Basic types of lexical meanings of words. Types of lexical meanings of a word. V. Vinogradov about the types of lexical meanings What types of lexical meaning of a word are distinguished by Vinogradov

Read also:

I. Random variables with a discrete distribution law (i.e. random variables have a finite or countable number of values)
II. Read the words and identify the parts of speech (verbs, nouns,
IV. Write out the words from the text - the names of the main parts of the equipment described in this text.
Business phrases in English - useful words and expressions on business topics
Biological meaning of basic religious concepts. Brief dictionary
Biological meaning of basic religious concepts. Brief dictionary.

There are people who know dozens of languages. A more convincing point of view is that polysemy is explained by the peculiarities of our thinking, i.e. purely psychological factors. The associative nature of thinking was explained by G. Paul. Explanations by G. Paul in his work “The Principle of the History of Language” in which he explained how a new word arises and a new meaning arises.

I identified 4 types:

· NARROWING (specialization) when a generic name becomes a name for a type of object, since objects in generic relationships are associated in our minds.

For example: Russian word beer means any drink, in German word fass means any container, now barrel

· EXPANSION (generalization) when the specific name becomes known as the generic name.

For example: The Russian word for swindler is pickpocket. The English verb is to arrife to set ashore now to arrive.

· TRANSFERS (displacement of meanings) - metaphor

For example: small granular substances are called sand.

Metaphors can be:

External (by color, by shape);

Internal (based on the similarity of psychological perception of objects) (Don Juan, Mitrofanushka);

Metonymy is the transfer of names based on the association of phenomena by contiguity or in time (read Pushkin. Drink a glass. Audience - people or room);

Synecdoche is the name of a part and the whole in one word. (French, Turkish);

Polar transfer meaning becomes opposite, because in our minds they are also associated (priceless)

· OTHER CASES

Hyperbole - exaggeration

Litotes - understatement

Deterioration of value

It should be noted that G. Paul set himself the task of analyzing the universal human properties of any language, the laws of change in meaning. In this case, the first value could become multi-valued.

Classification of types of meaning of a polysemantic word itself, i.e. living meanings were proposed in the twentieth century by Vinogradov in the article “Basic types of lexical meanings of words”; he classified all meanings of polysemantic words according to the following signs:

BY ORIGIN

Basic;

Derivatives (secondary)

For example: primary human nose. Secondary bow of the ship

However, as Vinogradov noted, over time it may happen that the derivative is perceived as the main meaning, and the first goes into reserve (it is still used, but passively)

· BY NAME TYPE

Direct (connected with the object of designation directly through concepts about these objects. If a person does not know the direct meaning, he does not understand the second);

Figurative (metaphorical, metonymic, functional) are always motivated by direct meaning.

For example: bird wing - airplane wing

· BY USE

Free. It is used in very broad contexts and the limitation is imposed only by reality itself (soft-boiled boots - nonsense to say. A round square is not a combination.);

Associated meanings. Limited in their use. Sometimes limited to only one (sidekick only)

A) phraseologically related meanings show white feather - surrender.

B) syntactically determined meaning is a meaning that appears in a word only in a certain syntactic function, as a rule, in the predicate. You are a bear - rude, clumsy.

C) constructively determined meanings. To get involved in a game is to get carried away.

Vinogradov's classification is still considered the best. For this work he received a prize.

- 84.76 Kb

V.V. Vinogradov

BASIC TYPES OF LEXICAL MEANINGS OF A WORD

(Vinogradov V.V. Selected works. Lexicology and lexicography. - M., 1977.- P. 162-189)

The problem of the meaning of a word, the problem of the semantic side of words and expressions, is essential for Marxist linguistics. Understanding the volume, subject and tasks of semantics or semasiology in the general system of the science of language largely depends on the correct solution of this problem. Studying the patterns of development of the vocabulary of a language is also impossible without deep penetration into the essence of historical changes in the meanings of words. The study of entire groups, systems, series, categories of words and the laws of their semantic changes is increasingly beginning to enter the practice of historical and comparative-historical lexicology. Consequently, clarifying the essence of the meaning of a word, analyzing qualitative changes in the structure of words - in their historical movement - is one of the main tasks of lexicology. Defining or interpreting the meanings of words is the main goal of compiling dictionaries, a direct object of lexicography.

The study of the laws of development of the semantic side of words and expressions of a particular language in connection with the development of this language, in connection with the history of the corresponding people should be an organic part of the general history of this language. In this little-studied area of linguistics, Soviet linguists face many urgent problems and tasks. The most important of them are the creation of historical dictionaries of languages with ancient writing and the construction of descriptive, historical and comparative-historical lexicons of different languages. The beginning of movement in this direction is the compilation of accurate explanatory dictionaries of modern languages that are adequate to linguistic reality.

Academician L.V. Shcherba, in his “Experience in the General Theory of Lexicography,” speaking about the widespread lack of good historical dictionaries, noted: “Historical in the full sense of the term would be a dictionary that would give the history of all words over a certain period of time, starting with one or another specific date or era, and not only the emergence of new words and new meanings would be indicated, but also their dying out, as well as their modification... The question is further complicated by the fact that the words of each language form a system... and changes in their meanings are completely understandable only internally such a system; therefore, the historical vocabulary must reflect the successive changes of the system as a whole. How to do this, however, is unknown, since the question itself does not seem to have been raised in full."

It is interesting to compare the words of a writer of the early 19th century with this statement by a contemporary linguist. THEM. Muravyov-Apostol, who talked about dictionaries - explanatory and historical: “All these explanatory dictionaries seem to me like arsenals in which there are a host of ancient and new weapons hung on the walls in a systematic order. Enter them, and at first glance it will seem to you "an immense treasure. But when it comes to weapons, you don’t know what and how to take up, because the weapon is familiar to you only from the inscription that hangs above it, and not from manual use."

One of the ways to approach the solution of complex issues related to the study of a word and its meaning, with the study of the laws of changes in the meanings of words, is to clarify the different types or types of lexical meanings of a word and the ways or forms of their connection in the semantic structure of the word.

It is well known that a word is not only the name of an object or objects, but also an expression of meaning, and sometimes an entire system of meanings. In the same meaning, the public understanding of various objects or phenomena, actions, qualities is generalized and united [cf., for example: food, nutrition; produ kt - products (in different meanings); jewel - valuables; sample, image; lead, go, fly, repay, etc.]. On the other hand, different words that differ from one another in their meanings or their connotations can be applied to the same object as its names (for example: food, food, food, table).

Denoting a phenomenon, an object, a word at the same time conveys its connections and relationships in a dynamic whole, in historical reality. It reflects the understanding of a “piece of reality” and its relationship to other elements of the same reality, as they were or are realized by society, the people in a certain era, and at the same time with the wide possibility of later rethinking of the original meanings and shades. Thus, the verb nasolit, in addition to the direct specific meaning of “prepare with pickles, put a lot of salt in something,” also has a figurative meaning in modern language “to damage, cause trouble.” Most likely, this figurative meaning of the verb to annoy vozir was based on once existing ideas about witchcraft. According to the superstitious beliefs of the past, illness and damage could be caused by scattering various objects with a curse. Persons passing over or touching enchanted objects were subject to “damage”; In order to cause harm, slanderous salt was often used.

Between the series of objects, actions, qualities denoted by words, there are various interactions and relationships. An object named by a word may turn out to be a link in different functional series, different aspects of reality, included in the overall broad picture of life. The word helps to comprehend and generalize these relationships. All this is reflected in the development of word meanings in the language of a particular historical period.

Thus, the word ending is associated with the professional terminology of press workers. In typography, it still means a drawing, a graphic decoration at the end of a manuscript, book, or at the end of a chapter or section. The word ending is formed from the adjective final or terminal using the suffix -ka (cf. colloquial table, cherry, postcard, etc.). This type of word formation has become particularly productive in the Russian literary language since the 60s of the 19th century.

The word ending in the Russian language (cf. Polish koncowka and Czech koncovka) appeared no earlier than the last quarter of the 19th century. At the beginning of the 20th century. this word expanded its meaning: it was transferred to the field of literary and musical terminology (the ending of a poem, the ending of a romance). The word ending began to be called the final part of a work. For example, in the book of the liberal critic A. A. Izmailov “The Darkening of the Gods and New Idols” (M., 1910): “Turgenev and Goncharov, Tolstoy and Dostoevsky brought the realistic Gogol and Pushkin story to the utmost perfection. Behind them is a line, a point, a final ending."

Thus, the formation and creation of a new concept or a new understanding of a subject is carried out on the basis of existing linguistic material. This understanding, embodied in the meaning of a word, becomes an element of the semantic structure of a given language as a whole. Whenever a new meaning is included in the lexical system of a language, it enters into connection and interrelation with other elements of the complex and branched structure of the language. Only against the background of the lexical-semantic system of the language, only in connection with it are the boundaries of the word determined, as a complex and at the same time integral linguistic unit, combining a number of forms, meanings and uses.

When treating a word only as a name, it is impossible to establish a fundamental difference between different meanings of the same word and between different homonym words. Thus, in Iskra (St. Petersburg, 1859, No. 42) the following dialogue was published under a topical caricature of the editor of one magazine: “I’ve been shooting in my head all day today. - It’s your own fault, why did you bring so much game into it.” Without understanding the semantic relationships of the corresponding words in the lexical system of the Russian language, it is impossible to linguistically comprehend the meaning of this wit, this pun; “shoots in the head” and “shooting game while hunting” are different actions, but do the designations of these actions form different words, or are they part of the meaning of the same word? How does the word game - the designation of nonsense, nonsense, nonsense - relate to game - the designation of wild birds, objects of shooting?

Based on the objects of reality, from the nature of things, one would have to recognize the meaning of the word ridge: 1) “back, spine” (spinal ridge, to breathe with one’s ridge) and 2) “a chain of mountains stretching in some direction” - in different words, homonyms . Meanwhile, in Russian these are different meanings of the same word ridge. They correspond to different words in other languages, for example in French: 1) colonna vertebrale, epinedorsale, rachis; 2) dos, echine and 3) crete, chaune de montagnes.

Without penetrating deeply into the semantic foundations of a given specific language system, it is impossible to establish the signs and norms of a constructive combination of meanings within the same word, methods of forming new words and meanings, and it is impossible to distinguish homonyms from different meanings of the same word. the semantic boundaries of a word can be very wide, and sometimes not entirely defined. The semantic area of words (even many scientific terms) has border zones and numerous transitional shades.

There is a direct and close connection between the vocabulary of science and the vocabulary of everyday life. Every science begins with the results obtained by the thinking and speech of the people, and in its further development does not break away from the people's language. After all, even the so-called exact sciences still contain in their dictionaries terms taken from the common language (weight, work, force, heat, sound, light, body, reflection, etc.). Folk thinking and the terminology created by it are of even greater importance for the social and political sciences.

The meaning of a word is determined not only by its correspondence to the concept that is expressed using this word (for example: movement, development, language, society, law, etc.); it depends on the properties of that part of speech, the grammatical category to which the word belongs, on the socially conscious and established contexts of its use, on its specific lexical connections with other words, determined by the laws of combination of verbal meanings inherent in a given language, on the semantic relationship of the word with synonyms and in general with words that are close in meaning and shades, depending on the expressive and stylistic coloring of the word.

In a linguistic system, the semantic essence of a word is not exhausted by its inherent meanings. The word for the most part contains indications of adjacent rows of words and meanings. It is full of reflections of other parts of the language system, expressing attitudes towards other words, correlative or associated with its meanings. The value of a successful name or artistic expression lies in the richness of such echoes. These features of the semantics of the word - from the time of the literary and artistic activity of A.S. Pushkin - were realized by our philologists and writers. So, for example, P.A. Pletnev wrote to Y.K. Groth (September 29, 1845) about his lecture at the university: “I explained that there are no words in the language that are completely equivalent, because with the lexical meaning the idea of a century, a people, a locality, a life comes to mind with every word. I succeeded in all this find out with a simple example - a beard and brada. The first depicts Rus' to the reader in the form of its peasant, merchant or priest. The second transports each of us to the times of the (Jewish) patriarchs, to the life of the eastern peoples, etc., only because this word has stuck in memory from church books. On this I based an important doctrine about the skill of giving pictures accurate colors in literary works."

Later prof. A.V. Nikitenko (in his diary on January 26, 1864) noted: “That expression is especially good, which, while accurately conveying a certain thought, at the same time makes you feel its relation to other thoughts, more or less close or distant to it, but which are not directly included in the chain of concepts you present." Pushkin's language provides striking examples of the semantic versatility of a word and, at the same time, the diversity of its possible artistic applications.

The connection between the meaning of a word and the lexical-semantic system of the language is carried out through internally united various subject-semantic and expressive-synonymous word groups.

Due to the complexity of the semantic structure of a word, due to the diversity of its relationships and living interactions with other lexical links of the language system, it can be very difficult to distinguish and convey all the meanings and shades of a word even in a given period of language development, to imagine with all the completeness and vital concreteness the role of the word in speech communication and exchange of thoughts between members of society.

The lack of a developed semantic theory of the word is reflected in the fact that we have not generalized and systematized observations of the qualitative uniqueness of meanings and forms of their connection, their internal unification in words belonging to different grammatical classes. The question of the nature of the relationships and interactions of lexical meanings with grammatical ones in various types of prepositions, conjunctions, parts q and other categories of function words cannot be considered sufficiently studied. The internal originality of lexical meanings, for example, a preposition in relation to the semantic properties of verbs, adjectives and other parts of speech is not defined (cf., for example: a full bucket of water and a bucket of water; a house belonging to a grandmother and a house with a grandmother; a general accompanied by orderlies and a general with orderlies; a gate without locks and a gate without locks, etc.).

It has been suggested that the semantic scope and methods of combining meanings are different in words belonging to different significant parts of speech. Thus, the semantic structure of a verb is wider than the semantic structure of a noun, and the range of its meanings is more flexible. For example, the verb to call serves in modern Russian to designate various actions associated with both ringing and bell (cf. the relationship of the verb whistle with the nouns whistle and whistle ok, the verb gudet with gudenie and gudok; cf. the combination in the verb to etch the meanings, associated with the nouns grass, poison and persecution). The meanings of qualitative adjectives and adverbs (such as easy, easy, simple, simple, etc.) are even more elastic and varied.

The breadth of phrasal connections of a word also depends on its grammatical structure. Often, the difference in the lexical meanings of a word is associated with its different grammatical forms. For example, the verb to get colder is used either impersonally with the meaning “to become colder” (the perfect form is to get colder): It was already completely dark and it was starting to get colder - or personally - in relation to living beings (and in relation to people, always in combination with the verb to starve) in the meaning “chill, suffer from the cold” (cold and hungry). Wed. in Garshin’s story “Four Days”: “Did I really abandon everything dear and dear, walked here on a thousand-mile trek, was hungry, cold, tormented by the heat...”

