Учебное пособие 1519

wichtigsten Gliedern (Rhema) zukommt. Helbig [1, p. 280] illustriert diesen Sachverhalt anhand des folgenden Beispiels:

Die Landwirtschaft entwickelt sich gut.

Die Landwirtschaft nimmt eine gute Entwicklung.

Möglich ist auch eine Spitzenstellung des Substantivs im Sinne einer Topikalisierung.

Eine gute Entwicklung nimmt die Landwirtschaft.

6.0Zusammenfassung

Im vorliegenden Beitrag wurden die syntaktischen und semantischen Besonderheiten von

Funktionsverbgefügen dargestellt. Im Bereich der Syntax konnte u. a. gezeigt werden, dass Funktionsverbgefüge in vielen Fällen durch Vollverben bzw. Kopula und Adjektive ersetzbar sind. Eine Anaphorisierbarkeit der nominalen Bestandteile der lexikalisierten

Funktionsverbgefüge ist jedoch nicht gegeben. Zudem sind die in den lexikalisierten Funktionsverbgefügen stehenden Präpositionalgruppen und Akkusative nicht direkt erfragbar.

Es konnte zudem gezeigt werden, dass die Möglichkeiten der Modifizierung von Substantiven in Funktionsverbgefügen durch adjektivische Attribute deutlich eingeschränkt sind. Eine Modifikation mit Hilfe von Adverbien hingegen ist möglich. Hinsichtlich der Stellungseigenschaften wurde hervorgehoben, dass Funktionsverbgefüge mit nicht und nicht durch kein negiert werden. Es erfolgt also eine Satzund keine Wortnegation.

Es wurde gezeigt, dass die Funktionsverbgefüge im Koreanischen morpho-syntaktische Besonderheiten vor allem in der Kombination eines Funktionsverbs mit einem Suffix oder einer Suffixgruppe aufweisen. Dies wurde als typische Besonderheit einer agglutinierenden Sprache interpretiert. Bezüglich der Kategorien der Ersetzbarkeit, Erfragbarkeit und Anaphorisierbarkeit waren keine wesentlichen Unterschiede zwischen koreanischen und deutschen Funktionsverbgefügen feststellbar. Deutliche Unterschiede konnten jedoch im Bereich der Modifizierbarkeit festgestellt werden. Hier erwies sich das Koreanische hinsichtlich der Erweiterung von Substantiven in Funktionsverbgefügen durch adjektivische Attribute als deutlich freier als das Deutsche. Die Negation erfolgt auch im Koreanischen als Satzund nicht als Wortnegation.

Negationselemente können dabei in Langoder Kurzform auftreten und sind zudem bezüglich der Kategorien Fähigkeit und Absicht kategorisierbar.

References

[1]Helbig, Gerhard/Buscha, Joachim (1987): Deutsche Grammatik – ein Handbuch für den Ausländerunterricht.

[2]Lewandowski, Theodor (1984): Linguistisches Wörterbuch. Band 1. Köln.

[3]Von Polenz, Peter (1963): „Funktionsverben im heutigen Deutsch. Sprache in der rationalisierten Welt“. In: Wirkendes Wort (Beiheft) 5.

24

DOI 10.36622/MLMDR.2021.55.41.003

UDC 81’139

DIAGNOSTICS OF THE DYNAMICS OF THE BASIC CONCEPT S I C H E R H E I T (SAFETY) IN THE GERMAN LINGUISTIC CULTURE (BASED ON THE BODY OF ORAL TEXTS AND DATA OF THE ASSOCIATIVE EXPERIMENT)

A. I. Khlopova, O. M. Ladosha

Moscow State Linguistic University

PhD, Associate Professor, Department of German Lexicology and Stylistics; Anna Igorevna Khlopova

e-mail: chlopova_anna@mail.ru

National Research University “MPEI”

PhD (Philology), Associate Professor of the Department of Foreign Languages; Oksana Mikhailovna Ladosha

e-mail: o.m.ladosha@yandex.ru

Statement of the problem. The aim of the article is to establish the dynamics of the content of the basic concept Sicherheit (safety) in German linguistic culture. As the main research methods, the authors turn to the analysis of definitions of explanatory dictionaries, the analysis of the compatibility of the studied word, context analysis, free associative experiment. On the basis of the developed model of meaning, the authors compare the lexicographic data and the associative field of the stimulus word Sicherheit (safety).

