home
Practical psychology
Lexical synonymy in Russian. The expressive features of synonyms allow us each time to choose the word that is most appropriate in a particular speech situation, stylistically justified in a particular context.

Lexical synonymy in Russian. The expressive features of synonyms allow us each time to choose the word that is most appropriate in a particular speech situation, stylistically justified in a particular context.

20.09.2019

The modern Russian literary language has huge resources of such means that allow you to choose the most accurate and appropriate form of expression for the corresponding communicative situation. This possibility is due to the fact that in the language the same object, feature, action can be called by different words, i.e. phenomenon of lexical synonymy(gr. synonymia - "identity"). Lexical units such as advocate– defender, influence – influence aloud – loudly form a synonymic paradigm, the integral feature of which is the identity or proximity of the meanings of synonyms, i.e. internal, semantic community. Differential features of synonyms are differences in the sound and spelling of words, in their meanings and functional and stylistic use: words study and study differ semantically: the lexical meaning of the second verb includes the seme "carefully study". Synonyms contribution – mite(bookish) differ in functional and stylistic terms - the second word refers to the book style; synonyms see - behold(iron.) differentiate stylistically, i.e. connotative seme in the lexical meaning of the second synonym.

Two or more lexical synonyms form a certain group, paradigm, or synonymous series in the language: fragrance- smell, fragrance(book); spirit(simple); incense(book); ambre(mouth); incense(mouth. poet.).

As part of the synonymic series, one word is singled out, which is semantically capacious, i.e. most fully conveying the general meaning of the series, and stylistically neutral. It becomes a pivotal, pivotal among other synonyms and is called dominant row. The value of each synonym is matched against the value of the dominant. Integral semes, i.e. hypersemes of the synonymic paradigm are isolated from the lexical meaning of the dominant: fragrance"one. Fragrant, pleasant smell "(SO). Differential semes in the synonymic paradigm are represented by 3 types: 1) meaningful semes that cause differences in the meanings of synonyms: incense- "aromatic substances", incense- “a fragrant substance for smoking”; 2) semes characterizing the stylistic affiliation of synonyms - fragrance, incense(bookish) - incense(mouth, poet.) - spirit(simple); 3) stylistic connotative semes, i.e. semes of an emotionally expressive nature (litters swearing, irony, caress, disapproval, contempt, joke. etc.): smoker - smoker(joking) to speak - to speak(colloquial, ironic).

According to their lexical and grammatical reference, synonymic paradigms can include words of one part of speech: nouns: hospitality– hospitality - cordiality - hospitality; adjectives: literal - literal, textual (bookish) - subscript; Verbs: endure- withstand, resist; to survive, to survive (simple); adverbs: briefly- short, concise, concise, briefly lapidary (bookish); numerals: two- couple (colloquial). In a synonymic series, individual words can be combined with various combinations, for example, prepositional case combinations ( a lot of - up to the throat, over the edge, without counting), phraseological units ( few - the cat cried, healthy - blood with milk).

Synonymy is closely related to polysemy. In a polysemantic word, synonymous connections turn out to be complex and branched, because the word in its different meanings is included in different synonymous series: adjective strong: strong freezing - strong; strong organism - healthy, strong the cloth - durable etc.

The dictionary of synonyms reflects the ambiguity of the word, therefore, for different meanings (LSV), different synonymic series are given: win.1) gain, profit, profit. 2) win - win, overcome, defeat; overpower, beat(colloquial); win. 3) beat- win; furnish (simple).

Depending on the differences between the members of the paradigm, the corresponding types of synonyms are distinguished: semantic(semantic, ideographic) synonyms differ in meaningful semes of lexical meanings: highway(paved road) - highway(“the main line in the communications network”); big – huge- there is a gradation, in particular an increase, of a sign in size; stylistic is called a synonym with emotionally expressive connotations: walk – flank(neglect. - ironic); style synonyms differ in belonging to certain styles of speech: expel - expel, expel, remove; expel, expel, expel(colloquial); put out, put out, turn, shove(simple); vomit, vomit(oral book); point to the door, bring down the stairs, drive out of the yard.

In the presence of different types of differential semes, synonyms have a syncretic (mixed) character: semantic-stylistic, semantic-stylistic, etc. For example, go – trail - the second synonym differs in meaning (“go slowly, reluctantly”) and refers to the colloquial style - a semantic-stylistic synonym; light – trifling(neglect, simple) - the synonym differs from the dominant semantically (the degree of manifestation of the feature), stylistic affiliation (simple) and connotative characteristic (neglect) - a semantic-style-stylistic synonym.

The structural type of synonyms is determined by their word-formation composition. From this point of view, the following stand out: a) single-root synonyms belonging to the same word-formation series: enter – call in, to choose – select, pick up, perceptible– conspicuous; b) heterogeneous, having different roots: thickets – wilderness, thicket; update – refresh, victorious – triumphal.

Absolute synonyms - these are words that are identical in their main meanings, which is manifested in the coincidence of interpretations of these meanings in dictionaries and in the use of such words as mutual determinants of each other: throw – throw. Such synonyms are called nominative, because coincide in their main or only meanings. They can be presented not only in purely semantic oppositions, but also in formal semantic ones. In this case, the semantic identity of words is accompanied by their partial morphemic similarity. Most often, these are single-root synonyms of the type accumulate– accumulate, show up– to appear, brag – boast. The limit of formal-semantic oppositions are phonetic and morphological variants of words, i.e. purely formal word modifications expressing the same lexical meaning: galoshes– galoshes, spare – spare.

The existence of absolute synonyms, as well as variants of words, contradicts the principles of constructing sign systems, but such nominative equivalents exist in all languages. Their presence is determined by external and internal factors. External factors include the borrowing of words, as a result of which in the Russian language there are such absolute synonyms as spelling – spelling, linguistics – linguistics,airplane –airplane. The long and equal existence of absolute synonyms is not typical for the language. As a rule, such synonymy is gradually overcome in one way or another. One of them is the restriction of the use of one of the synonyms. Such is the fate of many Russian and Old Slavonic words that existed in the form of synonymous pairs: Coast – shore, city– hail, enemy – enemy, volody – own. In modern Russian, only one of the synonyms is widely used - coast, city, enemy, own.

Synonyms in terms of functioning can be general language and occasional. In the first case, the synonymic relations between words are stable, therefore they are reflected in the dictionaries of synonyms. Such synonyms are units of the lexical system of the language. Occasional synonyms go beyond the scope of the lexico-semantic system, because they appear as a result of the individual use of speakers or writers. In the linguistic literature, they are called differently: contextual, individual, situational, author's, etc. Such synonyms are characterized by context dependence, irreproducibility, limited use, absence in dictionaries: “With dislocated one has to deal with speech not only in institutions and on signs ... a lot distorted, spoiled words penetrate newspapers and even works of art” (K. Paustovsky).

The role of lexical synonyms is very significant. They help to clarify, supplement our ideas about the phenomena of reality, to characterize them brighter and more diversely. The richer the synonymic series, the richer the language, the more opportunities it provides for its creative use. On the contrary, the inability to use synonyms impoverishes the language, makes speech inexpressive, inaccurate, and dim. The functional and stylistic purpose of synonyms is determined in the process of text analysis: their function is clarified, the meaning of synonyms in the dictionary and text is established to identify the textual increment of meaning, the evaluative component (positive / negative), etc. is determined.

Among the main functions of lexical synonyms are the following: meaningful(ideographic), or a clarifying function that allows you to differentiate the meanings of words - adjectives cruel and inhuman differ in the degree of manifestation of the symptom. In such cases, semantic paradigms of synonyms are formed; style distinctive function, which consists in the fact that synonyms indicate the style, the scope of their use. They form stylistic paradigms of synonyms: children – guys(colloquial); kids(colloquial, affectionate-fam.), kids(simple, affectionate-fam.); leave – depart(official), subside(officer-business, military), drive away(colloquial); proper stylistic a function characterized by the fact that the denotative meaning of the word is complemented by the connotative one. Such synonyms form a stylistic paradigm: walk - wander(neglect - ironic). The last two functions are difficult to clearly distinguish, because the stylistic affiliation of a word is often semantically enhanced by a connotative seme: warrior – warrior(colloquial and ironic); warrior, warrior(mouth high) knight(set by the poet).

Lexicology. The word in semasiological and sociolinguistic aspects
- DIDACTIC PLAN
- LITERATURE
- Vocabulary as a subsystem of the language, its specific features. Lexis and lexicology. Lexicology and other branches of linguistics
- Three dimensions of vocabulary: epidigmatics, paradigmatics and syntagmatics
- The word as the basic nominative unit of language. Differential features of the word
- Semasiological and sociolinguistic aspects of the study of vocabulary
- Semasiology. The form and meaning of the word. Word and concept

2.3.1. Synonymy. Hyponymy

Synonymy as a lexical (semantic) category. The traditional concept of synonymy and synonymy. Broad and narrow understanding of synonymy. Question about the criteria of synonymy. Synonyms and their dominant. Synonym types. Absolute (full) synonyms. Ideographic (semantic) synonyms. expressive synonyms. Stylistic synonyms. The concept of quasi-synonyms. Synonym dictionaries. Hyponymy. The difference between synonyms and hyponyms.

with the help of the feet"), cf. The horses ran together. A trotter flew down the street. A young cornet rushes like a whirlwind. Rush like an arrow. Such words are usually called synonyms (Greek sinonymia - same name):identical or (extremely) close in meaning (but different in sound) words of the same part of speech, denoting the same concept.Thus, if we proceed from systemic connections, then synonyms are special, closer semantic subgroups within LSG.

Equally important in the definition of synonyms is an indication not only of identity, but also of difference, i.e. to the fact that “these are words that differ from each other either in shades of meaning (close), or in stylistic coloring (identical), or in both of these features” (A.P. Evgenyeva).

No, I'm an artist, not an actor, please distinguish. For an actor - wreaths and vulgar applause, but for me - only a shock to the soul (A. Tolstoy. Tragedian). It is emphasized here that the ACTOR is just a profession (the one who plays), and the ARTIST is also a master (the one who plays and invests in this skill), - it is not by chance that on the basis of this mismatched potential seme, the word ARTIST developed a figurative meaning "master of his craft" ( he is an artist in his field ) and the derivative word ARTISTICALLY (= MASTERLY). Such a potential possibility of opposing interchangeable words in the language is very sensitively captured by the masters of the word, contextually opposing linguistic synonyms.

Compare: Uli has a bad eye, aochi (A. Fadeev). Your wife has eyes. And the negative lips are the mouth ... (R. Kazakova). He now did not live, but only existed from day to day (I. Bunin). You eat religiously, Alinochka. You don’t even eat, like us mortals, you take communion (M. Gorky).

Based on the concept of a lexical category, then synonymy is semantic relations of identical or extremely close in meaning units (sememes), formally expressed by different lexemes. Synonymic relations, therefore, are based on the identity (full or partial) of the main semantic components of the word.

If we proceed from the types of oppositions inherent in paradigmatics, then the following types of oppositions are observed in synonymy: semantic - zero (or equipole) opposition, formal - disjunctive (or equipole): EYES, EYES, EYES, EYES (EYES), EYES, EYES, EYES, BURKALY.

At zero semantic opposition synonyms are identical in denotative meaning, although they may differ stylistically (I look into the eyes like a living mirror.