Short description

The problem of the meaning of a word, the problem of the semantic side of words and expressions, is extremely important for linguistics. Understanding the volume, subject and tasks of semantics or semasiology in the general system of the science of language largely depends on the correct solution of this problem.

Studying the patterns of development of the vocabulary of a language is also impossible without deep penetration into the essence of historical changes in the meanings of words. Clarification of the essence of the meaning of a word, analysis of qualitative changes in the structure of word meanings - in their historical movement - is one of the main tasks of lexicology. Defining or interpreting the meanings of words is the main goal of compiling dictionaries, a direct object of lexicography.

One of the ways to approach the solution of complex issues related to the study of a word and its meaning, with the study of the laws of changes in the meanings of words, is to clarify the different types and types of lexical meanings of a word and the ways or forms of their connection in the semantic structure of the word.

A word is not only the name of an object or objects, but also an expression of meaning, and sometimes an entire system of meanings. The same meaning generalizes and unites the public understanding of different objects or phenomena, actions, qualities.

The formation and creation of a new concept or a new understanding of a subject is carried out on the basis of existing linguistic material. This understanding, embodied in the meaning of a word, becomes an element of the semantic structure of a given language as a whole.

Whenever a new meaning is included in the lexical system of a language, it comes into contact and relationship with other elements of the complex and branched structure of the language. Only against the background of the lexical-semantic system of the language, only in connection with it are the boundaries of the word determined as a complex and at the same time integral linguistic unit, combining a number of forms, meanings and uses.

When treating a word only as a name, it is impossible to establish a fundamental difference between different meanings of the same word and between different homonym words.

The meaning of a word is determined not only by its correspondence to the concept that is expressed with the help of this word; it depends on the properties of that part of speech, the grammatical category to which the word belongs, on the socially conscious and established contexts of its use, on its specific lexical connections with other words, determined by the laws of combination of verbal meanings inherent in a given language, on the semantic relationship of this word with synonyms and, in general, words with similar meanings and connotations, depending on the expressive and stylistic coloring of the word.

In order to grasp the potential trends in the semantic development of words, it is advisable to explore ways of their individual creative use and transformation.

The study of the figurative use of a word is especially important for the complete and broad reproduction of the history of the so-called phraseologically related meanings, for understanding their genesis. For example, the word claws in Russian literature of the 19th century was used as an image of predatory violence, tenacious and painful domination. It brought into the circle of figurative use a large group of words and phrases. In Russian fiction, claws are figuratively used to symbolize illness, death, poverty, grief and sorrowful feelings, fanaticism, fanaticism, lies, debauchery and other negative but spontaneous passions, emotions and phenomena.

Thus, the semantic side of a language forms part of its structure and determines its quality in the same way as the sound system of a language, its grammatical structure or vocabulary.

The lexical meaning of a word is usually understood as its objective and material content, formalized according to the laws of the grammar of a given language and being an element of the general semantic system of the dictionary of this language.

Observations on the ways of combining different meanings in a word, as well as on the patterns of word usage, lead to the conclusion that not all meanings of words are homogeneous or of the same type, that there are qualitative differences in the structure of different types of lexical meanings.

In the system of meanings expressed by the vocabulary of a language, the easiest to distinguish are direct, nominative meanings, as if directly aimed at “objects”, phenomena, actions and qualities of reality (including the inner life of a person) and reflecting their public understanding. The nominative meaning of a word is the support and socially conscious foundation of all its other meanings and applications.

The basic nominative meanings of words are very stable. These meanings can be called free, although their freedom is conditioned socio-historically and subject-logically. The functioning of these meanings of words is usually not limited and not limited by the narrow framework of close phraseological combinations. Basically, the circle of use of the nominative meaning of a word, the circle of its connections corresponds to the connections and relationships of the objects, processes, and phenomena of the real world themselves.

A word can have several free meanings. However, in relation to the main nominative meaning, all other meanings of this kind in the word are derivative. This derivativeness of secondary nominative meanings cannot be confused with metaphor and imagery. To the extent that these meanings are not separated from the main one, they are understood in relation to it and can be called nominative-derived meanings. Often they are narrower, tighter, more specialized than the main nominative meaning of the word. This is, for example, the word drop - drops has a nominative-derived meaning “liquid medicine taken by the number of drops.” It is characteristic of the plural forms - drops.

Two or more free nominative meanings can be combined in one word only if one or two of them are derived from the main one (at least understood as such at a given period of language development). If there is no such connection between the meanings, then we are already dealing with two homonyms.

It is also necessary to pay attention to the fact that free nominative meanings, with the exception of terminological, prepared meanings, can be the supporting or starting points of synonymous series.

Many words have stylistic synonyms in different layers or layers of vocabulary. A significant part of these synonyms is devoid of direct, free nominative meaning. Such synonyms express their basic meaning not directly, but through that semantically basic or supporting word, which is the basis of the corresponding synonymous series and the nominative meaning of which is directly aimed at reality.

For example, the verb to clothe is a bookish and solemn synonym for the word to dress and is used primarily to express the meaning of clothe in the appropriate stylistic context. Its main meaning is not free-nominative and not derivative-nominative, but expressive-stylistic, mediated by its relationship to the verb to dress,

On the basis of the expressive-synonymous meaning, other, but only phraseologically related, meanings and uses of the word can develop (cf.: invest with power, trust, authority, and completely in isolation: invest in mystery).

The peculiarities of the expressive-synonymous meanings of many words are determined by the nature and types of their relationships with the nominative meanings of the supporting, initial words of the corresponding synonymous series. Meanwhile, phraseologically related meanings of words cannot serve as a base, the basis of a synonymous series.

The connection of meanings in the semantic structure of a word, the ways of combining words and meanings in speech are determined by the internal semantic patterns of development of the language system. Here lie the grounds and conditions for historically established restrictions in the rules for linking the meanings of words and in the semantic spheres of their use. That is why not all meanings of words in a living, functioning lexical system are directly aimed at the surrounding reality and directly reflect it. Many meanings of words are locked into strictly defined phraseological contexts and are used to exchange thoughts in accordance with historically established phraseological conditions for their use. Many words in the modern language system do not have direct nominative meanings at all. They exist only as part of a few phraseological combinations. Their meaning is isolated from these combinations most often by substituting synonyms.

Thus, many words or individual meanings of many words are limited in their connections. These meanings can only appear in combination with strictly defined words, that is, in a narrow sphere of semantic relations.

Phraseologically related meaning is devoid of a deep and stable conceptual center. The general subject-logical core does not stand out in it as clearly as in the free meaning. It does not follow either from the functions of the significant parts that make up the word (if the word is derivative), or from the relationship of this word to reality. The meaning of this kind is “scattered”: it tends to be fragmented into a number of shades associated with individual phraseological combinations.

For example, the verb grow, although it is defined in explanatory dictionaries by the general formula “to reach some size in growth,” it is usually used only in relation to hair, mustache, beard, and nails. Other times it says to grow up.

The distinction between free and phraseologically related meanings of a word helps to more accurately and clearly present both the semantic boundaries and the semantic composition of the word, the system of all its meanings. The distinction between free and phraseologically related meanings is especially important for the theory and practice of lexicography.

When mixing free and phraseologically related meanings, substitution of the semantic characteristics of a single word with a description of the general meaning of the phrases in which this word is included is inevitable.

In explanatory dictionaries of the Russian language, for example, in the dictionary ed. D.N. Ushakova, this kind of substitution is constant.

The extreme level in the series of phraseological combinations is occupied by phrases that include words with a single use. For example, the book word advanced occurs only in the expressions “advanced age”, “advanced years” or “years”.

In addition to the qualitative differences between free meanings and phraseologically related, non-free meanings, in the lexical system of the Russian language the specific features of meanings, the implementation of which is determined syntactically, stand out very clearly.

A peculiar type of meaning of a syntactically determined nature is formed in words, to which a strictly defined function is assigned as part of a sentence. A functionally syntactically limited meaning is qualitatively different from all other types of meanings in that the syntactic properties of a word as a member of a sentence are, as it were, included in its semantic characteristics. For example, Wed. in colloquial speech, the word well done when expressing praise, approval as a predicate: She’s a great guy with us.

The predicative-characterizing meaning of a noun can be realized in a predicate or as part of a predicate, in circulation, in a separate definition and application.

There are words that have only a functional-syntactic meaning. For example, the word feast for the eyes. Since the 19th century. the word feast for the eyes means everything that you can look at, what you can admire; in this meaning it is used only as a predicate; the features of the noun in it are erased, case forms are no longer characteristic of it.

V.V. Vinogradov

BASIC TYPES OF LEXICAL MEANINGS OF A WORD

(Vinogradov V.V. Selected works. Lexicology and lexicography. - M., 1977.- P. 162-189)

For many words, belonging both to the main vocabulary fund and to other parts of the vocabulary of the language, there are stylistic synonyms in different layers or layers of vocabulary. A significant part of these synonyms is devoid direct, free nominative meaning. Such synonyms express their basic meaning not directly, but through that semantically basic or reference word, which is the basis of the corresponding synonymous series and nominative meaning which is directly aimed at reality. For example, verb clothe is a bookish solemn synonym for the word put on and is used primarily to express meaning put on in the appropriate stylistic context. Its main meaning is neither free-nominative nor derivative-nominative, but expressive-synonymous, mediated in relation to the verb put on.Wed. at I.A. Goncharov in “Letters from a capital friend to a provincial groom”: “Have you really never experienced the luxury of touching your body with cambric, Dutch or Irish linen? Really, unfortunate one, you haven’t dressed yourself in such linen... I’m sorry, I can’t say dressed: such linen feels so good on your body; after all, you say to put on the Greek mantle; let me, in this case, resort to a high syllable: you are a fan of the ancient, and I am the new: suum cuique" .

It goes without saying that on the basis of the expressive-synonymous meaning, other, but only phraseologically related meanings and uses can develop words(cf. invest with power, trust, authority and completely isolated: clothe with mystery). In the history of vocabulary, we can observe the very process of creating this kind of synonymous series. So, verb stick in - stick in, widely used already in Old Russian writing, until the beginning of the 19th century. had the meaning of “bending, looking, looking down,” or simply “bending, bending over.” But already at the beginning of the 19th century. in the language of Russian fiction verb get in - get in due to its expressiveness, it acquires the general emotional meaning of “fall, press tightly, cling.” For example, in Zhukovsky’s poem “The Forest Tsar”: “The little one came close to his father, all trembling...”; in Pushkin's "Prophet": "And he came to my lips..." So verb penetrate included in the synonymous series - cuddle, cling, cuddle like an emotional book word.

However, the semantic structure and function of different types of synonyms are heterogeneous; the nature of the relationships between their values and nominative meanings reference or initial words synonymous series are not the same. Depending on the degree of differentiation of its own meaning, on its subject-specific semantic and expressive-stylistic shades, an expressive synonym can also express a free nominative meaning, not conveyed by other words of the same synonymous series, although correlative with them. So, as a synonym words indiscipline, disorganization, promiscuity, looseness in the Russian literary language at the beginning of the 20th century. began to be used word laxity.

Words slack And laxity formed on the basis of regional Northern Great Russian verbs loosen up And loosen up. They penetrated into the literary language not directly from regional folk speech, but through professional working terminology ( the screws are loose and so on.). Wed. in G. Yablochkov's story "The Disabled" (1915): “Well, captain,” the energetic lieutenant remarked reassuringly, “get some serious treatment. We need to make thorough repairs. All your screws are really loose.” .

Word laxity in colloquial speech and as part of works of the newspaper-journalistic genre, it received its own individual characteristic subject-semantic signs, apparently due to its greater expressiveness than words lack of discipline, disorganization, and less familiarity than the word looseness.

In the same way, the word has its own nominative specificity hurt- in relation to the main words of its synonymous series - style, manner. Word hurt in Old Russian it served to designate the style of icon painting. By the 18th century it goes out of literary use and is revived only in the 50-60s of the 19th century. in a more general and broader sense - “the style of something.” Here the semantic sphere of an expressive synonym goes beyond the everyday meanings and uses of the main, supporting word of a small synonymous group associated with the word style.

I.T. Kokorev directly proposed replacing the borrowed word style People's Russian hurt. But in word hurt peculiar semantic shades have developed, bringing it closer not only to words style, manner, character, but also with words like habits etc. Wed. in Baudouin de Courtenay's additions to dictionary Dalia: well done guy of outdated style; in Dostoevsky's "Demons": retired army captain of impudent manner; from Turgenev in Novi: “Nezhdanov immediately felt that both of them, this gloomy girl and he, had the same convictions and the same offense.” In the rough drafts of this novel, about Paklin: “It’s as if the politician was hurt, but that’s only in appearance...” .

Thus, the uniqueness of the expressive-synonymous meanings of many word are determined by the nature and types of their relationships with nominative meanings reference, initial words the corresponding synonymous series. Meanwhile phraseologically related meanings words generally cannot serve as a base, the basis of a synonymous series, although synonymous “substitutes” are allowed.

In the language of fiction, the correlative and homogeneous meanings of close synonyms can be individually opposed to one another, as designations of different objects, although belonging to the same species or genus, but qualitatively different. In Fadeev's "Young Guard": “Valya’s eyes were bright, kind, widely spaced... And Ulya’s eyes were large, dark brown, not eyes, but eyes...” On the other hand, in the language of fiction both correlative and even synonymous words designations of different objects can be compared. In Leskov’s essay “The Kolyvan Husband”: "- Yes, this is the finger of God. - Well, excuse me... at least leave the finger." - Why? When you can’t understand, you have to recognize the finger. - And I rather agree to see in this someone’s bump, and not a finger ".

Connection values in the semantic structure words, combination methods words and meanings in speech are determined by the internal semantic patterns of development of the language system. Here lie the grounds and conditions for historically established restrictions in the binding rules word meanings and in the semantic spheres of their use. That's why not everyone meanings of words in a living, functioning lexical system are directly aimed at the surrounding reality and directly surround it. And in this area, language is a product of different eras. Many meanings of words are closed in strictly defined phraseological contexts and are used to exchange thoughts in accordance with historically established phraseological conditions for their use. Many words in the modern language system have no direct nominative meanings. They exist only as part of a few phraseological combinations. Their meaning is isolated from these combinations most often by substituting synonyms.