Results. Based on the comparison of the obtained data, the authors note that the integrative features identified in the compatibility of lexemes and the features identified in the associative experiment largely coincide (‘sources of security’, ‘safe situation in the world / national security’, ‘comfort, stability’, ‘personal emotional concepts’, ‘object of protection’, although they are different in quantitative meaning. At the same time, we note that the compatibility of the lexeme allows us to speak of mistrust of the possibility of a stable and safe situation as a whole. However, the data of the free associative experiment, on the contrary, allow us to speak about an extremely positive attitude to the concept under study. According to the corpus, the most common category is the category of confidence, which is represented in the associative experiment by a single reaction. The largest number of reactions in the associative experiment represent Sicherheit as a feeling of protection from various types of danger.

Conclusion. For representatives of the German linguistic culture, the concept of Sicherheit (safety) is understood as a sense of security from danger, which can be guaranteed to an individual by the family or government authorities. Money is the guarantor of security. To achieve safety, it is necessary to comply with various safety rules and measures.

Key words: basic concept, safety, compatibility of the lexeme, German language corpus, free associative experiment, dynamics of value, German linguistic culture, integrative features.

For citation: Khlopova A. I. Diagnostics of the dynamics of the basic concept sicherheit (safety) in the German linguistic culture (based on the body of oral texts and data of the associative experiment) / A. I. Khlopova, O. M. Ladosha // Scientific Journal “Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-didactic Researches”. – 2021. - № 3 (34). –

P.25-35.

1.Introduction

Basic concepts are comparable to values and are always culturally determined, therefore the list of basic concepts in different cultures is not the same. Comparing various lists of values and basic concepts, we can note that the concept of S i c h e r h e i t ( s a f e t y ) is not only included in most lists, but also occupies the first places [1; 2; 3]. Security is, first of all, a state that is far from risks and danger. The sense of security is subjective and depends on the value system in different cultures. To preserve security, certain measures are being created that can partially restrict human freedoms. Therefore, despite the fact that the concept of safety is basic, it is also very controversial.

_________________________________

© Khlopova A. I., Ladosha O. M., 2021

25

(s a f e t y ) in German culture. S i c h e r h e i t ( s a f e t y ) “runs throughout German history and is reflected in the language”. In the language of politics and advertising, there is a root “sicher”, which should indicate high quality and reliability [4]. The article by T. V. Medvedeva also provides various sociological data that may indicate the importance of such a concept, especially for the Germans [5].

It is important for us that the basic concepts, on the one hand, are very stable. A Homo sociologicus always relies on traditions, rules, customs, value system, etc. established and approved by the rest of the society, which determines his social comfort. On the other hand, they can change their content under the influence of various factors. It is important to note that both the content of the basic concept and its dynamics are capable of being represented in the language and always find a verbal embodiment, which is why linguistic diagnostics of the content and dynamics of concepts is possible. The model of linguistic diagnostics that we have indicated is based on a comparison of linguistic and psycholinguistic data: data from explanatory dictionaries, which contain the invariant content of the concept, data from the corpus of the German language, as well as data from a free associative experiment.

2. Problem statement

The issues of linguistic diagnostics are more and more often occupied by both psycholinguists and linguists in general. They are of theoretical and practical importance primarily due to the fact that scientists are developing a specific model for diagnosing the content of a certain concept or notion. As noted by S. V. Ionova, “the availability of a system of developed models based on special features at the disposal of linguists allows them to solve diagnostic problems demanded by modern practice” [6, p. 19]. In our research, we apply our developed model to investigate the basic concept of S i c h e r h e i t (s a f e t y ).