Where are you, where are you, brown eyes? Charming eyes, you fascinated me ), which is usually emphasized in reference and identifying dictionary interpretations, sometimes with stylistic or expressive marks like: OCHI - lofty, poetic Same as

eyes . EYES - colloquial, caress. kglaza. LOOKERS - simple. The same as the eyes (Peepers turn away!). EYE-APS - simple, disapproving. or joke. The same as the eyes. (My eyeballs).

AT equivalent semantic opposition there are synonyms that differ in the peripheral seme: EYES - big eyes ( Well, eyes! Like saucers.) BURKALS - disapproving, simpleInexpressive or bulging eyes (Not eyes, but

some burkali).

The formal opposition of synonyms is usually disjunctive (words of different sounding: EYES - EYES), but it is also possible and equipotent (partially the same in sound) for single-root synonyms: EYES - EYES.

AT In connection with this, different types of synonyms are distinguished (in meaning or in form).

By meaning, the following types of synonyms are distinguished: complete (absolute) and incomplete. Absolute (full) synonyms, or doublets (no different, completely interchangeable) are rare, mainly in the field of terminology (WORD, LEXEME; LINGUISTICS, LINGUISTICS). Usually, synonyms always differ in something: stylistic or expressive coloring (connotations), shades of lexical (denotative) meaning (peripheral seme), compatibility, etc. In this case, we can already talk about incomplete synonymy (although it is not understood by everyone in the same way). Incomplete synonyms, in turn, are divided into subtypes depending on how they differ:

BUT) Stylistic synonyms differ only in stylistic coloration.

For example: EYES, EYES, high (And the mosquito dug right into the aunt’s right eye. But she regrets the eyes of her old grandmother. ); ARCHITECT, ARCHITECT ( high.); SLEEP,

REST (high.), DREAM (lowered.).

B) Expressive synonyms differ in expressive-evaluative coloring, For example: EYES, PEEPERS, BURKALS. The first word performs only a nominative function: it names the organ of vision and does not contain connotations. The second also serves as an expression of a dismissive and contemptuous attitude towards the subject of speech. The third also contains a certain negative assessment: only inexpressive eyes can be called that ( Where are the blue eyes? fadedburkaly! A. Vozneseninsky).

(simple ., rude .), KIT (contempt., simple.), PUMPKIN (rude., simple .). In our example, these are all synonyms of the given series.

C) semantic (conceptual, ideographic, semantic, tint) synonyms differ in shades of meaning: YOUTH (Today youth can be extended to forty years and older - young, fresh state of the body) - YOUTH (So my youth is over - the period of life between childhood and adulthood). Wed also: BUBBLE, BUBBLE, RAGE; ugly, ugly and many more. others

The differences between synonyms are thus due to the different functions that they perform in speech: the substitution function (Lexemes SLEEP and REST are identical in meaning, such the words called synonyms), clarifications, or gradations (The sun shone, shone grass in rain diamonds and gold dew sparkled. M. Gorky), or

expressive stylistic coloring ( I thought you were all powerful god , and you are a dropout, tiny god . V. Mayakovsky; Through the lung the face will show through.

M. Tsvetaeva; And having taken off the former wreath, they put on him a crown of thorns, twined with laurels. M. Lermontov).

FROM point of view of PF (forms) synonyms are heterogeneous (HOUSE, BUILDING)

and single-rooted (HOUSE, HOUSE, HOUSE).

In speech, especially artistic speech, words that are not synonymous in the language system can enter into synonymous relations. Such synonyms are called

individually authorial (occasional), or contextual (as opposed to common language, or usual). For example: All that was sweet to the heart faded, dissuaded, bloomed, departed (A. Kuleshov).

Occasional synonyms are sometimes called quasi-synonyms(Yu.D. Apresyan's term), they also include inaccurate, approximate synonyms and even sometimes hyponyms, for example: DAY - DAY (Apresyan, Kobozeva), some refer to them in general all incomplete synonyms (Kabuzan). So the criteria for synonymy do not have an unambiguous solution.

Synonymous relations usually unite a whole series (or group) of words, which is called a synonymic series. Synonymic series is a historically established synchronic grouping of words connected by synonymous relations. The number of synonyms in such a series is not limited, i.e. synonymous series

This is an open system, it can be replenished with new synonyms (or part with some old ones). The synonymic row usually consists of synonyms of different types and therefore is mixed (although there may be synonymous rows of a stylistic or ideographic type).

At the head of each synonymous series is the dominant word, which most fully contains in its semantic structure the common thing that unites all the words of the series (i.e., the most semantically capacious), and is stylistically neutral. For example, in the previously given synonymous series with the general meaning “upper part of the human body”, the word HEAD is the dominant. The remaining words are arranged as the stylistic and expressive coloring changes (decreases).

Synonymic relationships of words are described in synonym dictionaries.

AT Russian lexicography synonymous dictionaries - one of the first, most ancient types of dictionaries. In fact, the first ABC dictionaries were already, to some extent, dictionaries of synonyms, tk. the explanation of words was carried out in them by the selection of synonyms (or, as they were then called, estates). One of the first special dictionaries of synonyms was "The Experience of the Russian Soslovnik" by D.I. Fonvizin (1873). A number of dictionaries of synonyms came out during the 19th - early 20th centuries, but the synonyms in them were selected quite arbitrarily. An example is, in particular, the interesting "Dictionary of Russian synonyms and expressions similar in meaning" N. Abramov (1900), which was then repeatedly republished. The popular “Dictionary of Synonyms of the Russian Language” by Z.E. Alexandrova (first published in 1968). Both dictionaries contain only synonymous rows without their interpretations and illustrations.

AT In the twentieth century, the most significant are two dictionaries of synonyms edited by A.P. Evgenieva (one academic, the other - reference type):"Dictionary of synonyms of the Russian language" in 2 vols. (1970-1971) and "Synonym dictionary"

(reference manual) 1975, which presents the most rigorous (narrow) understanding of synonymy. The educational dictionaries of synonyms also deserve attention, in particular the first among them - "Concise Dictionary of Synonyms of the Russian Language" V.N. Klyueva (1956), as well as "Educational Dictionary of Synonyms of the Russian Language" L.P. Alektorova and V.I. Zimina (1994) and "Russian Synonymic Dictionary" K.S. Gorbachevich (1996).

AT At the end of the 20th - beginning of the 21st century, a completely different, according to the principles of compilation, was created"New Explanatory Dictionary of Synonyms of the Russian Language" ed.

Yu.D. Apresyan (in 3 editions: 1997, 2000, 2203), where the synonymic series is described in detail and comprehensively: in terms of the richness and depth of information about synonyms, it

incomparable with any of the previous dictionaries. It presents the most narrow view of synonyms. Here is a fragment of the dictionary entry of this dictionary:

DOM-1, BUILDING, BUILDING-2, BUILDING-2, BUILDING-4 "a ground-based structure with indoor premises that occupy most of its volume."

The house itself is new, but the outbuildings have been preserved from the last century; This building was built according to my project; Dilapidated buildings must be demolished; This laboratory is located in another building.

"З" Synonyms differ from each other in the following semantic features: 1) type of structure, its size, material (the building is usually small, sometimes wooden, the building is usually large, stone); 2) primary functional purpose (the house is most often residential, the building is economic); 3) correlation with other similar objects (the building is always one of a number, the building can be isolated); 4) connection with the present time (the building is usually a modern object), etc. (further, the semantics of each of the synonyms, their compatibility are described in great detail, numerous illustrations are given).

Hyponyms should be distinguished from synonyms - words that are in opposition not zero, like synonyms, but privative, i.e. in terms of inclusion, genus and species: WOLF (species) - BEAST (genus), OAK (species) - TREE (genus), MEASLES - DISEASE, CHAIR

FURNITURE, etc. As a lexical (semantic) category, hyponymy is generic semantic relations formally expressed by different lexemes. These relationships are also called hyper-hyponymic, while the generic word is called a hypernym, and the specific word is called a hyponym (HOUSE is a hyponym, a specific word, in relation to the hypernym STRUCTURE, a generic word). Hyponymic relations, in fact, form the LSG of the words that have already been mentioned: METALS - GOLD, COPPER, SILVER, IRON; DOGS - DOG, SHEPHERD DOG, POODEL, LAIKA; CARRIAGES - KIBITKA, SHED, SLAGE, CONVERTIBLE, BUILDINGS - HOUSE, SHED, GARAGE, etc., which, in turn, are already an elementary semantic field, united by a common meaning (generic seme). Species words in relation to each other will be hyponyms (or cohyponyms): WOLF, BEAR, FOX, HARE, - but not synonyms, because. they are united only by the generic seme, while the synonyms have identical and specific (distinctive) semes. However, synonyms may be part of LSG: WOLF, BIRYUK. Thus, synonyms and hyponyms are concepts, although close, but different.

2.3.2. Antonymy. Conversion

Antonymy as a lexical (semantic) category. The concept of an antonymic pair. Antonym types. The concept of quasi-antonyms. Dictionaries of antonyms. The question of converses and conversion as a lexical category.

If synonymy is based on the identity of LZ words (i.e., their distinctive features, sem), then antonymy is based on their opposites. This phenomenon of opposing words by meaning was noticed a very long time ago, but was usually considered as a way of rhetorical definition, as an artistic device and was called antithesis (Greek antithesis - opposition). Ancient philosophers tried to penetrate into the essence of opposition. The people built, in contrast, many proverbs that reflected worldly wisdom: “You can’t make white out of black”; “A fool will judge, but a smart one will judge”; "Softly spreads, but hard to sleep"; "If you don't taste the bitter, you won't know the sweet." The terminantonym (from the Greek anti - “against” and onima - “name”) was first used by A.M. Peshkovsky in 1927

Traditionally, antonyms and are defined as "words with opposite meanings": TRUTH - FALSE, LOVE - HATE, STRONG - WEAK.

Such opposition, it would seem, should also be based on the opposition of differential features:

HIGH - having a large extension from the bottom up LOW - having a small extension from the bottom up.

However, researchers have long noted in antonyms an unusual, it would seem, sign for them: similarity, closeness of their meanings (as in synonyms). This proximity is based on the fact that only one of the differential features of antonyms is opposed, while the rest (not to mention the archiseme) coincide:

RUSH - move very fast CREEP - move very slowly.

These similar (identical) signs are, as it were, the basis of opposition, because not any provisions can be opposed, but only comparable ones. For example, the words HEAVY (weight) and SMALL (size) are not antonyms. opposing them according to the features indicated in brackets is illogical. According to the well-known linguist Trubetskoy, two things that do not have a basis for comparison, or, in other words, do not have a single common feature (for example, an inkwell and free will) cannot be opposed to each other. Therefore, it is more accurate to call lexical antonyms words expressing logically opposite, but compatible concepts.

The definition of antonymy as a lexico-semantic category is built as "semantic relations of opposite, but internally comparable units (sememes), formally expressed by different lexemes." Antonyms, therefore, imply a common (invariant) meaning for them: this meaning can be implied (morning - evening), or it can be fixed in the language by the word ( day - night: day). In the latter case, antonyms also enter into hyponymic relations with the generic word-hyperonym.