However direct nominative meaning words can be very narrow and very limited in their subject-semantic capabilities. For example, in the adjective hopeless basic nominative meaning relative adjective “without exit, without leaving” in the Russian literary language of the 19th century. realized only in the phrase sitting hopelessly at home or hopeless homebody. Due to the narrowness of the real meaning, this word is interpreted incorrectly in dictionaries, through imaginary, very broad synonyms. IN dictionary edited by D.N. Ushakova: “inseparable, continuous”, from S.I. Ozhegov: “continuous, without absences somewhere”, in academic “ Dictionary modern Russian literary language": "incessant, constant". The range of application of the main nominative meaning of the word hopeless limited by its actual content. This is where the deep qualitative difference between the basic nominative And phraseologically related meaning of the word. Phraseologically related is abstract figurative meaning of the word hopeless: “one from which it is impossible to find a way out, an outcome; joyless” ( stalemate). In the literary language of the 19th century. combinations were used hopeless sadness(Dostoevsky, Mistress), hopeless despair(Herzen, Who is to blame?), etc. But in modern Russian language this use of the word hopeless is superseded by the word hopeless (hopeless sadness, sadness; hopeless despair). For example, in Gorky’s story “Konovalov”: “Calm despair, hopeless melancholy sounded in my comrade’s song.” Here, phraseological coherence does not at all follow either from the etymological meaning of the word, or from its direct relationship to the corresponding quality (cf. the impossibility of combinations hopeless situation, hopeless tragedy, hopeless catastrophe and so on.).

Verb disgust, if we leave aside the outdated meaning “turn to the side” ( turned away her eyes with fear), is used in the sense of “to prevent something” (severe, unpleasant), “to prevent something from happening” only in combination with a small number of abstract nouns: avert danger, misfortune, misfortune, threat of something(cf. prevent).

Thus, many words or separate values many words, predominantly figurative or synonymous in nature, are limited in their connections. These meanings can only appear in combination with strictly defined words, that is, in a narrow sphere of semantic relations. Around the polysemantic words several phraseological series are grouped. Most of the meanings of words are phraseologically related. Have different meanings for words most often means entering into different types of semantically limited phraseological connections. Meanings and shades word meaning mostly due to its phrasal environment.

Phraseologically related meaning lacks a deep and stable conceptual center. The general subject-logical core does not stand out in it as clearly as in free meaning. It does not follow from the functions of the significant parts that make up the word (if it is word derivative), nor from the relationship of this word to reality. The meaning of this kind is “scattered”: it tends to be fragmented into a number of shades associated with individual phraseological combinations.

For example, verb grow back, although it is defined in explanatory dictionaries by the general formula “to reach some size in height,” it is usually applied only to hair, mustache, beard, and nails. In other cases it is said grow up(cf. meaning of the word shoot: “a shoot coming off a stem or root” and “a branch”). Homogeneous restrictions on verbal connections are also valid for verbs grow(hair, mustache, beard, nails) and let go(to himself).

In the Russian literary language from the 15th to the end of the 18th century. Slavism fraught(cf. national-regional vertebrate) was used as a synonym for folk words of simple style potbellied, pregnant, pot-bellied. As a rude, inelegant word, it has not been included in a number of literary language styles: we will not find it in Karamzin, Batyushkov, Zhukovsky, Pushkin. In the Russian literary language of the early 19th century. word fraught became archaic and was used for the most part with an expression of irony: its use was typical for the orderly, merchant environment, for the clergy, commoners. In figurative use it was characteristic of archaic styles of poetic language (cf. epithet thunderous). In a figurative meaning, this word penetrates into the field of scientific and journalistic speech. In the 30-40s of the XIX century. in scientific and journalistic works it is used with the meaning: “capable of causing, giving rise to something” (some consequences, events). In the parodic book “About Tsar Pea. (A gift to scientists for 1834)” we read: “...everything, according to his mentality, is fraught with power, everything is placed above him...”. In a letter from E. A. Kolbasin to Turgenev (dated September 29, 1856): “We are still only pregnant with hopes, God grant that at least half of them come true”; from Saltykov-Shchedrin in “Motley Letters”: “How do you know what the future is fraught with”; Stasov has an article “Academic Exhibition of 1863”: “And for such a picture the Academy now gives a professorship? A decisive step, profession de foi, important, fraught with consequences.”

In a review of A. G. Duvernoy’s essay “On Historical Layering in Slavic Word Formation,” I. G. Pryzhov disapprovingly noted: “From the first to the last page of the dissertation, you will not find or hear anything else in it except: ... through these means, we will well explain to ourselves the fraught meaning of the word “med” in Slavic, a suffix that has a very fraught word-formation meaning - an error fraught with consequences... and so on, on, on." So the word fraught, having lost its direct nominative use, develops a phraseologically related meaning and realizes it in combination with the instrumental case form of a limited group of abstract nouns (most often consequences).

Synonyms can develop completely synonymous, phraseologically related meanings. A striking example is verbs fall into And tumble in. At the verb tumble in one of its meanings is phraseologically related, synonymous with the verb fall into: “to sink deeply, to become sunken.” This meaning is realized in combination with the words - eye(s), cheek(s), mouth, lips, chest, sides. For example, in Pushkin’s “The Undertaker”: “... collapsing mouths”; from Turgenev in the story “Strange History”: “The lips were so sunken that among the many wrinkles they represented one - transverse”; from V. Shishkov: “... the sides of the horse were sunken from lack of food” (“Scarlet Snowdrifts”, VII). The individual metaphorical use of the verb is curious tumble in from L. Andreev in the story “The Governor”: “Then again there are houses and three in a row bare, brick buildings without ornaments, with rare fallen windows.”

Verb fall into characterized by the fact that its direct nominative meaning is outdated and has fallen out of use (cf. Old Russian. fall into a hole, ditch and so on.). To express this verb, verbs began to be used fell And get in(cf. fall into a hole And fall into a hole). Only in imperfect forms is the nominative meaning “to flow in”, “to flow in” (about rivers, streams) preserved. In the perfect forms of the verb fall into the meaning “to become sunken” has been fixed, synonymous with the same meaning of the verb tumble in.It is connected only with words cheeks, eyes (eyes), less often mouth, lips, temples, chest, sides. In Lermontov: “his pale cheeks were sunken” (“Bela”); in Chekhov’s story “The Seizure”: “His face was pale and haggard, his temples were sunken.” This is a phraseologically related meaning in relation to the meaning of the word sunken, the range of application of which is much narrower than words depression(cf. sunken eyes, sunken cheeks, sunken chest). Interpretation of the meaning of an adjective sunken through words depression in the dictionaryS. I. Ozhegova should be recognized as erroneous.

Another meaning of the verb fall into, also phraseologically related, but at the same time constructively determined - semi-auxiliary: “to begin to experience some state (painful, reprehensible)” or “to show signs of something (considered negatively”: fall into rage, into despair, into doubt, into sadness, into melancholy, into poverty, into insignificance, into heresy, into contradiction, into a cartoon, into extremes, into a vulgar tone and so on.

The study of changes in phraseological connections of words in the development of Russian literary vocabulary helps to understand the patterns of the complex process that Slavicisms experienced after the collapse of the system of three styles in the Russian literary language of the 19th century. As an illustration, you can use the semantic history of the verb absorb - absorb. In the monuments of ancient Russian writing the word absorb expressed two meanings: 1) direct concrete: “swallow, devour, eat” with a connotation: “take into oneself, into one’s depths” (land and sea) and 2) in a generalized sense “to destroy.”

With some modification of shades and expansion of phrasal connections, these meanings are mainly preserved in the Russian literary language of the 18th century. Wed. illustrations of these meanings in the “Dictionary of the Russian Academy” and in the “Dictionary of the Church Slavonic and Russian Language” of 1847: The whale swallowed Jonah. the sea swallows ships. The abyss swallowed the one who fell from a cliff. Time consumes everything.Wed. from Pushkin in “Eugene Onegin”: “And the memory of the young poet will be absorbed by the slow Lethe.”

However, at the beginning of the 19th century. This verb has new phraseological connections. Based on the original basic meaning (which is replaced by everyday synonyms - swallow, eat etc.) figurative meanings develop, directed to mental, spiritual objects of action: absorb a lot of books, absorb new information, news. With abstract or concretely material subjects and objects, various semantic shades arise and spread: “to absorb into oneself” ( absorb moisture, absorb rays); “demand a lot of something” (some kind of expenditure of time, energy, etc.), “cause expense, loss of something”: The trip consumed a lot of money; Work took up a lot of energy. In Russian literary language from the middle of the 19th century. a semantic relationship between verbs is established absorb And dive in- in abstract figurative meanings. Cf. from Grigorovich: “... lives... forever in his “Golden Wilderness”, absorbed (immersed - V.V.) in the contemplation of chestnut trotters and Savras horses" ("Country Roads"); in Turgenev: "... other worries absorbed her" ("First Love"); cf. in Pushkin: "He is cowardly immersed in the worries of a vain world"; in Nekrasov: “Service has consumed my whole life” (poem “Newspaper”).

Exactly the same verb awaken, which was first a synonym for the verb to wake, with the development of figurative abstract meanings in Russian literary language from the end of the 18th century. closes itself in a narrow circle of phraseological connections. In the dictionaries of the Russian Academy of the late 18th and early 19th centuries. awaken - awaken is considered as a word of middle style, having one direct meaning: “to interrupt sleep.” Wed. wake up- “waking up, coming after sleeping feeling”; wake up- “sleep cessation time” ( Just before waking up I dreamed, dreamed) .

However, already from the second half of the 18th century. from the styles of fiction, the figurative meaning of the word is increasingly entering the system of the national literary language awaken - awaken: “to excite, incite”, as defined by the Dictionary of Church Slavonic and Russian Languages ( The stories of travelers awakened in him a desire to visit foreign lands.). In parallel, the process of development of abstract meanings occurs in the verb wake up(cf.: passions awaken).

Subsequently, the history of changes in verb meanings awaken - awaken and verb wake up - wake up separated. In verb awaken - awaken direct meaning was increasingly replaced by the use of synonyms wake up, wake up(someone), but on its basis the figurative meaning of “to excite someone, to make someone active, active” has developed, for example: awaken to active activity.In the verb wake up - wake up The main meaning has also been preserved - “wake up, stop sleeping” and the figurative one that developed from it (cf.: awaken to new activities, or from Pushkin: “The desire for literature has awakened in me”). Thus, in modern Russian (as well as in the literary language of the second half of the 19th century) the verb awaken expresses only abstract phraseologically related meanings “to generate, cause something to appear” ( awaken interest, desire, desire, passion to something, etc.).

Similar, albeit with individual variations, processes of formation of phraseologically related meanings - due to the loss or weakening of basic nominative meanings - can be observed in the semantic history of such Slavicisms as shake - shake, outrage - outrage, spread - spread and so on.

The distinction between free and phraseologically related meanings of a word helps to more accurately and clearly represent both the semantic boundaries and the semantic composition of the word, the system of all its meanings. The distinction between free and phraseologically related meanings is especially important for the theory and practice of lexicography. It is especially easy to make mistakes in isolating and defining phraseologically related meanings of words, since their use does not provide sufficient means for checking their meaning.

When mixing free and phraseologically related meanings, it is inevitable that the semantic characteristics of a single word will be replaced by a description of the general meaning of the phrases in which this word is included. For example, in the dictionary ed. D. N. Ushakova one of the supposed three meanings of a colloquial word get off characterized as follows: “to experience something insignificant instead of a big misfortune, trouble” ( In case of a disaster, escape with fear; Get off with a scratch; Got off cheap). But the verb to get rid of does not at all express the meaning of “to experience, to endure something insignificant”; here it means “to get rid of something by limiting yourself to something.” It is not clear why another meaning of the same word, also recognized as independent, is defined as follows: “not wanting to do everything that needs to be done, to limit oneself to something (a little, unimportant)”: Get off with an empty promise; Get off with five rubles.And here it is not the meaning of the word itself that is determined, but the general meaning of the selected examples.

In explanatory dictionaries of the Russian language, for example in the dictionary ed. D.N. Ushakova, this kind of substitution of the interpretation of the meaning of a word with a description of the meaning of the entire phrase is constant. For example, in the verb circle one of the meanings is defined as follows: “to look around, to cast a glance,” and the following example is given from Chekhov: “Mashenka looked around her room with surprised eyes.” In the same dictionary, the meaning of the verb tidy up characterized as follows: “remove, move to the side.” This characteristic is entirely inspired by the example: Put the books away .

In verb burst dictionary ed. D. N. Ushakova identifies five meanings: “1. Having cracked, become unusable, break, get cracked (about hollow objects). The glass burst. The bubble burst. The ball burst. 2. Having cracked, burst (about tension). The rope snapped. The string broke. The trousers burst at the seam .3. transfer. Having suffered a collapse, complete failure, cease, cease to exist (colloquial). The bank burst. The whole thing blew up. 4. transfer. To become exhausted, to disappear (colloquial). Patience has run out .5. transfer. Unable to withstand strong physical or psychological stress (colloquially fam.) You might burst out laughing. Almost burst with anger and envy".

It is obvious that in the expressions patience has run out, hopes have burst only metaphorical use of the verb is carried out burst in the basic meaning of "cracked, broken or torn." Anyway, patience has run out- this does not mean that patience has disappeared, and does not even mean that it has been exhausted. In addition, because otherwise than in combination with words patience And hope word burst, it seems, is not used in this metaphorical sense. The meaning of “not withstanding strong physical or psychological stress” is not free and is isolated only potentially from several stable phraseological units: burst with laughter, with anger, with malice, with envy.

The number of phrases grouped around one or another associated meaning of a word and forming a kind of closed phraseological series can be very different - depending on the semantic potential, on the material-semantic relief of this meaning, on the nature of its distinctiveness. In addition, the degree of tightness, isolation and unity of phrases, the nature of imagery, and, as a result, the degree of independence of the verbal components of phrases can also be very different. For example, verb hush up - hush up with the meaning “to pause, to stop the further development of something (unpleasant), to deliberately prevent progress” in colloquial and literary speech is found in a very narrow context; it combines with few objects: hush up a matter, a conversation, some trick, an unpleasant impression. Gogol says in “Dead Souls”: “Hush up the inappropriate impulse of admiration.” In Dostoevsky's "Teenager" there is an individual phraseological combination hush up the rumor: “Even now I don’t know if this rumor is true; at least, they tried with all their might to hush it up.” Tolstoy expression hush someone up(in "War and Peace": "Anatoly Kuragin... - his father somehow hushed him up") contradicts modern word usage. The phraseological connections of the verb are even closer hide (to harbor a grudge in the soul, to deeply harbor revenge, to harbor a grudge).

The extreme level in the series of phraseological combinations is occupied by phrases that include words with a single use. For example, book word elderly occurs only in the expressions "advanced age", "advanced years" or "years". It is clear that in an individual style it can be combined with some other synonym for the word “age”. So from Nekrasov: “The old days will set more serene than the Arcadian idyll.”

