) and the internal dynamics of field units (epidigmatics) that make it possible to build an analysis of the cultural specificity of the studied semantic field. Russian verb derivatives with the root "руб" are semantically closely related to the "weapon" semantics (рубить, рубиться, врубить, зарубить, нарубить, порубить, прорубить, срубить). First of all, in this series, irrevocable verbs associated with the subject of action are led, as well as returning verbs with the values of the goal (object) of the action. Together with the general meaning, verbs with the root "rub" can include meanings expressed by prefixes that are portable and peripheral to the semantic field "weapon." Verb prefixes are used for formation the perfect form of verbs, and also expression of a specific mode of action. For example, the verb hack off has the inner meaning 'kill, inflicting a chopped wound,' knock out – 'destroy it by chopping,' chop it off – 'chopping, divide into parts.' Moreover, the same verbs in the Russian language also have "unarmed" meanings formed based on many cultural connotations. They are associated primarily with the functional characteristics of the impact of chopping weapons (speed, sharpness, strength, surprise, multiplicity), as well as sensory sensations (pain, suffering, loss, unwantedness). Understanding of such specific meanings is essential for the accuracy of translation of Russian verbs into foreign languages.
A semantic analysis of Russian verb derivatives with the root "rub" allows taking into account the general and particular features of the translation of vocabulary into Vietnamese. The formation and functioning of verbs in this eastern language is specific: literal translation is not enough to express the context. For this reason, in the dictionary, every Russian verb is often translated by a number of Vietnamese tokens (chop – chém, chặt, bổ, chặt (nhỏ), bổ nhỏ, từng đoạn, từng mảnh, băm vằm, băm nhỏ, vằm nhỏ, đẵn, hạ, ngả, khao, đào, khai thác, xây dựng, làm, dựng, nói thẳng vào mặt, nói xẵng, nói bốp chát).
An analysis of the word-building nest of the verb рубить (chop) and study of the translation of its derivatives into the Vietnamese language makes it possible to assert that the Vietnamese token chém is the most frequent for translating the actual "weapon" verb derivatives with the root "руб." In this case, the shades of meaning expressed by Russian prefixes can be translated by circumstantial combinations ("sword," "in half," "deadly," "each other"). Other translation options (chặt, bổ, đẵn, đốn, hạ, ngả), although frequency, are used only in various contexts that are not related to the action of cold (chopping) weapons. Some of the most used units of the Russian word-building nest of verbs with the root "rub" do not have equivalents in the Vietnamese language and, therefore, are most often introduced into the context using a descriptive translation. The correspondence of the translation of the analyzed units is given in the Table
Particular attention should be paid to the figurative meanings of verb derivatives with the root “руб», the search for their translated Vietnamese equivalents, and the subsequent consideration of their semantics. Such transfers are found insufficient numbers in the languages under consideration, and, as a result of the hypersem «оружие» ('weapons') semantic transformation. It goes from the background to the background, loses its dominant role. Nevertheless, all such connotations are somehow connected with the core of the semantic field. We will be convinced of this, paying attention also to the "supporting" semes (grounds for transfer) associated with the concept of weapons.
In Russian, for verb derivatives with a root "руб", which are mainly conversational, the following connotations are noted: strength (рубиться – chopping – 'play with excitement'), rudeness (рубить – chopping – 'speak, speak out about smth directly and sharply'), separation (перерубить – 'split in half, into parts'), completion (зарубить/ зарубить на лбу (носу) – chopped / chopped on the forehead (nose) – 'remember forever'). A large number of derivatives develop a "peaceful" meaning associated with labor activity using chopping tools or technological processes (вырубить, отрубить, разрубить, перерубить). In this case, the assertion is confirmed by the fact that in the Russian language, the structure of semantic fields "weapon" and "gun" is closely related to semantic relations at the of the nuclear units level and the periphery.
