Stylistic litter in sensible dictionaries indicates. The ratio of functional-style fixedness and emotional expressive word painting

Stylistic litter

- A variety of vocabulary, lexicographic acceptance of the indication on the stylistic features of a clarified dictionary unit. For example: book. - Book Word; . - spoken; spacious. - Spacious, etc.

With the help of S. p. There are those stylistic signs of language units (words, sustainable combination of words), which determine its special position in relation to other compared to it, units. For example: eyes - without litter (neutral), oph. (high, statute.), zenki (spacious, rude.) etc.

S. p. Put in the dictionary (as a rule, the explanatory dictionary) after the grammatical characteristics of the word and before its value / values, if it refers to the word as a whole, or before the meaning of the multi-valued word (LSV), to which S. p. Refers. With stable combinations of words (phraseological units) S. p. It is usually placed after them in brackets. For example: Drive in the neck (simple.) - Roughly drive out.

In addition to intelligent dictionaries, S. p. Have some special linguistic dictionaries, for example, the "Dictionary of the difficulties of the Russian language" D.E. Rosentale and MA Telenkovo, "Dictionary of Synonyms of the Russian Language" A.P. Eugeneva.

The system of stylistic litter depends on the level of development of different areas of linguistics (stylistics, lexicography, etc.) and reflects them.

For the first time, a detailed designed system of litter (including stylistic) was used in the dictionary of the Russian language, compiled by the Second Department of the Academy of Sciences, "ed. Ya.K. Grott (1895). Since then, some litters have come out of use ( commonhouse , promotional-irony etc.), others, on the contrary, appeared. In general, the system S. p. Far from perfection. This is evidenced by the fact that in each explanatory dictionary used its system S. p., Sometimes significantly different from the S. p. Other sensible dictionaries.

So, for example, the "explanatory dictionary of the Russian language" ed. D.N. Ushakov (1935) (Next Su) does not separate stylistic litters from other litters, determining the circle of the use of the word, and offers the following system: 1. Places indicating the varieties of oral speech ( response, Spacious., Fam., Childisk., Wulg., Argo, School., Region ); 2. Planets indicating the species of written speech ( book, Scientific., Tech., Spec., Newspapers., Public., Kanz., Officer, Poet., Nar.-Poet. ); 3. Places establishing the historical perspective in the words of the modern language ( new, church. - book., Older., Standard. ); 4. Location to the words denoting objects and the concepts of alien life ( eastr., Predevolyts., Zagre. ); 5. Stylistic litters indicating expressive shades (expression) of words ( bran., Irons., Occair., Slot., Sweets., Presenter., Dor., Hall., Ritor., EVF. ).

"Dictionary of the Russian Language" S.I. Ozhegova (1936) (hereinafter Co) highlights the litter indicating the stylistic characteristic of words: banchne., High., Officer., R., Pros., Obl., Presk., Design, Presenter., Slot., Iron, Bran.

"Dictionary of the Russian Language" Academy of Sciences of the USSR in 4 tons. Ed. A.M. Evgenaya (1957-1961) (hereinafter MA) to the stylistic attributes the following groups of litas: 1. Location, indicating the identity of the word to various layers of the vocabulary of the Russian language ( region, simple, rude. Simple. ); 2. Location indicating the stylistic limitations of the use of words in the literary language ( ranger, book. officer and officers., High., Trad.-poet., People's poet. ); 3. Planets indicating a special scope of the word ( astr., Bakt., Buch., Geol., Zootal. and etc.); 4. Location indicating the emotional color color ( bran., Iron., Slot., Presenter., Presk., Design and remove. ); 5. litter study. To the words coming out of use in modern Russian.

"Dictionary of the Russian Literary Language" Academy of Sciences of the USSR in 17 tons. (1950-1965) (hereinafter BAS) accompanies words with the following stylistic litters: response, spacious, oblast, statute., People's poet., Slot., Iron., Bran., Standard. life.

S. p. One plan in different dictionaries may differ. For example, stylistic elevated words and values \u200b\u200bin Su have litters things. and rhetorician. , and in co - litter high.