Given in the dictionary ed. Ushakova expression old man doesn't seem quite right. Word elderly understood as a synonym for words old, even elderly, but with a somewhat blurred meaning. Therefore, already from the “Dictionary of the Russian Academy” the word elderly in this usage it is not recognized as a separate lexical unit; it is considered only as part of the phrases: old age, summer- “old age, elderly years.” However, in the “Dictionary of the Church Slavonic and Russian Language” of 1847, a special meaning is extracted from this use: “approaching the end” (about age and years). The dictionary, ed., follows the same path. D. N. Ushakova: " Elderly", -aya, -oe (book). Having stepped through mature years, approaching old age, towards death (about age)."

Thus, the boundaries between the phraseologically related meaning of a word and its fixed use as an inseparable element of one or two phraseological turns turn out to be in some cases obscure, but quite definite. And yet it is necessary to distinguish between phraseologically connected, non-free meaning words from use words in several phraseological units that are close in meaning. For example, in the dictionary ed. D. N. Ushakova highlighted in special meaning (7) use of the word well in the following relative expressions: be aware of(what), hold(whom) I know(what), log in(what), enter(whom) up to date(what). From these figurative phraseological turns such imaginary meaning of the word is extracted well: “awareness, knowledge of the latest facts and achievements in some field.” But the word course, of course, does not have such a meaning. All revolutions in which this meaning is seen were formed on the basis of the basic meaning of this word “flow”, “direction of movement”.

Therefore, from values the words are different use.Use is either a trace of past uses of a word that did not create a special meaning, or a new use of one of the meanings of a word in an individual, not quite ordinary phraseological environment, in a unique situation, with a new figurative orientation. Under figurative or compositionally complicated use of a word in some of its basic meanings, new, unique semantic meanings arise. They are volatile, changeable, and sometimes even difficult to detect. They are not characteristic of the common language, although they are generally understandable. For example, the academic dictionary of the Russian language registered the use of the participle of the verb bark in phraseological combination barking voice(not about the dog). Wed. from Saltykov-Shchedrin in “Well-Intentioned Speeches”: “From his insides, as if from empty space... a loud, like a barking voice flew out”; from Kuprin in the story “Small Small Fry”: “He is gloomy, rude, he has a barking voice.” The academic dictionary also cites an excerpt from the magazine "Sun of Russia" (1913, No. 52): "You're lying!" “one of those around us shouted again in a barking voice.”

Form barking does not express a new independent meaning here. It is impossible to say that it has a new meaning based on the fact that the phrase barking voice individually (cf., however, barking cough). Other connections of this city in the form barking possible only for individual use (for example: barking sounds, barking speech and so on.). Besides, barking in expression barking voice attaches to the main meaning of the verb bark only a qualitative shade: “as if barking” (cf. Saltykov-Shchedrin: barking), i.e. “similar to barking” (short, abrupt, hoarse). In this case, we can only talk about use, and not about a new meaning. Meanwhile, in Ushakov’s dictionary the form barking separated into an independent word because of this use, which is taken for a special meaning.

The history of word meanings is inextricably linked with the history of phraseological units. Phraseological combinations embody general patterns that govern the connection of meanings within a given semantic system. New, individual uses of a word make themselves felt first in individual phraseological combinations. Based on them, a general phraseologically related, non-free meaning can then crystallize.

At the same time, the fading of the meaning of a word does not always lead to the disappearance of all related contexts of its use. Very often, fragments of an old meaning or archaic expression are preserved in two or three phraseological combinations. For example, the word disguise in the meaning of “mask” and figuratively - “feigned, artificially created appearance, deceptive or deceptive appearance” is gradually lost in the Russian language. But this figurative meaning still lingers in two or three expressions and phraseological units: this is one guise, under the guise of something["It was a direct age of obedience and fear, All under the guise of zeal for the Tsar" (Griboyedov)], pretend to be someone or anything"pretend to be someone"

The separation of phraseological combinations also leads to the formation of new expressions and new semantic shades. For example, verb get drunk(as well as its expressive synonyms get drunk etc.) in colloquial-familiar speech is combined with the expression to hell(cf. to the green serpent) meaning “to the point of extreme intoxication, to the point of hallucinations.” Here daughters is a designation of the highest, ultimate degree, but only of one very specific action. Being torn away from the verb get drunk expression to hell can, in individual speech, become a playfully ironic designation of the highest limit of anything at all. This is exactly how artist A used this expression. Y. Golovin, talking about Levitan: “What devils of virtuosity he reached in his last works!.. His outskirts, piers, monasteries at sunset, touching in mood, were written with amazing skill.”

Thus, the study of not only synonymy, but also phraseologically related meanings and the use of words closely unites lexicology with stylistics.

In addition to the qualitative differences between free meanings and phraseologically related, non-free meanings, the specific features of meanings, the implementation of which is determined syntactically, stand out very clearly in the lexical system of the Russian language. The very nature of the interconnectedness of the lexical meanings of words and their syntactic properties is reflected in the qualitative differences between the two main syntactic categories - phrases and sentences.

A unique type of meaning of a syntactically determined nature is formed in words that are assigned a strictly defined function within a sentence. A functional-syntactically limited meaning is qualitatively different from all other types of meaning in that the syntactic properties of a word as a member of a sentence are here, as it were, included in its semantic characteristics. For example, Wed. in colloquial speech the word Well done when expressing praise, approval as a predicate: She's great for us; Well done for passing your exams well.Wed: She doesn't belong in this world; Wed Also: Not life, but Maslenitsa.

In a word rooster two meanings are distinguished: 1) “male chickens”, 2) “bully” as applied to a person. However, it is characteristic that not a single phraseological phrase formed on the basis of the word is associated with the second meaning of this word rooster: let the rooster(about the singer); let the red rooster fly(“set fire”, from robber jargon); with roosters(early) get up before the roosters(before dawn) stay up, stay up.

Thus, the figurative meaning of the word rooster cannot be considered phraseologically related. It would be most correct to recognize this meaning, in contrast to the direct, free nominative meaning, as a predicative-characterizing meaning. The predicative-characterizing meaning of a noun can be used to name, designate someone or something only in the case of individual indication (usually through a pronoun this). For example, if they said about a bully: That's a rooster! or something else like that, then you can continue in this spirit: You won't find another rooster like this! Or: This rooster always ruins everyone's mood! But as a name, as a designation, a word rooster It is usually applied to a person only as a surname or nickname (one can recall Gogol’s Pyotr Petrovich Rooster). The predicative-characterizing meaning of a noun can be realized in a predicate or as part of a predicate, in circulation, in a separate definition and application.

In essence, the relationship between the same two types of meanings is also observed in the word black grouse with the only difference that here in colloquial and humorous speech the predicative-characterizing meaning led to the formation of stable phraseological combinations deaf grouse, sleepy grouse, lazy grouse. Here you can also add such words - with their direct and figurative functionally syntactically limited meanings - as goose(cf. clawed goose, just like that!), donkey, ruff(cf. irritate), fox, bobak, crow(cf. miss)and so on.

The syntactically limited meaning of a word from a semantic point of view is often the result of a figurative-typical generalization of some social phenomenon, character, some personality traits and is a popular expression of their assessment, their characteristics. Therefore, it is used as a predicate, as an appeal, as an application, or a separate definition, or even initially as a figurative, often metaphorical, designation that appears in speech, in cases where it is necessary to classify a person, object, phenomenon to any category in the system of collectively conscious ways of their characteristics. The peculiar semantic features of this type of word meaning appear especially clearly in cases of transition, developing, but not yet becoming standard. In this regard, the indicative predicative-characterizing meaning of the word Tumbleweed.

There are words that have only a functional-syntactic meaning. For example, the word a sight for sore eyes in the Academic Dictionary of the Russian Language, ed. acad. A. A. Shakhmatova is defined primarily as an action according to the meaning of the verb take a look, but not a single example illustrating this meaning is given. In this meaning the word a sight for sore eyes in modern Russian it is used only in the expression for a treat For example, in Kokorev’s “Essays and Stories”: “The table is venerable, but it always looks like a feast for the eyes and there is a bench next to it”; in Leskov’s story “The Unchangeable Ruble”: “I will come to Father Vasily and bring, for a treat, wonderful purchases.”

Since the 19th century, the word a sight for sore eyes denotes everything that you can look at, admire; in this meaning it is used only in the function of a predicate; the features of the noun in it are erased, case forms are no longer characteristic of it. In Pushkin’s prose passage (“On one of the initial days of April”) we read: “What a carriage - a toy, a sight for sore eyes”; in A. Maykov’s poem “Two Worlds”: “A whole forest around the columns, All white marble, a sight to behold!”; in I. S. Nikitin’s poem “The Fist”: “... the poor man has only one trotter left: Well, a horse! By God, a sight for sore eyes!”; from Grigorovich in the novel “Migrants”: “The little cap on her head was just a sight for sore eyes”; from Goncharov in “The Cliff”: “There’s Balakin: not a single smart girl will marry him, but a sight for sore eyes.”

The semantic history of Slavism was more complex gluttony, which until the beginning of the 19th century. meant “gluttony, immoderation in food,” but then in everyday speech it became entrenched in the function of a predicate and expressive-exclamatory expression, close to an interjection. Word gluttony has become an emotional-predicative characteristic of something unusual according to one’s taste ( Pies are simply delicious!).

In a word decree when used in colloquial speech as a predicate with negation, a unique meaning does not arise, which is defined in explanatory dictionaries as follows: “cannot serve as a basis, an indication for someone, something” ( You are not my command). Here the separation of the predicative expression has already clearly emerged not a decree from the word decree in the meaning of “a resolution of the supreme authority having the force of law.” Wed. colloquial no trace(meaning: “should not”).

Functionally and syntactically limited meanings are characteristic mainly of nouns, adjectives (especially their short forms), as well as adverbs, which under these conditions pass into the category of state. However, there is no doubt that in the verb system a similar type of predicative-characteristic, attributive meanings develops.

These meanings usually appear in imperfective forms and are associated with a limitation of not only the aspectual, but also the modal possibilities of using the corresponding verb. For example: Window come out to the garden; The beginning of young researchers deserves all kinds of encouragement; Case costs attention; One costs seven and so on.

Much more complex, far beyond the limits of simple correlation with three types of lexical meanings of a word - meanings free, phraseologically related and functionally syntactically limited (or fixed) - is the sphere of meanings that are constructively organized or constructively determined. Many lexical meanings of words are inseparable from strictly defined forms of compatibility of these words with in other words. Moreover, these forms of compatibility depend not only on the belonging of words to certain grammatical categories (for example, verbs in the category of transitivity), but also on the connection of these words with such semantic groups that have a stable type of construction. The fact is that the structure of some types of phrases is determined by the belonging of their grammatically dominant member to one or another semantic class or category of words that have the same type of construction. For example, a small number of verbs of internal state, emotional and volitional experience - cry, lament, complain and some others - usually express their meaning in combination with a preposition on and the accusative case form of a noun denoting the object of the corresponding state or experience. So, the direct nominative meaning of the verb cry(as well as its synonyms, with the help of which it is defined - complain, lament) is structurally determined. Just cry it's not possible, it's possible cry on anything - to your fate, to your misfortunes. However, phraseological connection is not at all necessary for a constructively determined meaning. It is enough to refer to several other verbs with the same construction: blame to someone something and to someone something, rely - rely on someone something etc. The specific features of constructively determined meaning are especially clearly revealed in those words in which the very possibility of realizing and revealing their lexical content depends on strictly defined forms of their syntactic combinations. For example, verb figure out, in addition to its direct meaning “put in order, sort out your things,” has a constructively determined meaning: figure something out- “as a result of experience, observations, it is good to understand” ( figure out in a matter, in the circumstances of a case, in the peculiarity of someone's character and so on.). Implementation of this value is not possible regardless of the corresponding design. The lexical meaning of a word is closely and organically connected with this method of its semantic-syntactic disclosure. Wed Also: to consist in something, to express itself in something, to respond(absolutely) and respond to what, as well as potential: respond to someone["spoke with special sympathy about Solomin" (Turgenev, Nov)]; respond to something("affect, reflect": Long night work is harmful to health).

The recognition of the constructive conditionality of many meanings is not based at all on the considerations that prompted Academician. L.V. Shcherba even considers any transitive verb as a “structural” element of grammar, as a form of connection between the subject and object of the action. There is a difference between the lexical meanings of those words that, according to the laws of Russian grammar, specify their content according to their belonging to one or another grammatical or lexico-grammatical category (for example: buy something, produce something), and between the constructively determined meanings of those words in which the very differentiation of meanings entirely depends on the forms of their compatibility with other words.

Structurally determined meaning is characterized by the subject-semantic incompleteness of its disclosure in the forms of the word itself: it is fully realized only in its inherent syntactic construction - in combination with other words, the number and composition of which may not be limited in any way. The possible unlimited connections with other words within a strictly defined syntactic structure is an essential feature of a constructively determined meaning. And this feature sharply differs from the meaning of phraseologically related, which is typical of closedness and limited possible combinations with other words.

A constructively determined meaning may be a sign of the isolation of a homonym from the semantic structure of a monosounding word. For example, hardly the meaning of the word position(about something): 1) a law, rule or set of rules concerning something, and 2) a logical scientific statement, formula, formulated thought ( provision on internal laws of development) can be combined with such word meanings position as “location in space”, “position of the body or parts of it”, “condition”, “circumstances”, “situation of public life”, “role in public life”, “routine of state, public life”, etc. In the same way It is hardly possible to squeeze into the system of meanings of one word all those meanings that are attributed, for example, to the verb turn around (turn around to the window and fabulous - turn into something or into whom, into what: turn into a wolf; a demon turned into a dog, etc.; Wed werewolf) .

Thus, different types of constructive conditionality of words can serve as an indication of the boundaries of different meanings of the same word and at the same time can be signs of homonymy. Constructive conditionality is characteristic not only of free nominative, but also of phraseologically related and functionally syntactically limited meanings of words.

For example, in the word question the connection of its different meanings with different constructive-syntactic properties or forms of compatibility with other words is clearly reflected. Direct nominative meaning - “verbal address that requires an answer, explanation” is expressed by the word question combined with a preposition O and the form of the prepositional case of the noun or, regardless of such a combination, in absolute use. For example: get answers to all questions; Ask some questions. In essence, the same constructions are associated with the generalized, abstract nominative meaning “problem”, “task”, “subject of research”, but for the plural form - questions combination with the genitive case form is also possible. Illustrations for this meaning: the national question, the question of the laws of social development, questions of grammatical structure, the question of modern architecture etc. In everyday speech, this meaning acquires a broader, vague and general character and becomes synonymous with words such as thing, matter, topic, circumstance.For example: That's a completely different question("that's a completely different matter"); We will return to this issue later etc. There is no doubt that expressions like: That's not the question; The question is; the whole question is in the speed of execution- represent stable phraseological units. Here, explanatory dictionaries usually highlight the phraseologically related meaning “essence, essence, main thing,” etc.

