THE SCOPE OF THE MEANING OF THE LEXEMES «NEED(S)» AND «ПОТРЕБА» IN ENGLISH AND UKRAINIAN LEXICOGRAPHY

Abstract

The article is devoted to the analysis of the scope of the meaning of the lexemes need(s) in the English language and потреба in the Ukrainian lexicography, with the clarification of their common and distinctive semantic characteristics. The aim of the study is to identify the features of the semantic content of these lexemes, as well as their lexical-semantic variants, which reflect the specifics of the cultural and historical context of each language. The article presents the results of etymological analysis, which shows that both lexemes developed under the influence of the socio-cultural and historical environment, which led to the formation of their semantic structure. An analysis of modern explanatory dictionaries of the English and Ukrainian languages was conducted, which allowed us to determine the main definitions of the lexemes need(s) and потреба, to identify their common and specific meanings, and to trace the development of new semantic shades. Having analyzed the definitions of need(s) in five English-language explanatory dictionaries, 19 meanings were identified for the noun and 18 for the verb. The analysis of five Ukrainian dictionaries allowed us to identify 9 lexical and semantic variants for the noun потреба. The comparison shows a wider semantic spectrum of the English lexeme, which is explained by cultural and historical factors, as well as differences in the verbalization of conceptual meanings in the two linguistic cultures. The results of the study allow us to conclude that the English lexeme need(s) has a wider functional spectrum, while the Ukrainian need is characterized by a more specific and normative-cultural meaning. Prospects for further research include conducting a corpus analysis of the lexemes need(s) and потреба in different types of discourse, in particular media discourse and scientific and journalistic style, as well as a detailed study of synonymous and antonymic series, which will allow us to more deeply reveal their semantic structure and functional variants. It is also promising to further compare the verbalization of the mega-concept «NEEDS» in different linguocultural contexts for a better understanding of the cognitive-semantic models of both languages. The study has applied significance for lexicography, translation studies, and comparative linguistics.