Very often, S. p. At the same word (meaning of the word), do not coincide in different dictionaries. So, eg, the word ammunition in SU is given without any litter, in bass has a litter military., in co and mass is characterized as outdoor. Word distribute In So and Su has a litter book.in mass - study.And in bass there is no litter.

Existing inconsistencies and inconsistency in the use of S. p. Repeatedly marked by linguists (V.P. Berkov, H. Casares, K. Ludwig, F.P. Sorokolets, L.P. Stupin, F.P. Filin, L.V. Shcherba, I.L. Reznichenko, L.V. Boyko, O.A. Nesterova, P. Kuzmina, etc.). "A description of the stylistic quality of the word is presented in almost all existing dictionaries. However ... This description is relatively describing the description of other properties of lexical units is still characterized by a significantly lower degree of reasonableness and orderliness" ( Boyko L.V., 1991, p. one).

According to linguists, disagreements arising about the allocation of certain varieties of S. p., Their hierarchies, etc., are primarily due to the other), compared with other, shift stylistic standards; the lack of a specially-focused on the need of the lexicography of the stylistic theory of the word; coexistence of various approaches to the interpretation of the stylistic potential of the word, the absence in the modern domestic linguistics of the total potential of the word (through the category of expressiveness, through the category of functionality, through the synthesis of these categories); Significant differences in understanding the data of the categories and relations between them (the lack of a single idea of \u200b\u200bthe categories of emotiveness, evaluation, expressiveness and their possible relationships, etc.).

T. Oh., We can say that the shortcomings of the stylistic description of vocabulary in dictionaries are due to a large extent with the absence of a number of major problems of theoretical style and the lack of the concept of the stylistic potential of the word designed specifically with orientation to lexicographic application.

Lit.: Sorokin Yu.S. On the regulatory and stylistic dictionary of the modern Russian language. - V.. - 1967. - №5; Denisov P.N., Kostomarov V.G. Stylistic differentiation of vocabulary and problem of spoken speech // Questions of training lexicography. - M., 1974; Katlinskaya L.P. Regulatory litters in dictionaries and real speech use (language consciousness and criteria of the norm) // Literary norm and the surprise. - M., 1977; Skarevskaya G.N. Notes on lexicographic stylistics // Modernity and dictionaries. - L., 1978; Petrishva E.F. Stylistically painted vocabulary of the Russian language. - M., 1984; Reznichenko I.L. Stylistic uzus of the Russian language and its reflection in lexicography. - M., 1984; Boyko L.V. The stylistic value of the Russian word and its reflection in training dictionaries. - M., 1991; Denisov P.N. The vocabulary of the Russian language and the principles of its description. - M., 1993.

IS HE. Emelyanova

Stylistic encyclopedic dictionary of the Russian language. - M:. "Flint", "Science". Edited by M.N. Leather. 2003 .

Thus, the words in general and the specific lexical meanings of words have a stylistic characteristic. The stylistic bundle of multivalued words is carried out not at the level of words, but on the basis of their specific values \u200b\u200b(lexico-semantic options).

LIT:Kalinin A.V. Vocabulary of the Russian language. Moscow State University, 1978; Modern Russiansik.PB., 2001; Shan N.M. The lexicology of the modern Russian language. M., 1972.

Polonism. Word or turnover borrowed from Polish: apartment, Skarb, Draver, Bekesha, Suede, Coffot, Chata, Goats, Colonel, Washmistra, Recruit, Hussar, Rabbit, Parsley, Chestnut, Bulk, Fruit, Almond, Poozzl, To Burn, Draw, Many, Klyanch etc.

LIT:Fomina M.I. Modern Russian. Lexicology. M., 1990; Shan N.M. The lexicology of the modern Russian language. M., 1972.

Litter.The word or expression used in the dictionaries (usually in abbreviated form) to characterize the lexical units described in them, for example: break, simple, oblast, statute., Lingv, and the like. "Parameters - used in lexicography ... A method of a brief grammatical, stylistic or other characteristic of a word, expressed in the dictionary reduction of the relevant term" (Russian. Encyclopedia. P. 354).

Letter litter, expressed with the help of letters, in contrast to the nebuctal conventional signs adopted in some dictionaries, drawings, for example: the cross is an outdated, music sign - musical.