The theoretical and practical significance of the study is due to the following:

–the methodology for diagnosing changes in basic concepts has been applied;

–the restructuring of the system of basic concepts has been experimentally revealed, which makes it possible to more accurately model the content of some fragments of the worldview of a particular culture representatives.

3. Analysis of recent studies and publications that addressed aspects of this problem

Currently, interdisciplinary research is becoming relevant. For modern linguistic research, people with their ideas, thoughts and concepts are of particular interest. The new paradigm raises the question of the place of people in culture, the relationship between culture and language, between language and human thinking.

The key notion in many linguistic studies is “concept”. In domestic science, this term was first used in 1928 by S. A. Askoldov-Alekseev and understood as a mental formation that replaces an indefinite number of similar objects, actions and mental functions in the thought process [7, p. 4]. I. A. Sternin and Z. D. Popov, pay attention to the fact that the concept has a relatively ordered internal structure, is a result of the cognitive activity of the individual and society, contains complex, encyclopedic information about the reflected object or phenomenon, the interpretation of this information to the public [8, p. 24].

From the point of view of cultural studies, Yu. S. Stepanov defines the concept as a culturally specific concept [9, p. 42–45]. According to A. Vezhbitskaya, a concept is an object from the “ideal” world, which has its own name and reflects certain culturally conditioned representations of a person from the “reality” world. A. Vezhbitskaya subdivides concepts into “inborn” and “acquired through language and as a tool of culture” [10, p. 23]. At the same time, in the acquired concepts, she also identifies basic concepts that in essence correspond to basic values.

4. The object of the research is the basic concept of S i c h e r h e i t (s a f e t y ), the subject is the content dynamics of the basic concept of S i c h e r h e i t (s a f e t y ).

5. The aim of the study is to establish the content of the basic concept of S i c h e r h e i t

26

(s a f e t y ) in German linguistic culture. The main objectives of the article are as follows:

–to analyze the word S i c h e r h e i t ( s a f e t y ) , representing the basic concept of the same name, based on lexicographic sources and the corpus of the German language;

–to conduct a free associative experiment (AE), to establish the structure of the

associative field S i c h e r h e i t ( s a f e t y ) ;

– to carry out a comparative analysis of lexicographic and experimental data in order to establish the content of the basic concept denoted by the word S i c h e r h e i t (s a f e t y ).

6.The research material is lexicographic sources, data from the Datenbank für

Gesprochenes Deutsch oral text corpus [1*], data from a free associative experiment.

7.Research methods

The main research methods are a free associative experiment and a contextual analysis.

The free associative experiment was carried out with representatives of the German linguistic culture at the age of 17 to 23 years in Vechte, Berlin, Baden-Baden, Freiburg. The experiment involved 213 respondents. The respondents were presented with a questionnaire with 15 stimulus words. The instructions indicated that respondents should bring up the first word that came to mind when reading a specific stimulus word. As a result of the questionnaire survey on the stimulus word S i c h e r h e i t (s a f e t y ), 213 responses were received.

As a text corpus, we used entry scripts from the database of spoken German [1*]. In total, we selected a sample of 87 records in which the concept of S i c h e r h e i t occurs, while its derivatives were not taken into account.

All contexts were divided into semantic groups, within which the typical linguistic environment of the lexeme was distinguished. In the absence of the possibility to identify the semantic dominant of the nominative unit, these contexts were assigned to the category of “nominative meaning”.

8. Research results

8.1. Dynamics of the meaning of the word S i c h e r h e i t (s a f e t y ) based on data from the explanatory dictionaries of the German language

To determine the invariant meaning of the word S i c h e r h e i t (s a f e t y ) in German, we turn to the data of explanatory dictionaries of different years. Thus, we can establish certain dynamics of the meaning of the studied word, which represents the basic concept of the same name.

The nuclear meaning in the 1976 dictionary is das Ungefährdetsein, das Geschütztsein vor Gefahr (state of non-hazard, protection from hazard); the second value is Zuverlässigkeit, Verläßlichkeit (reliability); in the third sense, S i c h e r h e i t ( s a f e t y ) is interpreted as Gewißheit, Bestimmtheit (certainty); in the fourth – as Selbstbewußtheit, Selbstsicherheit (selfconfidence); in the fifth – Garantie des Kreditnehmers (borrower’s guarantee) [1**].