Thus, antonyms are in the semantic opposition of intersection, i.e. equipotent, and formally - in disjunctive. Therefore, according to the plan, expressions are usually different words of the same part of speech ( heterogeneous antonyms): FAST SLOW; LIGHT HEAVY; LIGHT - DARKNESS; FOR - AGAINST, etc. However, one-root words can also be opposed ( single-root antonyms): ENTER - EXIT, RUNN IN - RUN OUT, ENTRANCE - EXIT, THERE - FROM THERE, UNDERGROUND - ABOVEGROUND, the antonymy of which is carried out mainly due to the opposite meaning of prefixes. In this regard, the question arises whether words with the negation of NOT are antonymous with respect to the generating word. It is solved in different ways: some researchers believe that the prefix NOT does not oppose the sign, but only denies it. However, this is not always the case. For example, in the pair WHITE - NON-WHITE, the second word is really not opposite in meaning to the first, i.e. is not an antonym (as, for example, WHITE - BLACK), because NON-WHITE

- any color, not necessarily black. But in other cases, negation can also have the opposite meaning, for example: BIG - SMALL (i.e. "small"), cf. BIG SMALL; or OLD - NOT OLD (i.e. "young"); YOUNG

- OLDER (= "old").

AT in terms of content (in terms of semantics and the nature of opposition), antonymy is also different. Usually there are (L.A. Novikov) the following types of antonyms:

1) Contrary (gradual) antonyms. They express the extreme symmetrical members of some ordered set (denoting various steps, facets of the manifestation of something, i.e. representing a kind of gradation series): COLD

- HOT (the extreme points of the gradation series, in which there are also intermediate concepts about the degree of heat: “cool”, “warm”, etc.); cf. also: BEGINNING - END (there is an intermediate concept of "middle"); EASY - HEAVY (there is an intermediate concept of "moderate severity"), etc.

2) Complementary(additional) antonyms. They seem to complement each other to a single whole (generic) concept: ALIVE - DEAD, YES - NO, SEPARATED

- TOGETHER, FREE - BUSY. There is no gradation here, so it is impossible to assume an intermediate concept.

3) Vector antonyms. They represent the opposite of directions: THERE - THERE, UP - DOWN, SUNRISE - SET, Rise

DOWN.

An analysis of the semantics of antonyms sometimes shows their more frequent groupings. So, some antonyms can express the presence - absence of a sign ( movement - rest, sleep - stay awake). When interpreting the meanings, they reveal a difference in the semantic component “not” (wet - “containing moisture”, dry - “not containing moisture”). Other antonyms express a large - small value of a sign

(high - low, heavy - light, fast - slow ). In the meaning of antonyms of this type there is an intuitively felt semantic component "norm" (antonyms just reflect the attitude towards the norm: more - less than the norm). Some antonyms (verbs) express the beginning - the termination of action ( turn on - turn off), etc.

Since antonyms express mutually exclusive concepts, then, unlike synonyms, they thus form not a series, but a pair ( antonymous pair). This is how they are presented in dictionaries of antonyms.

In this case, of course, the tradition of use plays an important role. For example, the word DARKNESS is traditionally considered the antonym of the word LIGHT (this opposition is also enshrined in the proverb: “Learning is light, and ignorance is darkness”), and not its synonyms DARKNESS, DARKNESS, DARKNESS. Therefore, with a less strict approach to antonyms, some dictionaries still present them as a series (or as a nest).

Just like synonyms, antonyms can be incomplete, inaccurate, contextual - i.e. quasi-antonyms. Quazantonyms differ not in one, but in several features. For example: deep - shallow (large - shallow depth) antonyms, abyssal - shallow - quasi-antonyms, because word-bottomless also denotes a very high degree of a feature, but this component is absent in word-small.

(1) - OLD (magazine), FRESH (2) - DIRTY (collar), FRESH (3) - WARM (wind), FRESH (4) - DIRTY (bread).

In a relationship, oppositions can turn out, therefore, even the LSV of one lexeme, this phenomenon is called enantiosemy: for example - LISTEN ("listen to the end") - LISTEN ("skip without hearing"); PRICELESS ("very valuable") - PRICELESS ("not at all valuable").

There are especially many antonyms among adjectives denoting quality ( good - bad), sensations ( wet - dry), size ( big small), volume (thick - thin), weight (light - heavy), shape (sharp - blunt), length (high - low), shade ( white - black, light - dark), time (early - late ), estimate

(cheerful - sad), age (young - old), etc. Less often, but also there are antonyms among nouns ( light - darkness, day - night), verbs (rejoice -

grieve), pronouns and function words ( everything - nothing, in - from, to - from). Words with a specific objective meaning do not have antonyms.

Velika stylistic role of antonyms. On their basis, for example, such a stylistic figure is built as an antithesis: “They are blind - they are blind" (A. Tolstoy), "I loved the rich - the poor, I loved the stupid, I loved the ruddy - pale, I loved the good - harmful: Golden - half-medium" (M. Tsvetaeva) .

An oxymoron is also built on antonymy (a combination of words that are opposite in meaning: smart fool, sweet pain, etc.: “But the beauty of their ugliness, I soon comprehended the sacrament” (Lermontov). Often, the title of the work is based on antithesis and oxymoron: “The Living Corpse” (play L.N. Tolstoy), “Far Close” (novel by A. Herzen), “The Living and the Dead” (novel by K. Simonov), “Thick and Thin” (story by A.P. Chekhov).

Antonyms are closely related to synonyms. Suffice it to say that both are part of the LSG, as already mentioned (see the example with movement verbs). Antonymic and synonymous connections intersect: if synonyms are brought to the members of an antonymic pair, then the latter will also be in antonymic relations with each other, for example: HIGH, TALL - SLOW, LOW, SHORT. Thus, antonymous synonymous rows are obtained.

Antonyms are described in special antonym dictionaries. The first dictionaries of antonyms appeared late, only in the 70s of the twentieth century (before that, antonyms were sometimes given in dictionaries of synonyms). it

L.A. Vvedenskaya (1971) and "Dictionary of antonyms of the Russian language" N.P. Kolesnikova

(1972). Later released "Dictionary of antonyms of the Russian language" M.R. Lvov, edited and with a theoretical introduction by L.A. Novikov (1978), reprinted several times. This is the most complete dictionary of antonyms, but there is no interpretation of the meanings of words, which is given, however, in "School Dictionary of Antonyms" by the same author (1981).

Close to antonyms (and even sometimes qualify as a type of antonyms) are conversives. However, this group of words only adjoins antonyms, because is a rather peculiar phenomenon - an expression of reverse relations, as if looking at the same thing from different (opposite) sides: VICTORY - DEFEAT (the Germans defeated the French - the French were defeated by the Germans), BUY

SELL (a neighbor sold the house to me - I bought a house from a neighbor), HAVE - BELONG (he owns a house - the house belongs to him). On the one hand, they are close to antonyms, on the other hand, they represent an independent category (Yu.D. Apresyan distinguishes them as an independent category - conversion, i.e. as semantically inverse relationships expressed by different lexemes). In this case, this includes both word forms and syntactic constructions YOUNGER - OLDER (younger brother sister

Sister is older than brother), BUILD - BUILD (workers are building a house - a house

built by workers).

2.3.3. homonymy

Homonymy as a formal LC. Homonym types. The question of homonymy and related phenomena. The problem of distinguishing between homonymy and polysemy. Dictionaries of homonyms.

If the analysis of the semantic structure of a word clearly shows the degree of independence of the meaning of the word and its limits, that is, it characterizes systemic relations at the level of one word, then synonymy is one of the clearest and most convincing evidence of systemic relations in the vocabulary in the sphere of a group of words with similar meanings.
To lexical synonyms words that are close or identical in meaning, naming the same concept in different ways, but differing from each other either in shades of meaning, or in stylistic coloring, or both at the same time: speed - swiftness; faithful - unchanging, devoted; run out - run out, run out.
Since the lexical synonymy- a semantic phenomenon, insofar as its most significant feature will be the proximity or identity of meaning. It is this feature that allows modern researchers to talk about the so-called neutralization of the meanings of words synonyms, that is, about the erasure of semantic differences between them in a certain contextual position and, therefore, about the possibility of their almost complete interchangeability: Silence reigned all around and Silence reigned all around where is the difference in the meaning of the words silence (lack of sound) and silence (lack of spoken sounds) are erased, semantic neutralization occurs, and synonyms are positionally interchangeable.
However, conceptual correlation, that is, the similarity or closeness of associative links denoted by the words of phenomena, objects, qualities, signs, actions, is also the basis for the convergence of meanings. If such correlation is violated, one cannot speak of lexical synonymy. For example, to name what delimits different areas of activity, human relations, ideas, emotions, and so on in modern language, they use synonyms border, edge, betrayed, frontier, line, line. But even with a relatively slight change in semantic associations, not all of the above words will be equally synonymous. So, if the word the border designate "the last, extreme degree of something permissible", then synonymous to him will be, along with the words limit, edge, also a new word measure.
Not all words enter into synonymous relations. Proper names, names of inhabitants, many specific names of household items are not synonymous in the literary language. As a rule, they should not have synonyms terms, although the practice of creating and operating modern terms provides examples synonymy and in this area. Moreover, the so-called absolute synonymy(complete coincidence of meanings) is observed mainly in modern terminologies (linguistics, linguistics).
Lexical synonymy is closely related to the phenomenon of polysemy, since semantic identification or rapprochement does not always go accordingly throughout the entire semantic volume of the word. For example, the word flaw has several meanings connected by a single semantic basis, however, each of the meanings has its own synonyms. Consequently, synonymous words that are interchangeable in one of the meanings lose this property when they are correlated with another meaning. Closely related to this is the problem of word compatibility. synonyms with other lexical units, that is, the establishment of the so-called constantly used contexts.

2.3.1. Synonymy. Hyponymy. 2.3.2. Antonymy. Conversion. 2.3.3. Paronymy. 2.3.4. Homonymy.

Synonymy. Hyponymy

Speaking about interword systemic connections, we distinguished between such concepts as paradigmatics and syntagmatics. Paradigmatic connections, as we have already established, are expressed in the relations of words within various semantic (lexico-semantic) groups, for example, RUN, FLY, SWIM, CREEP, RACE, RIDE, united by the seme (archiseme) “move”. However, some of the words (or LSV) in this LSG are more closely related: RUN, FLY-2, RACE, RIDE - they also have the same differential semes: “quickly”, “with great speed” (“on the ground”, “with the help of legs"), cf. Horses fled amicably. On the street flew trotter. Rushing whirlwind cornet young. rush arrow. Such words are usually called synonyms(Greek sinonymia - same name): identical or (extremely) close in meaning (but different in sound) words of the same part of speech, denoting the same concept. Thus, if we proceed from systemic connections, then synonyms are special, closer semantic subgroups within LSG.

At the same time, the mismatching elements of semantics are so insignificant that these words become interchangeable. For example, ARTIST (performer of works of art on stage) - ACTOR (performer of roles in the theater): Moscow came to us artists- mostly actors theater and cinema. However, such interchangeability is not necessary, moreover, in speech such neutralization is often eliminated, and the non-matching seme even becomes the basis for opposition. Wed: No, I'm an artist, not an actor, please distinguish. For an actor - wreaths and vulgar applause, but for me - only a shock to the soul (A. Tolstoy. Tragedian). It is emphasized here that the ACTOR is just a profession (the one who plays), and the ARTIST is also a master (the one who plays and invests in this skill), - it is not by chance that on the basis of this mismatched potential seme, the word ARTIST developed a figurative meaning "master of his craft" ( he is an artist in his field) and the derivative word ARTISTICALLY (= MASTERLY). Such a potential possibility of opposing interchangeable words in the language is very sensitively captured by the masters of the word, contextually opposing linguistic synonyms. Wed: Uli does not eyes, a eyes(A. Fadeev). Your wife has eyes. And not lips - mouth... (R. Kazakova). He is not now lived but only from day to day existed(I. Bunin). You eat religiously, Alinochka. Not even eat like us mortals, take communion(M. Gorky).

Based on the concept of a lexical category, then synonymy- this is semantic relations of identical or extremely close in meaning units (sememes), formally expressed by different lexemes. Synonymic relations, therefore, are based on the identity (full or partial) of the main semantic components of the word.

At zero semantic opposition synonyms are identical in denotative meaning, although they may differ stylistically ( I look in eyes like a living mirror. Where are you, where are you eyes hazel? Charming eyes you enchanted me), which is usually emphasized in reference and identifying dictionary interpretations, sometimes with stylistic or expressive marks like: OCHI - lofty, poetic Same aseyes. EYES - colloquial, caress toeyes. LOOKERS - simple. Same as eyes (peepers turn away!). EYE NAPES - simple, disapproving or joke. Same as eyes. (Glazenapy my).

AT equivalent semantic opposition there are synonyms that differ in the peripheral seme: EYES - large eyes (Well eyes! Like saucers.) BURKALY - disapproving, simple Inexpressive or bulgingeyes(Not eyes but burkaly some).

In this regard, different types of synonyms are distinguished (in meaning or in form).

Within the meaning of distinguish the following types of synonyms: full (absolute) and incomplete. Absolute (full) synonyms, or doublets(no different, completely interchangeable) are rare, mainly in the field of terminology (WORD, LEXEME; LINGUISTICS, LINGUISTICS). Usually, synonyms always differ in something: stylistic or expressive coloring (connotations), shades of lexical (denotative) meaning (peripheral seme), compatibility, etc. In this case, we can already talk about incomplete synonymy (although it is not understood by everyone in the same way). Incomplete synonyms, in turn, are divided into subtypes depending on how they differ:

BUT) Stylistic synonyms differ only in stylistic coloration. For example: EYES, EYES, high. (And the mosquito dug into just the aunt right in the right eye. But he regrets eyes his old grandmother.); ARCHITECT, ARCHITECT ( high.); SLEEP, REST ( high.), DRY ( lowered.).

B) Expressive synonyms differ in expressive-evaluative coloring, For example: EYES, PEEPERS, BURKALS. The first word performs only a nominative function: it names the organ of vision and does not contain connotations. The second also serves as an expression of a dismissive and contemptuous attitude towards the subject of speech. The third also contains a certain negative assessment: only inexpressive eyes can be called that ( Where are the blue eyes? faded burkaly! A. Vozneseninsky ).

Expressive coloring is usually combined with stylistic coloring (because the style of use also decreases or increases due to it), therefore these subgroups are usually considered together as expressive-stylistic synonyms. For example: HEAD, CHAPTER ( high.), HEAD ( Nar.-poet.), HEAD ( mind-caress., colloquial.), BASHKA ( simple., rude.), POT ( contempt., simple.), PUMPKIN ( rough, simple.). In our example, these are all synonyms of the given series.

AT) semantic (conceptual, ideographic , semantic, tint)synonyms differ in shades of meaning: YOUTH ( Nowadays youth can be extended to forty years and older - young, fresh state of the body) - YOUTH ( Here it is over youth my - period of life between childhood and adulthood). Wed also: BUBBLE, BUBBLE, RAGE; ugly, ugly and many more. others

The differences between synonyms are due, therefore, to different functions that they perform in speech: the function substitution (tokens SLEEP and REST are identical in meaning, such the words called synonyms), clarifications, or gradations (shone sun, glittered grass in rain diamonds and gold sparkled dew. M. Gorky), or expressive stylistic coloring (I thought you were all powerful god, and you are a dropout, tiny god. V. Mayakovsky; Through the lung face show through face. M. Tsvetaeva; And having removed the former wreath, they crown thorns, entwined with laurels, put on him. M. Lermontov).

From the point of view of PF (form), synonyms are heterogeneous(HOUSE, BUILDING) and single root(HOUSE, HOUSE, HOUSE).

In speech, especially artistic speech, words that are not synonymous in the language system can enter into synonymous relations. Such synonyms are called individually authorial (occasional), or contextual(as opposed to common language, or ordinary). For example: All that was sweet to the heart faded, dissuaded, otkukovalo, departed(A. Kuleshov).

Occasional synonyms are sometimes called quasi-synonyms(Yu.D. Apresyan's term), they also include inaccurate, approximate synonyms and even sometimes hyponyms, for example: DAY - DAY (Apresyan, Kobozeva), some refer to them in general all incomplete synonyms (Kabuzan). So the criteria for synonymy do not have an unambiguous solution.

Synonymous relations usually unite a whole series (or group) of words, which is called a synonymic series. . Synonymous series - it is a historically established synchronic grouping of words connected by synonymous relations. The number of synonyms in such a series is not limited, i.e. the synonymic series is an open system, it can be replenished with new synonyms (or part with some old ones). The synonymic row usually consists of synonyms of different types and therefore is mixed (although there may be synonymous rows of a stylistic or ideographic type).

At the head of each synonymic row is the word- dominant, which most fully contains in its semantic structure that common thing that unites all the words of a series (i.e., the most semantically capacious one), and is stylistically neutral. For example, in the previously given synonymous series with the general meaning “upper part of the human body”, the word HEAD is the dominant. The remaining words are arranged as the stylistic and expressive coloring changes (decreases).

Synonymic relationships of words are described in synonym dictionaries.

In Russian lexicography, synonymous dictionaries are one of the first, most ancient types of dictionaries. In fact, the first alphabet dictionaries were already, to some extent, dictionaries of synonyms, because the explanation of words was carried out in them by the selection of synonyms (or, as they were then called, estates). One of the first special dictionaries of synonyms was "The Experience of the Russian Soslovnik" by D.I. Fonvizin (1873). A number of dictionaries of synonyms came out during the 19th - early 20th centuries, but the synonyms in them were selected quite arbitrarily. An example is, in particular, the interesting "Dictionary of Russian synonyms and expressions similar in meaning" N. Abramov (1900), which was then repeatedly republished. The popular “Dictionary of Synonyms of the Russian Language” by Z.E. Alexandrova (first published in 1968). Both dictionaries contain only synonymous rows without their interpretations and illustrations.

In the twentieth century, the most significant are two dictionaries of synonyms edited by A.P. Evgenieva (one academic, the other - reference type): "Dictionary of synonyms of the Russian language" in 2 vols. (1970-1971) and "Synonym dictionary"(reference manual) 1975, which presents the most rigorous (narrow) understanding of synonymy. The educational dictionaries of synonyms also deserve attention, in particular the first among them - "Concise Dictionary of Synonyms of the Russian Language" V.N. Klyueva (1956), as well as "Educational Dictionary of Synonyms of the Russian Language" L.P. Alektorova and V.I. Zimina (1994) and "Russian Synonymic Dictionary" K.S. Gorbachevich (1996).

At the end of the 20th - beginning of the 21st century, a completely different, according to the principles of compilation, was created "New Explanatory Dictionary of Synonyms of the Russian Language" ed. Yu.D. Apresyan (in 3 editions: 1997, 2000, 2203), where the synonymic series is described in detail and comprehensively: in terms of the richness and depth of information about synonyms, it is incomparable with any of the previous dictionaries. It presents the most narrow view of synonyms. Here is a fragment of the dictionary entry of this dictionary:

DOM-1, BUILDING, BUILDING-2, BUILDING-2, BUILDING-4 "a ground-based structure with indoor premises that occupy most of its volume."

"Z" Synonyms differ from each other in the following semantic features: 1) type of structure, its size, material ( building usually small, sometimes wooden, building usually large, stone); 2) primary functional purpose ( house most often residential building- economic); 3) correlation with other similar objects ( frame- always one of a number, structure may be isolated). 4) connection with the present time ( frame- usually a modern object), etc. (further, the semantics of each of the synonyms, their compatibility are described in great detail, numerous illustrations are given).

should be distinguished from synonyms. hyponyms- words that are in opposition not zero, as synonyms, but privative, i.e. in terms of inclusion, genus and species: WOLF (species) - BEAST (genus), OAK (species) - WOOD (genus), MEASLES - DISEASE, CHAIR - FURNITURE, etc. As a lexical (semantic) category hyponymy are generic semantic relations formally expressed by different lexemes. These relationships are also called hyper-hyponymic, while the generic word is called hypernym, and the species hyponym(HOUSE - a hyponym, a specific word, in relation to the hypernym STRUCTURE, a generic word). Hyponymic relations, in fact, form the LSG of the words that have already been mentioned: METALS - GOLD, COPPER, SILVER, IRON; DOGS - DOG, SHEPHERD DOG, POODEL, LAIKA; CARRIAGES - KIBITKA, SHED, SLAGE, CONVERTIBLE, BUILDINGS - HOUSE, SHED, GARAGE, etc., which, in turn, are already an elementary semantic field, united by a common meaning (generic seme). Species words in relation to each other will be co-hyponyms(or cohyponyms): WOLF, BEAR, FOX, HARE, - but not synonyms, because they are united only by the generic seme, while the synonyms have identical and specific (distinctive) semes. However, synonyms may be part of LSG: WOLF, BIRYUK. Thus, synonyms and hyponyms are concepts, although close, but different.

Antonymy. Conversion

If synonymy is based on the identity of LZ words (i.e. their distinctive features, semes), then antonymy- on their opposites. This phenomenon of opposing words by meaning was noticed a very long time ago, but was usually considered as a way of rhetorical definition, as an artistic device it was called antithesis(Greek antithesis - opposition). Ancient philosophers tried to penetrate into the essence of opposition. The people built, in contrast, many proverbs that reflected worldly wisdom: “You can’t make white out of black”; “A fool will judge, but a smart one will judge”; "Softly spreads, but hard to sleep"; "If you don't taste the bitter, you won't know the sweet." Term antonym(from the Greek anti - "against" and onima - "name") was first used by A.M. Peshkovsky in 1927

Traditionally, antonyms and are defined as "words with opposite meanings": TRUTH - FALSE, LOVE - HATE, STRONG - WEAK. Such opposition, it would seem, should also be based on the opposition of differential features:

HIGH - having big length from bottom to top

LOW - having small length from bottom to top.

Rush - move very fast

Crawl - move very slowly.

These similar (identical) signs are, as it were, the basis of opposition, because not any provisions can be opposed, but only comparable ones. For example, the words HEAVY (weight) and SMALL (size) are not antonyms. opposing them according to the features indicated in brackets is illogical. According to the well-known linguist Trubetskoy, two things cannot be opposed to each other that have no basis for comparison, or, in other words, that do not have a single common feature (for example, inkwell and free will). Therefore, it is more accurate to call lexical antonyms words expressing logically opposite, but compatible concepts.

Definition antonymy as a lexico-semantic category is built as "semantic relations of opposite, but internally comparable units (sememes), formally expressed by different lexemes". Antonyms thus imply a common (invariant) meaning: this meaning can be implied ( morning evening), and can be fixed in the language by the word ( day - night: day). In the latter case, antonyms also enter into hyponymic relations with the generic word-hyperonym.

Thus, antonyms are in the semantic opposition of intersection, i.e. equipotent, and formally - in disjunctive. Therefore, according to the plan, expressions are usually different words of the same part of speech ( heterogeneous antonyms): FAST SLOW; LIGHT HEAVY; LIGHT - DARKNESS; FOR - AGAINST, etc. However, one-root words can also be opposed ( single-root antonyms): ENTER - EXIT, RUNN IN - RUN OUT, ENTRANCE - EXIT, THERE - FROM THERE, UNDERGROUND - ABOVEGROUND, the antonymy of which is carried out mainly due to the opposite meaning of prefixes. In this regard, the question arises whether words with the negation of NOT- are antonymous with respect to the generating word. It is solved in different ways: some researchers believe that the prefix NE- does not oppose the sign, but only denies it. However, this is not always the case. For example, in the pair WHITE - NON-WHITE, the second word is really not opposite in meaning to the first, i.e. is not an antonym (as, for example, WHITE - BLACK), because NON-WHITE is any color, not necessarily black. But in other cases, negation can also have the opposite meaning, for example: BIG - SMALL (i.e. "small"), cf. BIG SMALL; or OLD - NOT OLD (i.e. "young"); YOUNG - OLDER (= "old").

1) Counter(gradual) antonyms. They express the extreme symmetrical members of any ordered set (denoting various steps, facets of the manifestation of something, i.e. representing a certain gradation series): COLD - HOT (the extreme points of the gradation series, in which there are also intermediate concepts of the degree of heat : "cool", "warm", etc.); cf. also: BEGINNING - END (there is an intermediate concept of "middle"); EASY - HEAVY (there is an intermediate concept of "moderate severity"), etc.

2) Complementary(additional) antonyms. They seem to complement each other to a single whole (generic) concept: ALIVE - DEAD, YES - NO, SEPARATE - TOGETHER, FREE - BUSY. There is no gradation here, so it is impossible to assume an intermediate concept.

3) Vector antonyms. They represent the opposite of directions: THERE - THERE, UP - DOWN, SUNRISE - SET, Rise - DOWN.

An analysis of the semantics of antonyms sometimes shows their more frequent groupings. So, some antonyms can express the presence - absence of a sign ( movement - rest, sleep - stay awake). When interpreting the meanings in them, a difference is found in the semantic component “not” ( wet- containing moisture dry- "does not contain moisture"). Other antonyms express a large - small value of a sign ( high - low, heavy - light, fast - slow). In the meaning of antonyms of this type there is an intuitively felt semantic component "norm" (antonyms just reflect the attitude towards the norm: more - less than the norm). Some antonyms (verbs) express the beginning - the termination of action ( switch on switch off) etc.

Since antonyms express mutually exclusive concepts, then, unlike synonyms, they thus form not a series, but a pair ( antonymous pair). This is how they are presented in dictionaries of antonyms.

Just like synonyms, antonyms can be incomplete, inaccurate, contextual - i.e. quasi-antonyms. Quazantonyms differ not in one, but in several features. For example: deep - small(large - shallow depth) antonyms, and bottomless - small- quasi-antonyms, because word bottomless also denotes a very high degree of a feature, and in the word small this component does not exist.

Polysemantic words can enter several antonymic pairs (as well as synonymous series) with their different LSVs, for example: EASY (1) - HEAVY (load), EASY (2) - DIFFICULT (exam), EASY (3) - DENSE (dinner) ; FRESH (1) - OLD (magazine), FRESH (2) - DIRTY (collar), FRESH (3) - WARM (wind), FRESH (4) - Stale (bread).

In relations, oppositions can turn out, therefore, even the LSV of one lexeme, this phenomenon is called enantiosemy: for example - LISTEN ("listen to the end") - LISTEN ("skip without hearing"); PRICELESS ("very valuable") - PRICELESS ("not at all valuable").

And one more property of antonyms should be noted: the conceptual spheres reflected in them are quite diverse, but not unlimited. So, more often antonymy is common among words expressing abstract relations, spatial, qualitative, dimensional, etc. Those. the basis of antonymy is the presence in the meaning of the word of a qualitative feature that can increase or decrease and reach the opposite. Therefore, antonymic relations are most characteristic of adjectives and adverbs ( far - close, far - close, front - back, front - back). There are especially many antonyms among adjectives denoting quality ( good - bad), Feel ( wet - dry), the size ( big small), volume ( thick - thin), the weight ( light heavy), shape ( spicy - stupid), length ( high Low), shade ( white - black, light - dark), time ( early - late), estimate ( cheerful - sad), age ( young - old) and others. Less often, but also there are antonyms among nouns ( light - darkness, day - night), verbs ( rejoice - grieve), pronouns and function words ( everything - nothing, in - from, to - from). Words with a specific objective meaning do not have antonyms.

Velika stylistic role of antonyms. On their basis, for example, such a stylistic figure as antithesis: "We sighted- they blind"(A. Tolstoy)," I fell in love rich - poor, fell in love scientist - stupid, fell in love rosy - pale, fell in love good - harmful: Gold- half a piece copper"(M. Tsvetaeva). Built on antonymy oxymoron(a combination of words that are opposite in meaning: smart fool, sweet pain, etc.: “But beauty them ugliness I soon comprehended the sacrament ”(Lermontov). Often the title of the work is based on antithesis and oxymoron: “The Living Corpse” (play by L.N. Tolstoy), “Far Close” (novel by A. Herzen), “The Living and the Dead” (novel by K. Simonov), “Thick and Thin” (story by A.P. Chekhov).

Antonyms are described in special antonym dictionaries. The first dictionaries of antonyms appeared late, only in the 70s of the twentieth century (before that, antonyms were sometimes given in dictionaries of synonyms). This is L.A. Vvedenskaya (1971) and "Dictionary of antonyms of the Russian language" N.P. Kolesnikova (1972). Later released "Dictionary of antonyms of the Russian language" M.R. Lvov, edited and with a theoretical introduction by L.A. Novikov (1978), reprinted several times. This is the most complete dictionary of antonyms, but there is no interpretation of the meanings of words, which is given, however, in "School Dictionary of Antonyms" by the same author (1981).

Close to antonyms (and even sometimes qualify as a type of antonyms) conversives. However, this group of words only adjoins antonyms, because is a rather peculiar phenomenon - an expression of reverse relations, as if looking at the same thing from different (opposite) sides: VICTORY - DEFEAT (the Germans won victory over the French - the French suffered defeat from the Germans), BUY - SELL (neighbor sold home to me - me bought neighbor's house), HAVE - BELONG (he It has home home belongs to him). On the one hand, they are close to antonyms, on the other hand, they represent an independent category (Yu.D. Apresyan singles them out as an independent category - conversion, those. as semantically inverse relations expressed by different lexemes). In this case, this includes both word forms and syntactic constructions YOUNGER - OLDER (brother younger sisters - sister older brother), BUILD - BUILD (workers are building home home under construction workers).

homonymy

Homonymy as a formal LC. Homonym types. The question of homonymy and related phenomena. The problem of distinguishing between homonymy and polysemy. Dictionaries of homonyms.

When we talked about the identity of a word (see 1.1.3.), we found out that one and the same word is the entire set of its LSV (i.e., uses in different meanings, in the presence of a semantic connection between them, i.e. polysemy). As long as this connection is recognized, we are dealing with polysemy, i.e. with ambiguity the same word. If this connection does not exist (with the identity of PV), we already have different words- homonyms.

homonymy(Greek: omos - “same” and onima - “name”) is a sound coincidence of two or more language units (words, morphemes, word forms, phrases, phraseological units). Those. Homonymy is possible at any language level: phonetic(mow meadow[onion onion[onion], derivational(-ist- in the meaning of "a person by profession": dachshunds ist , pian ist, tractor ist and -ist- in the meaning of “a sign of a multitude of things”: cost ist th, branch ist th, rech ist th), morphological (young man - to young girl) lexical(LUK-1 - "weapon" and LUK-2 - "plant"). In lexicology, only lexical homonyms.

lexical homonyms, or simply homonyms - these are two or more words of the same part of speech, the sound shells of which are identical in all forms or most forms in the complete absence of their semantic connection from a synchronous point of view. For example:

The girl went downhill

With golden oblique thick hair.

Under the scarf braid removed

On steel braid leaned on ... (L. Yashin)

Two homonymous words are used here: KOSA-1 - “a type of hairstyle made of braided strands of hair” and KOSA-2 - “an agricultural tool for cutting grass in the form of a sharply honed narrow steel strip mounted on a long handle”. There is also a third homonym in Russian, KOSA-3 - “narrow sandbar” ( "Sandy braids, washed by river water, were bleached by the sun. M. Sholokhov).

Lexical homonyms, therefore, should be distinguished from other types of homonymy phenomena realized in a word, i.e. from phonetic, grammatical, etc., or from “adjacent phenomena” (V.V. Vinogradov). These include:

1) homophones- words that coincide only in sound, oral speech - phonetic homonymy (they differ in writing, there is no homonymy) pru d - pru t , gris b - gris pp , floor about say - floor a say, unfold e to hang out - razv and to be, b a choke - b about choke; With and child - With e child, to about campaign - to a company etc.;

2) homographs- words that coincide only in spelling, in written speech (there is no homonymy in oral speech, words differ in pronunciation, stress: deputy about to - h a mok, to about evil - goat s, P a rit - steam and th, a tlas - atl a With);

3) homoforms- coincidence of words only in certain word forms(usually different parts of speech - therefore, there can be no coincidence in other forms): three(verb) - three(num.), cf. in other forms: tinder, trash, rub and three, three(By the way, these words have one more word form: three - three). Other examples of this type: bay(germ) - bay(n.) mouth(n.) - mouth(verb) bake(n.) - bake(verb) my(local) - my(Ch.). Homoformation of words of one part of speech is also possible: ambassador(ambassador) - ambassador(ambassador).

Often omoformy and homophony (or homography) appear together: gr a F - graph a - these are homoforms ( graph, count in I.p.), and homographs (differ in stress) at the same time; century - eyelid- and homophones [in e to ъ], and homoforms ( century, eyelid in I.p.)

Thus, all these are speech phenomena, in the language in the relations of formal identity there are only lexical homonyms, or simply homonyms.

Lexical homonyms should also be distinguished from polysemy (polysemy), because in speech usage they are similar: different meanings, but the same form. There are several criteria for distinguishing between homonymy and polysemy, which will be discussed later, we will only say that the main one is semantic.

Lexical homonyms, unlike polysemy, are in disjunctive semantic opposition, i.e. there is no connection between their meanings, while polysemy is the result of the lexico-semantic variation of the word. How lexical category homonymy- these are relations of semantically incomparable semes, formally expressed by identical lexemes. However, the question of distinguishing between polysemy and homonymy is not accidental, because many homonyms are the result of the disintegration of polysemy, and often the process of this disintegration has not yet been completed. Therefore, in different explanatory dictionaries, some words (for example, a LEAF of a tree and a LEAF of paper) are presented either as an LSV of one word (Dictionary of the Russian Language in 4 vols.), or as homonyms, in different dictionary entries (Ozhegov's Dictionary).

Lexical homonyms in a language arise for various reasons. Depending on this, they differ types of lexical homonyms:

1. Simple (non-derivative) homonyms- random sound coincidence of words of different origin:

a) as a result of borrowing one of the homonyms: BRAK-1 (“poor quality product” - borrowed from the German brack) and BRAK-2 (“matrimony” - iconic, from the verb take);

b) as a result of parallel borrowing from different languages: GRIF-1 (“bird”, - from Greek) - GRIF-2 (“impression”: ministry stamped paper, from French) - GRIF-3 (part of a stringed musical instrument: guitar neck- from it.);

c) as a result of various phonetic changes within the language: LUK-1 (weapon) and LUK-2 (plant) coincided after the loss of nasal vowels, one of which was in the first word.

The morphological and semantic structure of such homonyms in the modern language is recognized as non-derivative.

2. Derived homonyms, resulting from the process of derivation (word-formation or semantic).

2.1. Derivational homonyms resulting from the process of word formation. O.S. Akhmanova calls them homonyms "with a pronounced morphological structure" and divides them into several subtypes:

a) homonymy of bases: GARNET-1 (juice) and GARNET-2 (bracelet) - originated from homonymous bases GARNET-1 (fruit) and GARNET-2 (mineral);

b) homonymy of affixes: HOLDER-1 (shares) and HOLDER-2 (for papers) - formed from the stem of the same verb HOLD, but with the help of homonymous suffixes - body-1 ("face") and - body-2 ("subject");

c) functional homonymy - the transition from one part of speech to another: FURNACE-1 (verb) and FURNACE-2 (n.), NATIVE-1 (adj.) and NATIVE-2 (n.), CLEAR-1 (short. adj.) and YASNO-2 (adv.).

2.2. Semantic homonyms resulting from semantic derivation and the subsequent collapse of polysemy: BURO-1 (furniture type: mahogany bureau) and BURO-2 (organization, institution: inventory bureau); DACHA-1 ( testifying) and DACHA-2 (country house: bought a dacha).

In both cases, the former polysemantic word broke up into two different ones, no longer connected with each other in meaning. Most often, this happens when semantic derivation was carried out as a transfer based on contiguity, metonymy, and then the relationship of contiguity of concepts was lost. So, in the word DACHA historically there were several intermediate meanings (“gift, offering”; “land donated by the sovereign”; “document for the right to own land”; “estate built on this land”), recorded in the Dictionary of the Russian Language of the XI-XVII centuries ., which were lost later, and the connection between the given LSV (the action on the verb “give” and “country house”) was broken. As a result, two homonymous words arose. The homonyms ZAVOD-1 and ZAVOD-2, PARK-1 and PARK-2, SVET-1 and SVET-2 and others also arose.

The last type of homonyms creates the problem of distinguishing between polysemy and homonymy. As already mentioned, the main criterion for such a distinction is the semantic one, which consists in establishing a systemic semantic connection between the LSV of a polysemantic word and the absence of such in homonyms.

For example, SVET-1 and SVET-2 or WORLD-1 and WORLD-2.

The first word has several related meanings (by adjacency or similarity):

LIGHT-1. 1) The rays of some source, making everything visible ( moon light). 2) Light source ( turn off the lights). 3) Illuminated place ( bring to light). 4) Source of knowledge ( learning - light). 5) Affectionate treatment ( my light!). The main components of the LZ: "beams", "source", "illumination" (A, b, c)

The same can be said about the second word:

LIGHT-2. 1) Earth, universe ( go around the world). 2) People inhabiting the earth ( the whole world knows). 3) Society ( come out into the light). 4) Chosen society ( elite). Main components: "land", "people" (D, e).

There is a connection between the meanings within each word, but there is no semantic connection between the words themselves: there are no common components of the LZ.

The same can be said about the pair: MIR-1 (universe) and MIR-2 (absence of war).

However, in some cases this criterion may turn out to be controversial, then they resort to a number of

L.A. Novikov
SYNONYMY

Definition of lexical synonymy. Synonym types. The essence of synonyms as words (phrases) with the same or similar meaning and usage is understood differently by different researchers. There are several approaches to the study of synonymy.

In one approach, synonyms are considered from the point of view of their semantic content as words that are identical and words that are close in meaning. This is the general traditional definition of synonymy. Talking about the similarities and differences of words misfortune, misfortune, misfortune and disaster, D.I. Fonvizin wrote in his “Experience of a Russian Soslovnik” (1783): “All these words herald and signify misadventures; but misfortune every evil incident is called; attack but there is an unforeseen misadventure. Trouble there is also unintentional evil, but threatening even more cruel consequences. Disaster means the same thing, but in the broadest sense is used. Such a general definition of synonyms with its various modifications is usually given in many textbooks on lexicology.

In another approach, which relies heavily on logical definitions, the synonymy of words is defined in terms of their interchangeability in the same context without changing the meaning of the whole (albeit with possible stylistic differences). This consideration is based on the identity (similarity) of the distributional properties of lexical units.

In the third approach, synonyms are considered as semantically identical (similar) words with different stylistic characteristics. This is the study of synonymy as a stylistic, figurative means of language, as a realization of the aesthetic functions of the word. Such synonymy, due to its specificity as a property of poetic speech, is understood broadly: these are “cash”, really functioning means of the text, giving a different evaluative characteristic of the signified.

Finally, a fourth approach to the consideration of words that are identical in meaning is also possible - the study of contextual descriptions (designations) correlated with the same denotation within a certain text: cf. various characteristics in the description of the bursak Vozdvizhensky in N.G. Pomyalovsky’s “Essays on the bursa” (Vozdvizhensky, friend, Kamchatka, pundit, wise geographer); cf. A.P. Chekhov in the story "Stupid Frenchman": The first thing that rushed to him [the clown Purkua.- L. H.] in the eyes, there was some kind of full, handsome gentleman, sitting at the next table and preparing to eat pancakes<...>The neighbor, meanwhile, anointed the pancakes with caviar, cut them all into halves, and swallowed them in less than five minutes...<...>Sexual put before neighbor a mountain of pancakes and two plates with balyk and salmon. handsome gentleman I drank a glass of vodka, ate some salmon and started eating pancakes.

Each of the approaches to the study of synonymy reflects (exclusively or predominantly one of the aspects of the meaning of lexical units: significative, structural, pragmatic and denotative (sigmatic). Let's start with the last one. It is quite obvious that words that are equally referred to in the text denotatively (referentially), but not having the necessary semantic (significative) similarity in the language, the status of synonyms should be denied, since synonymy, being a semantic, linguistic category, is associated primarily with the meaning (significate), which allows it to remain such not only in this, but also in many other texts (in language). "Denotative synonymy" has a certain meaning for the linguistics of the text, but it must be distinguished from linguistic synonymy proper. As for stylistic synonymy, it is established on the basis of the semantic equivalence of lexical units and therefore will be considered later.

Synonymy as a language phenomenon, as an expression of the semantic equivalence of lexical units, is considered primarily in the proper semantic and structural (operational) plans, corresponding to the first two approaches to its study. These approaches, reflecting various related aspects of the consideration of meaning, do not negate each other, but are consistent and should be considered in their unity; they are one of the manifestations of the postulated position that the identity (similarity) of the use of language units is a reflection of their semantic identity (similarity). Therefore, in the general definition of synonymy, both of these characteristics (as well as its stylistic role) should be taken into account.

There is a “narrow” (strict) understanding of synonymy as a property of words that completely coincide in their meaning, and a “broader” understanding of it. The first is of great value in terms of semantic paraphrasing of statements, the second is for understanding how fully or partially equivalent units function in the text. With a broader understanding of synonymy, attention is focused on the fact that linguistic units have not only significant similarities, but also certain differences that are neutralized in the text.

It is known that a polysemantic word can have several rows of synonyms correlated with one or another of its meanings (LSV). Therefore, we will put the semantic relations of lexico-semantic variants as the basis for the description of synonymy; high1(about a human) - tall, tall, long, lanky, tall2(about voice) - thin, squeaky, tall3(about language, style, words) - sublime, elevated, solemn, pathetic, pathetic. Some LSV words may have regularly used synonyms (cf. open1 - fromtell, open, dissolve, open (doors, windows), open4 - uncover, uncover- (mouth, mouth) etc.), others - usually not (open9 (law, pattern) etc.) . The semantic similarity of synonyms usually manifests itself in the coincidence, identity of part of their semantic content: certain lexico-semantic variants (their semes), as well as part of the semes (components) of such semes. In this sense, synonymy is "identity, but the identity is not of words, but of individual elements of their semantic structure." Synonyms are semantically identical (equivalent) within certain meanings (LSV) or coinciding parts of the meanings of interacting words, interchangeable in the text within the limits corresponding to their general content (the intersection of their semantic volume). This is their most characteristic relationship.

How to linguistically concretize the concept of "close (similar) meanings"? Apparently, it is necessary first of all to comprehensively and carefully consider the linguistic mechanism of synonymy, to analyze synonymy from an operational point of view, to take into account

attention to the absolute nature of synonymy as a phenomenon of language and the relativity of the concept of synonyms in the text.

Words that are close in meaning (LSV) are only a “potential synonymy”, which may or may not be realized in speech, and in the latter case, it practically cannot be a linguistic synonymy. Real synonymy takes place when | when identical or close in meaning words of the same part of speech somehow replace each other with a specific purpose in the same positions. In contrast to the already considered categories of the lexico-semantic system (polysemy, homonymy, conversion), synonymy is characterized primarily by the use of units in the same positions, very often by their direct contact arrangement (compare with the additional distribution of the LSV of a polysemantic word). From this point of view, verbs can hardly be considered real synonyms in the language. blow out and turn off included in the "Concise Dictionary of Synonyms of the Russian Language" by V.N. Klyueva in a row put out, put out, blow out, turn off. The practical value of such synonymy is not great, since these two verbs, despite their semantic proximity, do not have a common compatibility, being in relation to additional distribution. Their mutual replacement in the text is also impossible when combined with the word lamp, since in one case kerosene is meant, and in the other it is electric:

The decisive factor in evaluating synonymy is not an abstract comparison of semantically close words, but their real interaction in the text, which reveals the zone of neutralization of semantic differences. The degree of synonymy of words is the higher, the greater the similarity in their lexical compatibility, the more common contexts in which these words can somehow replace each other: cf. extinguish - put out(the last word is often combined with a noun fire), on the one hand, and put out - turn off- on the other, where the similarities are much less. If we assume that two lexical units are used in exactly the same way in all cases, then they must represent a semantic identity. Each word can be represented in this connection, as it were, bifurcated and semantically identical to itself, as the limit of its own synonymy, approach to itself.

Despite the general (invariant) definition of synonymy as the semantic equivalence of all or part of the content of language units, the concept of "synonyms" is apparently always relative and is determined by the nature of the context, as well as the relevance of the information that these units carry as part of the whole statement. Only synonymy itself is absolute (substitution, clarification, etc.), while its implementation and division of words into “synonyms” and “non-synonyms” (linguistic and speech, true or “approximate”, i.e. quasi-synonyms) are largely conditional.

What is the main purpose of synonyms in the language. Possessing identical or similar meanings, they replace each other in the text, clarify the content of the signified, giving it a different assessment, forming, together with other words, one or another “style structure” of the statement (text).

Synonymy as a lexical category is a semantic relation of identical or similar meanings, expressed formally by different words (LSV), which implement the functions of substitution, clarification, and stylistic functions in the text. Two (or more) LSVs are synonyms if, having different signs (lexemes), they are able, due to the identity or similarity of meanings, to replace each other in all or certain contexts without changing the content of the statement. From the point of view of the operational approach, synonymy can be defined in terms of two-way implication 1 , or equivalence. If two sentences imply each other ( We study linguistics We study linguistics and We study linguistics We study linguistics), i.e. are equivalent, have the same structure and differ only in correlative lexical units occupying the same position, then such units are synonyms ( linguistics- linguistics). On the contrary, the implication of the type He gave her roses  He gave her flowers is one-sided ("asymmetrical")" the reverse relationship does not necessarily follow (* 0n gave her flowers 0n gave her roses). Such a genus-species relation, defined in terms of one-sided implication, forms a hyponymy, in relation to which the synonymy acts as a "symmetrical hyponymy".

So, synonymy is full or partial equivalence of meanings, expressed by different signs (lexemes): X~ U, where the sign conventionally represents, in general terms, a contamination of the designations for the complete equivalence of units (=) and their partial equivalence (), or the complete equivalence of a part of their semantic content.

Unlike polysemy and homonymy, this is a lexical-semantic category of an onomasiological nature. The study of synonymy is primarily the competence of onomasiology, its “typical problem”, since the study of synonymy goes in the direction from meaning to forms of expression.

In lexicology courses, the following types of synonyms are traditionally distinguished: semantic, or ideographic (happy- joyful actor- artist), stylistic (beauty- beauty run away- run away, run away) and semantic-stylistic (go- drag (colloquial) those. "go slowly, with difficulty", cough- to thump (simple), to breathe (simple), those. "hard, hacking cough", etc.). It must be said that synonyms relatively rarely act in a “pure form”, in one strictly defined role: most often, different “roles” are combined in their use (the third type is the result of such a combination), therefore it is better to talk about synonyms and their functions - semantic and stylistic.

Synonyms form paradigms (or rows) of words (LSV), which are identified by establishing their similarities and differences with the dominant - the semantically simplest, stylistically unmarked and syntagmatically the least fixed synonym. They are presented with varying degrees of depth in synonymous dictionaries.

Structurally, synonyms can differ from each other in different bases. (young- young, husband- spouse), prefixes (scold- scold, finish - finish), suffixes (title - title similar to- similar), prefixes and suffixes (download- swing etc.), absence/presence of a return particle -sya (to smoke- smoke, smother- bury yourself), different composition of units forming phraseological synonyms (remember your name- just saw etc.).

Semantic functions of synonyms. Ideographic synonyms have two main functions: substitution and clarification.

The substitution function is the original one: the very definition of synonyms (operational) is largely based on it . The substitution function is realized when synonyms, mutually replacing each other, are used in the text to denote the same thing. This function is inherent in its “pure form” to the so-called absolute (or complete) synonyms, which are characterized by zero opposition, equivalent (completely coinciding) distribution and corresponding equivalent concepts (their relations are represented as coinciding circles). Such units have completely equivalent values. Most often, the replacement function is implemented in successive parts of the text, sentences (or parts thereof):

“In the 1920s and 1930s, the issues of the relationship between language and thinking by Soviet linguists and philosophers have been studied chiefly in terms of their history... By some linguists it was assumed, for example, that the ergative (denominational) construction of a sentence in the era of its formation also corresponded to a special primitive-figurative type of thinking" (Language and Thinking. M., 1967, p. 3); "The main role in the assimilation spelling gotta play the rules spelling... And the rules spelling, in order to apply them effortlessly in any conditions, they must be learned as firmly as the multiplication table is learned. (A.I. Gvozdev. Fundamentals of Russian spelling. M., 1951, With. 19).

The use of synonyms in the function of their mutual substitution avoids the repetition of the same words, monotony in presentation.

Full synonyms, the “semantic distance” between which is equal to zero, are used as potentially interchangeable in any contexts: general linguistics / general linguistics, Russian linguistics / Russian linguistics, structural and applied linguistics / structural and applied linguistics, comparative linguistics / comparative linguistics, modern linguistics / modern linguistics, traditional linguistics / traditional linguistics, problems of linguistics / problem of linguistics, dissertation on linguistics / dissertation in linguistics, do linguistics / do linguistics and many others. etc. In these cases, the replacement of synonyms is unusual or impossible only in a few combinations of the type comparative historical linguistics, « Questions of linguistics»(magazine), linguistics of speech. text linguistics, "New in linguistics"(non-periodical collections) and some others. Leaving aside these few uses, such a synonym can be represented as Xk= kY, those. equivalence in any context (k).

To replace a particular word in the text, 1) semantically equivalent compound names are also widely used: university- higher educational institution, CMEA - Council for Mutual Economic Assistance; 2) expanded names: buzz- give a horn, win - win, hit - to strike, to deceive- lead by the nose, carelessly- sleeveless; 3) stable combinations, including phraseological ones: Yu. A. Gagarin- astronaut № 1, L. I. Tolstoy - author of the novel "War and Peace", Japan - land of the rising sun boxing champion - first glove, TV- blue screen(descriptions, paraphrases, etc.).

On closer examination of the substitution function, which is widespread not only in the language, but also in other systems (cf. in mathematics: (straight- shortest distance between two points) it becomes obvious that substitution is associated with clarification, underlies the latter: the transition from one synonym to another gives new, additional information about the signified (straight- the shortest distance between two points, V.A. Bogoroditsky - founder of Russia's first experimental phonetic laboratory, moon - month - "moon", a satellite of our planet with a period of revolution around it equal to a sidereal (sidereal) month). Obviously, the more synonyms differ within their essential similarity, the more opportunity they have to clarify each other when designating one or another object (phenomenon) of reality.

The clarification function is the most important semantic function of synonyms, which are used here to identify and reveal various aspects, properties, and characteristic features of the designated object (phenomenon) of reality. Clarification is generally one of the essential semantic functions of a language; it is characteristic of the most diverse, including quite distant in meaning, words (LSV) 1 . However, to a greater extent, it is characteristic of units close in value. This function is realized most often within one sentence, with a close, contact arrangement of words. The need for clarification is due to the fact that the signified (object, phenomenon, property, etc.) is not “covered” by virtue of its versatility and versatility by any one LSV. There is a need for the simultaneous use of several similar and at the same time different units, the mismatching sides (semes) of which from different points of view would be “directed” to the designated object (phenomenon), revealing more and more new sides in it, making it “convex” as if stereoscopically perceived. This is an experienced process associated with the transition from the meaning and connotations of one unit to the semantics and various kinds of associations of others. It resembles the imposition of “strokes”, paints in painting, gradually refining the outline of the subject, making it expressive and multifaceted, rich in various associations.

First of all, the degree of manifestation of this or that sign, quality, property, action, etc. is specified. (semantic gradation):

My dear sir," he began almost solemnly, " poverty not a vice, it's the truth... But poverty, your Majesty, poverty - vice-s. AT poverty you still retain your nobility of innate feelings, in poverty never and no one (F.M. Dostoevsky. Crime and punishment); My soul was gradually filled with the inexplicable fear... This fear turned to horror, when I began to notice that I was lost, lost my way (A.P. Chekhov. Night at the cemetery); You will surely succeed good violinist, beautiful violinist (K.A. Fedin. Brothers).

In the above examples, the synonyms are distinguished by the absence/presence (or presence/absence) of the intensity seme ("great", "strong", "extreme", "very", etc.): cf. poverty- "extreme poverty" horror- "intense fear" beautiful- "very good".

The method of carrying out this or that action and other phenomena can be specified. Fundamentally the same semantic relation for the verbs discussed above extinguish and blow out; cf. blow out- "breathing, extinguish", i.e. stop burning + in a certain way (absence / presence of an indication of the method of stopping burning). Such units form, as we have seen, privative oppositions of the type BUT- not-A, are characterized by included distribution (for a labeled member of the opposition) and correspond to compatible subordinate concepts; these units differ in their component composition by the presence/absence of a certain seme.

Refinement can be considered as a kind of "incomplete replacement": ^ Before the revolution, peasants lived in poverty. Poverty pursued them. all life or Before the revolution, the peasants lived in poverty, poverty. However, there is no complete replacement here (cf. linguistics == linguistics). Note that when using synonyms that are not identical (i.e., close, but differ in something) in meaning, we can talk about neutralizing contexts in which differences in lexical units are removed, are not significant from the point of view of the meaning of the statement (they lived in poverty, poverty) , and about differentiating contexts, where the focus of the statement is the differences of such units (this is not poverty, but poverty; see the example from Dostoevsky above). If for absolute synonyms semantic equivalence is possible in any context (Хk==kУ), then for units that differ in certain components of their meaning, synonymy is possible in the same neutralizing contexts - X(k1, k2, k3 ...)== (k1, k2, k3...)Y and impossible in other differentiating contexts - Х(...kn-2, kn-1, kn)  (...kn-2, kn-1, kn )U, in which the differences of similar units are emphasized, which are significant from the point of view of the information contained in such a text. Nevertheless, there is no fundamental difference between the synonymy of the first kind (linguistics - linguistics) and the second kind (poverty - poverty). We are talking only about a greater or lesser "zone of synonymy", about a greater or lesser degree of synonymy of words that satisfies the conditions of a particular context.

Clarification of the various aspects of the designated (object, property, attribute, action, etc.), emphasizing its characteristic features can be carried out not only by units that are logically subordinate (included one into another), but also by logically “equal” synonyms that form equivalent in the language oppositions: they are characterized by contrasting distribution and as synonyms, i.e. lexical units of a non-mutually exclusive nature, correspond in terms of their volumetric relations to compatible intersecting concepts. This is the most interesting and semantically complex type of synonym interaction in a text.

Consider the following suggestions:

(1a) Andrey no longer felt alone in this new world for him. There was a good old one nearby. comrade, friend, with whom nothing is scary (D.A.Granin. Seekers), (16) - What are you friend him? - friend not friend and comrade(Yu.Semenov. Petrovka, 38); (2) On the pale, bloodless a thin, silent smile appeared on the lips of the nun... (F.M. Dostoevsky. Brothers Karamazov); (3) However, he was suffocating, he felt that ... all these eyes, turned on him, somehow oppress and oppress his... (F. M. Dostoevsky. Double).

The implementation of the substitution function in sentence (1a) is manifested in the fact that synonyms comrade and friend, with the help of which, in a neutralizing context, a characterization of a person close to Andrey is given, coinciding in its common part (i.e. in the intersection of its component composition: Х У - "a person close in some respect"), at the same time, are in relation to "incomplete substitution": non-coinciding parts (components, semes) of their meanings, which are here in relation to the conjunction, act as additional characteristics of the signified, clarifying its content (comrade- ["close person"], "great degree of closeness", "social relations", "occupation", "living conditions"; "community of political views", "belonging to a public, political organization", etc., friend- ["close person"], "very high degree of closeness", "personal relationships", "affection, disposition", "personal interests", etc.). These neutralizable, but present in the system, and therefore potentially in the text signs (semes) are, as it were, directed to the designated object (person), “summed up”, interact in creating a linguistic (verbal) image - a comrade, colleague, friend.

The totality of coinciding and non-coincident meanings of synonyms (their equivalent and non-equivalent components) highlights in the person being characterized the features of a comrade and friend in their inseparable unity. In sentence (2b), where the synonyms are in a differentiating context, there is a clarification of non-coinciding features of words (the corresponding characteristics of a person), a disjunction of opposed semes takes place (see above): not a friend, but a comrade.

Equivalent synonyms reveal a significant "zone" of common compatibility (synonymy), in which they can replace each other without a significant change in the meaning of the whole, clarifying the various aspects of the signified (contrasting distribution: bad, good, close, faithful ... comrade / friend, advice, request, help, support ... comrade / friend, appearance, character, behavior ... comrade / friend, gain, find in someone, lose, lose ... comrade / friend and many others. others); such general compatibility reflects the coinciding part of the meanings of synonyms (x  at). At the same time, they reveal "zones" of individual compatibility, reflecting mismatched semantic features of words, where the mutual replacement of synonyms turns out to be impossible or difficult (cf. comrade at work, in service, at the institute, on an expedition, in arms, comrade Ivanov, comrade captain, comrade communists- as official addresses * friend (friends); old, devoted, bosom friend, inseparable friends, not * comrade (comrades) and etc.).

