TRADUCTOLOGIE ȘI PLURALISM CIVILIZAȚIONAL/LINGVISTIC ________________________________________________________________________________ CZU: 81’37’373 FUNCTIONAL-SEMANTIC FIELD “MONEY” IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE Ina COLENCIUC Free International University of Moldova (ULIM) The field principle of the system organization of linguistic facts is considered one of the most important achievements of modern linguistics. “Functional-semantic field” suggests grouping the language means interacting on a semantic-functional basis and their system-structural organization. The concept was developed by the well-known linguists J. Trier, B. Pottier, A. Bondarko, E. Coseriu and S. Berejan. The advantage of functional- semantic approach gives the opportunity to study language in its concrete realization, in action, as well as to analyze the means of rendering extralinguistic phenomena. The corpus of money-related language (in its literary, terminological and verbal embodiment) differs in richness from nation to nation, being determined by its historical development, social beliefs, and dominant ideology. The English language is very rich in money-related lexical units, which are recognized and widely used in the media, fiction, and didactic literature in both Great Britain and the United States of America. The widest variety of nominal and attitudinal expressions traditionally comes from the USA. The article is devoted to the peculiarities of functioning of the functional-semantic field in the English language. The author defines the concept “functional-semantic field”, reveals lexemes denoting “money” (conceptual field), makes the semantic analysis of the constituents of the field (semes) and presents their idiomatic micro-fields. Keywords: functional-semantic field, conceptual field, lexical unit/lexems, archelexeme, seme, sememe, idiom. Functional approach to language studies suggests analyzing language facts and phenomena in the process of their functioning with the purpose of presenting functional semantic paradigms and systemic organization of vocabulary. The idea of using the field principle of the system organization of linguistic facts is definitely one of the most significant achievements of the XX century linguistics. The concept “field” traces back to the definition of language as the system representing the complex mechanism, which was defined by I. O. Baudouin de Courtenay and F. de Saussure. The term borrowed from physics and through psychology, biology and sociology is introduced into Linguistics, in particular, by J. Trier. Scholars of different countries, schools and directions explain the term “functional-semantic field” differently ; this fact reveals different approaches to the problem development, rather than the differences of theoretical character. Notable Bessarabian linguist, Eugenio Coseriu believed that the delimitation of the field or the lexical and semantic subassembly is of great theoretical and practical interest. The terms of a unit are organized on the basis of common semantic properties and therefore the language lexicon is grouped in a lexical ________________________________________________________________177 INTERTEXT 3-4, 2016 _________________________________________________________ ______________________ semantic field as family names, names of colors, names of houses, names of domestic and wild animals, etc. (Coseriu 59). According to the Russian scholar Alexander Bondarko, the term “functional semantic field” gives prominence to the idea of grouping (a systematised array) of language means interacting on a semantic-functional basis and their system- structural organization. The concept has to do with modelling a system of multi- level, structurally heterogeneous language means. A functional-semantic field as a model is associated with the idea of a certain space in which the linguist outlines a configuration of central and peripheral components of the field and identifies zones of overlap with other fields. By overlap, he means reflection in a given model of the interplay of semantic elements (Bondarko 21). Examination of functional-semantic fields includes the type of analysis that may be called “field structuring” or the modeling of the structure of the field. This concept implies determining: a) the set of components of a functional-semantic-field in the given language on the basis of an invariant semantic feature common for all of them; b) the central and peripheral components of the field on the basis of certain criteria; c) the relations between the components of the functional semantic-field; d) the structural type of the given field; e) the relations between the given field and other functional- semantic fields, i.e. the role of the given field in the system of