In the 1986 Wahrig dictionary, the word S i c h e r h e i t ( s a f e t y ) has the following meanings: Gewißheit, sichere Beschaffenheit, Festigkeit, Ruhe, Sorglosigkeit, Geborgenheit, Geschütztsein, Schutz (confidence, reliable quality, stability, calmness, carelessness, security, state of security). In the second meaning – Bürgschaft, Pfand (guarantee, pledge) [2**].

Comparing the data of the dictionaries of 1976 and 1986, we note that the core of the meaning of the word S i c h e r h e i t (s a f e t y ) remains unchanged: this is the state of safety, reliability, confidence. However, you can indicate a change in the peripheral meanings of the word. The 1986 dictionary does not contain the meanings of Selbstbewußtheit, Selbstsicherheit

(self-confidence), but new ones appear: Ruhe, Sorglosigkeit, Geborgenheit (calmness, carelessness, safety).

In the 1992 dictionary, the word S i c h e r h e i t ( s a f e t y ) is presented in five meanings: 1) Gewißheit (confidence); 2) Gefahrlosigkeit (no danger); 3) Unfehlbarkeit (infallibility); 4) Selbstsicherheit, Entschiedenheit, Gewandtheit (self-confidence, determination, dexterity); 5) Garantie (guarantee) [3**].

The 1992 dictionary records the stable nuclear meaning of the word S i c h e r h e i t . The

27

Scientific Journal “Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-Didactic Researches” Issue 3 (34), 2021 ISSN 2587-8093

change in value is noted in the modification of peripheral components. Unlike the 1976 and 1986 dictionaries, the 1992 dictionary presents the meaning of Unfehlbarkeit (infallibility).

Let us turn to the data of the Duden explanatory dictionary of 2002. The word

S i c h e r h e i t is understood in the first sense as das Sichersein vor Gefahr oder Schaden (state of protection from danger or harm); in the second – sicheres, keinen Zweifel aufkommen lassendes Gefühl, Wissen (a feeling of confidence that leaves no doubt, knowledge); in the third

– das Freisein von Fehlern oder Irrtümern (no errors / mistakes); in the fourth – sicheres, gewandtes Auftreten (confident, dexterous behavior); in the fifth – hinterlegtes Geld, Wertpapiere (deposits, securities) [4**].

The 2002 Duden Dictionary confirms the hypothesis that the nuclear meaning of the word S i c h e r h e i t ( s a f e t y ) remains stable. In addition, we note that the meaning Unfehlbarkeit (infallibility), indicated as new in the 1992 dictionary, is also noted in the Duden dictionary, which indicates the consolidation of this meaning in lexicographic sources. In addition, the 2002 dictionary also records the meaning of gewandtes Auftreten (dexterous behavior), which is not represented in earlier dictionaries. The dynamics of peripheral meaning is interesting: in the 1976 dictionary, in the last meaning, the word S i c h e r h e i t ( s a f e t y ) was interpreted as

Garantie des Kreditnehmers (borrower’s guarantee), in 2002 this meaning is modified and means hinterlegtes Geld, Wertpapiere (deposits, securities).

In the modern online dictionary of the German language Duden-online, the word under study in the first meaning is explained as Zustand des Sicherseins, Geschütztseins vor Gefahr oder Schaden; höchstmögliches Freisein von Gefährdungen (state of security, protection from danger or harm; maximum freedom from threat) [5**]. The nuclear meaning of the word under study remains unchanged. The second, third, fourth and fifth meanings completely coincide with the meanings noted in the 2002 dictionary, which may also indicate a stable meaning of the word.

Based on the analysis of data from German dictionaries of different years, it is possible to

(infallibility), gewandtes Auftreten (dexterous behavior); loss of some meanings: Selbstbewußtheit, Selbstsicherheit (self-confidence), as well as meaning modifications: the meaning of Garantie des Kreditnehmers (borrower’s guarantee) is modified and means hinterlegtes Geld, Wertpapiere (deposits, securities).