In the predicative meaning (and hence in the indicative, specific demonstrative use) the word question in the singular in combination with the genitive form of an abstract noun means: “a matter, a circumstance relating to something, depending on something” ( a question of honor, a question of time, a question of life and death, a question of money, a question of patience and so on.) .

An example of the interaction of phraseologically related meanings and strictly differentiated constructions is the word play: Wed, on the one hand, Play what(cards, lotto, hide and seek, football, chess, etc.) and figuratively play into feeling, into indignation etc. and, on the other hand, something to play on(violin, guitar, piano; cf. also play billiards, on nerves); Wed play than or by whom (life, people),play someone or something and so on.

The dependence of the meanings of a word on strictly defined and, moreover, limited syntactic forms of its compatibility with other words is accompanied by peculiar structural shades of lexical meaning. Free nominative meaning, in cases where it is constructively determined, usually has a more limited, narrow character [cf., for example: finished work And work ready for printing; interests(spiritual, class, etc.), interest(public), interest in someone or something; bother And to bother about someone, about something; item And subject of what(mockery, irony, love, etc.].

The constructive conditionality of a phraseologically related meaning confines it even more closely into the framework of a few phraseological combinations and leads to dispersion, to the dissolution of its semantic core in the overall holistic meaning of the corresponding phraseological units. For example: caress oneself with hope; catch one's eye(cf. get in the face, in the head etc.).

Thus, in the system of significant parts of speech, constructive conditionality or coherence only introduces peculiar shades into the main types of meanings of words, contributes to the differentiation of meanings and shades of words, as well as the differentiation of homonyms.

The identification of a special type of constructively determined meaning occurs when a significant word is transformed into a service word (for example, relatively- in the function of a preposition with a homonym relatively- adverbs and modal words; exactly- as a conjunction in relation to a homonym exactly- an adverb, as well as a modal word and an affirmative particle, etc.). But here the area of other structural types of words and other types of meanings already opens up, which are more convenient to talk about when studying the issue of the interaction of lexical and grammatical meanings in function words, about the conditions and methods of transition of lexical meanings to grammatical ones.

Distinguishing the main types or types of lexical meanings of words helps to establish a clear perspective in the semantic characteristics of words and contributes to the correct definition of homonyms and synonyms in the lexical system of the language. Different types of meanings of words serve in different ways to reflect and consolidate in the language the successes of the cognitive activity of the people. A. A. Potebnya correctly pointed out that the lexical meanings of words, organically connected with grammatical ones, are a structural element of the language, and in this sense they are formal - in comparison with the seven concepts that are formed and fixed on their basis and with their help.

A concept can become a free, nominative meaning of a word, but even in this case, the semantics of the word as a whole, considered in the system of aspects of language, is not exhausted and is not limited only to the expression of this concept. As for other types of lexical meanings of words, these meanings are so fused with the specifics of a given particular language that the universal, conceptual, logical content in them is overgrown on all sides with peculiar forms and semantic shades of the national creativity of a given people.

Notes

1. L.V. Shcherba. Experience in the general theory of lexicography."Izvestia of the USSR Academy of Sciences, OLYA", 1940, No. 3, p. 117.

2. [I.M. Muravyov-Apostol]. Letters from Moscow to Nizhny Novgorod (1813-1814). Letter 10th. "Son of the Fatherland", 1814, No. VII, pp. 19-30.

3. Prof. L. V. Cherepnin in the article “History of Old Russian Witchcraft of the 17th Century.” ["Ethnography" (M.-L.), 1929, No. 2, p. 96] provides forensic investigative materials testifying to the importance attached to the effect of salt that was subject to slander. In the 17th century. “the sorcerer Tereshka Malakurov “spelled salt and threw it along the streets and at crossroads, whoever crosses and will take it more.” Zhenalukhovo peasant Troshka Yakovleva “poured salt with a curse into the gate from every moment” in order to “take away the heart” from the clerk, who kept her husband “in the glands.”

4. For the first time it is registered in the “Dictionary of the Russian Language, compiled by the Second Department of the Imperial Academy of Sciences,” vol. IV, issue. 7, St. Petersburg, 1913, p. 1923; Wed: Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language, ed. D. N. Ushakova, T. I. M., 1935, p. 1456.

5. Wherever popular ideas are subjected to serious scientific or practical business revision, an unclear boundary area emerges, and the creation of sharper boundaries becomes a problem. Superficial signs of the difference between plant and animal, which immediately strike everyone’s eye and which for thousands of years seemed sufficient, are completely unsuitable for the highest level of scientific knowledge; compare: K. O. Erdmann.Die Bedeutung des Wortes. Leipzig, 1925, strue 76.

6. Correspondence of J. K. Grot with P. A. Pletnev, vol. II. St. Petersburg, 1896, pp. 574-575.

8. To illustrate the expressive-stylistic, and partly social-speech relationships between synonymous or similar words, we can recall the well-known anecdote about the famous lawyer F. N. Plevako: “An old joke says that one day an eminent merchant came to the Moscow “Zlatoust” with some very unpleasant business. Plevako, after the “occultation” and familiarization with the matter, during which the merchant sat neither dead nor alive, finally , said: “Well, it’s okay, we can turn it around!” - “Be, Fyodor Nikiforovich, a father-benefactor! Don’t leave me!” - “I won’t be a benefactor to you, but give me an advance!” The merchant’s eyes goggled out: “What is this, Fyodor Nikiforovich, an advance?” - “Oh, you eccentric! Do you know the deposit?” - “Well, of course, I know!” - “So, the advance is twice as much!” (A. R. Kugel (Homo novus). Literary memoirs (1882-1896). Pg. - M., 1923, pp. 101).

9. L. V. Shcherba. Decree. cit., p. 103.

10. Explanatory dictionary of the Russian language, ed. D. N. Ushakova, vol. I. M., 1935, p. 27; cf.: Dictionary of the modern Russian literary language, vol. I. M. - L., Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1950, p. 95.

11. Dictionary of D. N. Ushakov, vol. I, p. 75.

12. Ibid., p. 87.

13. Ibid., p. 106.

14. Dictionary of modern Russian literary language, vol. I, p. 360.

15. Dictionary by D. N. Ushakov, vol. I, p. 110; cf.: Dictionary of the Russian language, comp. Second department imp. Academician Sciences, vol. I. Ed. J. K. Grota. St. Petersburg, 1895, p. 142; " Toothless... powerless" (toothless power).

16.S. I. Ozhegov. Dictionary of the Russian language. Ed. 2. M., 1952, p. 32.

17. See: Dictionary of Church Slavonic and Russian languages, comp. Second department imp. Academician Sciences, vol. IV. Ed. 2. St. Petersburg, 1868, p. 619; Dictionary by D. N. Ushakov, vol. IV. M., 1940, p. 784.

18. M. I. Mikhelson. Russian thought and speech, vol. II. St. Petersburg, 1902, p. 385.

19. See: E. M. Meltser. About the main vocabulary fund and vocabulary of the language. "Foreign languages at school". M., 1951, No. 6, p. 30.

20. Feuilletons of the forties. Magazine and newspaper prose of I. A. Goncharov, F. M. Dostoevsky, I. S. Turgenev. M.-L., "Academia", 1930, pp. 78-79.

21. See: Sinai Psalter. Ed. S. N. Severyanova. Dictionary. Pg., 1922, p. 339; I. I. Sreznevsky. Materials for the dictionary of the Old Russian language, vol. II. SPb., 1902, p. 1437; Dictionary of the Russian Academy, arranged in alphabetical order, part V. St. Petersburg, 1822, p. 371; Dictionary of Church Slavonic and Russian languages, comp. Second department imp. Academic Sciences, ed. 2, vol. III. St. Petersburg, 1867, p. 1015.

22. For example, in the Kholmogory dialect loosen up:1) “to become loose, to lose stability”, 2) “to get sick, to become decrepit” [A . Grandilevsky. Homeland of M.V. Lomonosov. St. Petersburg, 1907 ("Sb. ORYAS", vol. 83, No. 5), p. 260]. - Wed. slurp“to reveal fragility, to become loose, to break” (ibid., p. 293). - It’s interesting that Northern Russian dialects also know the word abyss in the meaning of "mouth, pharynx". Prof.E. F. Budde was ready to recognize the use of the word as northern provincialism abyss in the odic style of M. V. Lomonosov ( E. F. Budde. A few notes from the history of the Russian language. - ZhMNP, 1898, March, pp. 157-158 and 172).

23. "Press Day. Cry." - Collection to help victims of war. edited by I. A. Bunina, V. V. Veresaeva, N. D. Teleshova. Ed. 2. M., 1915, p. 218.

24. I. T. Kokorev. Essays and stories, part. III. M., 1858, pp. 325-326.

25. A. Mazon. L'elaboration d'unroman de Tourgenev. "Revue des erudes slaves", t. V, f. 1-2. Paris, 1925, p. 91.

26. Wed. in A. N. Ostrovsky’s play “Wolf Sheep” (act I, scene 8) Murzavetskaya’s words: “Watch Apollo Viktorovich so that he doesn’t take a step out of the house! Order people to sit in the hallway with no way out.”

27. This meaning was also supported by the use of the French gros (cf. evenements gros de consequences "events fraught with consequences"; le present est gros de l "avenir "the present is fraught with the future").

28. "Russian Antiquity", vol. XXII.SPb., 1878, p. 356.

30. Compare: Dictionary by D. N. Ushakov. " Sunken, oh, oh. Pushed in, tumbled in. Sunken cheeks. Sunken eyes(Vol. I, p. 384); in the Dictionary of S. I. Ozhegov: " Sunken, oh, oh Forming a depression, protruding inward, concave. Sunken chest(p.84).

31. See: Dictionary of the Russian Academy, arranged in alphabetical order, part IV. SPb., 1822, p. 1200; Dictionary of Church Slavonic and Russian languages, comp. Second department imp. Academician Sciences, vol. III. St. Petersburg, 1847, p.244.

32. See: Dictionary of the Russian Academy, arranged in alphabetical order, part V., p. 492.

33. Dictionary of Church Slavonic and Russian languages, comp. Second department imp. Academician Sciences, vol. III, p. 516.

34. See: Dictionary of D. N. Ushakov, vol. III, 1939, p. 895.

35. Wed: J. Vandries. Language. M., 1937, p. 106.

36. Dictionary of D. N. Ushakov, vol. II. 1938, pp. 917; cf.: Dictionary of S. I. Ozhegov, p. 421.

37. See: Dictionary of D. N. Ushakov, vol. II, p. 614; Dictionary of S. I. Ozhegov, p. 376.

38. Dictionary of D. N. Ushakov, vol. III, p. 765; cf.: Dictionary of S. I. Ozhegov, p. 535.

39. In S.I. Ozhegov’s Dictionary, both of these meanings are combined. They bind to hollow and stretched objects. Among these same objects is included the person who " I almost burst out laughing"(p. 290).

40. In S.I. Ozhegov’s Dictionary, this meaning is also for some reason connected with the previous one. Patience has run out placed next to a busted case.

41. Dictionary of D. N. Ushakov, vol. II, p. 90.

42. See: Dictionary of D. N. Ushakov, vol. III, p. 737.

43. See: Dictionary of the Russian Academy, arranged in alphabetical order, part V. St. Petersburg, 1822, p. 213.

44. Dictionary of Church Slavonic and Russian languages..., vol. III. St. Petersburg, 1847, p. 441.

45. See: Dictionary of D. N. Ushakov, vol. III, p. 737.

46. Ibid., vol. I, p. 1555.

47. Dictionary of the Russian language, comp. Second department imp. Academician Sciences, vol. V, no. I. Pg., 1915, p. 284.

48. Dictionary of D. N. Ushakov, vol. II, p. 30.

49. A. Ya. Golovin. Meetings and impressions. Memoirs of the artist. L. - M., 1940, p. 14.

50. Dictionary of D. N. Ushakov, vol. III, p. 246. - The presence of a figurative meaning in a word rooster confirmed from here by the familiar verb get cocky"behave in a cocky, arrogant, bullying manner."

51. The development of this meaning, still closely connected with the direct nominative meaning of the word, is reflected in fiction Tumbleweed(see A. P. Chekhov’s story “Tumbleweeds”; see also the story “Maturity” by the modern Soviet writer N. Popova).

52. See: Dictionary of the Russian language, comp. Second department imp. Academician Sciences, vol. II. St. Petersburg, 1907, pp. 916-917.

53. However, see: Dictionary of D. N. Ushakov, vol. II, p. 631; Dictionary of S. I. Ozhegov, pp. 378-379.

54. See: Dictionary of D. N. Ushakov, vol. I, pp. 362-263; Dictionary of S. I. Ozhegov, p. 80.

In this article we will look at the types of lexical meanings of words and present their most famous classification, created by V. V. Vinogradov.

What is lexical meaning?

As you know, a word has two meanings - grammatical and lexical. And if the grammatical meaning is abstract and inherent in a large number of words, then the lexical meaning is always individual.

Lexical meaning is usually called the correlation of objects or phenomena of reality with a specific sound complex of a language unit, fixed in the mind of a native speaker. That is, lexical meaning denotes the content inherent in a certain word.

Now let’s look at the basis on which types of lexical meanings of words are distinguished. And then we’ll look at one of the most popular classifications.

Types of lexical meanings

Semantic correlation of various words of the Russian language allows us to identify different types of lexemes. Today there are many systematizations of such meanings. But the most complete classification is considered to be that proposed by V.V. Vinogradov in his article entitled “Basic types of lexical meanings of words.” We will analyze this typology further.

By correlation

Based on nomination (or correlation), it is customary to distinguish two meanings of a lexeme – direct and figurative.

Direct meaning, also called main or basic, is a meaning that reflects the phenomenon of reality, the real world. For example: the word “table” means a piece of furniture; "black" is the color of coal and soot; “boil” means to bubble, seethe, evaporate from heating. Such semantics is permanent in nature and is subject only to historical changes. For example: “table” in ancient times meant “reign,” “throne,” and “capital.”

The main types of lexical meanings of a word are always divided into smaller ones, which we proved in this paragraph, talking about literal and figurative meanings.

Returning to the main topic, we can add that words in their literal meaning are less dependent than others on the context and other words. Therefore, it is believed that such meanings have the least syntagmatic coherence and the greatest paradigmatic conditionality.

Portable

Types of lexical meanings of words were identified on the basis of living Russian speech, in which language games are very often used, part of which is the use of words in figurative meanings.

Such meanings arise as a result of the transfer of the name of one object of reality to another on the basis of common features, similarity of functions, etc.

Thus, the word was able to have several meanings. For example: “table” - 1) in the meaning of “piece of equipment” – “machine table”; 2) in the meaning of “food” - “get a room with a table”; 3) in the meaning of “department in an institution” - “round table”.