Grammar litter - indication of grammatical signs of the word: belonging to part of speech, indication of the category of kind, numbers, faces, etc.

Forbidden litter: Neight, (i.e. incorrect).

Litter of books: Book., Spec., Public., Officer, Poet.

Zero litter - Lack of stylistic placement indicating the neutral style characteristic of the word.

Restrictive litter: Archaich., Star., Standard.

Estimated, warning litter: Arrogne, spacious., Rough.-Simple., Obla.

Distinguished litter: Poet., Folk., Jester. (i.e. joking).

Special litterpointing to the scope of words: Bot., Zoole., Chem., Mat., Lingv.

Stylistic litterindicating the separation of the word: special, book, poet.; reflects the nature of the use and existence of the word, its belonging to writing or oral speech: breaking, simple, etc.; Indicates the historical belonging of the word: East, Arch; On his emotional expressive pain: Iron., Presenter., Bran., Slot., Presk. etc.

Etymological litterpointing to the source of borrowing a foreign language word.

LIT:Akhmanova O.S. Essays in common and Russian lexicology. M., 1957; Vinogradov V.V. Intelligeous Dictionaries of the Russian Language // Vinogradov V.V. Selected Works. Lexicology and lexicography. M., 1977; Kodukhov V.I. Introduction to linguistic education. M., 1987; Maslov Yu.S. Introduction to linguistics. M., 1987; Reformatsky A.A. Introduction to linguistic education. M., 2002.

The procedure for placing words (in dictionaries). Adopted in this dictionary sequence of the positions described in it: azbye, alphabetical, strictly alphabetical, nest, alphabetically socket order (placement, location) of words (in the dictionary); Reverse alphabetic (in order to follow the alphabet of finite letters of the words described) order.

LIT:Vinogradov V.V. The intelligent dictionaries of the Russian language // Vinogradov V. V. Selected works. Lexicology and lexicography. M., 1977; Maslov Yu.S. Introduction to linguistics. M.,

1987; Zeitlin p.m. A brief essay of the history of Russian lexicography (Russian dictionaries). M., 1958.

proverb.Cm. the relationship of proverbs and sayings to phraseology.

potential word.1. The same thing is that Okkazional "author's neologisms made on productive models are called potential words(Kalinin A.V.P. 117). 2. Word in the composition of the phraseological unit, lost independent lexical significance, for example: open(friend), becoming(baptizing), adjust(in life) ( Arkhangelsky V.L.P. 37).

LIT:Arkhangelsky V.L. Sustainable phrases in modern Russian. Basics of the theory of sustainable phrases and problems of general phraseology. Rostov N / D, 1964; Kalinin A.V. Vocabulary of the Russian language. Moscow State University, 1978.

regulations of the dictionary.The rules for applying the words of the language in relation to the objects denoted by them, the phenomena of reality. "Synthesis of language material I call the" language system ", which is disclosed in the rules of grammar and in the dictionary rules, otherwise in the rules for the application of words-concepts to real reality. The dictionary rules are usually given in the form of "words" values \u200b\u200b"( Scherba L. V. P. 281).

LIT:Nemchenko V.N. The basic concepts of lexicology in terms. N.Novgorod, 1995; Shi E R B A L. V. Language system and speech activities. L., 1974.

provincialism.The same as the word dialectic, regional: northern provincialism.

LIT:see "dialecticism".

spacious.A word or expression used for a rough characteristic of the speech object (as well as a speech containing similar words and expressions). "A variety of common speaking words are words belonging to the so-called spaciousness, which is characterized by ease, and sometimes even the coarseness of semantic shades: balbetes, Baraholchik, Bowl, Shaut (over.), dolly, Kalhimshchye, Levak and etc." ( Golovin B.N. P. 70). "The spaciousness is a special layer of words used in colloquial communication, which is not included in the extended language" ( Galkina-Fedoruk E.M. et al. P. 91). "The loft is a word, a grammatical form or turnover. Oral speech used in lit. Language is usually in order to reduced, rude characteristics of the subject of speech, as well as a simple relaxed speech containing such words, forms and turnover "(Russian. P. 239).

