DEFINITION OF LEXICAL SYNONYMS

We can talk about two main approaches to the definition of synonyms: purely semantic and operational-semantic.

Within the framework of the first approach, synonyms are defined as words that have the same lexical meaning, but differ in its shades. There are many terminological variants of this definition, differing only in the concepts of which area - linguistics, logic or psychology - are preferred.<…>.

An attempt to combine the natural idea of ​​synonymy as a semantic identity with the idea of ​​synonyms as words that can differ from each other in meaning has led to the concept of neutralizing the semantic differences of synonyms in strictly defined positions, given by semantic, lexical, syntactic and other features. It was proposed to consider synonyms only words similar in meaning, the differences between which are able to neutralize<…>.

We note two common features of most of these definitions.

Firstly, they cannot be recognized as completely accurate, since the comparison of meanings is not based on any formal procedure, and the concept of the shade of meaning does not have a sufficiently clear content. If we want to give an effective definition of synonyms, based on the possibility of a formal comparison of their meanings, we need to have at our disposal an exhaustive description of the meanings of the words of a given language (an explanatory dictionary), carried out in compliance with a number of conditions. They can be, for example, the conditions that we impose on the metalanguage of description, the logical structure of interpretations, and the syntactic structure of the interpreted expression.

Secondly, in most definitions, the emphasis is not on the general semantic properties of synonyms, but on the differences between them. Words that completely coincide in meaning are increasingly considered as lexical doublets, variants, etc., and words that certainly differ in meaning are beginning to be considered genuine synonyms. Indicative in this regard is the following statement from the article by A.B. Shapiro: “... the general opinion agreed that words of different sound composition, completely coinciding in their meaning, are not synonyms. ... Synonyms are words ... containing certain differences in their generally similar meanings.

The consistent development of such views has given rise to the concept, by virtue of which synonymy is a relative concept. The degree of synonymy can even be zero for language units that do not have common semantic components.

The point of view, due to which “only semantic identity (and not proximity of meanings ...) allows us to consider words as synonyms,” finds much fewer supporters. Meanwhile, it not only reflects the linguistic reality, namely the fact of the presence in the natural language of a sufficiently large number of words with completely coinciding lexical meanings, but also returns the term to its original content.

In the future, we will talk about exact synonyms, if the interpretations of two words completely coincide, and about inexact synonyms, or quasi-synonyms, if they have a large common part. Already here it should be emphasized that the division of synonyms into exact and inexact does not mean at all that only exact synonyms are the true subject of the theory of lexical synonymy. It's just that the theory of semantic transformations requires a clear distinction between the two when they are fixed in the dictionary, because otherwise it will not be possible to show their different relationship to the paraphrase system.

The usual definition of synonyms as words with coinciding or similar meanings is not based on a strict theory of interpretation and therefore does not in itself provide a formal establishment of the fact of synonymy-non-synonymy of two expressions. This has always been recognized as a serious shortcoming of the theory of lexical synonyms, and already the earliest search for a reliable operational basis for establishing the fact that two words are synonymous led to the formulation of an essentially distributive criterion for the synonymy of the interchangeability of synonyms in the same context without a (noticeable) difference in meaning, although with possible stylistic and other differences.

The criterion of interchangeability is known in two versions - strong and weak. A strong criterion of interchangeability, namely the principle of interchangeability in any context, was operated at one time by S. Ullman, who defined synonyms as words "identical in meaning and interchangeable in any context." Very soon, however, he became convinced that not a single pair of words that are usually included in the category of synonyms satisfies the condition he formulated. This led him to the conclusion that any study of synonyms, not limited to questions of their origin and distribution in the dictionary, is impressionistic (Ullman 1953); in our opinion, it would be more natural to conclude that the criterion of synonymy chosen by the researcher is too cruel.

More realistic and attractive seemed to many researchers a weak distributive criterion of synonymy - the condition of partial interchangeability of synonyms in some contexts or types of contexts. In this regard, the ideas of J. Lyons deserve attention. J. Lyons proposes to distinguish a) complete - incomplete synonymy (identity - partial similarity of the semantic and emotional-expressive properties of synonyms); b) global - local synonymy (interchangeability in any contexts, interchangeability in some contexts). The result is the following classification of synonyms: 1) complete, global; 2) complete, local; 3) incomplete, global; 4) incomplete, local. An interesting property of this classification is that it embodies the idea of ​​independence of coincidence - the mismatch of words in meaning, on the one hand, and their ability to be interchangeable in the same contexts, on the other. True, this idea was not carried out radically enough; at least partial interchangeability is considered a mandatory property of synonyms.

A more sober assessment of the role of interchangeability for lexical synonyms can be obtained if we turn to the concept of a lexical parameter put forward by A.K. Zholkovsky and I.A. Melchuk. A lexical parameter is a typical meaning that is expressed by different means for different words. The lexical correlates of a given parameter may turn out to be synonyms that are in a strictly or almost complementary distribution; cf. Make an impression), but influence). Thus, the recognition of the idea of ​​a lexical parameter entails the rejection of the principle of (even partial) interchangeability as a mandatory property of any synonyms.

It must be said that practical lexicographers have long understood its limitations. Gak, in the preface to the Webster Dictionary of English Synonyms, it says: “... interchangeability is not the final criterion (synonymy. Yu. A.), because it gets in the way of idiomatic usage" (Webster 1968: 25a; first edition 1951). In this regard, the compilers of the Webster Dictionary put forward another operational criterion for synonymy, the ability to interpret synonyms in the same or almost the same way: “The only satisfactory criterion for synonyms is their coincidence in denotation. This coincidence is rarely so complete that the meanings of the words are absolutely identical, but it is always clear enough that the definition of two or more words that are synonyms can be carried to some point in the same terms. True, the point to which the general interpretation must be brought is not strictly established; in particular, the "complete definitions" given at the beginning of each dictionary entry of the Webster Dictionary of Synonyms are in most cases so broad that not only those words that the authors consider synonyms, but also those that they interpret as " similar” (thematically related); however, the very principle of comparing interpretations seems to be eminently reasonable.