functional- semantic fields (ibidem: 24). The advantage of the functional-semantic approach is in the fact, that it enables to investigate linguistic phenomena not only from the point of their inner structure, but in the sphere of its functioning, connections with the environment. Such approach gives the opportunity to study language in its concrete realization, in action, as well as to analyze the means of rendering extralinguistic phenomena. Besides its economic function, money has always been an important social, psychological, and linguistic category. As a universal means of payment, it is among the most ancient notions and an absolute power in modern society. Discussed from an attitudinal point of view, money has always provoked a host of differing and conflicting emotions in people; it has been lauded and cursed, it has been dreamed of and disdained. “Old chronicles, ancient and modern judicial documents, and a great deal of fiction and non-fiction literature serve as the source of emotional assessment of the presence or absence of material or moral well-being measured with the help of money” (Dimo 83). According to the Roget’s 21-st century thesaurus the conceptual field “money” (means of exchange) contains 54 lexical units: 1) advance 2) almighty dollar 3) allowance 4) appropriation 5) asset 6) banknote 7) bankroll 8) bill 9) bread *10) buck/s* 11) capital 12) change 13) chip/s 14) coin 15) contribution 16) currency 17) deposit 18) dollar 19) donation 20) dough* 21) finance/s 22) fund/s 23) gold 24)gravy* 25) greenback* 26) hard cash* 27) income 28) legal tender 29) loot* 30) maintenance 31) means 32) mint 33) offering 34) pay/ment 35) pile 36) peso 37) pool 38) property 39) recompense 40) refund 41) reserve 42)resource/s 43) return 44) riches 45) roll 46) salary 47) savings 48) silver 49) specie 50) treasure 178________________________________________________________________ TRADUCTOLOGIE ȘI PLURALISM CIVILIZAȚIONAL/LINGVISTIC ________________________________________________________________________________ 51) wad 52) wage/s 53) wealth 54) wherewithal*. The informal words in the list are marked with * (Roget’s 21-st century thesaurus 483). The given conceptual field is build according to the principle suggested by Moldovan scholar Silviu Berejan (Berejan 121). It includes the following constituents (semes): S1- means of payment S9 - made of metal S2 - unit of currency S10 - banking S3 - substances/physical property S11 - business S4 - the way it may be obtained S12 - illegal purposes S5 - special destination S13 - gambling S6 - large quantity S14 - borrowing S7 - small amount S15 - slang S8 - made of paper S16 – metaphoric The seme characteristics: 1) advance S1, S5, S10 28) legal tender S1, S2, S10 2) “almighty dollar” S1, S16 29) loot S1, S2, S12 3) allowance S1, S5 30) maintenance S1, S5 4) appropriation S1, S5 31) means S1, S5, S10, S11 5) asset S1, S4 32) mint S1, S7 6) banknote S1, S8, S 10 33) offering S1, S5 7) bankroll S1, S6, S10 34) payment S1, S5 8) bill S1, S8, S10 35) pile S1, S6, S15 9) bread S1, S15 36) peso S1, S2, S9, S14 10) buck S1, S2, S15 37) pool S1, S5, S10 11) capital S1, S6, S10, S11 38) property S1, S11 12) change S1, S7 39) recompense S1, S4 13) chip S1, S3, S5, S13, S15 40) refund S1, S4 14) coin S1, S7, S9, S10 41) reserve S1, S6, S10, S11 15) contribution S1, S5 42) resource/s S1, S5, S6 16) currency S1, S10 43) return S1, S4, S10, S11 17) deposit S1, S5, S10 44) riches S1, S6 18) dollar S1, S2, S8, S9, S10 45) roll S1, S6, S10 19) donation S1, S5, 46) salary S1, S4 20) dough S1, S15 47) savings S1, S10 21) finance/s S1, S6, S10, S11 48) silver S1, S2 22) funds S1, S5, S10, S11 49) specie S1, S7, S9, S15 23) gold S1, S2, S3, S9 50) treasure S1, S6 24) gravy S1, S5 51) wad S1, S6, S15 25) greenback S1, S2, S8, S9 52) wage/s S1, S4 26) hard cash S1, S3, S6, S8, S10 53) wealth S1, S2 27) income S1, S4 54) wherewithal S1, S5 As it can be seen from the list given above, the seme S1 that defines the word “money” is common for all the elements of the considered field. That is to say, its meaning is an obligatory component for other elements of the field (it is termed archilexeme). It can be used while explaining the meaning of other words. Among the elements of the conceptual field there are parasememes, they can be parts of other sememes. There are elements of the field with the same constituents; they ________________________________________________________________179 INTERTEXT 3-4, 2016 _________________________________________________________ ______________________ have common semantic characteristics. Functional differences between sememes with common constituents can be revealed at the stylistic level. We can also identify the idiomatic micro-fields as money related idioms when they penetrate