LIT:Barannikova L.I. Focus as a special social component of language // Language and society: Interunion. Scientific Sat Articles. Vol. 3. Saratov, 1974; Galkina-Fedohouse E.M., Gorshkova K.V., Shan N.M. Modern Russian. Ch. I. MSU, 1962; Lo about V and N B.N. Introduction to linguistics. M., 1983; Urban spacious. Problems of study. M., 1984; Literary norm and spacious. M., 1977; Varieties of urban oral speech. M., 1984; Russian language. Encyclopedia. M., 1979; Chemist V. V. Poetics of low, or close as a cultural phenomenon. St. Petersburg, 2000; Shmelev D.N. Russian language in its functional varieties. (To the formulation of the problem). M., 1977.

professionalism.Word or expression peculiar to the speech of representatives of a certain profession: scalpel - small surgical knife. Professionalism usually act as the integral equivalents of the corresponding terms: typo in the speech of newsletters - lyap, steering wheel in the speech of the chauffeurs - baranca, syncrophasotron in the speech of physicists - pan etc.

LIT:Galkina-Fedohouse E.M., Gorshkova K.V., Shan N.M. Modern Russian. Ch. I. MSU, 1962; Golovin B.N. Introduction to linguistics. M., 1983; Kal and N and N A.V. Vocabulary of the Russian language. Moscow State University, 1978; Codes about in V. I. Introduction to Longues. M., 1987; Fomina M.I. Modern Russian. Lexicology. M., 1990; Shan N.M. The lexicology of the modern Russian language. M., 1972.

radial, radial chain, chain polemia.These concepts introduced into scientific turns l.A. Novikov: 1. Under the radial is understood by the word polisia, all the private values \u200b\u200bof which are directly related to the main and motivate them, eg: different meaning of the word table (piece of furniture; food, food; department in the institution; subject of special equipment, eg, operating table). 2. Radial-chain polesia, including elements of the Polyesia of the radial and chain, for example, when different meaning of the word is implemented, for example, mud (Earth-soaked from water, soil; slush; sea or lake as a therapeutic agent; the place where it is treated with this means; unclean, dust, litter, i.e. what dirty, dirty; lowland, immoral, dishonest - in personal or social relationship). 3. Chain polishey of the word, each value of which is directly related to the nearest values, i.e. It follows from the preceding and motivates the subsequent, for example, different meaning of the word right (opposite to the left; hostile advanced trends in political and public life, conservative, reaction, adhering to more conservative, reaction points, etc.) ( Novikov L.A. P. 205)

LIT:Novikov L.A. Semantics of the Russian language. M., 1982.

sections of the course of the modern Russian literary language.The material studied in the course of the modern Russian literary language is distributed on the following sections:

1. Phonetics - the doctrine of sounds in the speech stream, their combinance and positional changes.

2. Phonology - the doctrine of phonemes.

3. Epoeepia - the doctrine of the standards of literary pronunciation.

4. Graphics - the teaching about the image of sounds speech letters, about the ratio of sounds and letters.

5. Ordography - the doctrine of the rules of the Russian letter.

6. Lexicology is the doctrine of the dictionary formation.

7. Phraseology - the doctrine of sustainable combinations.

8. Lexicography - the doctrine of dictionaries.

9. Morfemic - the doctrine of morphemes.

10.Sal formation is the doctrine of the structure and methods of education of words.

11. Grammar. It includes two sections: morphology - the doctrine of the parts of speech and the rules for changing words; Syntax is the doctrine of phrases and suggestions.

12. Punctuation - the doctrine of punctuation marks and rules of their use.

The allocation of these sections is aware of the modern Russian literary language relies on the level of the Russian language, but does not fully coincide with it.

As you know, language levels are highlighted on the basis of the main units of its system, i.e. system-forming units. In accordance with this, the following levels differ in the structure of the Russian language: phonological (main unit - phoneme), lexical (main unit - wordas a carrier of lexical meaning), phraseological (main unit - phraseologism), morpheme (basic unit - morpheme), word-forming (main unit - type Type), morphological (main unit - wordas a carrier of grammatical values, such as a combination of wordform), syntax (main unit - sentence).