The word “boil” also has a number of figurative meanings: 1) in the meaning of “manifestation to a high degree” - “work is in full swing”; 2) excessive manifestation of emotions - “seething with indignation.”

Figurative meanings are based on the rapprochement of two concepts with the help of various kinds of associations that are easily understood by native speakers. Very often, indirect meanings have great imagery: black thoughts, seething with indignation. These figurative phrases quickly become fixed in the language, and then end up in explanatory dictionaries.

Figurative meanings with pronounced imagery differ in their stability and reproducibility from metaphors invented by writers, publicists and poets, since the latter are strictly individual in nature.

However, very often figurative meanings lose their imagery for native speakers. For example, “handles of a sugar bowl”, “bend of a pipe”, “chime of a clock” are no longer perceived by us as figurative phrases. This phenomenon is called extinct imagery.

Types of lexical meanings of words by origin

Depending on the degree of semantic motivation (or origin), the following are distinguished:

Motivated words (secondary or derivative) - are derived from word-forming affixes and meanings of the word-derived stem.
Unmotivated words (primary or underived) - they do not depend on the meaning of the morphemes that make up the word.

For example: unmotivated words include “build”, “table”, “white”. Motivated ones include “construction”, “desktop”, “whitewash”, since these words were formed from unmotivated ones; in addition, the primary source words help to understand the meaning of the newly formed lexemes. That is, “whiten,” derived from “white,” means “to make white.”

But not everything is so simple; the motivation of some words does not always manifest itself so clearly, since the language changes, and it is not always possible to find the historical root of the word. However, if you conduct an etymological analysis, you can often find an ancient connection between seemingly completely dissimilar words and explain their meanings. For example, after etymological analysis we learn that the words “feast”, “fat”, “cloth”, “window”, “cloud” come from “drink”, “live”, “knot”, “eye”, “drag” respectively. Therefore, it is not always possible for a non-specialist to distinguish an unmotivated word from a motivated one the first time.

Types of lexical meanings of words by compatibility

Depending on the lexical compatibility of meanings, words can be divided into:

Free - they are based on only subject-logical connections. For example: “drink” can only be combined with words that denote liquid (tea, water, lemonade, etc.), but can never be used with words like “running,” “beauty,” “night.” Thus, the combination of such words will be regulated by the subject compatibility or incompatibility of the concepts that they denote. That is, “freedom” in the combination of such words is very conditional.
Non-free - such words are limited in their ability to be lexically combined. Their use in speech depends on both the subject-logical factor and the linguistic factor. For example: the word “downcast” can be combined with the words “eyes”, “look”, “eyes”, while these words cannot be correlated with other lexemes - they do not say “put your foot down”.

Non-free types of lexical meanings of words in Russian:

Phraseologically related - implemented exclusively in stable (or phraseological) combinations. For example: sworn enemy - sworn friend is not used, unless this is the author's language game.
Syntactically conditioned - implemented only in cases where a word is forced to perform a function unusual for it. For example, the words “hat”, “oak”, “log” become predicates, characterizing a person as narrow-minded, stupid, bungled, insensitive, and lacking initiative. Playing such a role, the word always acquires figurativeness and is classified as a type of figurative meaning.

Syntactically determined meanings also include those vocabulary constructions that can only be realized under certain syntactic conditions. For example: “whirlwind” acquires a figurative meaning only in the form gender. n. - “whirlwind of events.”

By function

Types of transfers of the lexical meaning of words can be distinguished depending on the nature of the functions performed:

Nominative - the name comes from the word “nomination”, and means the naming of objects, phenomena and their qualities.
Expressive-semantic - in such words the predominant seme becomes connotative (emotional-evaluative).

An example of a nominative word: “tall man” - this phrase informs the listener that the person being described is tall.

An example of an expressive-semantic word: in the same case as described above, the word “tall” is replaced with the word “lanky” - this is how a disapproving, negative assessment of this growth is added to information about high growth. Thus, the word "lanky" is an expressive synonym for the word "tall".

By the nature of the connection

The main types of lexical meanings of Russian words, depending on the nature of the connection in the lexical system of one meaning with another:

Correlative meanings are words that are opposed to each other on some basis: good - bad, far - close.
Autonomous meanings are relatively independent words denoting specific objects: chair, flower, theater.
Deterministic meanings are words determined by the meaning of other words, since they are expressive or stylistic variants of them: the word “nag” is determined by the word “horse”, “beautiful”, “magnificent” - “good”.

conclusions

Thus, we have listed the types of lexical meanings of words. Briefly we can name the following aspects that formed the basis of the classification we presented:

Subject-conceptual connections of words or paradigmatic relationships.
Syntagmatic relationships or the relationship of words to each other.
Derivational or word-formation connections of lexemes.

By studying the classification of lexical meanings, one can better understand the semantic structure of words and understand in more detail the systemic connections that have developed in the vocabulary of the modern language.

/ 4

4) The set of lexical meanings of words, considered from the point of view of their connections and derivation.

The following types of lexical meanings (LM) are distinguished:

1) main LZ;

2) LZ derivative;

3) direct LZ;

4) figurative lexical meaning.

“...A great misconception,” says F. de Saussure, “is the view of the linguistic element simply as the connection of a certain sound with a certain concept. To define it in this way would mean isolating it from the system of which it is part; this would lead to the false idea that it is possible to begin with linguistic elements and from their sum to build a system, whereas in fact it is necessary, starting from the aggregate whole, through analysis to reach the elements contained in it" (31). But in the language system, speech sounds are significant and meaningful. This was also pointed out by W. Humboldt. True, “only in rare cases,” said W. Humboldt, “can one recognize a certain connection between the sounds of a language and its spirit. However, even in adverbs (of the same language), minor changes in vowels, which little change the language in general, can rightfully be attributed to state of mind of the people (Gemutbeschaffenheit)" (32). According to W. Humboldt, the connection between sound form and internal linguistic laws reaches its highest limit in their penetration with each other (33).

The sexual meanings of a word are subsumed under grammatical categories. A word represents an internal, constructive unity of lexical and grammatical meanings. The definition of the lexical meaning of a word already includes indications of the grammatical characteristics of the word. The grammatical forms and meanings of a word either collide or merge with its lexical meanings. This close connection, this deep interaction of lexical and grammatical forms and meanings has been emphasized recently by all major linguists, especially persistently Schuchardt (43), N.Ya. Marr (44), L.V. Shcherba (45) and A. Belich ( 46). The semantic contours of a word, the internal connection of its meanings, its semantic scope are determined by the grammatical structure of the language. Ed. Sapir subtly noted: “In an analytical language, the primary meaning falls to the sentence, while the word is of less interest. In a synthetic language... concepts are grouped more closely together, words are richer, but at the same time there is a general tendency to limit within narrower limits the range of specific meaning of an individual words" (47). It is clear that both the semantic volume of a word and the methods of combining meanings are different in words of different grammatical categories. Thus, the semantic structure of a verb is wider than that of a noun, and the range of its meanings is more flexible. The meanings of qualitative adjectives and adverbs are even more flexible. The breadth of phrasal connections of a word also depends on its grammatical structure.

5) Types of lexical meanings of words

1. Types of lexical meanings of words according to the nature of the connection of the word with objects, phenomena of reality (by the method of naming): direct and figurative.

2. Types of lexical meanings of words by origin: motivated and unmotivated.

3. Types of lexical meanings of words according to the compatibility of words with other words: free and non-free

The type of lexical meaning of a word is determined by the aspect of its consideration: 1) how the phenomenon of reality is named; 2) the word is not motivated or motivated in naming (nominating) its meaning; 3) how the word functions in the language - is it free or limited in its compatibility. In accordance with this, three types of lexical meaning of a word are distinguished.

1. According to the nature of the connection of the word with objects, phenomena of reality (by the method of naming) differentiate direct And portable meanings. Direct the meaning of a word directly indicates an object, sign, process, etc. and acts as the main meaning in modern language. For example: bread – food product baked from flour.

Portable the meaning of a word is determined by associative connections that unite one object, attribute, process, etc. with another. For example: bread meaning the same as food - figurative meaning in relation to meaning food product baked from flour , but in turn, it is the initial value for another figurative meaning: bread as a means of subsistence, income.

2. Based on their origin, lexical meanings are distinguished between motivated and unmotivated.

Unmotivated (primary) the meaning of the word is non-derivative for the modern Russian language (the word bread literally).

Motivated (secondary) the meaning of a word is derivative in semantic (and/or word-formation) terms. Motivated words have an internal form: they retain the semantic components of the motivating meaning in the motivated one. So, for example, the word bread in two figurative meanings it has common semantic components: food, product, made from flour, baked / baked .

3. Based on the compatibility of words with other words, free and non-free lexical meanings are distinguished.

Free, direct, or nominative, are those meanings that are realized in combination with many words. Words with free meanings can practically be combined with all words that express correlative concepts. So, for example, the word wood in meaning "made of wood" can be combined with many nouns: wooden house, wooden floor, wooden roof, wooden bed etc. But it cannot be combined with words denoting unrelated concepts. So, combinations are impossible wooden iron, wooden book etc., since such relationships are impossible in reality.

Unlike free non-free lexical meanings appear only under certain conditions. Non-free values are divided into phraseologically related and syntactically conditioned. TO phraseologically related These include lexical meanings that are combined with strictly defined words. For example, the word has a phraseologically related meaning disgust in meaning “to prevent something from happening, to prevent” realized only in combination with a small number of words, such as danger, trouble, misfortune, suffering, threat (to avert danger, to avert misfortune etc.). The implementation of the considered meaning of the word is unacceptable in combinations of the type avert joy, avert events. Words languish, prodigal, pregnant can only be used in stable phrases drag out a miserable existence, a prodigal son, fraught with consequences.

They differ from the types of meanings considered (free and phraseologically related) syntactically determined meanings. The realization of meanings of this type is determined not by the connections of a word with certain words, but by its syntactic function. For example, the word donkey in an abusive sense (about a stupid, stupid, stubborn person) can only be used as a predicate: For example, our head is perfectdonkey ! (I. Turgenev). The meanings of words are also syntactically determined head, light, crow, hat etc., if they express an assessment of a person: Break away, smart one, you are delirious,head ?; Sing, little light , don't be ashamed! (I. Krylov); Oh you,crow ! Etc.

The peculiarity of words with syntactically determined meanings lies in their expressive-emotional coloring of a positive or negative nature ( head, well done– positive assessment and hat, donkey– negative). Syntactically determined meanings are always figurative.

Often the same word can have all three types of meanings. For example: He movedhat on the back of my head, put my hands in my pockets(E. Nikolaeva) – free meaning of the word; What a disaster! We’ll come, send you some article, and that’s it.in Hat (F. Reshetnikov) – phraseologically related meaning; You're even in the gamehat ! (P. Pavlenko) – syntactically determined meaning.

In addition to the indicated main types of lexical meanings, many words in the Russian language have shades of meaning that are closely related to one or another meaning, but still differ from it. For example: word scale has as its main direct meaning – “foam, sediment formed on the surface of a liquid as a result of boiling” and its shade: “solid sediment on the walls of boilers or other vessels in which something boils evaporates”. Despite the apparent semantic identity, these meanings differ from each other, but not enough to be considered independent.

Thus, identifying the types of lexical meanings of words helps to realize the possibility of analyzing the semantics of a word from different points of view, and to study more deeply the role of the word in the language system.

6) The paradigmatics of a language can be defined as a set and system of variants of its units and categories allowed by the structure of the language - variants, from among which the author of speech at each step of speech development makes a choice of only one.

The syntagmatics of a language can be defined as a set and system of combinational capabilities inherent in linguistic units and categories of language and their implementation in the speech process. Like paradigmatics, syntagmatics is characteristic of all levels of linguistic structure. But if syntagmatics and paradigmatics are two forms of functioning of all units of language at all its levels, it follows that there are morphological syntagmatics and syntactic paradigmatics.

Between language units there are paradigmatic, syntagmatic and hierarchical

relationship.

Paradigmatic relations - unite language units into groups, categories, categories. On

paradigmatic relations are based on, for example, a consonant system, a declension system,

synonymous series. When using language, paradigmatic relationships allow you to choose

the desired unit, as well as form forms and words by analogy.

Syntagmatic rel. - rel. units, location linearly, for example, in a stream of speech. They are defined as

rel. horizontally. These include the laws of connection of word compatibility. (Syntagma-sequence of two

or more languages units connected by def. type of connection.) Synth. rel. combine linguistic units into

their usual consistent, they appear in three forms: 1) laws of grammar. compatibility - for example, in Russian

you can't say "give me the phone book", adj. must have the same form of the genus number and

case. 2) the law of lexical compatibility - Wrong. say "dark brown eyes." 3) laws

phonetic connections - The ability of a word to connect with other words based on its lexical meanings is called

semantic valence.

Hierarchical relationships - less complex units of lower levels are included in units of higher ones.

Rel. between heterogeneous elements of different levels of language system. their subordination to each other as private

and general, generic and specific, lower and higher.

Value types

The semantic side of a word is not something monolithic and homogeneous, but represents a complex system of interdependent and interconnected meanings and uses, which differ in the degree of stability and independence, in the nature of the concepts they express, in the form of implementation in the lexical-semantic system of the language.

The most striking opposition here is made up of lexical and grammatical meanings, forming a close and integral unity in the main lexical unit - the word.

Grammatical meaning - a generalized, abstract meaning inherent in a number of words, word forms, syntactic structures and finding its regular expression in the language. In the field of morphology, these are the general meanings of words as parts of speech (for example, the objectivity meaning of nouns, the procedural meaning of verbs). In the field of syntax, this is the meaning of predicativity, as well as various relationships of the components of phrases and sentences as abstract grammatical patterns: the meaning of a semantic object, subject, one or another adverbial qualifier (local, temporal, causal, target, etc.). Grammatical meaning is more abstract and generalized than lexical meaning; it groups words into large groups, such as parts of speech or lexical-grammatical classes.

Lexical meaning - the content of a word, reflecting in the mind and consolidating in it the idea of an object, property, process, phenomenon, content that is peculiar only to this word and distinguishes it from other words of the language.

In linguistics, lexical meaning is compared with the philosophical category of the concept. However, the concept and lexical meaning do not coincide. The relationship between them is different in different respects: meaning is broader than the concept, since it includes evaluative and a number of other components; the meaning is narrower than a concept in the sense that it includes only the distinctive features of objects, while concepts cover their deeper and more essential properties.

Also stands out lexico-grammatical meaning , which is the common denominator of all meanings of words belonging to the lexical-grammatical class of words. Based on this common characteristic, they are grouped. Words in which the degree of abstraction and generalization is very high can be lexical representatives of lexico-grammatical meanings and can replace any word of their class. They are called in general terms. For example, the word matter is a general term for material nouns, the word group– for collective nouns, word person– for personal nouns.