It should be noted that these words express contextual information in different ways. Usually (out of context), verbs are understood as they are defined in the dictionary, but in some cases (with contextual words), they are understood differently.
So, the figurative meaning of the verb chém has obvious negative connotations associated with sensations from the influence of the chopping weapon – sharpness, surprise, rudeness, pain, death: 'lấy giá rất đắt, giá cắt cổ', shỉ ỉáng mười nghìn mà bọn nó chém hai mươi nghìn – 'indicate a high price'; it costs 10,000 (dong), and they are ~ 20,000; vernacular curse to the interlocutor chém cha ('hack someone's father'), chém giết ('hack and kill'); chém to kho mặn ('simple, clumsy method of work'); chém vè ('lurking / hiding in the water or bushes').
The study showed that verb derivatives with a root -rub- are associated with common connotations for both languages: negativity, strength, rudeness. The group of verbs reflects the features of actions with chopping weapons: the connotation "rudeness" is associated with the mechanical features of the action of chopping weapons. The connotations of "negativity" and "strength" are associated with the physical and psychological consequences of the action of chopping weapons. The connotation common to Russian and Vietnamese culture, which is found in the meaning of "weapon" verb derivatives, is harmful. The impact of weapons is generally associated with a negative meaning. Destruction is one of the most common weapon functions. As a result, destruction is one of the most common connotations between different groups of verbs on the periphery of the semantic field "weapon." Verbs on the field periphery, especially their figurative meanings, reveal a lot about the essence of the person and the mentality of the people. A man uses weapons and at the same time, demonstrates his strength. The average person is not prepared to use weapons; for him, pain is one of the main consequences (physical and psychological) from using weapons. For a person, actions with weapons are always fleeting. In the human mind, weapons are a dangerous phenomenon; their use is undesirable. The main characteristics of the weapon that are significant for the development of secondary figurative meanings in verbs on the periphery of the semantic field "weapon" are highlighted: the mechanism of the weapon, the external form of action, the functions of the weapon, the physical and psychological consequences of using the weapon. Man conceptualized this phenomenon of material culture and verbalized to transmit information related to his sensual, spiritual world.
- Balakin, S. V. (2014). The principle of the formation of concepts at the subordinate level (using the concept of the “weapon” as an example. Herald of the South Ural State Univer. Linguist Ser., 11(10), 79–81.
- Chilton, P. (1987). Metaphor, euphemism and the militarization of language. Current Res. on Peace and Violence, 10(1), 7–19.
- Durdu, B., & Ageeva, Y. V. (2019). The functioning of military vocabulary in the language of the media. Baltic J. of Humanit., 1(26), 35–38.
- Farkhutdinova, F. F., & Yakupov, H. A. (2019). Phraseologism Doomsday: history and semantic shifts in contemporary political discourse. Political Linguist., 1, 90–99.
- Kanafiev, R. N. (2015). The phenomenon of linguistic divergence and stratification of national culture. In Culture, civilization, society: paradigms of research and trends in interaction (pp. 35–37). Prague.
- Michael, B., & Katie M. (2005). Metaphor, idiom and ideology: the search for 'no smoking guns' across time. Discourse & Society, 16(4), 459–480.
- Odintsov, G. F. (1984). The main lines of the semantic development of weapon names in the Russian language. Etymology, 171–175.
- Odintsov, G. F. (1988). From the history of words with a generalized meaning ‘weapon’ in Russian. Etymology, 110–125.
- Sheremetyev, D. A. (2003). Weapons as a metaphor. Star, 9, 167–190.
- Shmelev, D. N. (2002). Selected works on the Russian language. Languages of Slavic Culture.
- Sorokoletov, F. P. (2018). History of military vocabulary in Russian. XI–XVIII centuries. Librocom.
- Wendina, T. I. (2007). From the Cyril and Methodius heritage in the language of Russian culture. Institute of Slavic Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
About this article
Cite this paper as:
Click here to view the available options for cite this article.