Thus, all the system-forming units of all levels of its structure are being studied in the course of the modern Russian literary language. Each system-forming unit is dedicated to a special section: phyology, lexicology, phraseology, morfemic, word formation, morphology, syntax.

Fonetics studies specific features of sounds in speech stream. Its tasks are not included in the study of the system-forming unit - the phonemes, which is considered in another, special, section of the course - in phonology.

In such sections of the course as orthoepium, graphics, spelling, lexicography, punctuation, problems associated with the use of language for practical purposes are studied. They do not set a task description of the structure of the language, its systems, and solve issues, how best to use the capabilities of the language as means of communication, storage and transmission of information, means of exposure, aesthetic influence on society, how to preserve the language - the greatest heritage of mankind, how to facilitate oral and written Communication on it members of the team so that the language can be more complete and more efficient to meet constantly growing social needs and constantly improve in all its functions.

LIT:Vendina T. I. Introduction to Linguistics. M., 2002; Kodukhov V.I. Introduction to linguistic education. M., 1987; Reformatsky A.A. Introduction to linguistic education. M., 2002; Modern Russian. St. Petersburg., 2001.

Remark (Fr. Remarquer "Notice, celebrate"). Explanation of the word described in the dictionary as one of the elements of the vocabulary article: remarque grammatical, stylistic, phonetic, historical. Remarkets in the seventeenth Russian dictionary of the Russian language are widely used. They are given at the end of the vocabulary articles. See litter.

LIT:Reformatsky A.A. Introduction to linguistic education. M., 2002.

Retreat. The combination of words characterized by lexical and grammatical integrity. An indispensable component of the vocabulary is illustrations - exemplary combinations of words (rides) or quotes from works: retraction of peasant, folk, folk poetic, regional, community, poetic, proposed (i.e. including pretext), simple, compidant (indecomposable by meaning) sophisticated, Soyuzny (which is the union, eg: while), ancient, outdated, phraseological (representing phraseologism), church. Cm. "Application one".

LIT:Arkhangelsky V.L. Sustainable phrases in modern Russian. Basics of the theory of sustainable phrases and problems of general phraseology. Rostov N / D, 1964; Vinogradov V.V. Selected Works. Lexicology and lexicography. M., 1977; Kodukhov V. I. Introduction to Longues. M., 1987.

Rusism. The word iseply Russian (as opposed to Slavica, Staroslavoya, churchyania). "U L.P. Yakubinsky is strengthened by the tendency to study the stylistic relationships and interactions of russes and the Slavs in the monuments of the ancient Russian literary speech of the XI-XIII centuries. " ( Vinogradov V.V. P. 270). "Szrevnevsky sought to separate Rusisma from Slavoms" ( ZeitlinP.. M.. P. 70). Cm. Ordinal Russian Zeksika.

LIT:B and N about GG ado in V.V. Selected Works. Lexicology and lexicography. M, 1977; Zeitlin R. M. Short essay of the history of Russian lexicography (Russian dictionaries). M., 1958.

Russian language is the National language of the Russian people.The Russian national language dates back to the General Design Slavic (Old Russian) language, which existed until the XIV century. and on the basis of which in the XIV-XVI centuries. Three close-friendly languages \u200b\u200bwere formed - the languages \u200b\u200bof the Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian nations, who inherited their vocabulary, the phonetic system and the grammar system from the Old Russian. The Russian national language begins to develop in the XVII century. In connection with the development of capitalist relations and the outstanding of Russian nationality to the nation. The formation of the Russian national language was accompanied by the process of spreading uniforms for all its dialectic varieties established on the basis of the Moscow spoken language and business written language of the Center. In parallel, the role of other dialects and the gradual loss of dialectic traits occurred.

The Russian language is the language of Pushkin, Gogol, Turgenev, Dostoevsky, Nekrasov, Lion Tolstoy, Chekhov, Gorky and Mayakovsky, Bunin and Powesta and many other giants of artistic thought, which enriched by their creations to the treasury of world culture, the greatest scientific discoveries are connected with it.