8.2. Analysis of the compatibility of the lexeme S i c h e r h e i t ( s a f e t y )

Based on A. A. Leontiev’s theory of speech activity, we will consider the compatibility of the lexeme as an act of predication, respectively, on the basis of compatibility, it becomes possible to single out the actual semantic feature of the lexeme S i c h e r h e i t ( s a f e t y ) . Let us refer to the data of the Duden dictionaries [5**] and The Free Dictionary [1**] and distribute the typical cases of compatibility in accordance with the actual integrative features:

Sources of safety: Festigung (strengthening), Gewährleistung (guarantee), Ordnung (order), Organization (organization), öffentlich (public), sozial (social), Sauberkeit (cleanliness), Zusammenarbeit (cooperation) – 8 combinations;

Safe situation in the world / national security: europäisch (European), Friede (peace),

Frieden (peace), inner (internal), kollektiv (collective), national (national) – 6 combinations; Comfort, stability: Komfort (comfort), Stabilität (stability), Wohlstand (well-being) – 3

combinations;

Threat: Gefahr (danger), gefährden (endanger), Gefährdung (threat) – 3 combinations; Safety level: absolut (absolutely), hundertprozentig (one hundred percent), ziemlich

(pretty) – 3 combinations;

Impossibility of safety: traumwandlerisch (fabulous), trügerisch (false) – 2 combinations; Personal emotional concepts associated with a sense of security: Freiheit (freedom), Ge-

fühl (feeling) – 2 combinations;

28

Scientific Journal “Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-Didactic Researches” Issue 3 (34), 2021 ISSN 2587-8093

Safety: Geborgenheit (safety) – 1 combination;

Object / subject of protection: Gesundheit (health) – 1 combination;

Formal and grammatical compatibility: bieten (to provide), bringen (to bring), garantieren (to guarantee), geben (to give), gewährleisten (to guarantee, to provide), sorgen (take care of) – 6 combinations.

The integrative feature ‘sources of safety’, which can be both certain bodies and organizations, and their activities aimed at a safe existence, is presented most clearly on the basis of the lexemes compatibility. To a large extent, the integrative sign ‘safe situation in the world / national security’ was also noted. On the basis of this feature, the importance of peaceful relations between peoples is emphasized. Separately emphasized is the division into internal security, that is, the protection of national interests from processes and persons who are on the territory of the state, and external, that is, protection from threats emanating from other states. The integrative sign ‘comfort, stability’ makes it possible to talk about the social stability of the society, the comfortable stay of a person in it. Despite the fact that the integrative feature ‘threat’ is a contradictory antonym of the lexeme under study, it also corresponds to the nuclear meaning of the word S i c h e r h e i t (s a f e t y ): das Geschütztsein vor Gefahr. On the basis of compatibility, one can also distinguish the ‘safety level’ attribute, which is represented both by tokens indicating the highest security degree, and vice versa. The lexeme ziemlich / rather indicates a certain distrust of the idea of a safe existence in general, which is also emphasized in the next integrative feature ‘impossibility of safety’. Two lexemes make it possible to single out the attribute ‘personal emotional concepts’. They are not directly related to the lexeme under study, but they indicate an internal sense of safety by the individual. The attribute ‘object / subject of protection’ is represented by a single token. The compatibility of these lexemes can be associated with the current situation in the world, when in a pandemic it is health that is the highest value that must be protected. The ‘safety’ attribute corresponds to the nuclear meaning of the lexeme S i c h e r h e i t (s a f e t y ), which is derived from the data of the German explanatory dictionaries.

The rest of the possible combinations are represented by verb forms and are, in our opinion, formal and grammatical.

8.3. Datenbank für Gesprochenes Deutsch (DGD) oral corpus analysis [1*] 1. High degree of confidence (30 contexts).

„die lautere wahrheit ist mit (.) an sicherheit (.) grenzender wahrscheinlichkeit ist es auszuschließen“ (“the pure truth is with a probability bordering on certainty it must be ruled out ”).