Structure of the lexical meaning of a word

The lexical meaning of a word is a complex structure determined by the general properties of the word as a sign: its semantics, pragmatics, syntactics.

In fact semantic sense In the structure of the lexical meaning of a word, two aspects are distinguished: significative and denotative.

Significate, as already noted, is the conceptual content of a linguistic sign. From an epistemological point of view, a significant is a reflection of the properties of a denotation in human consciousness.

Denotation A linguistic unit is a set of objects of reality (things, properties, relationships, situations, states, processes, actions, etc.) that can be called this unit. This use of the term “denotation” corresponds to what in traditional logic is called the “scope of the concept.”

Pragmatic aspect The lexical meaning of a word includes emotional evaluation and various connotations determined by the speaker’s attitude to the object denoted by the sign.

Syntactic (systemic or differential) aspect, formed on the basis of the relationship of a word to other words, is determined syntagmatically - by its connections with other meanings of linguistic units in a phrase and sentence, and paradigmatically - by its position within the corresponding group of words with which the word is semantically connected (primarily synonymous series) . This aspect is also called significance.

The above typology is consonant to some extent with the typology that arose as a result cognitive approach to language. The division in it is carried out according to what structures of consciousness underlie them - cognitive, reflecting a person’s objective knowledge of the world around him, or pragmatic, carrying information about a person’s subjective assessment of the phenomena around him, his personal experiences. Within the framework of the cognitive approach to the meaning of a word, lexical meaning can combine both cognitive and pragmatic components or be limited to one of them. A significant number of words are pragmatically neutral; their meanings represent only the cognitive component of the content: water, take, green. In other words, both components are combined, and one of them may be dominant (for example, in the words upstart"upstart", monster“freak” the pragmatic component dominates, in words like coward"coward", informer“informant” has a dominant cognitive component, but the type of people they call evokes a certain assessment).

In general, lexical meaning is often defined as a combination of the conceptual core and pragmatic connotations.

The conceptual content of a word is expressed in its denotative meaning .It relates to the sphere of thinking and understanding, generalizes and classifies our experience and names the objects in question. Performing the significative and communicative functions of a word, denotative meaning is present in every word and is considered a central factor in the functioning of language. A description of the denotative meaning or meanings is given in dictionaries, examples:

month– any of the twelve parts into which the year is divided;

savannah– treeless, grassy plain, in tropical and subtropical America and Eastern and Western Africa;

sausage– chopped up meat, etc. flavored and stuffed into a casing or tube of thin skin.

If denotative meaning exists because of what the word refers to, then connotative meaning is the pragmatic value that a word receives through where, when, how, by whom, for what purpose and in what context it is or can be used. In other words, this is an emotional, evaluative or stylistic coloring of a linguistic unit of a usual (fixed in the language) or occasional nature. In a broad sense, this is any component that complements the subject-conceptual (or denotative), as well as grammatical content of a language unit and gives it an expressive function.

In the structure of connotative meaning the following are distinguished:

stylistic component;

emotional-evaluative component.

Stylistic component of connotation carries information about the place of the unit in the language system, reports the type of speech sphere (official business, oratorical, poetic, scientific, everyday colloquial speech) for which a given linguistic unit is typical or about the source of speech in general. The stylistic component signals the place of a lexical unit on the scale of aesthetic value and assigns it to a certain category: bookish, poetic, official ceremonial words, words-terms, colloquial words, dialectisms, slangisms, jargons, vulgarisms.

Stylistic connotation is “a kind of label attached to a thing, a company label indicating the place and time of manufacture of the product and its cost” (Skrebnev 1975: 21).

Stylistically neutral (stylistically unmarked) words can be used both in book and colloquial speech, both in written and oral speech, in all forms and situations of communication, without causing stylistic dissonance.

Stylistically marked vocabulary is limited in its application - it can be assigned to certain communication situations, and can be used primarily by separate groups of people united by a certain community. Here, lexical categories are identified that correspond to the degrees of increased and decreased aesthetic value of the vocabulary. In terms of highlighting the stylistic component of connotation, the following series of words is interesting: parent, father, dad, daddy, pop, oldman, oldie, octogenarian, oldster.

Under the emotional-evaluative component of connotation refers to the expression of emotions or feelings by words. It arises on the basis of the logical-substantive content of words, but, having arisen, is characterized by a tendency to displace it or greatly modify it.

A linguistic unit can be associated with the expression of emotion in several aspects:

1. A linguistic unit can directly express an emotion, but not convey it. Such units include emotional interjections, intended to express emotions, but not having a communicative orientation.

2. A linguistic unit can express and convey the speaker’s emotional attitude towards any object or phenomenon. Such a linguistic unit necessarily contains some characteristic of the object plus an emotional attitude towards it. Most of these units are words that emotionally characterize individuals, as well as their actions and behavior.

3. A linguistic unit can evoke an emotion without conveying it. Here it is necessary to distinguish between the emotional connotation conveyed by the word and the subject’s emotional reaction to the words.

4. A linguistic unit can communicate an emotion without causing it.

In the process of analysis, one cannot associate the emotional-evaluative component of a word with the truth or falsity of the use of a word with this component; the assessment of the word used may not correspond to the real situation.

The evaluative component is often accompanied by an emotional one, but their combination is not necessary. Also stands out rational (intellectual-logical) assessment , based on information about the properties objectively inherent in the referent. Rational assessment is part of the denotative component and is included in the subject of designation. For example, money-grubber– derog. a person who is determined to gain money, often by dishonest means; sensible– reasonable, having or showing good sense;

disrepute– loss or lack of people’s good opinion, bad reputation; unfair– not just, reasonable or dishonest.

Emotional-evaluative information conveys the speaker’s attitude to the subject of the statement and can be presented as a positive emotional evaluation and its modifications (approval, affectionate attitude, admiration, etc.) and a negative emotional evaluation and its modifications (disapproval, neglect, contempt, rude and soft ridicule). Examples: bull- headed(reckless, reckless) brute(Cruel person), stinker(disgusting person) shark(sharpie), topeacock(to put on airs) potato- crap(mouth), meathead(idiot).

The speaker, using any evaluative word, is under the influence of two factors: the objective ideal norm established for various aspects of the subject in a given society, and the subjective ideal norm, his personal idea of the normative features of this subject.

The emotional-evaluative component of connotation, expressing the attitude of the subject of speech to the signified, is closely related to the stylistic component, which characterizes the conditions of speech activity, the communicative situation, social and cultural information about the participants in the communicative act.

Evaluativeness, emotionality, stylistic reference, integrated in a specific lexical unit create expressiveness , which is understood as the property of lexical units to create the expressiveness of a narrative in order to increase the impressive impact on the listener (some authors consider expressiveness as an independent component of connotation along with emotional-evaluative and stylistic components). Only the method of expression, the form can be expressive/non-expressive. Expressiveness is not a special semantic category; it is a category of the expression plane. Connotations are a means of creating expressiveness; they ensure the expressiveness of the speech use of a given lexical unit, marking it against the background of a neutral environment.

Some works also consider pragmatic aspect of meaning – communicative component of lexical meaning. Pragmatics studies the behavior of signs in real communication processes. Linguistic pragmatics does not have clear contours; it includes a set of issues related to the speaking subject - the addresser, the addressee, their interaction in communication, the communication situation.

Due with the addressee studied:

Explicit and hidden purposes of the statement, for example, communicating some information or opinion, question, order, request, advice, promise, apology, greeting, complaint, etc.;

Speech tactics and types of speech behavior;

Rules of conversation, subject to the so-called principle of cooperation, which recommends building verbal communication in accordance with the accepted purpose and direction of the conversation, for example, reporting only true information and reasonable assessments, making speech clear, unambiguous and consistent;

The attitude of the speaker, or the pragmatic meaning of the statement: indirect meanings of the statement, hints, allegory, circumlocutions, etc.;

The speaker's reference, i.e. the attribution of linguistic expressions to objects of reality, resulting from the intentions of the speaker;

Pragmatic presuppositions: the speaker’s assessment of the general fund of knowledge, specific awareness, interests, opinions and views, psychological state, character traits and ability to understand the addressee;

The speaker's attitude towards what he is communicating:

b) bringing into focus the interest of one of those persons about whom the speaker is talking, or empathy;

c) organizing the statement in accordance with what is given the most importance in the message.

Due with the addressee studied:

Interpretation of speech, including rules for deducing indirect and hidden meanings from the direct meaning of a statement;

The impact of the statement on the addressee: expansion of the addressee’s awareness, changes in the emotional state, views and assessments of the addressee;

Types of speech response to the received stimulus (direct and indirect reactions, for example, ways of avoiding a direct answer to a question).

Due with relationships between communication participants studied:

Forms of verbal communication (informative dialogue, friendly conversation, argument, quarrel);

Social and etiquette side of speech (forms of address, style of communication);

The relationship between participants in communication in certain speech acts (compare request and order).

Due with the communication situation studied:

Interpretation of deictic signs (“here”, “now”, “this”);

The influence of the speech situation on the topics and forms of communication (compare typical topics and forms of conversations at a party, at banquets, in hospitals, in doctors’ and lawyers’ waiting rooms).

Types of lexical meanings

General characteristics of the morphological structure of the Russian language at the beginning of the historical period. Parts of speech in the Old Russian language of the late 19th century Icenturies Main trends in the development of the morphological system of the Russian language. According to “Historical Grammar” by V.V. Ivanova

The system of parts of speech in the original system of the Old Russian language was generally the same as in the modern one. In it, the name and the verb were completely opposed to each other. In terms of content, they were contrasted as a class of words denoting objects and their attributes, with a class of words denoting an action or state. In terms of expression, they were contrasted as words having the categories of gender, number and case, with words having the categories of tense, aspect, mood, person and number. At the same time, the common category of number for names and verbs characterized their quantitative side; for verbs, the number forms were determined by the syntactic connection with the speaker

action or sign. The number forms of one name or verb constituted the paradigm of one word. Verbal categories of time, aspect, mood and person in terms of content denoted the relationship of an action or state to the moment of speech (present, past, future tense), to its completeness or incompleteness (perfect - imperfect form), to reality, convention or motivation (indicative, conditional and imperative moods), and in terms of expression they were characterized by forms of inflection or word formation.

Within a name, a noun and an adjective were opposed, but this opposition was less clear than in modern language. The fact is that along with pronominal (or full) adjectives in the Old Russian language there were also nominal (or short) adjectives, which changed in the same way as nouns. Although pronominal adjectives, like nominal adjectives, arose in the pre-literate era, they nevertheless arose later than nominal adjectives, and originally there were only short adjectives that could act simultaneously as nouns without any change in form. In terms of content, nouns and adjectives were contrasted as names of objects with names of features. In terms of expression, they were equally characterized by the categories of gender, number and case, but if for nouns these categories were independent, then for adjectives they were determined by a syntactic connection with the nouns.

Within the name, pronouns were identified that denoted references to a person or object and had specific features in grammatical categories; These features in the Old Russian language of this period of history had personal pronouns of the 1st and 2nd persons (they did not have a gender category) and a reflexive (which did not have gender and number categories).

A feature of the Old Russian language in comparison with the modern one was the absence of numerals as a special part of speech, which is in the modern Russian language (we are talking about cardinal numerals). The point is that if there is a language

words expressing numerical concepts, numerals were not allocated to a special grammatical class with their own categories inherent only to them. The names of numbers up to four were similar in grammatical properties to adjectives, and from five to nouns. The formation of numerals as a special part of speech took place during the historical period of development of the Russian language, albeit in a relatively early era.

Finally, the Old Russian language also had adverbs, but the class of this part of speech in the 11th century. was limited, since the formation of adverbs in most cases occurred at a relatively late time. The above does not mean that in the Old Russian language the composition

adverbs were limited both in terms of their meanings and in terms of the methods of their formation. On the contrary, adverbs already in the original Old Russian morphological system could express various adverbial characteristics of an action (place, time, reason, purpose, etc.) and differ in structural features - the Old Russian language had its own specific suffixes that formed adverbs. However, along with

However, throughout the history of the language, the class of adverbs experienced a number of changes: some of them were lost, but most importantly, new adverbs arose, formed in new ways and, probably, on the basis of other parts of speech. These questions are: how adverbs arose in the history of the Russian language, what parts of speech were the basis of these adverbs, in what ways and by what means new adverbs were formed - these questions remain largely unresolved, controversial, and debatable. Different scientists offer different solutions, but the problem of the history of the formation of Russian dialects still requires new research.

2. Lexical meaning of the word – this is a reflection in the word of the phenomena of reality (V.V. Vinogradov). LLS is a correlated sound complex of a linguistic unit fixed in the minds of speakers with one or another phenomenon of reality; most words name objects, their characteristics, quantities, actions, processes and act as full-meaning independent words, performing a nominative function in the language. The meaning of a word reflects only various characteristics, i.e. those with which you can distinguish objects from each other.

Structure of lexical meaning:

Symeological aspect. Meaning as a reflection of linguistic reality in it as a sign.

Structural-semantic. Meaning as the semantic organization of a word.

Functional-style aspect. Meaning as a reflection of the sociolinguistic attitude to the word.

Denotation– the objective meaning of a word, denotes the volume (class) of serial (or unique) phenomena of reality and serves as the name of the objective correlation of the word. Denotation characterizes a class of homogeneous objects in the broad sense of the word (table - a type of furniture) and covers the scope of the concept.

Significate– reveals essential features, phenomena of reality, constitutes the content of the concept.

Connotation– this is an additional meaning to the main lexical one. (Brother - the son of parents, in relation to other children of these parents; Brother - with tenderness, affection; Bro - ...). Connotation includes 4 aspects:

emotional;

expressive;

stylistic;

evaluative.

All 4 aspects, or maybe just one, can be realized in a word.

LEXICAL MEANING AND CONCEPTS.

Words in the language are divided into significant and non-significant.

Non-nominal ones are particles, prepositions and conjunctions.

The object of lexicology is only significant words.

It is significant words that have a nominative function, i.e. a word is the minimum unit of language capable of highlighting a separate thought. Based on the definition that a word is a sound unit of human speech, denoted by the phenomena of reality, in their dismemberment, grammatically formulated and equally understood by the number of people speaking the same language, it can be argued that the main function of a word is the naming function.

All significant words have this function except pronouns. Pronouns have a demonstrative function.

Each word correlates with certain concepts; it is this correlation that is usually called LZ. An important ability of a word is the ability to generalize; this is an important function of generalization. To generalize, whole groups and classes are called. Concepts are formed in our minds under the influence of the surrounding world. Objects and phenomena are named according to the characteristic that distinguishes them from other objects.

A feature placed in the category of distinctive or differentiated is characteristic not only of specific objects, which is why the general differentiated feature performs the function of generalization.