Literary language (see Modern Russian Literary language) is the highest form of the national language and is part of the national language. In addition to him, dialects are allocated in the national language - Russian folk dialects. They differ from the literary language in that, being a kind of national language, operate only on a certain territory and are a means of oral communication for a limited number of people living in this territory. Dialects are characterized by the fact that they have their own specific features in vocabulary, phonetics, word formation, grammar.

In Russian, North Russian and South Russian adverbs are allocated. North-Russian and South Russian talks have differences and in vocabulary. Words are used in North-Russian welcomes neighbor, grasp, wolf, rooster, sshka, beyt, yell, and in southern Russian counseling sharber, Rogach, Biryuk, Komochem, Squirrel, Cut, Plow.

Middle-Russian dialects lie between the North and Southhouse. They later appeared, and they are characterized by both the features of North Russian and South Russian govors: Akane, G.explosive t. solid in forms of 3 faces. and mn. h. verbs and others.

Nowadays, in connection with the development of the culture of the people, dialects become mainly a speech of the rural population. They gradually die down, giving way to the literary language.

In addition to local loving, in nationwide Russian, jargon are represented - its social varieties, for whom the specific professional vocabulary, phraseology is characterized. For example, jargon students, athletes, schoolchildren, hunters, sailors, etc. Jargon are also called social dialects. They do not have their own phonetic and grammatical system.

Jargon are outside the literary language, as well as closeness. Under the spaciousness, it is customary to understand the words, grammatical forms or turnover of speech, violating generally accepted literary norms: iI (instead them) percentage (instead percentage), drop off (instead leave), (they are) want, rubbed sausage, wash out, let's notice et al. It characterizes the speech of poorly educated people who need to increase their cultural level. Unlike dialects, the spaciousness is geographically not limited, the integral vocabulary is used throughout the distribution of the Russian language.

LIT:Vinogradov V.V. Russian language. Grammatical doctrine of the word. M., 1972; Issues of formation and development of national languages. M., 1960; Gorshkov A.I. Theoretical foundations of the history of the Russian literary language. M., 1983; D about Mashn in A. I. On the boundaries of the literary and national language // V. 1978. №2; Zhirmunsky V.M. National language and social dialects. L., 1936; Larin B.A. Lectures on the history of the Russian literary language (X - mid XVIII century). M., 1975; The initial stage of the formation of the Russian National Language. LSU, 1961; Russian dialectology. M., 1973; Modern Russian. St. Petersburg., 2001; Modern Russian. M., 1997; Uspensky B.A. A brief essay of the history of the Russian literary language (XI-XIX centuries). M., 1994; Philin F. P. The origin of Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian languages. L., 1972.

Russian language - an interethnic means of communication. As a language of interethnic communication, it performs important social functions in the field of science. In Russian, more than a third of scientific and technical literature published worldwide is published. Scientific and technical literature translates into Russian from all national languages, which thus becomes the property of all nations of the CIS and the Russian Federation. Thanks to the Russian language for the peoples of the CIS and the Russian Federation, access to world achievements of science and technology, to the treasures of the culture of the peoples of all foreign countries.

Stylistic litters in the dictionary are in the dictionary for the characteristics of the part of the vocabulary composition of the modern literary language, which, for one reason or another, is limited in their use. These restrictions have a different nature and different bases, a) restrictions due to the word accessories to those layers of vocabulary, which are outside the literary language or stand on its border (regional, integral, rough-spacious words); b) restrictions due to the narrowly special character of the terms of science, technology, crafts, art, etc.; c) restrictions that are due to something or another word can be used only in a certain style of literary speech.

Stylistic litter is placed after the grammatical characteristics of the word 1) in front of the numbers noted by the meaning of the word, if the litter refers to the word as a whole (with all its values); 2) Before determining the value (after the figure), when the litter refers to this value and all its shades;

As is known, one of the tasks of an intelligent dictionary is a reflection of the stylistic bundle of language vocabulary. Currently, there are several ways to be used by the authors of dictionaries to solve this task. What kind of ways is it?

The main lexicographic means of the stylistic characteristics of words - special (stylistic) vocabulary, which are in all intelligent dictionaries of the modern Russian language. True, the set of these litters from each dictionary is yours.