Let us summarize the ideas that will guide us in what follows. In the set of words that are usually recognized as synonyms, one should distinguish between lexical synonyms in the narrow sense of the word and quasi-synonyms: they behave differently with respect to the paraphrase system. Both must be defined in purely semantic terms; in all natural languages, due to the idiomatic nature of lexical compatibility, the possibility of complete or partial interchangeability does not follow directly from the fact of identity or similarity of lexical meanings. The definition of synonyms must allow for effective verification of the fact of synonymy; one of the possible operational procedures of this kind is the comparison of interpretations, provided that the interpretations are made in compliance with a number of formal requirements.

LEXICAL SYNONYMS: ANALYSIS AND DEFINITION

We have already formulated the first condition of lexical synonymy: synonyms in the narrow sense of the word must have the same interpretation in the dictionary, i.e. be translated into the same expression of the semantic language.

However, this condition alone is not enough to recognize two lexical units as synonyms. In a certain sense, pairs of verbs have the same lexical meaning. build and build, enter and accommodate and the like in phrases Workers are building a house - A house is being built by workers, Three liters are included in the bottle. The bottle holds three liters. Indeed, the sentences within each pair are situationally equivalent to each other; it is further obvious that all coinciding words of each pair of sentences (workers, house, bottle etc.) are used with the same meaning; it follows from this that the words by which the sentences under consideration differ from each other (build - build, enter - contain), at least denotatively, are also equivalent. This is also evidenced by the fact that the forms of the passive voice are never interpreted independently in dictionaries: their meaning is revealed by the label “suffering.” and a reference to the active form of the corresponding verb. Meanwhile, it would never occur to anyone to qualify build - build and similar pairs of words as lexical synonyms.

The difference between a couple build - build on the one hand, and a couple construct, build the other, can be described in two ways. Firstly, build and construct have the same "role" structure, and build and build - different: at build and construct the first valency is subjective, and the second is objective, and build, on the contrary, the first valency is objective, and the second is subjective. In order to exclude build and build up from the number of lexical synonyms, it is enough to introduce a condition into the definition, due to which the role structures of synonyms must coincide. This definition will work if we accept two rather natural conventions about the description of role structures of predicates of the type be more - to be less - yield), on the one hand, and predicates like buy - sell (remove- hand over), with another.<…>

The difference between type pairs build - construct on the one hand, and in pairs like build - build on the other hand, they can be described as differences not in the role, but in the actant structure of predicates: build and construct places (valencies) with the same number are occupied by the names of the same actants (real participants in the situation), and build and build up places with the same number are occupied by the names of different actors:

build, construct		build up
1=A	2=B	1=B	2=A
Sim	Swine	Sim	Stv

As we can see, build is in the first place BUT, and on the second - AT, and at build, on the contrary, in the first place is AT, and on the second - BUT. From this point of view, the third condition of synonymy can be formulated as a condition for the coincidence of the actant structures of two words (or other lexical units).

The desired effect - the exclusion of syntactic derivatives from the number of lexical synonyms - is achieved by introducing into the definition of the latter a condition, by virtue of which they must belong to the same part of speech. Then pairs like costs– as soon as (As soon as he enters– As soon as he enters), one - only (And I will tell him about it alone– I'll only tell him about it) should be treated as suppletive derivatives.

So, to recognize two words (or syntactically indecomposable phraseological units) BUT and AT lexical synonyms is necessary and sufficient, (1) that they have a completely identical interpretation, i.e. translated into the same expression of the semantic language, (2) so that they have the same number of active semantic valences, and such that valences with the same number have the same roles (or add the names of the same actants to the predicate), ( 3) that they belong to the same (deep) part of speech.

Note that this definition does not require synonyms to coincide or even partially similar in their compatibility or constructions in which they are used, as well as the coincidence of their stylistic properties.<…>

SOURCES OF LEXICAL SYNONYMY

Every literary language is characterized by a tendency to overcome the non-functional difference of units” (Panov 1966), which grows stronger as it normalizes. It is usually noted that this is one of the main differences between the literary language and dialects, which are typical of an abundance of semantically undifferentiated ways of expressing one and the same thought. It should be added to the scrap that even within the literary language itself, especially if vernacular is included in it, different layers of vocabulary react differently to this trend. First of all, it subordinates to its influence the stable, i.e. long existing in the language (original or completely assimilated), stylistically neutral highly common derivational simple or simplified (non-derivative) units in their basic meanings. The processes of semantic differentiation constantly occurring in this layer of vocabulary lead to the fact that quasi-synonymy acquires a dominant role, and exact synonymy is reduced. The following rather rare examples can give an idea of ​​the exact synonymy of such units: throw - throw, mature - sing (fruit); booger - insect, octopus - octopus; identical - identical; everywhere - everywhere, in a hurry - in a hurry, barely - a little (dawn broke).<…>

The desire of the language to update its lexical means, leading to the emergence of exact synonyms, is most fully and clearly manifested in the sphere of expressive vocabulary. Examples are blurt out - blurt out (something utterly utter), roll in - slap (reprimand to someone); junk - baggies, empty talker - windbag - empty talk - empty talker; headless - brainless; a grain - a drop (not a grain of talent), a little bit - a drop (pity). It is curious that it is in the sphere of expressive vocabulary that one of the most interesting semantic processes, the process of synonymic analogy, otherwise called synonymic derivation, or synonymic irradiation, manifests itself with the greatest force.

<…>The synonymic analogy in the sphere of expressive vocabulary is so strong that at times it acquires the status of a productive process; G. Stern considered it a semantic law.

Due to their expressive marking, they easily enter into synonymous relations and phraseological units, cf. sit back - beat the buckets, point someone. to the mind (to the mind) - to teach smb. mind-mind; in full spirit - in all shoulder blades - from all legs - what is the spirit (to run); not all at home - there are not enough screws in the head.

The development of figurative and phraseologically related meanings in a word - another process that generates semantically accurate synonymy. This is facilitated primarily by the very mechanism of metaphorical transfer, because one of the most common ways of metaphorizing meaning is to remove its differentiating semantic components, for example, The clock is running away<уходят>for five minutes; cf. straight - not synonymous - verb meanings run away - leave.

