字典将其定义为一种客观化民族对工具知识的方式

Olha Molodychuk
{"title":"字典将其定义为一种客观化民族对工具知识的方式","authors":"Olha Molodychuk","doi":"10.31499/2415-8828.1.2021.232672","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article analyzes the peculiarities of objectification of ethnos knowledge about tools on the material of definitions of lexicographical works of different years. It has been proved that there is a seal of their creation time on dictionary interpretations. The main tools in their constructions remain as they were many years ago, but their once important details for the consciousness of a native speaker have lost their significance, so in modern definitions they are absent, because there is no need for a more detailed interpretation of these historicisms nowadays. A comparison of interpretations of tools gives grounds to talk about how their perceptions have changed during the historical development of society. \nThe analysis of practical material proves that there is an inversely proportional relationship between the structure of knowledge presentation and its lexicographic definition. Comparison of dictionary articles presented in lexicographical works of the middle of the 19th – early 20th enturies and late 20th – early 21st centuries proves «tool» progress of the society, where the usual for Ukrainians of the previous time period tool was interpreted in one word, because everything was clear without further explanation, while lexicographic works representing the second time period testify presentation of a detailed description of a tool in the definition, because they are actually used today by representatives of mostly older (sometimes) middle generation of Ukrainians. \nThe research proves that metaphorical processes are seldom recorded in lexicographical works as objectification of steps up in the semantic structure of the lexical item caused by people’s knowledge about tools and their functioning. This requires of lexicographers to create electronic versions of dictionaries to respond quickly to new meanings.","PeriodicalId":180896,"journal":{"name":"Philological Review","volume":"149 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"DICTIONARY DEFINITION AS A WAY OF OBJECTIVATION OF ETHNOS KNOWLEDGE ABOUT TOOLS\",\"authors\":\"Olha Molodychuk\",\"doi\":\"10.31499/2415-8828.1.2021.232672\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article analyzes the peculiarities of objectification of ethnos knowledge about tools on the material of definitions of lexicographical works of different years. It has been proved that there is a seal of their creation time on dictionary interpretations. The main tools in their constructions remain as they were many years ago, but their once important details for the consciousness of a native speaker have lost their significance, so in modern definitions they are absent, because there is no need for a more detailed interpretation of these historicisms nowadays. A comparison of interpretations of tools gives grounds to talk about how their perceptions have changed during the historical development of society. \\nThe analysis of practical material proves that there is an inversely proportional relationship between the structure of knowledge presentation and its lexicographic definition. Comparison of dictionary articles presented in lexicographical works of the middle of the 19th – early 20th enturies and late 20th – early 21st centuries proves «tool» progress of the society, where the usual for Ukrainians of the previous time period tool was interpreted in one word, because everything was clear without further explanation, while lexicographic works representing the second time period testify presentation of a detailed description of a tool in the definition, because they are actually used today by representatives of mostly older (sometimes) middle generation of Ukrainians. \\nThe research proves that metaphorical processes are seldom recorded in lexicographical works as objectification of steps up in the semantic structure of the lexical item caused by people’s knowledge about tools and their functioning. This requires of lexicographers to create electronic versions of dictionaries to respond quickly to new meanings.\",\"PeriodicalId\":180896,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Philological Review\",\"volume\":\"149 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-05-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Philological Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.31499/2415-8828.1.2021.232672\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philological Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31499/2415-8828.1.2021.232672","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文以不同年代词典著述的定义材料为依据,分析了民族工具知识物化的特点。事实证明,词典释义具有其创作时间的印记。它们的主要构造工具仍然和许多年前一样,但它们曾经对母语者的意识很重要的细节已经失去了意义,所以在现代定义中它们是不存在的,因为现在不需要对这些历史主义进行更详细的解释。对工具的解释的比较提供了讨论在社会的历史发展过程中他们的看法是如何变化的依据。对实际资料的分析证明,知识表示的结构与其词典定义之间存在反比关系。比较19世纪中期至20世纪初和20世纪末至21世纪初的词典编纂作品中的词典文章,证明了社会的“工具”进步,在那里,乌克兰人通常的前一个时期的工具被解释为一个词,因为一切都很清楚,没有进一步的解释,而词典编纂作品代表第二个时期,证明了在定义中对工具的详细描述。因为今天使用它们的人大多是老一辈(有时是)乌克兰人的代表。研究表明,由于人们对工具及其功能的认识,隐喻过程在词典编纂中很少被记录下来,这是词汇项目语义结构升级的客观化。这就要求词典编纂者创建电子版词典,以便对新的含义作出快速反应。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
DICTIONARY DEFINITION AS A WAY OF OBJECTIVATION OF ETHNOS KNOWLEDGE ABOUT TOOLS
This article analyzes the peculiarities of objectification of ethnos knowledge about tools on the material of definitions of lexicographical works of different years. It has been proved that there is a seal of their creation time on dictionary interpretations. The main tools in their constructions remain as they were many years ago, but their once important details for the consciousness of a native speaker have lost their significance, so in modern definitions they are absent, because there is no need for a more detailed interpretation of these historicisms nowadays. A comparison of interpretations of tools gives grounds to talk about how their perceptions have changed during the historical development of society. The analysis of practical material proves that there is an inversely proportional relationship between the structure of knowledge presentation and its lexicographic definition. Comparison of dictionary articles presented in lexicographical works of the middle of the 19th – early 20th enturies and late 20th – early 21st centuries proves «tool» progress of the society, where the usual for Ukrainians of the previous time period tool was interpreted in one word, because everything was clear without further explanation, while lexicographic works representing the second time period testify presentation of a detailed description of a tool in the definition, because they are actually used today by representatives of mostly older (sometimes) middle generation of Ukrainians. The research proves that metaphorical processes are seldom recorded in lexicographical works as objectification of steps up in the semantic structure of the lexical item caused by people’s knowledge about tools and their functioning. This requires of lexicographers to create electronic versions of dictionaries to respond quickly to new meanings.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信