This category is the most common in the analyzed corpus. Typical verbal expressions were formal grammatical constructions “mit Sicherheit” (“with confidence”) – 24 contexts, “mit (an) Sicherheit grenzender Wahrscheinlichkeit” (“with a probability bordering on certainty”) –

6 contexts.

In these contexts, the use of the lexeme is formal. 2. Protection from danger (26 contexts).

“einmal schulterblick un dann wegfahrn reicht (.)[un] dann holst du dir die sicherheit dadurch in innenspiegel ” (“one shoulder glance and then away is enough and then you get the safety in the inside mirror ”).

This category includes contexts in which the problem of safety is thematized as a state of protection from dangers. Possible lexical environment indicates a f o r m a l g r a m m a t i c a l u s e : “Sicherheit haben” (“to have safety”) – 3 contexts, “Sicherheit bringen” (“to bring safety”) – 3 contexts, “zur Sicherheit” (“for safety”) – 2 context, “(sich) Sicherheit holen” (“secure yourself”) – 1 context, “Sicherheit gewährleisten” (“to ensure safety”) – 1 context; s a f e t y a s a v a l u e : “Sicherheit ist (ganz) wichtig / das Wichtigste" (“safety is important / most important”) - 3 contexts, “die Sicherheit muss erst kommen” (“safety must come first”) – 1 context; m o n e y a s a g u a r a n t o r o f s e c u r i t y : “nachgezahlt sein” (“receive compensa-

29

Scientific Journal “Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-Didactic Researches” Issue 3 (34), 2021 ISSN 2587-8093

tion”) – 1 context, “das Geld kommt rein” (“money comes in”) – 1 context, “materielle Sicherheit” (“material (financial) security”) – 1 context.

3. Safety measures (12 contexts).

“das is einma die mit (.) sicherheit der mitarbeiter beim bau” (“that is the security of the construction workers”).

In these contexts, we are talking about safety as a result of measures and prescriptions taken in various spheres of human activity. In the lexical environment, attention is drawn to such semantic blocks as the s a f e t y o f g e o l o g i c a l w o r k s : “das Thema Geologie und

s a f e t y : “Sicherheit der Mitarbeiter” (“employee safety”) – 1 context, “menschliche Sicherheit” (“human safety”) – 1 context, “Sicherheit der Verkehrsteilnehmer” (“road user safety”) –

1context.

4.The reliability of the solution or installation (3 contexts).

5. Nominative meaning (15 contexts).

“dann kommen wir zum (.) themenblock sicherheit” (“then let’s move on to the topic block “security””).

The difficulty in determining the additional meaning of the lexeme in these contexts was the lack of a broad context that would allow to unambiguously highlight the semantic dominant of the lexical unit. In the lexical environment of the lexeme, attention is drawn to the semantic block of s e c u r i t y i n t h e s y s t e m o f v a l u e s a n d b a s i c h u m a n n e e d s : “Frieden und Sicherheit” (“peace and safety”) – 1 context, “Schutz, Sicherheit, Privatsphäre und Ruhe” (“protection, security, personal sphere and peace”) – 1 context.

In other contexts, there is a formal grammatical use of the concept.

Thus, the distribution of the meanings of the lexeme S i c h e r h e i t (s a f e t y ) in the corpus of spoken German can be represented as follows:

40

30

20

10

0

Figure 2. Distribution of meanings of the lexeme S i c h e r h e i t (s a f e t y ) in the corpus of spoken German lagnuage

30

Scientific Journal “Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-Didactic Researches” Issue 3 (34), 2021 ISSN 2587-8093

8.4. Results of a free associative experiment (AE)

In accordance with the model of associative meaning by V. A. Pishchalnikova [11, p. 159], we have divided the reactions obtained and highlighted the additional components that they express.

Concepts:

In view of the ambiguity of the word, the signs of association in conceptual reactions are separated.