The synonymization of figurative and phraseologically related meanings is also facilitated by the circumstance (closely related to the mechanism of metaphorization just considered) that, in general, they are poorer in semantic content than direct meanings (cf. pop up 1@ "floating up, appear on the surface of the liquid"; resurface 2 (resurfaced dark machinations)@ "discover yourself", exit 1 from A going, stop being in A", get out 2 from under A(e.g. power) ="cease to be object A"). This is especially true for phraseologically related meanings, which represent the final stage in the development of figurative meanings.

Finally, we note that both figurative and phraseologically related meanings are limited by the constructive conditions of implementation much more strictly than free ones (cf. leave the room, get out from under the shed, go to the square, go to the hall, go to the river, go beyond the outskirts, go out to have lunch etc., but only get out of control) it also hampers the possibilities of semantic differentiation of synonymizing meanings.

The synonymy of figurative meanings can be illustrated by the following examples: fall out - stand out (Day fell out<выдался>magnificent), rush - fly (down the street), clothe - overlay (Clouds covered<обложили>sky); science is a lesson (for me for life); close - ambulance (separation); where-where (you equal with him).

The following examples give an idea of ​​the synonymy of phraseologically related meanings: rush - hit (Hop rushes<ударяет>in the head), inflate - inflate (prices), bear - endure (losses); put on - done (gaiety); shamelessly - shamelessly (to lie).

Inaccessible to the regulatory impact of the processes of semantic differentiation are also many word-formation processes that lead to the emergence in the language of the so-called single-root, or single-root, synonyms. In the Russian language, the verb vocabulary is the richest in single-root synonyms, and most readily and most regularly they are formed with the help of prefixes from the stems of verbs denoting a change in the spatial position or state of an object or subject: overthrow - overthrow (autocracy), boil - boil (potatoes), shut up - shut up - shut up. A common morphological variation of this type is represented by the pairs "non-prefixed verb" - "prefixed verb", cf. boil - boil (potatoes), multiply - multiply (five by two), peel - peel (oranges).

Another regular type of word-building synonymy is represented by prefixed verbs with synonymous or quasi-synonymous stems, cf. raise - uplift - toss up (dust on the road), lie in wait - lie in wait, snuggle - squat, make your way - penetrate (frost, fear), accompany - accompany (Fever accompanies the disease. Success accompanies each of his performances).

Much less regular is the semantically very heterogeneous morphological type "irreflexive - reflexive verb", cf. burn - burn (nettle), bite - bite (dog); squint (eyes at smb.) - squint (with eyes at smb.), turn yellow - turn yellow; cf. also isolated pairs of synonyms grab grab (information), woo (neighbor's daughter) - woo (to neighbor's daughter) .

For nouns, adjectives and adverbs, single-root synonyms arise mainly due to the synonymy of derivational suffixes or the variance of stems, less often due to prefixation or (in word formation) synonymy of stems, and are even less regular; cf. disease - disease, well done - well done, uniform - uniform; prickly - prickly, tiny - tiny; everywhere - everywhere.

The question of the status of such units (synonyms or morphological variants of words?) has long been and still remains debatable. From our point of view, it is reasonable to see variants of a word in cases where it is possible to formulate a fairly simple and general rule for the use of one or another variant. In cases that are not described by simple and general rules (namely, all the examples considered above are such), it is natural to see not variants of a word, but different, but exactly synonymous words.

We conclude this list of sources of semantically accurate synonymy with borrowings. Those of them that have come into the language recently, or are on the periphery of the dictionary, or are prone to terminology, often turn out to be exact synonyms of words already in it (original or borrowed); cf. accusative - accusative case, monotheism - monotheism, polygamy - polygamy.<…>

COMPATIBILITY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SYNONYMS

<…>In addition to the types of compatibility, lexical synonyms can differ from each other in terms of the degree of compatibility of compatibility. In each of the three types, it is possible 1) complete coincidence of compatibility (a rare and not further considered case in detail), 2) inclusion of compatibility, 3) intersection of compatibility, and 4) complete mismatch of compatibility. In total there are, therefore, 3 x 4 = 12 types of elementary differences between lexical synonyms.

It goes without saying that in a given pair or in a series of synonyms, several elementary differences can be presented at once. There is, however, no need to particularly consider possible combinations of elementary differences; they can easily be calculated on the basis of existing definitions.

The problem of their interchangeability is closely related to the question of compatibility differences between exact synonyms. From the above remarks about the types and degrees of compatibility differences between lexical synonyms, it follows that interchangeability is a frequent, but not obligatory, property of them. Word substitution rule X its exact (meaningfully) synonym At in a given non-metalinguistic text T with a dictionary V, in which for X- a and At-a describes all types of compatibility FROM, formulated very simply: X can be replaced with At, if for any type of compatibility there is C T(X) Í C V (Y) (i.e. if the compatibility of X-a in this text is lower or equal to the compatibility of Y-a, as it is described in the dictionary). Obviously, in the case of a complete mismatch of at least one type of compatibility X and At are fundamentally irreplaceable.

It is essential, however, to note that under certain conditions interchanges are possible even in the case of an additional distribution of synonyms. It is obvious, for example, that with a complete divergence of the morpho-syntactic properties of synonyms, they can still be used one instead of the other, if, when replacing a word with its synonym, the construction is simultaneously changed. More subtle is the case of an additional distribution of synonyms with respect to lexical compatibility. Here interchanges are possible when the word BUT used in combination with its lexical parameter: when replacing BUT to a synonymous word AT the lexical expression of this parameter should be changed simultaneously (cf. below synonyms Availability and presence in combination with the Loc parameter). Here, in essence, two words are replaced at once by their synonyms.

Let's move on to a more detailed consideration of elementary compatibility differences.

The complete coincidence of semantic and morpho-syntactic compatibility is characteristic of the synonymy of free direct meanings and can be illustrated by pairs throw - throw, similar - similar, everywhere - everywhere. Complete coincidence of lexical compatibility, characterizing mainly the synonymy of phraseologically related meanings, – the phenomenon is incomparably rarer, since the rules of lexical combinability, at least in the case of a synchronous description of a language, are largely unmotivated. One of the few examples is adjectives. shameless, shameless and unscrupulous, which, in a high degree, are combined with nouns lies, deceit, lies and corresponding names of the figure (liar, deceiver, liar).