We find similar refinement functions in propositions (2) and (3). Synonymous adjectives pale and bloodless as if repelled by the degree of quality gradation from their conditionally “positive” poles and approach as correlative characteristics, between which there is a certain causal relationship (bloodless - "deprived of blood or poor in blood" pale): full-blooded(cf. blood with milk) - bloodless ~ pale - bright (ruddy). The mismatched semantic components of the words here again emphasize the various aspects of the signified, in particular, the possible cause of pallor: bloodless- "painful" (permanent or "protracted over time" symptom caused by illness), pale- not only "dim", but also "(suddenly) pale" (cf. His face waspale with excitement eyes half-closed (A.M. Gorky. "Konovalov"), cf. turn pale with fright, fear and etc.); in addition, the first word usually denotes a greater degree of pallor than the second, although their difference is not exhausted by intensity. In the last sentence (3), the synonyms do not just expressively emphasize the state of the hero by repeating the correlative parts of their content. (to gnaw - "torment, torment" crush - "oppress, oppress"): the use of the Verb in the text crush, connected in the language system by living associations with the main meaning ("to press, leaning with all the weight, to press with the weight"), cause a feeling of physical impact, pressure.

If the completeness of synonymy in words that are close in meaning is determined by the number of common combinations (contexts), then the richness of the so-called semantic "shades" is characterized by the individual compatibility of each of them, reflecting the specifics of the component composition of the synonym.

^ Stylistic functions of synonyms. Other qualitatively different from the semantic ones are the stylistic functions of synonyms, which can be fully considered and disclosed in stylistics and poetics. Therefore, we confine ourselves here to a few general remarks. To better emphasize the specifics of stylistic synonymy, let's consider it in its "pure form",

Stylistic synonyms differ from each other (with their semantic identity, a high degree of semantic similarity) pragmatic (evaluative, axiological) characteristics, emotive meaning. Strictly speaking, proper (or purely) stylistic synonyms are identical in meaning and semantically close to “full” synonyms. So, as a result of the choice of one or another synonym from the stylistic paradigm with the supporting neutral word there is- They started shamat / burst / eat / eat - “only the attitude to what is being discussed changes, and the function of stylistic synonyms lies in changing this attitude.” The choice of a synonym may depend on the attitude of the speaker to the statement, to the person who perceives this statement, on those factors that determine the style.

The evaluation function is one of the most important among stylistic synonyms: it expresses a certain attitude of the speakers to the indicated fact. Different stylistic fixation of marked lexical units in the language (above neutral (“zero”): high, poetic, bookish, official business / below neutral (“zero”): colloquial, colloquial) is the basis for the corresponding positive or negative assessment of the signified, which can be conditionally conveyed semantically in a structure with a modal frame using evaluative words like "good" or "bad".

It happens, lie with the best of intentions, so as not to upset the mother. It happens, hide the truth out of cowardice, fearing the consequences... lie from a misunderstanding of camaraderie. Deviate from the truth because of selfish calculation, trying to gain ... Breshut just like that, out of frivolity, inadvertently, without thinking. deceive, embellishing yourself ... so you want to seem better! As you can see, a lie has many shades, in any case, a lie deserves condemnation, after all, there is a difference when a person did not tell the truth, hoping not to upset a sick mother, and when he impudently deceived a comrade (A. Markusha. Eye to eye. Science and life, 1979, № 1).

Synonyms lie and deceive- neutral, interstyle words, lie and to lie- stylistically reduced, respectively - colloquial and colloquial. The equivalent combination hide the truth and partially equivalent (quasi-synonymous) book-official evade the truth. Despite the fact that “in any case, a lie deserves condemnation,” the attitude to the various facts of its manifestation is expressed in the language (linguistically) in different ways. So, stylistically neutral word lie does not have a pronounced evaluation characteristic, it is, as it were, “zero” ( lying with the best of intentions, cf. further contextual replacement of this verb: the man did not tell the truth, hoping not to upset his sick mother) in contrast to its stylistically marked synonyms, which express a negative assessment of the signified (col.: lie out of a false sense of camaraderie, simple.: they lie just like that, out of frivolity, inadvertently, without thinking) and etc.

The stylistically marked lexical units of the synonymic paradigm (synonymous series) have a pronounced evaluative character:

eyes (obsolete and high) (+)

eyes (about)

burkaly (colloquial.) (-)

peepers (simple) (-)

flashers (simple) (-)

walleye (rough-simple) (-)

Zenki (rough-simple) (-)

Compare, for example, “It must have been only in the abundant expanses of the Kuban that a woman could grow up ... with such huge brown eyes, to which the word "eyes"(A. Goncharov. Our correspondent) and V peepers, which it is a shame to call with eyes - not a single spark of spiritual light (N.S. Leskov. At the end of the world). The convergence of stylistically diverse synonyms (descriptions), subordinated to a certain artistic task, becomes the basis of expressive images in the language of works of art. Creating a portrait of the leader Strunnikov, who was distinguished by "remarkable stupidity", M E Saltykov-Shchedrin notes: " Mirror of the soul "(face) - the spitting image of a pug"("Poshekhonskaya antiquity"). The effect of a sharp satirical image (negative assessment) is created due to a sharp stylistic “fall”, successive nominations: mirror of the soul (high, bookish)- here in the "fluctuating" meaning from common to contextual) - face(neutral) - pug(simple, trans.).

Stylistically marked synonyms (i.e. words with emotive-evaluative meaning) have a two-term structure:
eyes (+)

good

X thinks that(M) (eyes)

 bad 

peepers (-)

If we consider texts as the result of the implementation of linguistic means and, consequently, stylistic synonyms as one of such means, then we can talk about their other important stylistic function - the stylistic organization of the text. The normative text is characterized not only by semantic, but also by stylistic coordination of units. Semantically, such synonyms can replace each other without compromising the meaning (cf. the above example They began to shamat / eat / eat / eat), stylistically - not always, as the stylistic structure of the text prevents this. The function of the stylistic organization of the text is the stylistic agreement of the synonym (as well as any other word) with the general character of the text (high, neutral, reduced):

(+) - ^ And she is majestic speaks, like a peahen(A. S. Pushkin. The Tale of Tsar Saltan), [Repin] paraded - exactlymarched! (like music!)through the halls of the Tretyakov Gallery, among theirfamouspictures, and behind him in the distance was a crowd ofpa admirers ( K. Chukovsky. Ilya Repin), (o) -"Chagall and I, trying to get in the leg andgo on par with neighbor(V.M. Garshin. From the memoirs of Private Ivanov), (-) - It used to be a pity for a cab driver,- on their own for twofrom Rogozhskaya to Solyankapru (M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin. Gentlemen Golovlevs), L how am I aloneturn aroundwill? Herestuffed cavaliers:themselveshome on the stove, and I stomp ten kilometers alone.(P.A. Pavlenko. Night) (stylistically marked words of the texts are given in a row).

It is essential to note that stylistic synonyms, due to their markedness, contribute to the “thickening” of one or another semantic feature (despite the qualitative difference between emotive and significative meanings): they are able to denote a higher degree of manifestation of a particular quality (properties, actions, etc.). P.). Compare, for example, the potential gradation difference of synonymous verbs there is and to eat: By twelve o'clock dinner was ripe. Peopleate bad(V.M. Garshin. From the memoirs of Private Ivanov) and He pounced on every meal, as if he had not eaten for three days, andate each for two, three servings(N.G. Chernyshevsky. Prologue). The use assigned to a stylistically marked word can cause its semantic shift in comparison with the corresponding neutral word. A.A. Reformatsky drew attention to this circumstance, considering the differences in the meaning of primordially Russian and Old Slavonic (Church Slavonic) words: “Their words correspond to anatomical concepts, while Church Slavonic ones have nothing to do with these concepts. The old rhetoricians correctly assessed this, explaining that forehead- this is not a part of the skull, but a "receptacle of thoughts", eyes- this is not an organ of vision, but a “mirror of the soul”, mouth- this is not an organ of eating (or, let's say, labialization of vowels), but a "source of speeches of the wise", etc. (Saying “they have nothing to do with it”, A.A. Reformatsky means, first of all, the stylistic sphere of use, the primary object of denoting correlative words, the connection of which is undoubted).

In conclusion of a brief review of the functions of synonymous units, we note that the fact of synonymy can be the implementation of several functions at the same time. This circumstance is the basis for the selection of semantic-stylistic synonyms: silly- brainless(simple+"very stupid"); experience- enough(open +"experience a lot, go through something difficult": enough grief), contrary to- "against the will, expectation of someone" - on purpose(open +"deliberately in defiance of someone"), etc.

It should be pointed out cases of "approximate" synonymy - quasi-synonymy, in which the semantic differences of lexical units remain quite significant and are not neutralized in a large number of contexts, when there are no necessary grounds to talk about the stable neutralization of mismatched semantic differences in LSW. First of all, this is the genus-species relations of words. Consider this special, specific kind of synonymy.

Hyponymy. Generic relations of lexical units are called hyponymy. It is defined in terms of the one-sided implication: elephant animal. Hyponymy is characterized by privative oppositions of units (flower- tulip.), included distribution, compatible subordinate concepts and is based on logical-semantic subordination: lexical unit elephant acts as a hyponym for animal, tulip - towards flower, day - towards day etc. On the contrary, from the point of view of the inverse relationship (superordination) animal, flower, day will act as hypernyms in relation to the corresponding words (and similar ones). Hyponyms that are logically subordinate to the same hypernym act in relation to each other as cohyponyms: elephant, lion, tiger, leopard ... (animal), tulip, rose, aster, gladiolus ... (flower), day, night, morning, evening (day), cart, gig, carriage, tarantass ... ( crew as a common name for spring carts for passengers), etc.; those. it is the ratio of equipotently opposed units.

Hyponymy together with incompatibility (A - not-A) are "the most fundamental paradigmatic semantic relations by which the vocabulary of the language is structured." These relations are the most general and universal in the analysis and construction of semantic fields (a hierarchical system of classes of units) in the lexicon.

As already mentioned, hyponymy can merge with the synonymy of lexical units that are in privative oppositions. However, we prefer to use this term only in relation to those cases where there is a clear and definite genus-species subordination of vocabulary, strictly expressed relations of co-hyponyms. Hyponymy is a kind of genus-specific quasi-synonymy:

How long do you have to travel by train?

Two days.

So after two days and you will be there: very close there.

Such synonymy turns out to be possible only in a few neutralizing contexts, which emphasize what these words have in common, namely that they form a certain cycle (in days - one day) of measuring time. The mutual substitution of these words becomes impossible in differentiating contexts: It takes two business days to complete this job.(not two days).

Such generic-specific synonymy is a common phenomenon in the language of fiction: ^ Whenchaise drove up to the hotel, a young man in white kanifas knickers met ... The young man turned back, lookedcrew... and went on my way(N.V. Gogol. Dead souls).

The transition in the text from a hypernym to a hyponym (provided that they mean the same thing) is associated with obtaining additional information, with specifying what is denoted: The disease made itself felt: tuberculosis progressed rapidly. In the reverse transition, no additional information is obtained, except for the obvious subsuming of a species under a genus.

The “two-sidedness” of the substitution in case of hyponymy is possible only in relation to this text: chaise crew, tuberculosis disease,[this] crew chaise,[this] disease tuberculosis etc. In texts other than the given one, the semantic difference between such lexical units cannot be neutralized.

^ Printed according to the book. Novikov L.A. Semantics of the Russian language. M., 1982. pp.222-242.

Lexical synonymy in Russian. The expressive features of synonyms allow us each time to choose the word that is most appropriate in a particular speech situation, stylistically justified in a particular context.

L.A. NovikovSYNONYMY

L.A. Novikov
SYNONYMY