Abstract
This paper tackles the importance of diachronic variation within the framework of the research dedicated to the lexical field, as well as the implications at the level of practical applications. Two major research perspectives can be distinguished in the field, the traditional one, lacking the adequate technicalities for semantic research, and the modern one, benefiting from the contributions brought about by structural linguistics. The importance of diachronic variation is highlighted for each perspective, next to its impact at the practical level. If in the case of the former perspective the diachronic variation of an onomasiological field is a defining trait, the theoretical framework of the modern perspective excludes the inquiry into a variation of a field, diachronically as much as synchronically. In the final part of the article we focus on the importance of describing, from a modern perspective, a lexical field, at every level of its variation, be it synchronic or diachronic. This leads to a more exact identification of the significance of words belonging to a certain field, within the framework of each version of a historical language. The utility of these results is also exemplified against the background of lexicography.
Highlights
This paper tackles the importance of diachronic variation within the framework of the research dedicated to the lexical field, as well as the implications at the level of practical applications
Diogenes’ challenge, who brought a plucked rooster in front of Plato, is anecdotal, but Plato’s reply is a simple an illustration as possible for the way in which one variable can influence the process of defining through proximate genus and specific difference
Delineating the lexical field is done through synchrony, but the reliance of establishing signification on reciprocal relationships is demonstrated in diachrony, where any modification at the level of one element is reflected upon the system of the respective field
Summary
The phrase “lexical field” is immediately associated with the idea of researching a certain group of words, which is essentially true, but this truth must not be mistaken for the purpose of lexical field analysis, which does not imply analysing the lexical field itself, but distinguishing an identity—as clear as possible—. Of the significant elements of language, the lexemes (or, using a wider definition, words), based on the relationships developed between them within certain paradigms, at a semantic level. The analysis of lexical fields ( called semantic fields) is nothing more than the continuation of Saussure’s endeavour of providing consistency to the concept of “linguistic value”, in view of the associative relationships based on the analogy of the signified Saussure’s statement involves the designative level, and cannot be negated, even if in some cases reference can be made to a nomenclature as well This aspect must be highlighted at the level of language significance, too. This research direction, fundamental through its subject, was continued through the objective of discovering this relationships at the paradigmatic level of language, disclosing the existence of certain groups, called lexical fields or semantic fields, an objective visible since the 1930’s
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