As for the inclusion of compatibility and, in particular, the intersection and complete mismatch of compatibility, they usually occur in the case of synonymy of figurative, expressive or phraseologically related meanings.

Most often, such values ​​are the values ​​of initiation, finitness, causation, liquidation, high degree, full degree, and some others, i.e. values ​​corresponding to lexical parameters, as well as terminological values.

In the examples below, M i (X) and D i (X) are used to denote the deep places of the predicate and their surface implementations, respectively; G(X) - is the word on which X depends; so, record M 1 (increase)= "value" means that the first deep place with the verb increase can be implemented by a noun with a magnitude value, for example, Temperature<вес, скорость >increases.

ENABLE COMPATIBILITY

M 2 (achieve)= "value" (exact or inaccurate), M 2 (to reach) ="exact value": achieve or reach up to 10%, 40 meters, but achieve(not *reach) human height(about wheat) house height(about a tree), G (varnished) ="shoes" or "furniture", G (varnished)= "shoes": lacquered or patent leather shoes, sandals, shoes, but varnished(not * lacquered) sideboard, table, chair, cabinet.

2. Lexical compatibility. G (basis/foundation) = to be, to serve (basis) or to be, to lie, to have (at the base) or put (in the base); G (base, foundation) = to be, to serve: to be, to serve as the basis, foundation or base, foundation of the hypothesis, but underlie, underlie, at the base of a hypothesis(not * lie in the base, in the foundation of the hypothesis), put facts in the basis, at the base of the hypothesis(not * put the facts in the base, in the foundation of the hypothesis). It can be assumed that the words the foundation and base in phraseologically related phrases, they are more freely controlled by prepositions.

D2 (to be accepted) = for S vin or infinitive, D 2 (take on) = for S wine : accepted or get to work, to the case, to the picture, but start cutting bread (take up cutting bread either wrong or synonymous oblige to cut bread, those. implements another value take). G (only)= noun or verb, G (only)= noun: Only or We owe all this to Peter alone, He only held on or only by the power of the spirit, but Theoretical physicists only think, and practical physicists only experiment(not * Theoretical physicists only think...).

Special mention deserves the case when one of the synonyms is fixed in a negative, interrogative, exclamatory or other modal construction, while the other synonym has greater syntactic (or, perhaps, semantic) freedom. These are pairs of synonyms understand - understand, appear - take (="begin to be with someone.") understand - understand cf. You understand a lot or you understand it!, you don't understand anything about it or you don’t understand / where did they come from or money was taken from him, he could not understand or understand what is required of him, if wrong *0n everything makes sense(necessary: He understands everything), * He took the money(necessary: He has money.) etc.

CROSSING COMPATIBILITY

1. Semantic compatibility. M 2 (to be accepted)= "activity" or "typical object as a symbol of work activity", M 2 (take) ="work activity", "typical object as symbol of work activity" or "typical tool as symbol of work activity": accepted or get to work<за учение, за чтение, за дело>; accepted or take a picture(object of painting), for the book(object of reading or writing), for the letter(object of writing); but accepted(not *take) laugh(non-work activity) and take(not * taken) for oars<за иглу, за оружие, за перо, за руль> (tool as a symbol of work activity). Note the incorrectness of phrases like *falls into deep sleep<лю6ить, отдыхать>: they are not about activity (cf. began or began to forget<отдыхать>). Also important is the non-transformability start running<хохотать>Û* start running,<за хохот> with transformability start, read (work)<за работу >.

2. Lexical compatibility. M 2 (hide) = influence, trust, help, resistance, service or action, M 2 (produce) = action or attack, impression, search, investigation, experiment: Drops bound or performed their action but not *make an impression *make an impact G (full) ="property" or orphan, G (round) = orphan or fool: complete or round Orphan, but complete(not * round) impossibility<праздность, свобода, тем­нота, тишина> and round(not *full) fool.

TOTAL MISMATCH COMPATIBILITY

1. Semantic compatibility. M 1 (G( at full speed))\u003d "living creature", M 2 (G ( on all pairs))= "vehicle": Horse<6егун>rushing at full speed(not? on all pairs) but Vessel<состав, поезд >rushing at full speed(not? at full speed). Similar but less severe restrictions apply to other revolutions with the value of the full speed degree, cf. in all shoulder blades(mostly about human running), at full<на всем>galloping(mainly about an animal or a rider).

2. Lexical compatibility. Loc (presence) = at, loc (presence) = in: When present or In the presence of gases, an explosion cannot be made, but not vice versa.

3. Morpho-syntactic compatibility. D 1 ( get sick) \u003d S in, D 1 (ill) \u003d S dates: Father is unwell, but Father is unwell.

QUASISYNONYMS

Above we have indicated three features of lexical synonyms; quasi-synonyms differ from exact synonyms in the first feature (their interpretations have a large - in the terminological sense - common part, but do not completely coincide) and do not differ in the second and third features.

With this understanding of quasi-synonyms, they include not only the so-called ideographic synonyms, but also those semantic types of words that are called “analogues” in the dictionaries of Webster 1968, Robert 1967 and some others. We admit that in a more detailed study of the problems of quasi-synonymy than ours, it would be useful to separate these two categories, considering as quasi-synonyms in the proper sense of the word only such lexical units, the semantic differences between which are neutralizable in a number of positions.

Two main types of quasi-synonymous differences - genus-species (inclusion of meanings, cf. hurt - hurt) and species-species (intersection of values, cf. burn - to break - to whine - to cut - to hurt - to scratch - to drill - to shoot). For all its triviality, this statement is not redundant, since different semantic types of quasi-synonyms form classes of different internal structures and manifest themselves differently with respect to neutralization. Genera-species differences usually turn out to be neutralized; neutralization of species differences, theoretically quite possible, in practice turns out to be a rather rare phenomenon.<…>

NEUTRALIZATION OF SEMANTIC DIFFERENCES

Species-generic quasi-synonyms can participate in implicative transformations; in addition, theoretically, both semantic types of quasi-synonymy can participate in equivalent transformations, provided that their semantic differences are neutralized.

The main and most interesting content of the linguistic theory of neutralization is the formal description of the positions (conditions) in which it occurs. It is precisely this aspect of neutralization that will occupy us in the future.

As we have already noted, neutralization in most cases concerns genus-species differences. It can occur either by crossing out part of the meaning of the species quasi-synonym ( A ="XYZ" B ="XY", and "Z" - a component neutralized in the context of T), or by enriching the meaning of the generic quasi-synonym ( A ="XYZ" B ="XY", and "Z" is the component to be attached to the value AT in the context of T).

The first possibility is most often (but not exclusively) realized in the case of a disjunctive organization of the meaning of a specific quasi-synonym: BUT= "XY or Z".

Dig@ "to loosen with a tool...", dig@ "to loosen with a tool or organ..." (ok fox digs(not *digs!) a hole). Consequently, the conditions for substitution arise when the action is performed by a tool, cf. dig or dig with a spade<лопатой>deep hole.<…>

Another type of logical organization of meaning that can be neutralized by crossing out one of the semantic components is meanings with probable but not mandatory semantic components. those. components preceded in interpretation by the quantifiers "usually", "often", etc.

Adjective bold more than brave, implies an active, initiative figure: usually boldly(better than bravely) attack, a bravely defend. This value element bold is also clearly visible in figurative meanings of the type brave explorer(it is forbidden *brave explorer), brave(cf. bold) thought, bold posture, bold manners(“challenging public taste”), etc. However, in many situations that apparently do not have common semantic features, this element of meaning bold is not implemented, and interchangeability becomes possible: He was brave and knew well those sharp moments of the battle, when the commander needed to joke with death for the decisive move.(A.N. Tolstoy, MAC).

Let's move on to the second possibility of neutralizing quasi-synonymous differences. Let AT= "XY", BUT= "XY i ® Z", where i is the index of some syntactic connection. Difference between BUT and AT neutralized, if by the way AT it is possible to attach another word with the value "Z" using the i-th syntactic link. In this case, it is easy to conclude that neutralization is played out in sections of the text that are longer than one word.

Let us turn to examples and consider first quasi-synonyms with a conjunctive organization of meaning (i ® - a coordinative connection). AT= "XY", A ="XY and Z"; in most cases, the component "Z" junctively attached to "XY" has the form of a sentence containing the formulation of a certain requirement for the actants of the denoted BUT situations.

Store X@ "accumulate X in excess of the consumption quantum for consumption at a later time", cf. stock up on food for the road, stock up for a neighbor of firewood; stock up on x@ "store X, and X is for itself", cf. stock up on food for the trip<дровами на зиму>. AT meaning stockpile there is no indication of a potential consumer of the stocked product: stockpile possible both for oneself and for others, and stock up only for myself. Therefore, the condition for neutralization is the use with the verb stockpile element (for example, a reflexive pronoun) explicitly identifying the consumer with the subject of the action, cf. He stocked up a carload of firewood for the winter = He stocked up a carload of firewood for the winter.

AT In the case of a conjunctive organization of meaning, another, less trivial situation of neutralization is theoretically conceivable. Let B ="HU", A="XY and Z"; if the "Z" value is expressed in the text and in addition to BUT and attached to BUT junctively, then the corresponding piece of text will, according to the rules for removing the tautology, the following form: "XY and Z" (value BUT) + "and Z" = "XY and Z and Z" = "XY and Z" If in place BUT in the text is B ="XY", then exactly the same interpretation is obtained for the corresponding part of the text: "XY" + "and Z" "XY and Z"

Any means "indefinite each" (more precisely, "one, but whatever"); each, in contrast, it can be attached to the name of both an indefinite and a definite actant, cf. 10 people came; each(but not *everyone!) had a weapon with him. In the situation of “introducing a new object of speech”, when the object of speech cannot be determined by the very nature of things, conditions of neutralization arise, cf. Each or Every person has the right to work and rest. <…>

Printed according to the book. Apresyan Yu.D. Selected works. T.1. Lexical semantics. Synonymous means of language. M., 1995. pp.216-248.

V.D. Chernyak

Synonymy is one of the brightest manifestations of systemic relations in vocabulary. Words that are similar in their emerging associations and the proximity of the designated concepts enter into synonymous relations. This feature is not inherent in all words of the Russian language. So, proper names, names of countries, cities, towns and their inhabitants, many specific names of household items, word-terms do not enter into such relations (although there are many exceptions in this area).

Lexical synonyms (rp. Synonymas - the same name) are words that are close or identical in meaning, which call the same concept differently. Synonyms differ from each other either by a shade of meaning (close), or by stylistic coloring (unambiguous, i.e. identical), or by both. For example: ruddy - pink, rosy-cheeked, pink-faced, red-cheeked; neighborhood - circle, districts (colloquial); premature - early, timeless (raised, bookish with the words death, death, death, etc.). The former differ mainly in shades of meaning. In the next two synonymic rows, along with semantic differences, there are also stylistic (see the litters colloquial and bookish), as well as stylistic (see the litter raised).

Depending on the semantic or functional-stylistic differences, three main types of synonyms are conventionally distinguished:

1) ideographic (gr. idea - concept + graphō - record), or proper semantic, 2) stylistic (as related to one of the functional styles (see the above-mentioned notations of colloquial and bookish, 3) proper stylistic (i.e. . such, in the meaning of which there are additional evaluative and expressive shades, see the litter pripodn.) The last two types are usually closely related to each other (cf., for example, synonyms for the interstyle and stylistically neutral word life: colloquial life, obi.- colloquial, surname life-life and common-colloquial, predominantly neglected life). Consequently, belonging to a style is often specified by indicating an additional appraisal or connotation, i.e. a stylistic characteristic proper. Such synonyms are often also called semantico -stylistic, since they all have differences in meaning (Note that this also explains the relative conventionality in the selection of these types of synonyms.)

The emergence of synonyms of the above types in the language is due to a number of reasons. One of them is the desire of a person to find some new features in an object or phenomenon of reality and designate them with a new word, similar in meaning to the already existing name for this object, phenomenon, quality (cf., for example, the use of the words hearing, rumor, news, news, message and others to refer to one concept).

Synonyms appear in the language in connection with the penetration of borrowed words that are close or identical in meaning to Russian (cf., for example: conductor - guide, chicherone; germ - embryo; introduction - preamble, etc.).

Sometimes words that are close in meaning appear in the language due to the fact that in different expressive-stylistic groups of words, in different styles of speech, the same object, the same phenomenon can be called differently. So, the words eye, hand, go, this one, in vain and others are common. In sublime speech, in poetic speech, their synonyms can be the words eyes, hands, outdated for the modern Russian language, coming, this, in vain. For example, A.S. Pushkin, we observe the use of synonyms eyes - eyes: No, not agate in her eyes, but all the treasures of the East are not worth the sweet rays of her midday eye ...

To reduce the style, some of them in colloquial everyday speech are replaced by synonyms of a colloquial or dialectal nature: eyes - peepers, eyeballs, balls, etc .; hands - paws; goes - stomps. For example, F.I. We find Panferov: Markel pointed to his eyes with his finger: - There is a peeper himself.

Separate commonly used words can have as synonyms word combinations that convey their meaning phraseologically, for example: died - ordered to live long, departed to another world, left this vale, etc. See A.S. Pushkin:

- Is your bear healthy, Father Kirila Petrovich?

- Misha ordered to live long, - answered Kirila Petrovich.

- He died a glorious death.

Synonyms also arise when an object, sign or phenomenon of reality is given a different emotional assessment (cf. cruel - ruthless, heartless, inhuman, fierce, ferocious, etc.).

Synonymous in modern Russian are not only individual words, but also individual phraseological turns (see § 25).

Synonymy is closely related to the phenomenon of polysemy. For example, the word quiet has several meanings, and each of them can have its own synonyms. So, in the phrase quiet sleep, its synonyms are calm, serene, but these words cannot replace the word quiet in combination with the word man. Synonyms for him in the phrase a quiet person are - inconspicuous, modest; in the phrase, a quiet voice is weak, barely audible; in the phrase quiet ride, the adjective quiet is synonymous - slow, calm, etc. The word profit also has several synonyms: profit, profit, profit. However, it is not always possible to replace this word with any of the indicated synonyms. So, in the phrase, Prokhor Petrovich, meanwhile, made a semi-annual calculation of turnovers. The balance showed profit (Shishk.) The word profit cannot be replaced, for example, with the words profit, profit or benefit, since the meaning of the whole phrase will be distorted; the word profit in this context is stylistically the most appropriate and accurate.

In context, words can be interchangeable with synonyms (for example, gaze - look; pedestal - pedestal; calm - calmness; giant - giant, colossus, giant, titan, etc.). However, words grouped in a common synonymous series cannot always be interchangeable (see the example with the words profit - profit, profit, etc.). Synonymous words have one, as a rule, stylistically neutral core (main) word in the synonymic series, which is usually called a dominant (Latin dominans - dominant). Such is, for example, the verb to speak in relation to words stylistically colored - to say, utter, grumble, etc.

The synonymic possibilities of the Russian language are varied; synonyms can be heterogeneous words (greatness - grandiosity; snowstorm - blizzard, snowstorm) and single-rooted words (greatness - majesty, majesty; snowstorm - blizzard; unprincipled - unprincipled). In a synonymic series, along with individual words, combinations of official and significant words can be combined (in spite - in spite; anonymous - without a signature), words and terminological combinations of words (aviation - air fleet; dentist - dentist), etc.

The role of synonyms in speech is exceptionally great: they help to avoid unnecessary repetitions of the same word, more precisely, convey thoughts more clearly, allow you to express the variety of shades of a particular phenomenon, quality, etc.

Along with general literary, accepted, usual (Latin usus - custom) synonyms in the process of use in speech (especially in the language of fiction), words that in ordinary use have nothing in common in their meaning act as synonyms. For example, in the sentence: A ruddy girl came out and knocked a samovar on the table (M. G.), the word knocked is synonymized with the word set, although in general literary language they are not synonyms. Such use is called occasional (lat. occasional - random), due to the individual selection of words only for a given context. For such words, stable consolidation of synonymous meanings in the language system is not observed. They are not listed in dictionaries.

By the number of words, the synonymic rows are not the same: some have two or three words (marriage - matrimony; authority - weight, prestige), others include a large number of words and phrases (win - overcome, smash, defeat, overcome, break, overpower, triumph, overpower, cope, take over, win, etc.).

LEXICAL SYNONYMY IN THE RUSSIAN LANGUAGE

1. The concept of lexical synonyms. Synonymous line.

2. Types of lexical synonyms

2.1.Semantic

2.2 Stylistic

2.3. Semantic-stylistic

2.4 Lexical doublets

2.5 Contextual synonyms

3. The use of lexical synonyms in speech

4. Dictionaries of synonyms

Literature:

1. Apresyan synonym // Questions of linguistics, 1957, No. 6.

2. On the openness of synonymic series // Philological Sciences, 1974, No. 1.

3. Lexical synonymy (Collection of articles). - M., 1967.

4. Essays on the synonymy of the modern Russian literary language. - M. - L., 1956.

Synonymy is closely related to polysemy: synonyms help to show the difference in shades of the meaning of a polysemantic word. Depending on the semantic nuances, a polysemantic word can enter into synonymous relations with different words. Yes, the word flaw in the meaning of "lack of something in the right amount" (lack of people, details) has the following synonyms: absence, shortage, scarcity; in the second meaning - "lack of sufficient means of subsistence" - it is characterized by synonyms poverty, need; in the third meaning - "the negative quality of something or someone" the word flaw synonymous with words flaw, flaw, defect, imperfection. Here are similar examples: move – move, move; move – stir; short – low; short – unsatisfactory(about quality); low - mean, dishonorable(about a person and his actions); note - mark, write down; mark - register; commend, commend, commend.

Two or more lexical synonyms form a certain group or paradigm in the language, which is otherwise called synonymous next. Yes, synonymous order - order - command - directive - order - command united by the common meaning for all members of the synonymic series "an indication to do something." The main word of the synonymic series, which conveys the most general concept and is neutral in use, is called dominant synonymous series (from lat. dominants"dominant"). In the above row, the dominant word is order. The remaining words of the synonymic series express additional shades: order"the official order of the one who is invested with power"; command"the same as an order, but with a touch of obsolescence"; team"short verbal order"; directive"guideline from a superior authority to subordinate authorities".

Since the dominant expresses a concept that is common to all words included in a given synonymic series, it is usually located at the beginning of the synonymic series. Along with the term dominant in the scientific literature, the synonymous term "support word" is used.

From the point of view of the constancy of the composition of words, synonymic series are characterized by openness. Changes and additions are possible in them, due to the ongoing process of development of the entire lexical system. For example, path - road - route - track - orbit.

Synonymic rows are usually formed from words with different roots. But synonyms can also be single-rooted, that is, arising from the same root, but decorated with different prefixes and suffixes: homeland - fatherland, potatoes - potatoes, radishes - radishes, expel - expel, swim - bathe, overtake - overtake.

The Russian language is very rich in synonyms, but the process of the emergence of new words is not interrupted. One of the main reasons for the emergence of synonyms is the desire to most fully comprehend, study the phenomenon of reality, give a new name to this phenomenon.

Synonymic rows are also formed as a result of penetration into the Russian language and the development of foreign vocabulary by it: opposition - contrast, balance - balance, cramp - convulsion. Synonymic ranks are replenished by dialect vocabulary: speak - hum, cold - cold. The source of synonymy is also word-formation processes: late - belated, multiply - multiply.

In modern Russian, there are several types of synonyms, distinguished depending on the nature of the differences between words with their general semantic similarity:

Semantic (ideographic, conceptual), denoting the same phenomenon of reality, distinguish different aspects in it and therefore differ from each other in shades of their meaning.

Consider the following group of synonymous nouns: stillness, stillness, stillness. All of them mean "lack of wind", but differ from each other in shades of their lexical meanings: the word calmness has the meaning "complete absence of wind, calm weather"; word silence– “calmness, absence of noise”; word calm- "weakening, temporary cessation of wind, noise."

Adjectives differ in terms of the concept steep – steep - sheer, which call the same feature of the object - the steepness of the coast. Word steep means "sharply declining", the word precipitous- "uneven, with cliffs", the word sheer- "very steep, at right angles to the plane."

Stylistic synonyms, denoting the same phenomenon of reality, differ from each other in stylistic affiliation. They also have differences in semantic expressiveness and emotional coloring. An example of stylistic synonyms is the words to sleep - to rest - to sleep. Verb sleep is neutral in stylistic terms and does not contain emotional overtones. Verb rest is obsolete, stylistically bookish; word sleep is vernacular with an emotional appraisal of disapproval.

Stylistic or multi-style synonyms also include the words: face - face - muzzle(neutral - bookish - vernacular), to die - to die - to die(neutral - bookish - colloquial), satisfactory - triple, tired - tired(neutral - colloquial), argument - argument, view - look(neutral - bookish).

Within the framework of stylistic synonyms, the following are also distinguished:

a) Synonyms that differ from each other in the degree of modernity. In such a synonymous series, one word refers to modern vocabulary, the other to obsolete: plane - airplane, minister - people's commissar, this - this, cinema - cinema;

b) Synonyms that differ in the scope of use. This includes, for example, series consisting of a national word and a term or professionalism : kitchen - galley, cook - cook(maritime), jaundice - hepatitis(honey.), page - strip(polygraph.); literary jargon : parents - ancestors, dining room - feeder, knife - pen, search - shmon;

in) Semantic-stylistic synonyms, differing both in shades of lexical meanings and in stylistic coloring. An example of such synonyms are the verbs go and trail, which have a close but not identical meaning: go- "to move, stepping over your feet", and trail- "move slowly, sluggishly." Therefore, the verb trail has an additional semantic connotation - "to move with difficulty, barely stepping over." In addition, synonymous verbs go and trail differ in stylistic affiliation: verb go is neutral and the verb trail used in colloquial speech with an emotional assessment of disapproval. Thus the words go and trail are semantic-stylistic synonyms. Comp. Also: reserve - reserve: stock- a common word, means "everything that is prepared for the future"; reserve- bookish, special, meaning "what is left for a special, exceptional case."

Semantic and stylistic differences are also characteristic of synonyms angry - angry(colloquial), hasty - hasty(colloquial), eat - eat(simple);

d) A special group is made up of absolute synonyms, or lexical doublets. These are words that have neither semantic nor stylistic differences. From this point of view, all other types of synonyms are relative. There are few doublet words in Russian, since the language avoids duplication. For example: linguistics - linguistics, spelling - spelling, cavalry - cavalry, strike - strike.

All the previously given synonyms are common language, i.e. they are characteristic of the lexical system of the Russian language, understandable to all or the vast majority of its speakers. Contextual, or individual author's synonyms should be distinguished from general language ones. These include words that enter into synonymous relations temporarily, only in this context. For example, between words showered and pasted over there are no synonymous relations in the lexical system of the Russian language. However, in the story "Chelkash" uses the word pasted over as a synonym for the word showered: He fell asleep with a vague smile on his face covered with flour dust. Let's compare more examples of the use of contextual synonyms : Ostap was about to take the pounds for the starched collar and show him the way, the way(collar- contextual synonym of the word collar); The whole plain is covered with loose and soft lime (lime – snow).

The definition of lexical synonyms contained in school textbooks generally corresponds to the university definition, it also emphasizes the semantic and stylistic differences of synonyms: Synonyms close in lexical meaning, but differ from each other in shades of meanings (this lexical synonyms, for example, talkative - easily entering into a conversation, talkative- speaking too much) and use in speech (this stylistic synonyms, for example, speak up bookish, rant colloquially) "(and others. Russian language: Culture of oral and written speech. Grade 5. - Minsk, 1995. - P. 192.).

When they talk about the richness of a language, they mean, first of all, its developed lexical synonymy. The longer the history of a people, its language, the more diverse the synonymic possibilities of words. Synonyms help to clarify, supplement our ideas about objects and phenomena of reality.

In everyday speech, synonyms perform two new functions for everyone who speaks Russian. First, this substitution function one word with another. It is caused by the desire to avoid unwanted repetitions of the same words in speech: 1. Wild geese flew by, a string of swans, white as snow, swept by. 2. The whole hall applauded. Clapping hands up. Secondly, refinement function. It is caused by the need to more clearly designate phenomena, objects and their signs in the process of communication. In a sentence All day they worked together, according to synonym according to clarifies the meaning of the word unanimously, indicates a special coherence, coordination of actions. Let's compare a similar example: “How pathetic, insignificant I am,” Alexander said thoughtfully. “I am petty, poor in spirit.”

The clarification function is associated with the method of stringing synonyms to emphasize the identity or semantic similarity of words: Mind, reason, she agreed with Sergei in everything. « We will close the file cabinet, bury it,” Volodya said. In this case, in one synonymous row there may be words that are different in stylistic affiliation and emotional coloring: They shouted that it was sinful, even vile, that the old man was out of his mind, that the old man had been deceived, cheated, deceived(Dost.)

Or: And I realized that I will not break the oath,

And if I want to break it, I can't.

That I will never sbres, I will not frighten

I won't drift, I won't lie, I won't lie(B. Slutsky).

Comp. also: And soon a crowd gathers near the wood warehouse ... Ochumelov makes a half turn to the left and steps towards the crowd(A. Chekhov.) - here in a synonymous pair crowd - gathering the second word in the meaning of "a large crowd of people" has the stylistic marks "disapproved." and “colloquial”, which “reduces” its meaning in the text and serves as an expression of a negative assessment.

Sometimes there is the use of synonyms in the so-called antonymic situation. For example : this city is old but not old.

Compare the following statement: Actors do not have hands, but hands, not fingers, but fingers ... They do not walk, but march, do not sit, but sit, do not lie, but recline ...

Contrasting synonyms without sufficient reason causes a comic effect. : I did it not in the interests of the truth, but in the interests of the truth(Ilf and Petrov).

Synonyms are often found in proverbs and sayings: The mind goes beyond the mind; pour from empty to empty; out of the frying pan into the fire etc.

In the dictionaries of synonyms, synonymous rows are grouped. The first dictionary of synonyms appeared at the end of the 18th century. Then, during the 19th and the first half of the 20th century, dictionaries by P. Kalaidovich and other authors were published. From modern synonymic dictionaries, the “Concise Dictionary of Synonyms of the Russian Language” (1956, 2nd edition - 1961) is known. The dictionary includes about 3000 words. The author gives the lexical meanings of each word included in the synonymic series, uses quotes from the works of writers.

In 1968, the Dictionary of Synonyms of the Russian Language was published. This dictionary includes about 9000 synonymous series. However, semantic differences between synonyms are minimized or absent altogether. The stylistic characteristic of synonyms is given with the help of marks bookish, colloquial, simple. and others. Phraseological phrases are widely introduced into synonymic rows. There are no examples of the use of words.

The first fairly complete dictionary of synonyms should be considered published in 1970-1971. two-volume "Dictionary of synonyms of the Russian language" edited by. It clearly explains the meaning of each of the words - members of the synonymic series, shows their semantic and stylistic shades, provides illustration examples.

In 1976, the one-volume Dictionary of Synonyms was published. It, like the two-volume one, was prepared by the vocabulary sector of the Institute of the Russian Language of the USSR Academy of Sciences under the editorship of. Despite the small volume, the dictionary contains a greater number of synonymic rows. Clarifications have been made to the composition of these series and the interpretation of synonyms. The dictionary adopts a general alphabetical order, and this makes it easier to find the right synonym word. The accent is consistently reflected, the shades of the meaning of the word are revealed, the boundaries of the lexical compatibility of synonyms of the Russian language are indicated.

Lexical synonyms(Greek s ynonymous - homonymous) are words of the same part of speech, close or identical in meaning, but different in sound and spelling. Synonyms can mean the same thing (hippopotamus, hippo) but most often they differ from each other in shades of meaning: red, crimson, scarlet; imitate, copy, imitate,

Synonyms appear in the language for various reasons, for example:

1) as a result of the penetration of similar or identical in meaning with Russian borrowed words: introduction–preamble; conductor– tour guide, guide;

2) as a result of naming the same thing differently in different styles of speech: there is–eat; talker–balabolka;

3) as a result of a different emotional assessment of an object, phenomenon, etc.: cruel–ferocious, heartless, ruthless;

4) as a result of the desire to soften the designation of a concept: thick – full etc.

Depending on the characteristics by which synonyms differ from each other, they are divided into semantic, stylistic and semantic-stylistic. Semantic synonyms differ in shades of meaning: house, palace, shack; run, run.Stylistic synonyms mean the same thing, but are used in different styles of speech: eyes, eyes, zenki; understand, laugh.Semantic-stylistic synonyms combine both of the above features: dress– dress up; frivolous–naughty.

Synonyms that do not differ from each other by any of the listed features are called absolute(or complete): linguistics- linguistics, tiny- tiny.

Synonyms are merged into synonymous series. The word that most fully expresses the concept common to all words of the synonymic series is called dominant(lat. dominants- dominating). The dominant opens a synonymous row and is, as a rule, a commonly used, stylistically neutral word: fearful – timid, timid, timid, cowardly, cautious, cowardly (colloquial).

Synonyms of the same row may differ in lexical compatibility. For example, words big and extensive combined with the word territory, but only one of them is combined with the word tree: big tree. The exact choice of one of the synonyms is determined by the context.

Synonyms are used to enhance the visual and expressive possibilities of the text, for the most accurate and complete characterization of the described phenomenon: 1. Snow blizzard, blizzard, spin yarn for us, whip fluffy snow like swan down. You nimble weavers–whirlwinds and blizzards, give rainbow brocade for shaggy firs(S. Marshak). 2. The runners creaked, screeched, wept, tearing themselves away from the accretion of snow;(A. Kuprin).