Text Semantic Field Method as a Possibility of Systemic Approach to the Study of Literary Text: on the Material of the Novel “HOME OF THE GENTRY” by I.S. Turgenev

Cover Page

Cite item


The article is devoted to identifying the explanatory potential of the text semantic field method as a system method in understanding the nature of connections between different levels of a literary text. It allows us to reach the super-category of the author's image, which acts as the organizing beginning of a literary text. Thus, the text semantic field is both the object and the method of the research. The method of comparative analysis revealed that the overcoming of natural language oppositions, inherent in the artistic text, can be manifested to a greater or lesser extent: from the weakening of semantic oppositions of natural language due to the enhanced semantic convergence of implicitly related semantic units, which can be observed, as shown by the study, in the novel by I.S. Turgenev “Home of the Gentry”, to the complete destruction of natural language oppositions, originally inherent, as it was proved in the works of O.I. Valentinova, in the aesthetics of polyphony. The comparison made possible to clarify that the principles of the organization of text semantic fields in artistic texts can perform opposite functions: to increase the semiotic significance of the image category, as it happens in the novel analyzed by I.S. Turgenev, or, on the contrary, as proved in the research of O.I. Valentinova, to indicate a decrease in the semiotic significance of the image category, which is a constitutive property of polyphonic texts. The use of the comparative method also allowed us to show that overcoming the oppositions of natural language, as a mechanism for the formation of text semantic fields not only of a literary text, but also semiotically complex texts of a different etiology, performs different functions. A comparison of character education text semantic fields of literary texts with the study of E.Yu. Medvedev the principle of formation of the text fields in the Orthodox liturgical sermons have clarified that if the destruction of the oppositions of natural language in a literary text generates occasional oppositions, will appear on the ‘me’ of the artist, overcoming the oppositions of natural language in liturgical preaching brings to the ontological meanings that exist outside of the will and consciousness of the preacher.

About the authors

Van Na

RUDN University

Author for correspondence.
Email: helenvanna@yandex.ru

Post-graduate student of the General and Russian Linguistics Department

6, Miklukho-Maklaya, Moscow, Russian Federation, 117198

Jaroslaw Kobylko

University of Warsaw; RUDN University

Email: jaroslaw.kobylko@yandex.ru

Ph.D., University of Warsaw, invited teacher, the Russian language Department № 2, Faculty of Russian language and General education, RUDN University

26/28, Krakowskie Przedmieście, Warsaw, Poland, 00-927; 6, Miklukho-Maklaya, Moscow, Russian Federation, 117198


  1. Novikov, L.A. (1997). Semantic field as a text structure. Field Theory in Modern Linguistics In Materials of the scientific and theoretical seminar. Part IV. Ufa. pp. 3—6. (In Russ.).
  2. Novikov, L.A. (2001). Sketch of the semantic field. In L.A. Novikov. Selected Works. Vol. 2. Aesthetic aspects of the language. Miscellanea. Moscow: RUDN University Press. pp. 554—570. (In Russ.).
  3. Karaulov, Yu.N. (1976). General and Russian ideography. Moscow: Nauka. (In Russ.).
  4. Novikov, L.A. (1982). Semantics of the Russian language. Moscow:. Vysshaja shkola. (In Russ.).
  5. Trubetskoy, N.S. (1995). History. Culture. Language. Moscow: Publishing group «Progress», «Univers». (In Russ.).
  6. Valentinova, O.I. (2016). Systematic approach to the study of text and style: justification of the causal typology of texts In O.I. Valentinova, V.N. Denisenko, S.Yu. Preobrazhensky, M.A. Rybakov Systematic view as the basis of philological thought. Moscow: Languages of Slavic cultures. pp. 171—301. (In Russ.).
  7. Novikova, M.L. (2005). Detachment as the basis of language semantics and structure of a literary text: Monograph. Moscow: RUDN University Press. (In Russ.).
  8. Valentinova, O.I. (2005). Semiotics of Polyphony. Moscow: RUDN University Press. (In Russ.).
  9. Valentinova, O.I. (2006). “The Brothers Karamazov”: Semantic investigation. Vestnik “Russkaya rech”, 3, 7—13. (In Russ.).
  10. Valentinova, O.I. (2006). F.M. Dostoevsky: learning to understand. Russian Language Abroad, 3, 80—85. (In Russ.).
  11. Medvedev, E.Yu. (2017). Resetting semantic oppositions as one of the principles for organizing liturgical Orthodox sermons. RUDN Journal of Language Studies, Semiotics and Semantics, 8 (3), 654—663. (In Russ.).
  12. Medvedev, E.Yu. (2015). On the issue of the importance of distinguishing the secular semiotic system and the religious semiotic system when working with theological texts. I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay and world linguistics: international conference: V Baudouin readings (Kazan Federal University, October 12—15, 2015): works and materials. 2015. — Т. 1, 227—229. (In Russ.)
  13. Medvedev, E.Yu. (2015) Measure of interpretation of the biblical text in liturgical sermons of different authors. RUDN Journal of Language Studies, Semiotics and Semantics, 6 (4), 147—157. (In Russ.).
  14. Turgenev, I.S. (1981). Complete works and letters: In 30 vols. Academician of Sciences of the USSR, Institute of Russian Literature (Pushkin House); M.P. Alekseev (Ed.). Moscow: Nauka, Vol. 6. The noble nest; The day before; First love: [Novels, short story], 1858—1860. [Prep. and note. M.P. Alekseeva et al.]. (In Russ.).
  15. Ozhegov’s Explanatory dictionary. S.I. Ozhegov, N.Yu. Shvedova. 1949—1992. (In Russ.).
  16. Explanatory Dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language. [Op.] V.I. Dahl. Part 1—4. Moscow: The island of lovers of Russian literature, institution. at the Imperial Moscow University, 1863—1866 (4 t.). (In Russ.)
  17. Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language. Ed. by D.N. Ushakova. Moscow: State. Inst. “Sov. Encyclical”; OGIZ; Gos. State publishing house of foreign and national words, 1935—1940. (4 t.). (In Russ.)
  18. Bakhtin, M.M. (1979). Esthetics of verbal creativity. Moscow. (In Russ.).
  19. Vinogradov, V.V. (1959). About the language of fiction. Moscow: Goslitizdat. pp. 84—166. (In Russ.).
  20. Lotman, Yu.M. (1970). The structure of the literary text. Moscow. (In Russ.).
  21. Novikov, L.A. (2003). Literary text and its analysis. Second edition, corrected. Moscow: URSS editorial. (In Russ.).
  22. Hoey, M. (1991). Patterns of Lexis in Text [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  23. Piaget, J. (1968). Le structuralism. Paris.
  24. Viet, J. (1965). Les méthodes structuralistes dans les sciences sociales. Hague.
  25. Zhu, Yongsheng et al. (2001). Comparative Study of English Textual сohesive methods in English texts [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.

Copyright (c) 2020 Na V., Kobylko J.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies