A group of words consisting of several synonyms is called a synonymic row (or nest). Synonymic rows can consist of both different-root and single-root synonyms: face - face, overtake - overtake; fisherman - fisherman, fisherman. The first place in the synonymic series is usually taken by the defining and stylistically neutral word - the dominant (Latin dominans - dominant) (it is also called the pivotal, main, supporting word). Other members of the series clarify, expand its semantic structure, supplement it with evaluative values. So, in the last example, the dominant word is the word brave, it most capaciously conveys the meaning that unites all synonyms - "fearless" and free from expressive and stylistic shades. The rest of the synonyms are distinguished in the semantic-stylistic sense and in the peculiarities of their use in speech.

For example, fearless is a book word, interpreted as "very brave"; daring - folk poetic, means "full of daring"; dashing - colloquial - "bold, risk-taking".

The synonyms “brave, courageous, fearless, fearless” differ not only in semantic nuances, but also in the possibilities of lexical compatibility (they are combined only with nouns that call people; one cannot say “brave project”, “fearless decision”, etc.).

Due to the ambiguity of many words in the Russian language, the same word can have several synonyms that will not be in synonymous relations with each other. For example, synonyms for the word "heavy" in different meanings will be the words difficult (hard, hard work); gloomy, joyless (heavy, gloomy, joyless thoughts); severe (heavy, severe punishment); dangerous (severe, dangerous disease); incomprehensible (heavy, incomprehensible language); grumpy (heavy, grumpy character). These words are not synonymous with each other.

Members of the synonymic series can be not only individual words, but also stable phrases (phraseological units), as well as prepositional case forms: a lot - over the edge, without counting, chickens do not peck. All of them, as a rule, perform the same syntactic function in a sentence.

Like synonymous words, phraseological synonyms have different ability to combine with other words. So, for example, the phraseological unit “good obscenity” is combined with the words: yell, shout, and the phraseological unit “to the fullest” is combined with the words: yell, shout. roar, sing, croak, etc.; phraseologism "in all Ivanovo" is combined not only with the above words, but also with a number of other words, for example, snore. Phraseologisms differ from each other and the ability to word production; for example, the verb to bawl is formed from the phraseologism "to the fullest". Phraseologisms "in all Ivanovskaya" and "good obscenities" did not serve as the basis for the formation of words.

V.A. Belov

UDC 81"23 / 81"373.421

TYPES OF SYNONYMIC SERIES

The article is devoted to the representation of synonyms in the mental lexicon. On the basis of experimental and corpus data, two types of synonymic rows with different structures are distinguished.

Key words: synonymy, synonymic row, synonymic row dominant, mental lexicon

The article is dedicated to the representation of synonyms in the mental lexicon. Based on experimental data two types of synonymic rows with different structures have been distinguished.

Keywords: synonymy, synonymic row, synonymic row dominant, mental lexicon

It is traditionally believed that synonyms can be combined into synonymous pairs or groups of synonyms. Such groups of synonyms are usually called synonymic series:

The following criteria have traditionally been recognized as the basis for combining synonyms:

Reflection of “one and the same phenomenon of objective reality” [Palevskaya 1964: 31];

Generality or identity of meaning: "Synonymy is held to be sameness of meaning of different expressions"; “Synonyms are words that are close or identical in meaning, denoting the same concept, but differing from each other either in shades of meaning, or in stylistic coloring, or in both features” (A.P. Evgenyeva) [Dictionary of synonyms of the Russian language 1970: 8 ];

The identity of the lexical meaning and the coincidence of semantic valences: “For the recognition of two words (or syntactically indecomposable phraseological units) A and B as lexical synonyms, it is necessary and sufficient (1) that they have a completely coinciding interpretation, i.e. translated into the same expression of the semantic language, (2) so that they have the same number of active semantic valences, (3) so that they belong to the same (deep) part of speech” [Apresyan 1995: 223];

Possibility of functional replacement: "Two words are synonyms if they can be used interchangeable in all sentence contexts" ; (see also [Zvegintsev 1963]).

1 The work was carried out within the framework of the implementation of the FTP "Scientific and scientific-pedagogical personnel of innovative Russia" for 2009 - 2013.

TYPES OF SYNONYMIC ROWS

Introduction

Perhaps the lack of a common understanding of the criteria for synonymy has influenced the fact that synonymic series are presented differently in synonym dictionaries.

In modern linguistics, it is customary to single out the dominant (center, supporting word) of the synonymic series, which has a common meaning for all members of the synonymic series: “The synonymous series begins with the supporting, or main, word. The reference word most clearly expresses the concept that the words included in the synonymous series denote. In the vast majority of cases, this is the word in its main nominative meaning, directly and directly expressing the connection with the object, phenomenon, concept, in other words, representing in the modern literary language its most direct and accurate name without additional (expressive, emotional, stylistic) elements. [Evgen'eva 1970: 17]. Yu.D. Apresyan writes that the dominant has the widest meaning in the series, "is the most commonly used synonym, has the most complete paradigm, the widest set of syntactic constructions, the widest compatibility and is the most neutral stylistically, pragmatically, communicatively and prosodic" [Apresyan 2009: 219].

The dominant of the synonymic series should be devoid of stylistic, additional emotional and expressive shades: “The key word of the synonymic series in its meaning represents the type of free nominative meaning or derivative meanings close to it [Stepanova 2006: 66]. One and the same word (multi-valued) can be a reference for several synonymous rows at once [ibid.].

The dominant of the synonymic series expresses an integrating concept, common semes for all members of the synonymic series: "The core of the synonymic series usually consists of several semes, equally significant for all members of the series" [Chernyak 1989: 13]. The dominant "neutralizes" the shades of the meanings of words in the synonymic series. A.A. Bragina compares the relations in the synonymic series with the phonological system (as read by N.S. Trubetskoy) and calls the dominant a phoneme (an abstract, the most abstract unit), and other members of the synonymic series, which have shades of meaning, are allophones (see [Bragina 1986: 30 -37]).

According to Yu.D. Apresyan, the dominant has a pragmatic specificity: “She [the dominant. - V.B.] serves such life situations in which other synonyms of the series cannot be used ”[New Explanatory Dictionary of Synonyms of the Russian Language 2003: 28].

However, the concept of dominant raises serious objections among many scientists. The real status of the dominant has not been proven and is being questioned; this "actually leads to the substitution of natural properties of the semantics of natural languages ​​by metalinguistic semantics, units of a language by units of description" [Ufimtseva 1976: 33]. The analysis of linguistic material often led scientists to the conclusion that it is impossible to single out the dominant in specific synonymic rows, since it does not express the common, integral seme of the entire group of synonyms. So, V.D. Chernyak says that the general seme or nuclear semes cannot be represented in

in the form of one word - the dominant: "The general meaning of the synonymic series cannot be interpreted in one word" [Chernyak 1989: 23].

The problem of dominance is especially important when compiling dictionaries of synonyms. As lexicographic practice shows, in some cases it is not easy or impossible to single out the dominant in synonymic rows: situations often arise when not all properties of the dominant are “ideally consistent with each other” [New Explanatory Dictionary of Synonyms of the Russian Language 2003: 28].

When highlighting the dominant, it is important to set the lexicographer to certain semantic features. Thus, when compiling the New Explanatory Dictionary of Synonyms of the Russian Language, the focus on anthropocentricity was voiced: selected on the basis of anthropocentricity” [Apresyan 2009: 217]. This attitude in practice is manifested in the fact that when describing synonymic series, the signs associated with human activity are of the utmost importance: for example, in the synonymic series of nouns, the defining features are the signs of shape, color, size, method of application [ibid.].

Thus, despite the generally accepted approach to the dominant of the synonymic series and the existence of criteria for its selection, in practice its definition causes certain difficulties. Therefore, to study the structure of the synonymic series, we turned to the psycholinguistic study of how synonyms are presented in the mental lexicon.

Description of the experiment

To study the functioning of synonyms in the mental lexicon, we organized two psycholinguistic experiments: 45 people took part in the first, 63 people took part in the second. The subjects were students of non-humanitarian specialties.

The subjects were given questionnaires in which synonymous rows were given. It was proposed to determine (by underlining) which word in each row is the main one. The instructions said that this word should express the most general meaning characteristic of the entire series as a whole. It also provided for the option of the absence of such a word - there was a special item “no” in the test. The time for the experiment was not limited.

For the experiments, two experimental tables were compiled. The first table consisted of 12 synonymous rows, the second - 20.

The synonymic rows selected for the first experiment are interpreted differently in different dictionaries of synonyms. For example, the “New Explanatory Dictionary of Synonyms of the Russian Language” contains the series “food, edibles (leaving), dishes (bookish), food” [New Explanatory Dictionary of Synonyms of the Russian Language 2003: 314], in the dictionary by V.N. Klyueva - "food, food, fodder, grubs, dishes, victuals" [Klyueva 1956: 144-145], in the dictionary edited by A.P. Evgenyeva - “food, subsistence, food, edible, grub (simple), grub (simple), grub (rude-simple), Shamovka (rude-simple)” [Dictionary of Synonyms of the Russian Language 1970: 146- 147], in the dictionary Z.E. Alexandrova - “food, nutrition, subsistence, table, food, victuals; feeding, grub(s), grub (simple), grub, shamovka (coarse-simple), food (for animals”) [Aleksandrova 2001: 117]; in the dictionary of N. Abramov - “food, food, food, food, brush,

dishes (plural), table, grub (grub), bread, loaves, food, provisions, provisions, edible, edible supplies, food substance, consumer product; delicacy, sweetness, ambrosia (<пища богов>)” [Abramov 1911: 107].

The synonymic rows presented in the first experiment included those synonyms that are listed in all synonym dictionaries. Words with pronounced stylistic restrictions (for example, grub, grub) and low frequency of use in modern Russian (for example, tower has a frequency of 27) were excluded from the experiment.

The second experiment contained 20 synonymous rows. The principle of selecting synonymic series was changed here: unlike the first experiment, which included synonymic series from different dictionaries, for the second experiment, the series were selected only from the dictionary of synonyms edited by A.P. Evgenieva [Dictionary of synonyms of the Russian language 1970]. At the same time, as in the first experiment, words with pronounced stylistic restrictions and low frequency of use in modern Russian were also excluded from the synonymic series.

In both cases, synonymous rows containing only nouns were selected. Synonymic rows consisted of words of the literary language. We carried out a corpus check of the experimental material (for this we used the National Corpus of the Russian Language), but in contrast to the New Explanatory Dictionary of Synonyms of the Russian Language, where the corpus data served as an “empirical basis for research and a source of illustration” [Apresyan In our experiment, the frequency of synonyms was checked. The criterion of frequency is important because the dominant must have a high frequency in the language.

Typology of synonymic rows

The results of the experiment and corpus research make it possible to single out two types (groups) of synonymic series.

The first group included synonymic series, the dominant of which can be unambiguously determined using experimental and frequency data. In such cases, there is agreement between the experimental and frequency data: in the vast majority of cases, the subjects name the most frequent word as the dominant. For example, the word fate will be nuclear for a number of fortune, destiny, fate, share, food - for a number of food, dishes, food, food.

In the first experiment, out of 12 synonymous rows, 8 (67%) fell into the first group, and 14 (70%) - in the second.

Table 1. Centered synonymic rows (first experiment)

Feed 1 1 226

Dishes 3 260

1 Food 29 2016

Fortune 0 306

Destiny 0 1 160*

2 Fate 38 13 832

Share 0 5 420*

Illness 4 487

Ailment 0 148

3 Disease 32 8 644

Disease 9 1 000

Kid 3 1 421

Naughty 0 239

4 Child 39 13 070

Buddy 3 4 558

5 Friend 25 76 005

Comrade 3 21 827

Lies 0 802

Fiction 2 496

6 False 12 2 998

Lie 27 4 475

Dialogue 1 2 399

Negotiations 0 5 910

7 Conversation 4 3 294

Conversation 12 26 688

Speech 26 30 355

Trail 0 997

8 Path 25 32 326

Road 16 13 267

Lesson 8 3 694

Labor 23 11 013

9 Case 8 142 812

Job 5 27 345

Table 2. Centered synonymic rows (second experiment)

Synonym The answers of the subjects The frequency of the word form

Deficiency 21 4 555

Flaw 10 268

1 Vice 14 1 160

Imperfection 13 421

Sorcerer 8 700

2 Wizard 31 844

Wizard 9 254

Rapture 19 3 760

Rapture 9 1 333

3 Rapture 9 302

Ecstasy 12 389

View 17 29 240*

Skin 8 3 168

4 Appearance 26 1 630

Appearance 6 1 314

Recklessness 17 96

Madness 21 1 663

5 Madness 9 405

Madness 6 65

Fire 28 15 244

6 Flame 12 3 672

Error 48 3 975

7 Miscalculation 6 186

Miss 4,573

Monument 31 4 275

Monument 6 457

8 Gravestone 0 106

Mausoleum 10 331

Landscape 8 1 701

9 Landscape 13,628

Type 35 29 240*

Doctor 29 8 744

Doctor 7 20 150*

10 Medic 10 594

Doctor 9 1 026

Source 22 6 321

11 Key 8 6 452*

Spring 20 447

View 13 28 769*

View 4,383

12 Persuasion 9 2 208

Point of view 23 1 442

Deficiency 16 75

13 Space 7 483*

Defect 25 338

Privilege 6 287

Advantage 21 2 800

14 Benefit 15 141

Prerogative 9 136

* The frequency of homonyms may coincide.

In such cases, the center of the synonymic series is the word that has a common meaning for the entire series and the highest linguistic frequency. We called the synonymic rows of the first group centered, since they have a pronounced center.

A separate discussion requires complex synonymous series occupation - labor - business - work; appearance - appearance - appearance - appearance; doctor - doctor - doctor - physician, where there is a discrepancy between experimental and corpus data. So, despite the extremely high particularity of the synonym deed, the subjects more often name the word labor as the main word, which in frequency is significantly inferior to the words deed and work.

The discrepancy between the experimental and corpus data in this case, in our opinion, is explained by the fact that the series is formed by words that have a high linguistic frequency and rich lexical meaning2: "... more frequently used words tending to be more polysemous than less frequent ones" . Therefore, the synonym deed prevails only over certain meanings of the words included in the synonymic series, and not over words in general. In such cases, the context of the series actualizes certain meanings of synonyms.

Using the terms of cognitive linguistics, the dominant of the synonymic series can be called the prototype of the synonymic series in the sense that it is the ideal representative of the category: "By prototypes of categories we have generally meant the clearest cases of membership defined operationally by people"s judgments of goodness of membership in the category" .

In relation to the dominant of centered series, the term "invariant" is also applicable, which is actively discussed in functional grammar. As A.V. Bondarko, prototype and invariant combine the role of a source of influence on dependent objects: “A prototype is a reference representative, a reference variant of a certain invariant among its other representatives (variants)” [Bondarko 2002: 263].

2 According to the Small Academic Dictionary [Dictionary of the Russian Language 1985], the word business has 15 lexico-semantic variants,

Considering the problem of centered synonymic series in the mental lexicon, one cannot leave aside the question of the reasons for the dominance of one member over other members of the synonymic series. Let us try to explain the reasons for the dominance of the center over the other members of the series.

There is a point of view that goes back to the ideas of L.S. Vygotsky, according to which the history of the semantic field determines its structure [Akhutina 1994]. A similar approach is taken by J. Lakoff and M. Johnson, who argue that a new concept in the mind is formed through cognized (mastered) concepts [Lakoff, Johnson 2004]. According to this point of view, the word that a person learned earlier than others becomes the dominant of the series. However, if we follow this approach, the hierarchy in the synonymous series should be unchanged from the moment of mastering the language. One and the same unit should dominate during the entire time of the existence of the semantic field.

It is clear that the latter statement contradicts modern studies of human memory, which proves that human memory can be "rewritten". See, for example, a detailed experimental study of memory in [Niser, Hyman 2005]. Human memory, including language memory, is dynamic. In cognitive linguistics, the idea of ​​language as a dynamic phenomenon is one of the main messages: "Knowledge of a language is dynamic, and evolves in accordance with a person"s linguistic experience" .

It seems that in this case it is fruitful to distinguish between synchrony and diachrony of the synonymic series. In the diachronic perspective, the hierarchy of the synonymic series can change: apparently, the dominant of the series under certain conditions can lose its status, on the contrary, another word of the series, mastered later, can become the dominant, subordinating the "older" synonyms. Let us assume that the dominance of the synonym in synchrony is explained by its utility: “It seems likely that things are first named so as to categorize them in a maximally useful way. The categorization that is most useful for very young children may change as they grow older” .

The second group of synonymic rows included synonymous rows, the dominant of which the subjects found it difficult to choose: the answer “no” prevails (i.e. the subjects could not choose the main word of the row) or several synonyms of the row at once received a large number of “points” from the subjects. This includes the series: storm - hurricane - snowstorm - blizzard - blizzard; spleen - sadness - melancholy - sadness - boredom, rogue - swindler - kidnapper - thief - swindler.

The second group included 4 synonymous rows (33% of the total) from the first experiment and 6 rows (30%) from the second experiment.

It is impossible to single out the dominant in the synonymic rows of the second type. At the same time, the semantic connection between these concepts is beyond doubt.

Apparently, the words in such synonymous rows are combined on the basis of a semantic gestalt that cannot be expressed using a specific verbal unit. The existence of a non-verbal semantic code is proved in the works of Russian psycholinguistics (see [Zhinkin 1964]).

The non-verbal semantic code combines semantically close words. Using the metaphor of L. Wittgenstein, we can say that synonyms in such a row

Table 3. Non-centered synonymic rows (first experiment)

Synonym The answers of the subjects The frequency of the word form

Storm 9 2 438

Hurricane 6 825

1 Metel 8 1 386

Blizzard 4 660

Blizzard 1 468

Rogue 3 596

2 Kidnapper 2 137

Fraudster 14 710

Khandra 7 167

Sadness 9 1 806

3 Longing 6 5 000

Sadness 9 2 328

Boredom 4 1 597

* The frequency of homonyms may coincide.

Table 4. Non-centered synonymic rows (second experiment)

Synonym The answers of the subjects The frequency of the word form

Caprice 9 545

Whim 12 330

1 Quirk 8 84

Focus 12 1093

Mannera 11 1 722

Habit 14 2 661

2 Custom 11 2 548

Usual 8 755

Haze 1 395

3 Mut 19 661

Fog 17 5 499

Attraction 13,952

4 Propensity 19 1,705

Passion 16 5 962

End 3 1 273*

Completion 18 1 004

5 End 22 20 846

Final 14 1 398

Amendment 8 378

Correction 24610

6 Adjustment 25 166

*Possible coincidence of the frequency of homonyms.

dakh are connected according to the principle of "family resemblance". L. Wittgenstein introduced this comparison for concepts that do not allow precise definition3: “I cannot characterize these similarities better than calling them “family resemblances”, because the similarities that exist among members of the same family are also superimposed and intertwined: height, facial features, eye color, gait, temperament, etc. etc." [Wittgenstein 1994: 111]4.

Synonymic rows of the second type were called non-centered, because they do not have a clear verbal center. Select dominant in non-centered

3 In the linguistic literature, there is a not entirely correct use of Wittgenstein's concept: such an interpretation of the term goes back to the article by E. Roche: “He suggested that, rather, a family resemblance might be what linked the various referents of a word. A family resemblance relationship consists of a set of items of the form AB, BC, CD, DE. That is, each item has at least one, and probably several, elements in common with one or more other items, but no, or few, elements are common to all items." .

4 Soviet psychologist L.S. Vygotsky, speaking about “thinking in complexes”, uses a similar comparison: “Any family name, for example, “Petrovs”, embraces such a complex of individual objects that comes closest to the complex nature of children’s thinking” [Vygotsky 2000: 355].

it is difficult, and the application of the technique of the so-called component analysis will not give a clear result, because the semantic commonality of the series is formed at the expense of non-verbal units.

Conclusion

The use of experimental and corpus research methods allows us to distinguish two groups of synonymic series.

The synonymic rows of the first group (centered synonymous rows) are organized around the verbal center - the dominant. An important criterion for including a series in this group was the coincidence of experimental and corpus data, i.e. the subjects have no difficulty in determining the main word of the series. It is in relation to centered synonymic series that it is permissible to speak of the dominant of the synonymic series as a linguistic and psycholinguistic concept.

The synonymic rows of the second group (non-centered synonymous rows) are combined with the help of a semantic gestalt, which belongs to the internal non-verbal code, so it is impossible to single out the dominant in such a row.

The proposed typology provides an answer to the question actively discussed in traditional linguistics, whether it is possible to single out the dominant in synonymic rows. The results of our study show that the dominant can be distinguished only in centered synonymic rows. Thus, the use of psycholinguistic research methods made it possible to take a fresh look at the problem of the structure of the synonymic series, characterizing two types of synonymic series that have a different organization.

At the same time, the proposed typology, like any scientific classification, describes only general rules and may not take into account transitional and complex cases, when it is difficult to unambiguously determine which type a synonymic series belongs to, therefore, in the future it is necessary to continue studying the organization of synonymic series.

Abramov N. Dictionary of Russian synonyms and expressions similar in meaning. -3rd ed. - M., 1911. - 176 p.

Aleksandrova Z.E. Dictionary of synonyms of the Russian language: A practical guide. - 11th ed., revised. and additional - M., 2001. - 586 p.

Apresyan Yu.D. Studies in semantics and lexicography: Vol. 1: Paradigmatics. - M., 2009. - 568 p.

Akhutina T.V. The problem of the structure of the individual lexicon of a person in the light of the ideas of L.S. Vygotsky // Bulletin of the Moscow University. Series 14, "Psychology". 1994. - No. 4. - S. 44-51.

Bondarko A.V. Theory of Meaning in the System of Functional Grammar: On the Material of the Russian Language. - M., 2002. - 736 p.

Bragina A.A. Synonyms in the literary language. - M., 1986. - 126 p.

Wittgenstein L. Philosophical works. Part I. - M., 1994. - 612 p.

Literature

Vygotsky L.S. Psychology. - M., 2000. - 1008 p.

Zhinkin N.I. On code transitions in inner speech // Problems of Linguistics. - M., 1964. - No. 6. - S. 26-38.

Zalevskaya A.A. Psycholinguistic research. Word. Text: Selected works. - M., 2005. - 543 p.

Zvegintsev V.A. Notes on lexical synonymy // Questions of the theory and history of language: Collection in honor of prof. B.A. Larina. - L., 1963. - S. 137-138.

Klyueva V.N. Brief dictionary of synonyms of the Russian language. - M., 1956. - 280 p. Lakoff J., Johnson M. Metaphors we live by. - M., 2004. - 256

Naiser W., Hymen A. Cognitive psychology of memory. - St. Petersburg, 2005. - 640 p. New Explanatory Dictionary of Synonyms of the Russian Language / Ed. the leadership of Yu.D. Apresyan. - M, 2003. - 1488 p.

Palevskaya M.F. Synonyms in Russian. - M., 1964. - 120 p. Dictionary of the Russian language: In 4 volumes / ed. A.P. Evgenieva. - M., 1985. - T. 2. - 696 p.

Dictionary of synonyms of the Russian language: In 2 volumes / ed. A.P. Evgenieva. - L.,

Stepanova V.V. Word in text. From lectures on functional lexicology. - St. Petersburg, 2006. - 272 p.

Ufimtseva A.A. Semantic aspect of linguistic signs // Principles and methods of semantic research. - M., 1976. - S. 31-45.

Chernyak V.D. The problem of synonymy and lexico-grammatical classification of words. - L., 1989. - 118 p.

Brown R. How shall a thing be called? // Psychological Review. - 1958. - Vol. 65. - No. 1. - P. 14-21.

HarrisR. Synonymy and Linguistic Analysis. - Oxford, 1973. - 166 p. Jackson, H. Words and Their Meaning. - London, 1988. - 280 p. Rosch E., Mervis C. Family Resemblances: Studies in the Internal Structure of Categories // Cognitive psychology. - 1975. - No. 7. - p. 573-605.

Rosch E. Principles of Categorization // Cognition and Categorization / Ed. by E. Rosch, B. Lloyd. - Hillsdale, 1978. - p. 27-48.

Taylor J.R. Cognitive Grammar. - Oxford, 2003. - 621 p.

Synonyms are words of the same part of speech, the meaning of which is very close or completely identical, capable of replacing each other. For example: face - muzzle; version - option, child - baby.

There are no synonyms for proper names. For example, Santa Claus and Santa Claus. The names of the inhabitants, nationalities: African, American. The specific names of household items: table, pot, frying pan.

A group of words consisting of two or more synonyms is called synonymous next. For example: polite, delicate, correct. Synonymic rows can consist of both heterogeneous and single-root synonyms: face - face, overtake - overtake; fisherman - fisherman, fisherman.

The general meaning of a synonymous series is usually expressed by one of its members, which is the core word for this series and is called dominant(lat. dominans - dominant) (it is also called the pivotal, main, supporting word). For example, the synonymic series: unpleasant, vile, repulsive, disgusting, nasty, nasty has the general meaning of "possessing negative properties." This general meaning is expressed by the word "unpleasant", which serves as a dominant.

Polysemantic words can be members of various synonymic series: outline - designate; plan - plan.

Synonyms are close in meaning, but not identical. Each word of the synonymous series differs from other words of the same series by some additional shade of meaning, which must be taken into account in order to express thoughts with the greatest accuracy. For example, in the synonymous series of adverbs, the general meaning of these words is quickly - soon - instantly highlighted - a characteristic of an action that proceeds with a certain degree of intensity. The adverb quickly indicates the speed of the action itself (My brother walks quickly); soon - that the action is carried out in a short time (Wait, he will come soon); in the adverb instantly, the speed of the action is extremely high (He instantly disappeared).

Members of the synonymic series can be not only individual words, but also stable phrases (phraseological units), as well as prepositional case forms: a lot - over the edge, without counting, chickens do not peck. All of them, as a rule, perform the same syntactic function in a sentence.

Synonyms denoting a feature often differ from each other in a greater or lesser degree of manifestation of this feature. So, in the synonymous series wet - raw - wet adjectives are arranged in ascending order of the attribute: raw - more saturated with liquid than wet; wet - more abundantly saturated with liquid, moisture than raw.

Adjectives large - huge also differ in the degree of manifestation of the attribute. The common meaning that unites these words is "having a size, a value that exceeds the norm." However, in each of them the degree of this quality is different: huge is more than big.

Nouns enemy-adversary denote a person (or group of people) who is in a state of enmity with someone. In the word enemy, the concept of hostility is stronger than in the word adversary: ​​in the latter, the meaning "one who takes the opposite position" prevails. For example: Be merciless to the enemy. Defeat an opponent in a competition.

Synonymous words may differ from each other in the breadth of their meaning (author - writer). The meaning of the word author is wider than writer. Writers are those who write literary works, and not only poetic ones, but authors - also the creators of scientific works, projects, etc.

The difference between synonyms is also manifested in the ability to combine with other words. Some of them have the ability to combine with a large, sometimes unlimited range of words; others have limited compatibility. For example, elderly is old. You can say an old house, an old coat, an old book, etc. The synonym elderly is used only in relation to a person: an elderly person, an elderly woman.

The words brave and bold have the same meaning: brave warrior, brave warrior, brave youth, brave youth, etc. In combination with nouns that call people, these adjectives can mutually replace each other, but with words such as decision, deed, project, etc., only the adjective bold is used (you cannot say a brave decision or a brave project).

According to the degree of dependence on the context, synonyms are:

a) contextual (speech) synonyms - words, the semantic similarity of which is manifested only in the context. For example: cheerful, good-natured laughter; stuffy, oppressive darkness; proud, brave look; deserted, inhospitable house; a stern, stubborn old man; heavy, evil feeling; hoarse, strangled voice.

b) linguistic - words, the semantic similarity of which is manifested in isolation, without context. For example: strong, durable, hard;

Language synonyms are divided into four types:

1. full (absolute) synonyms - words that are identical in meaning and use. For example: spelling - spelling, everywhere - everywhere, hippopotamus - hippopotamus;

2. semantic (semantic) synonyms - words that differ in shades of meaning, but belong to the same style of speech. For example: shine - sparkle - shine; cold - icy;

3. stylistic synonyms - naming the same object, concept, sign, action, these words are used in different styles of speech and do not always replace each other within the normalized use: fall - clap (colloquial), belonging - attribute, accessory (bookish ).

4. semantic - stylistic synonyms - words that differ from one another in shades of meaning or shades of stylistic, different spheres of use. For example: contract - condition - agreement - contract - pact. Where a contract is a commercial agreement, a pact is an international agreement, a condition is an oral or written agreement about something, an agreement is an official agreement. The word contract is the broadest in meaning and usage.

1. Select a word from the text and make a synonymous series with it or write out a synonymous series from the text, if the latter is in it.

2. Use a dictionary to determine the general meaning of the series. For example, from the text “The crimson forest drops its dress” (Pushkin), we select the word crimson and make a synonymous series with it using a synonymous dictionary: red, scarlet, purple, crimson, raspberry, crimson.

When compiling a synonymous series, it must be remembered that the words of one synonymous series denote one concept. The general meaning of the compiled synonymous series is the name of various shades of red.

3. It is necessary to resolve the issue of the dominant of the series, which conveys only the general meaning of the series and does not have any additional shades in the meaning, this word is usually stylistically neutral. In the compiled synonymic series, the dominant word is red, since it conveys only the general meaning of the series and does not have any additional shades, it is stylistically neutral.

4. Indicate the distinguishing features of synonyms in comparison with the dominant or in comparison with other synonyms of the series, if there is no dominant. In the compiled series, we will graphically show the differences between synonyms from the dominant: scarlet - light red, purple - dark red, crimson - bright red, raspberry - deep red, with an admixture of purple hue, crimson - deep red, with a slight bluish tint, crimson - bright red, besides the word is poetic. We conclude: in this series, synonyms differ from the dominant in semantic shades, and the last synonym and stylistic coloring.

Let's give an example of a synonymic series without a dominant: salary, remuneration, fee, salary.

The general meaning of the series is "wage for labor." Each synonym of this series has this meaning, and each synonym also has an additional semantic connotation: salary - payment for regular work, remuneration - payment for good work, fee - payment for creative work under the contract, salary - payment for regular work, the last word colloquial. Thus, synonyms differ from each other in semantic shades, and the latter also stylistically.

5. Determine the type of series in terms of system relations in the language.

Both of the above synonymous series are paradigmatic, since the words in them are synonymized out of context, at the level of the lexico-semantic paradigm.

6. Determine the source of the synonymic series. Using the etymological dictionary, we will find out the origin of each synonym for the series: scarlet is an Old Russian borrowing from the Turkic languages, crimson is a Russian word, crimson is Old Slavonic, crimson is Polish, purple is from Latin, crimson is common Slavic, red is common Slavic. From the material selected from the dictionary, we conclude: the source of the series is the borrowing and word-formation processes of the Russian language (four words are Russian and common Slavic, three words are borrowed from other languages).

Practical task

According to one word of the text “Happiness again shone in the eyes of the exhausted woman, and the mother all these days could not talk enough, see enough of her son, whom she no longer dreamed of seeing” (N. Ostrovsky), make a synonymous series and analyze it according to the scheme indicated above .

You can also find information of interest in the scientific search engine Otvety.Online. Use the search form:

Synonymous(from the Greek synonymos - eponymous) relations connect words of the same part of speech that have an identical lexical meaning or close lexical meanings.

The main features of synonyms:

They refer to the same denotation;

They substitute each other in the same position in the text; while the meaning of the text does not change;

Polysemantic words are synonymous only in one of the meanings and may diverge in others; a polysemantic word with its different meanings can be included in several synonymous classes at once.

The semantic essence of synonymy lies in the equivalence:

Separate semanthemes of polysemantic words (road, or path);

Coinciding components (semantic features) of semantems (friend, or comrade; the coinciding part of their meanings is "a close person").

Synonymy can be:

Complete (relation X = Y: spelling - spelling);

Partial (X ~ Y: line - dash).

In the text, synonyms perform semantic functions - substitutions and clarifications, as well as stylistic ones.

Synonyms can, denoting the same denotation, express (depending on the speaker's point of view) different emotional and expressive assessments of the designated object (face, or face, or muzzle, or mug).

Depending on the function, synonyms can be:

Ideographic, or semantic, i.e. shading different sides of the designated object, but indicating a different degree of manifestation of the sign (meek - gentle, submissive, meek);

Stylistic, i.e., coinciding in meaning, but differing in belonging to different styles of speech, expressive coloring (run away - run away, run away);

Contextual, i.e., converging in their meanings in context.

Depending on the structure:

Single-root - differ in root variants or affix (rebel, rebel);

Different-rooted - expressed in different words (cold, frost).

Synonymic series- a number of lexical or phraseological synonyms. The synonymic paradigm is headed by dominant , i.e., the word that is the simplest, most widely used, stylistically neutral and syntactically the most free.

Sources of synonymy:

Development and change in the meanings of the word;

Changing the word-formation structure of the word;

Borrowing;

Penetration into the literary language of professionalisms, dialectisms, argotisms.

*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.

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).

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 - flanking(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).

gradation(gradual intensification). A stylistic figure consisting in such an arrangement of parts of a statement (words, segments of a sentence), in which each subsequent one contains an increasing (less often decreasing) semantic or emotionally expressive meaning, due to which an increase (less often weakening) of the impression produced is created.
For example: "Streams, rivers, lakes, oceans of tears" (Dostoevsky);

Antonyms, their types. Enantiosemy. Antithesis. Oxymoron.

Antonyms- these are words of one part of speech, different in sound and spelling, having directly opposite lexical meanings: truth - lies, good - evil, speak - be silent.

types of antonyms:

1) depending on the context:

a) contextual (speech) - words, the semantic opposite of which is manifested only in the context: shine - poverty; water - stone;

b) language antonyms- words, the opposite of which is manifested in an isolated form;

2) by the number of units involved in antonymy, linguistic antonyms are divided into two subgroups:

a) intra-word antonym ( enantiosemy ) - a word to which antonymy is inherent within one unit: borrow- to lend; borrow;

b) interword antonyms- different words, the meanings of which are opposed to each other;

3) In turn, interword antonyms are divided into three subgroups:

a) contra (gradual, opposite) words expressing a qualitative opposite and having gradual oppositions: easy - difficult, young - old;

b) complementary (additional, contradictory)) words where the opposition is represented by two terms that complement each other to the whole, so that the negation of one gives the meaning of the other: man - woman; alive - dead;

in) conversion antonyms- words expressing the opposite direction of processes and signs: ignite - extinguish, sell - buy.

Antithesis- a stylistic figure of contrast in artistic or oratory speech, which consists in a sharp opposition of concepts, positions, images, states, interconnected by a common structure or internal meaning.

(Oblomov and Stolz, activist and philosopher)

Oxymoron- a stylistic figure or a stylistic mistake - a combination of words with the opposite meaning (that is, a combination of incongruous). Oxymoron is characterized by the intentional use of contradiction to create a stylistic effect.

(Hot Snow)

Homonyms, their types.

Homonyms- these are different in meaning, but the same sounding or spelling units of the language - words, morphemes. It comes from the Greek homos - the same and onima - name.

There are several types of homonyms: full and partial, graphic and grammatical, phonetic and homonymous.

At full/absolute homonyms the whole system of forms coincides. For example, a key (for a lock) is a key (spring), a horn (forge) is a horn (wind instrument).

At partial match not all forms sound. For example, weasel (animal) and weasel (a manifestation of tenderness) diverge in the form of the genitive plural - weasels - weasels.

Graphic homonyms or homographs - words that coincide in spelling, but differ in pronunciation (in Russian due to differences in stress). From Greek. homos - the same and grápho - I write.

Atlas - atlas news - news
Whiskey - whiskey is expensive - expensive
castle - castle smell - smell
healthy - healthy goats - goats
forest - forest little - little
FLOUR - FLOUR PEKLO - PEKLO
pier - pier forty - forty already - already

Grammatical homonyms or homoforms - words that sound the same only in some grammatical forms and most often belong to different parts of speech.
I fly by plane and treat my throat (in other forms - to fly and treat, I flew and treated, etc.); sharp saw and saw compote (in other forms - saw and drink, saws and drink, etc.).

Homonymous morphemes or homomorphemes - morphemes that coincide in their sound composition, but different in meaning. They come from the Greek homos - the same and morphe - form. For example, suffix -tel in nouns teacher (meaning of the acting person) and switch (meaning of the acting subject); suffix -ets in the words sage, male, incisor and brother; suffix - k(a) in the words river, training, extras and graduate student.

Phonetic homonyms or homophones Words that sound the same but are spelled differently and have different meanings. It comes from the Greek ὀμόφωνο - "sound-like".
threshold - vice - park, meadow - onion, fruit - raft, carcass - ink, case - you will fall

There are two main sources of homophony in Russian: the phenomenon of stunning consonants at the end of words and before another consonant, and the reduction of vowels in an unstressed position. Homophony also includes cases of phonetic coincidence of a word and a phrase or two phrases. The letters used can be exactly the same and the difference in spelling is only in the spacing:
in a place - together, in everything - at all, from mint - crumpled, from a hatch - and an evil one, not mine - dumb

Paronyms, their types.

Paronymy(from other Greek παρα- - a prefix with the meaning of adjacency, ὄνομα - “name”) - the similarity of paronymic words in form with a difference in meaning. It is also common to mistakenly use one of them instead of the other. For example, addressee - addressee. By analogy with the translator's false friends, paronyms are sometimes called false brothers.
Paronymy is explained by an uncertain knowledge of the meaning of one of the words or even both, the incompetence of the speaker (writer) in the field of activity where the word was taken from, as well as parapraxis (eg reservations). It is especially important to pay attention to paronyms when studying foreign languages, since many paronyms may not be distinguished by students of a foreign language due to discrepancies in the articulatory base: English. live and leave differ only in vowel length, an opposition not found in Russian. Sometimes one polysemantic word or several homonyms in one language correspond to several different paronyms in another: Rus. concert (and event, and work) - English. concert (event only), concerto (work only); Russian trick (both hearth and trick) - it. Fokus (hearth only), Hokuspokus (gimmick only).

Some paronyms are widely distributed in the language and are reflected in dictionaries. For example, the verb “bouder” (from the French bouder), meaning “to pout”, “to be angry”, “to be opposed to something”, is very often used instead of the similar verb “to disturb”, and this meaning is listed in dictionaries. The adjective "ephemeral" (from the Greek ἐφήμερος - one-day), meaning "short-lived", is often used instead of the word "ethereal" in the sense of "ethereal, imaginary, weightless", and this meaning is also listed in dictionaries.

Paronyms are divided into root, affixal and etymological.

Root paronyms:

Root paronyms have different roots, the external similarity of which is purely accidental: Rus. excavator - escalator; English live - leave; German fordern - fordern. Such paronyms are not united by a common motivation and a common semantic connection.

Affixal paronyms:

Affixal paronyms are united by a common motivation and a common semantic connection. They have a common root, but different, albeit similar, derivational affixes: Rus. subscription - subscriber, economic - economical - economical; English historic - historical; German original - originell. Suffixal paronymy is widespread in medical and chemical terminology, where not only roots, but also suffixes have a terminological meaning. So, for example, the suffix -id in chemical terminology, it means a salt whose molecules do not contain oxygen atoms (chloride, sulfide, and so on), and -at- salts containing oxygen atoms (sulfate, carbonate, and so on).

Etymological paronyms:

Etymological paronyms are the same word borrowed by the language in different ways several times (through the mediation of different languages) and in different meanings: Rus. project (learned directly from Latin) - project (learned through the mediation of the French language); English concert (from French) - concerto (from Italian). Borrowings from closely related languages ​​(Russian - Polish - Church Slavonic) or from ancestral languages ​​(French - Latin, Hindi - Sanskrit) can cause an etymologically native word in a given language: Rus. gunpowder (originally Russian word with East Slavic fullness) - dust (Church Slavonic word, South Slavic in origin). Sometimes the original borrowing and the borrowing subjected to contamination under the influence of folk etymology can be used in parallel: Rus. ordinary - single.

subscription - subscriber; engine - mover, hot - hot; defective - defective; tough - cruel; to sleep - to sleep - to sleep

One-root (affixal) paronyms: water - vodka; Chinese - Chinese; dress - put on;

Etymological paronyms: gel - jelly; tree - tree;