1. Security: Schutz / protection (32), Geborgenheit / safety (13), geborgen sein / to be safe, Gefühl / feeling, – 47 reactions in total;

Conceptual responses to the stimulus word S i c h e r h e i t (s a f e t y ) correspond to the dictionary meaning of the word Zustand des Geschütztseins vor Gefahr oder Schaden, höchstmögliches Freisein von Gefährdungen. The association of this trait is based on a sense of security against any external factors.

2. Certainty, stability: Stabilität / stability (1) – 1 in total;

The association in the second selected feature is based on a different meaning of the word: Gewissheit, Bestimmtheit. In this case, the role of danger is not important, it is the feeling of one’s own stable position that is important.

3. Self-confidence: Selbstbewusstsein / self-confidence (1) – 1 in total. The association in the third attribute is based on the meaning Gewandtheit, Selbstbewusstsein, sicheres Auftreten.

All conceptual reactions correspond to the definition of the word S i c h e r h e i t (s a f e - t y ), presented in the explanatory dictionary, or are synonyms of the word under study. Such reactions indicate that the meaning of the word has been assimilated in German society and is generally used.

Representations (143 reactions): 1) Sources of a sense of security:

–family as the main protector: Familie / family (21), Eltern / parents (18), Vater / father

–40 reactions;

–state bodies as defenders: Polizei / police (31) – 31 reactions;

2)Safe place: Schloss / castle (21), Zuhause / home (3), Haus / house, Stadt / city, WG / commune, zu Hause / at home – 28 reactions;

3)Safe situation in the world: Frieden / peace (11) – 11 reactions;

4)Method / means of protection: Versicherung / insurance (3), Regel / rules (2), Absperrungen / fence, Gefängnis / prison, Türsteher / gatekeeper, Überwachung / supervision, Zaun / fence – 11 reactions;

5)Personal emotional concepts associated with a sense of peace: Vertrauen / trust (2),

Entspannung / relaxation, Freiheit / freedom, Glück / happiness, keine Angst / no fear, Unbeschwertheit / carelessness, Wohlgefühl / well-being, Zufriedenheit / pleasure – 9 reactions ;

6)Object / subject of protection: Leben / life (2), Zukunft / future (2), alles / everything – 7 reactions;

7)Road safety: Anschnaller / seat belt, Fahrradhelm / bicycle helmet, Straßenverkehr / street traffic – 3 reactions;

8)Need for security: Bedürfnis / need, Ziel / goal – 2 reactions;

9)Reason for insecurity: Konflikt / conflict - 1 reaction;

10)Money as a guarantor of security: Geld / money (2), finanzielle Absicherung / financial stability, Job / job, teuer / expensive – 4 reactions in total.

Emotional-evaluative reactions: wichtig / important (2), gut / good, – 4 reactions; Formal grammatical: empfinden / to feel, fühlen / to feel, haben / to have – 3 reactions.

Among the reactions-representations, additional signs were highlighted: ‘a safe place’, ‘sources of a sense of security’ (within which we can distinguish additional signs ‘family as the main protector’ and ‘state bodies as defenders’), ‘personal emotional concepts associated with a

31

sense of peace’, ‘method / means of protection’, ‘object / subject of protection’, ‘road safety’, ‘need for security’, ‘reason for insecurity.

The most strikingly quantitative feature is the ‘family as the main protector’. The respondents see in the family that circle of people who can support and protect in difficult times. The family helps the respondents to feel safe. Significant in quantitative terms is the sign of ‘state bodies as defenders’, which is represented by the nuclear reaction Polizei / police. Accordingly, government agencies can guarantee respondents a sense of security.

The ‘safe place’ feature is represented by 28 reactions, which, in turn, could be divided into two types. Schloss / castle is a symbol of security, a place where they used to hide from enemies. Other reactions can be associated with the well-known saying “Mein Haus ist meine Burg / My home is my fortress”. At the same time, according to the well-known pyramid of needs by A. Maslow, the second stage of the pyramid is the need for security, which includes comfort and constancy of living conditions [12]. Thus, according to A. Maslow, the availability of housing is the most important component of a safe life.

