Education is a complex and important process which the future not just of only one person but the whole nation depends on, hence, it is an important factor of the progress in modern world

1.4. Lexical field analysis

Lexical field analysis is the process of presenting and describing words according to their topic, or theme.

A lexical field analysis will attempt to establish the lexemes that are available in the vocabulary for talking about the area under investigation and then propose how they differ from each other in meaning and use. Such an analysis begins to show how the vocabulary as a whole is structured, and more so when individual lexical fields are brought into relationship with each other. There is no prescribed or agreed method for determining what constitutes a lexical field; each scholar must draw their own boundaries and establish their own criteria. Much work still needs to be undertaken in researching this approach to vocabulary²⁴.

Lexical field analysis is one of various forms of lexical semantics inspired by the structuralist conception of language as inaugurated by Ferdinand de Saussure. All these approaches reject the view that the vocabulary of a language is an unordered set of items, but instead take the view that the lexicon is organized into groups of items that belong together on the basis of their meaning. The different types of structural semantics can be classified primarily in terms of the kind of semantic relations that they concentrate on. The basic distinction is that between paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations²⁵.

«Lexical field analysis is based mainly on the approach of I. V. Arnold and includes some elements of Stylistic of Decoding. It concentrates on practical, detailed study of texts or their parts, sometimes being unaware of the author’s personality and the author’s individual style. Somewhat seemingly mechanical technique of stylistic analysis does not in the least exclude intuition and personal judgment of the student, and makes this type of analysis – as any – very subjective. Much depends on the thesaurus, degree/level of one’s knowledge of the language and literature, one’s aesthetic preferences (but this is true for any type of analysis).

This type of analysis may be used in any text, but best suited to it (in our opinion) would be 1) heterogeneous texts with numerous short paragraphs which will hardly be good for paragraph analysis; 2) comparatively short linguistically complicated texts offering lots of ideas; 3) poetic samples (preferred by I. V. Arnold); 4) essays or epistolary texts lacking a discernable plot.

A possible plan of discussion will be:

1) a summary with its usual constituents, but with an emphasis not only on the gist but on the idea of the text which student will prove in the process of the analysis;

2) an approximate/subjective innumerating of the most obvious themes/lexical fields;

3) establishing their hierarchy (principal, interdependent, background) – in the process of the analysis these suppositions prompted by intuition, may undergo some changes.

The analysis begins with the best represented LF, including the greatest number of lexical units (LU), connected directly (derivatives, synonyms, antonyms) and through associations (constant and casual). It is recommended to mark – for oneself – the number of LU, but offer to your listenes not more than three or four.

One should dwell on the predominant evaluative, emotive and stylistic connotations of the LF in general paying attention to the contextually acquired evaluative and emotive connotations. LU’s falling out of the general picture should be commented on separately.

To avoid a mechanical enumeration of facts special attention should be paid to the following: each statement should be followed by the student assessing its significance for a more propound understanding of the text in general and the before mentioned (in the summary) idea in particular.

The next step is stating the means of foregrounding of the theme (strong position, semantic repetition, contrast – on the level of denotations and connotations, – convergence, defeated expectancy etc). The means of foregrounding should be juxtaposed with those of related LFs: the more means of foregrounding, the greater is the significance of the LF for understanding of the text.

The conclusion should contain confirming or alternating the preliminary supposition, the final variant of the idea and the gist is given»²⁶.