We must remember that an equal sign cannot be put between a word, its meaning and concept, i.e. the meaning of the word and the concept are not the same. A concept can be expressed by a combination of words. For example, a railway, a globe. One concept can be expressed in different words (synonyms) (hand - arm). One word can express several concepts. The meaning of a word may have additional features; the meaning can be broader than concepts.

Comparison of various words and their meanings allows us to distinguish several types of meanings in the Russian language:

According to the method of nomination, direct and figurative meanings of words are distinguished. DIRECT is a meaning that directly correlates with the phenomena of objective reality: does not depend on the context and on the nature of the properties with another word. PORTABLE is a meaning that arises as a result of transferring a name from one object to another. Direct and figurative meanings are defined within one word. Different meanings of the same word are called lexical-semantic variants (LSV).

Based on the degree of semantic motivation, motivated and unmotivated meanings are distinguished. UNMOTIVATED - these are meanings that are not determined by the meaning of morphemes in the word. MOTIVATED - these are meanings that are derived from the meaning of the derived stem and word-forming affixes. The degree of motivation for the same word can be more than one.

If possible, lexical compatibility is divided into free and non-free. FREE - are based only on subject-logical connections of words, but cannot be combined with words such as stone. Lexical compatibility is called valence in the scientific literature. There are monovalent words (limited combinations). Words with monovalent combinability are called collocations. Collocations tend to be stable, but in the category of stable combinations, i.e. phraseological units are not included yet. UNFREE words are characterized by limited possibilities and lexical compatibility, which in this case are also determined by subject matter.

3.Historical changes in the paradigm of names (the process of unification, the loss of the dual number, the relationship between the full and short forms of adjectives). Principles of identifying types of declension in ancient times. Unification of types of declension of nouns, reasons for this process and result. Ist.gram. Ivanov V.V.

The nouns of the Old Russian language in its original system were generally characterized by the same categories that are inherent in them in the modern language, i.e. the categories of gender, number and case. However, only the first category, which determined the distribution of nouns into three genders - masculine, feminine and neuter, was in principle the same in the Old Russian language as it is now. As for the category of number, in contrast to the modern Russian language, in the ancient Russian era there were not two - singular and plural - but three numbers, because there was also a dual number. Finally, in addition to the six case forms, i.e. nominative, genitive, dative, accusative, instrumental and local (modern prepositional) cases, there was also a vocative form, which, however, had special inflections not in all numbers and not in all nouns.

Throughout the development of the Russian language, various changes occurred in the forms of expression of grammatical categories, gradually leading to the establishment of those forms that are observed in the modern language. However, the greatest changes in

The history of nouns has undergone types of declension, which in ancient times had a different character compared to the modern Russian language.

In the Old Russian language, by the time of the beginning of writing, there was a multi-type declension, which was expressed in the fact that the same cases of nouns of different types of declension had different endings. In the early period of the Proto-Slavic language, each type of declension was characterized by the last sound of the stem, depending on which vowel or consonant the stem ended with (later, the final sound moved to the ending, i.e., the morphemes were re-decomposed in favor of the ending).

1. Words with a stem in *o had hard and soft (*jo and words like otts, where there was no *j, and the original soft consonant arose from the back lingual consonant after the front vowel according to the third palatalization) varieties of declension. This type of declension included words of the masculine and neuter gender, having in Im. respectively, the endings -ъ, -о after a hard consonant – table, village and -ь, -е after a soft consonant – horse, field, as well as masculine words such as edges, robberies.

2. Words with a stem in *a had hard and soft (*ja and words like maiden, where there was no *j, and the original soft consonant arose from the back lingual field of the front vowel as a result of the third palatalization) varieties of declension. This type of declension included a) feminine nouns having in Im. n. endings -a, -'a (water, earth), b) some masculine nouns ending in –a, -'a (servant, governor, young man), c) masculine nouns ending in –ii (judges, helmsmen), d) feminine nouns in –yn (knyagyn, slave).

3. Words with a stem in *i included words of masculine and feminine gender, having in Im. n. ending -ь. Feminine nouns could have either a semi-soft consonant (bone) or a native soft consonant (night) at the end of the stem, while masculine nouns could only have a semi-soft consonant and not a native soft consonant before the ending. It is the semi-soft consonant in Im. and V. cases and allows you to distinguish masculine words with stems in *o and *i: cf. the word put, where the stem ends in a semi-soft consonant (if *j had been present here, then *tj would have given [ch’] in Old Russian); Wed also dove, where at the end of the stem there is a semi-soft consonant (if there were *j here, then *bj would give [bl’]), therefore, these are words with the stem on *i.

4. Words with a stem in *u included several masculine nouns with the ending -ъ in Im. n. after a solid consonant: son, house, vyrkh, vol, pol ‘half’, ice, honey, perhaps also the words ryad, dar, rank, feast and some others.

5. Nouns with a stem ending in *u included several feminine words ending in -ы in Im. etc.: fathers-in-law, churches, lovers, etc.

6. Nouns with a stem in a consonant are divided into several groups depending on the consonant stem, which appears in indirect cases or words with the same root: a) with a stem in *n (m.r.) – d'en and root; b) with a base on *n (av. p.) – im., shm. (cf. name, seed); c) with a base on *s (cf. r.) - miracle, sky (cf. miracles, heavenly); *n (m. r.) – kama, rema (cf. stone, belt), d) with a base on *r (f. r.) – mother, d’achi (cf. mother, daughter); e) with a base on *t (cf. r.) – tel., goat. (cf. in the proverb “To catch a calf and a wolf”).

The history of nouns is that instead of six types of declension, three types of declension were established (productive declension became the basis of this unification). If initially the division of words into types of declension was formed on the basis of a semantic feature, then the beginning of the change in types of declension was laid by the influence of generic differentiation of words. In the Old Russian language, initially words of different genders were included in many types of declensions. This can be represented as the following diagram:

Feminine words

* a - productive

*i - productive

*u - unproductive

on a consonant *r - unproductive.

Masculine words

*o - productive

*a - unproductive

*u - unproductive

*i - unproductive

on a consonant *n - unproductive.

Neuter words

*o - productive

on a consonant *n, *s, *t - unproductive

In the modern Russian literary language there are three productive declensions - first, second, third, which united the following former types of declensions:

The I declension includes words with a former stem of *a (water, maiden) and *u (letter); in the II declension - with the former stem on *o (wolf, father, window, sea), *u (son), *i (guest) and on the consonant *n (stone), *s (miracle), *t (calf) ); in the III declension - with the former stem on *i (night), *u (church), *r (daughter).

In some cases, words did not immediately pass from the unproductive to the productive declension, but had an intermediate stage in their history. Thus, the word day was originally in declension with the consonant * n. This is the only masculine noun in the word forms of which, not only in the literary language, but also in dialect speech, the old endings were retained for a long time (cf. R.–M. pad. dne). This word very early takes on the form -en and coincides in phonetic appearance and morphological structure with masculine words with the former stem on *i, and then, together with these words, it became a stem on *o.

When characterizing a particular noun, for each word form you need to indicate whether it is original or new. In the original forms, the ending that was originally in the Old Russian language or has undergone a phonetic change is preserved (for example, the sound [m] coincided with [e]). Forms that have undergone grammatical changes are called new.

TYPES OF CLOSEMENT OF NOUNS

TYPES OF LEXICAL MEANINGS OF A WORD

1. Semantic structure of the word, lexical meaning of the word.

2. Types of lexical meanings of a word: subject-logical, contextual,

nominative, connotative.

Like other linguistic disciplines, stylistics deals with the lexical, phraseological, grammatical and phonetic data of a language. However, a significant difference between stylistics and other linguistic disciplines is that stylistics studies not individual linguistic units, but their stylistic function. Stylistics is interested in the expressive potential of these units and their interaction in the text to express thoughts and emotions. Stylistics interprets the relationship (opposition) between the contextual meaning of a word and its basic, denotative meaning. Accordingly, stylistics is primarily concerned with the study of connotative meaning.

The semantic structure of a word consists of its grammatical meaning (verb, noun, adjective) and its lexical meaning. Many stylistic devices are based on the unique use of lexical meanings. The term “lexical meaning” of a word combines: 1) subject-logical meaning;

2) nominative; 3) connotative. There is one more thing - contextual meaning, which is given to a word by context, i.e. individual use, but which is not part of the semantic structure of the word.

I. Subject-logical meaning- this is the expression in a word of a general concept about an object or phenomenon through one of the signs, which has become a “representative” of the entire concept. This type of meaning is called in linguistic literature by the terms denotative, basic meaning, direct meaning or nominative meaning.

In the process of its historical development, a word can acquire additional derived subject-logical meanings. For example, heavy the main subject-logical meaning of which is “heavy”, also has the meaning “strong” -

heavy rain “thick” about matter – heavy cloth; “difficult” - heavy task, “high, big” - heavy price, etc. This is the phenomenon of polysemy (polysemy), when a word has, in addition to the main subject-logical meaning, a number of subject-logical meanings, connected by a single semantic core and distinguishable in a word by the nature of its use in context. Thus, each polysemantic word has a basic and derivative subject-logical meaning. Together they form the semantic structure of a given word.

Portable (figurative) the meaning of the word, if it is widely used, is also considered as a special case of polysemy: fox- “cunning person.”

Subject-logical meaning can change along with a change in the concept of an object or phenomenon. For example, the word deer meant “animal in general”, later received the name “deer”; word citizen used to mean “city dweller”, and then “citizen”, and the word clerk, which previously had only one meaning “priest,” then consistently meant “scholar, literate, official, employee.”

Subject-logical values can be free or bound. Available- exist in a word regardless of the combination of this word with other words, e.g . room- room. Related- appear as derivatives of the main meaning only in certain combinations: move and make room for me (meaning “place”), there is always room for improvement (meaning “opportunity”).

The subject-logical meanings of a word (basic, free and connected) represent a constant and stable semantic structure of the word at a given stage of development of the lexical system.

However, in language there is a need to express a new concept and therefore either a new word appears, or the old one acquires a new meaning. If this new meaning is very close in content to the already established meaning of a given word, then it does not form a new meaning, but only communicates a new one. shade meanings. Yes, word collaborator(“collaborator”) after the 2nd World War acquired the connotation of “traitor to the motherland” due to the fact that this word was used to designate those who collaborated with the Hitlerite administration.

Shades of meaning– these are additional subject-logical meanings that have not yet been fully established in the vocabulary and are closely related to the main meaning. They are part of the semantic structure of the word.

At the same time, many words, due to special conditions of use, acquire meanings in context that are not included in their semantic structure. These meanings are transitory and are only possible in a given context. They're called contextual. E.g. at the door of each job(job – ‘office, institution’); the dawn of her new life seemed to break cold and gray (the word dawn takes on a new metaphorical meaning ‘beginning’). Contextual meanings are more often found in the style of artistic speech.

II. Nominative meaning. There is a significant difference between words like pen, distance, i.e. common nouns, on the one hand, and words like Harry, Thomas, London, i.e. proper names, on the other. A common noun contains, in addition to the particular, the individual, a general concept of an object or phenomenon. A proper name contains only the concept of singularity. Hence the difference in functions. Common nouns are used to designate; proper names are only named.

Words that name one object, person or

a geographical concept, defining it from a number of similar objects, persons, etc.

As a rule, nominal meanings are assigned to words as a result of a complex process of development of language and society.

Often the subject-logical meaning turns into a nominative one: Smith - from smith (“blacksmith”); Chester – from castra ( lat. "camp"); examples from the Russian language: Kuznetsov, Vera, Nadezhda, Lyubov, Pyatigorsk, Chelyabinsk (“chelyaba” in Bashkir means “hole”).

There is also a reverse process. Words that have a nominal meaning can also acquire a subject-logical meaning: dunce (“stupid”) - from Duns Scotus; hooligan - from Hooligane (the surname of a London family); boycott - on behalf of the proper Boycott;

quixotic (“quixotic”) - from Don Quixote; sandwich – from Sandwich (last name of a gambler); makintoch - from Makintosh (the name of the inventor).

III. Connotative meaning. It is related to the conditions and participants of communication. This includes emotional, evaluative, expressive and stylistic components of meaning. Connotation is optional. All its components can appear together or in different combinations or be absent altogether.

Emotional connotation realizes in a word the expression of emotions, sensations, subjective assessment. It can exist independently in a word, or it can exist along with the subject-logical meaning.

When comparing words with the same or similar subject-logical meaning, their emotional connotation is especially clearly manifested. For example, take a series of words: to pass away – to die – to join the silent majority – to kick the bucket. Here, all lexical units have the same subject-logical meaning (“to die”), however, the first phrase expresses official solemnity, the second is emotionally neutral, the third conveys familiarity, the fourth is close to abuse.

Words denoting feelings almost always, along with a subject-logical meaning, also carry an emotional meaning (love, anger, hatred, etc.).

Some lexical units do not express a concept, but only have an emotional meaning. These are interjections: alas, oh, ah, gosh (“god!”, “damn it!”), gee (“that’s how it is!”, “that’s great!”, “wow!”, “wow!”), pooh (indifference, mockery).

Certain formal and structural elements also convey only emotional meaning. These include: - y, - ie (girlie, birdie, sonny), - let (ringlet, streamlet) with the meaning of diminutive..

Some subjective-evaluative adjectives of broad semantics can approach interjections in their meanings: dreadful, terrible, wonderful, awful, nice, great, horrible, etc. For example, in the sentence “He classified him as a man of monstrous selfishness” the subject-logical meaning of the adjective monstrous is obscured by the emotional meaning of this word.

In addition to adjectives of broad semantics, words that tend to lose their subject-logical meaning and acquire a strong emotional meaning also include swear words, curses, oaths : damn (“damn”), bloody (“damned”), hell, upon my word (“word of honor”), etc.

Context, as a rule, reveals both denotative and basic types of connotative meaning, with the exception of stylistic connotations. The role of context in the field of stylistic connotation is small, since the word has an absolute stylistic connotation, which is assigned to the word due to the frequent use of the word in a certain functional area, and already in the dictionary you can find the marks vulg., arch., sci., etc. A word has a stylistic connotation if it is associated with a specific functional style. The main function of the stylistic component of meaning– inform the reader about the scope of the word. Thus, the stylistic part of the lexical meaning of a word is additional information about the speech situation and the purpose of communication.

The absolute stylistic coloring of a word forms a series of stylistic synonyms in a language, namely, words (or phrases) that are close in meaning, but used in different styles of speech. For example:

Neutral enemy nonsense -

Book adversary bombast -

Official opponent - -

Poetic foe - -

Specialist. term - - legality

Spoken - rot, bosh, stuff fair play

Familiar - fiddlesticks square deal

Vulgar - wish-wash -

Series of stylistic oppositions can form not only individual words, but also individual syntactic constructions, for example.