The sign ‘personal emotional concepts associated with a sense of peace’ unites reactions that are associated with a state that occurs as a result of a sense of security. The person is relaxed, free, happy, does not feel fear. The Frieden / peace nuclear reaction also indicates a safe and peaceful life. According to A. Maslow’s pyramid, the states named by the respondents are also located on the next steps after safety.

Reactions, united by the attribute ‘method / means of protection’, are related to how the safety can be achieved. Rules and certain restrictions prevent the danger. The presence of insurance cannot directly protect against accidents, illnesses and bankruptcy, but it helps to cover losses, thus a person feels calmer and more confident.

7 reactions are linked by the common feature ‘object / subject of protection’. The respondents name those areas that need to be protected: life, money, future.

Separately, the sign ‘road safety’ should be highlighted. The reactions combined by this symptom point to one of the main causes of numerous accidents – the roadway. Compliance with traffic rules is necessary, since the life and health of the driver, passengers and pedestrians depend on them greatly.

Reactions united by the sign ‘need for security’ indicate the fact that s a f e t y is an important value for a person, which gives him the opportunity to feel and live in peace.

The Konflikt / conflict reaction makes it possible to highlight an additional feature ‘reason for insecurity’ and is contrasted with security.

Emotional-evaluative reactions testify to the importance of the concept under study and its indisputably positive characteristics.

Nuclear reactions, according to the associative experiment, are: Polizei / police, Schutz / protection, Familie / family, Schloss / castle, Eltern / parents, Geborgenheit / safety, Frieden / peace.

The nuclear reaction Polizei / police demonstrates the importance of government protection agencies to respondents. For German respondents, the police are a symbol of their safety. Note that respondents see an important source of security in the family and home. At the same time, we can confirm the syncretic nature of these reactions. Equally, we could attribute them to the ‘object and subject of protection’ attribute. The relationship between the concepts of family, home and safety may indicate their importance for respondents and the attitude to these concepts as the most important values.

The data of the free associative experiment can be schematically represented as follows:

32

Need for security

15%

Reason for insecurity

Money as a guarantor of security

Emotional-evaluative reactions

Formal reactions

Figure 2. Free associative experiment data

9. Conclusion and research prospects

Comparing the data obtained, we note that the compatibility of the lexeme only partially corresponds to the values given in the explanatory dictionaries. However, the integrative features identified on the basis of the compatibility of lexemes and the features identified in the associative experiment largely coincide (‘sources of security’, ‘safe situation in the world / national security’, ‘comfort, stability’, ‘personal emotional concepts’, ‘object / subject of protection’, although they are different in quantitative meaning. At the same time, we note that the compatibility of the lexeme allows us to speak of mistrust of the possibility of a stable and safe situation as a whole.

Turning to the semantic dominants of the nominative unit and to the features identified in the associative experiment, we note that they are qualitatively comparable. By the carriers of the German linguistic culture, the concept of S i c h e r h e i t (s a f e t y ) is understood in two meanings presented in the explanatory dictionaries: 1) confidence; 2) security. The value of stability is slightly presented in the AE and is not presented in the corpus of the German language. However, it should be noted that quantitatively, the corpus data and the AE data are different. According to the corpus data, the most common category is the category of confidence, which is represented in the AE by a single reaction. The largest number of AE reactions represent S i c h e r h e i t (s a f e t y ) as a sense of protection from various types of danger. At the same time, respondents see family and government agencies as a source of protection. In addition, the ‘safe place’ feature is represented in great amount. Both in the corpus and in the AE, the sign ‘money as a guarantor of security’ can be distinguished. In previous studies, we found that today money is of particular value for German respondents, as it is a means to achieve what they want. In this particular case, to achieve stability and security. Both in the AE and on the basis of the analysis of the curpus, it was noted that in order to achieve safety, it is necessary to comply with safety measures and certain rules in general. Corpus data and AE data also confirm the special place of safety in the list of human values and needs. According to the dia-

33