So, the "explanatory dictionary of the Russian language" ed. D.N. Ushakova (1935) - Next TsSU - offers such a litter system: 1. Location indicating the varieties of oral speech (breaking, spacious., Fam., Child., Vulg., Argo, School., Obla. 2. Layers pointing to the varieties of written speech (book, scientific, tech, special, newspapers, Pub- persons., Kanz., Officer, Poet., Nar.-Poet.); 3. Plants establishing historical perspective in the words of the modern language (new, church.-book., Older., Standard.); 4. Placement to the words denoting objects and the concepts of alien life (Eastr., Dorevolytz., Proc.); 5. Stylistic litters, Indicating expressive shades (expression) of words (Bran., Irons., Withdrawn., Slot., Preet., Presenter., Doc., Hall., Ritor., EUF.).

"Dictionary of the Russian Language" Academy of Sciences of the USSR in 4 tons. Ed. A.M. Evgenaya - Next Mac - Related to Stylistic: 1. Places indicating the identity of the word to various layers of vocabulary of the Russian language (region, simple, rude. Simple.); 2. Plants pointing to the stylistic limitations of the use of words in the literary language (breaking, books. Official. And officers., High., Trad.-poet., People's poet.); 3. Places indicating the special scope of the word (ASTR., Bakt., Buch., Geol., Zootal. Etc.); 4. Planets indicating the emotional color color (Bran., Iron., Slot., Presenter., Prescription, Disinforced, and not); 5. litter the statute. To the words coming out of use in modern Russian.

"Dictionary of the Modern Russian Literary Literature" An USSR Academy of Sciences in 17 T. - Further, bass - accompanies the words with the following stylistic litters: Arrog., Spacious., Oblast., Study, People's Poet., Slot., Iron., Branno, Study. life.

At the same time, the litter of one plan in different dictionaries may differ from each other. For example, stylistically elevated words and values \u200b\u200bin TSU have littering. And Ritor., And in CO - the litter is high.

Very often, stylistic litters for the same word (the meaning of the word) do not coincide in different dictionaries. Thus, the word ammunition in TSU is given without any litter, in the bass has a litter of military., In CO and MAC is characterized as an outdated. The word deactive in CO and TSU has the litter of the book., In Mac - the statute., And in the bass there is no litter.

Existing inconsistencies and inconsistency in the use of stylistic litters were repeatedly marked by linguists (V.P. Berekov, X. Casares, K. Ludwig, F.P. Sorokolets, L.P. Stupin, F.P. Filin, L.V. Shcherba, I.L. Reznichenko, L.V. Boyko, O.A. Nesterova, P. Kuzmina, etc.): "A description of the stylistic quality of the word is presented in almost all existing dictionaries. However (...) This description is relatively with The description of other properties of lexical units is still characterized by a significantly lower degree of substantiation and ordering "[Boyko, 1991, C.3]

So, the lexical composition of the language is heterogeneous: some words are commonly used, others are used only in a certain situation. Therefore, the same information can be transmitted by different lexical means. Consequently, the stylistic features of the words impose a visible imprint on their functioning in speech. With the stylistic estimate of the vocabulary, two criteria are the most important: the ownership of the word to one of the functional styles of the Russian language or its absence and emotional color of the word, its expressive opportunities.

It should be noted that dictionaries are facilitated to the best perception of language vocabulary, they are different in their volume and appointment, they are not very similar to the state and development of Russian literary vocabulary, there are certain differences in the lexicographic technology itself. At the same time, they are united by one extremely important feature: each of the dictionaries is not only a manual revealing the exemplary norms of the use of vocabulary of the Russian literary language in its modern state, but also a lexicographic reference book, designed to help correctly understand the language and features of vocabulary.

As we noticed, the wealth of stylistic shades of Russian vocabulary requires particularly attentive attitude to the Word. Stylistic litters in the dictionary are in the dictionary for the characteristics of the part of the vocabulary composition of the modern literary language, which, for one reason or another, is limited in their use. These restrictions have different character and different bases, that is, there is no unification and use of such remarks and comments. Even within one dictionary, stylistically homogeneous information is served in different ways.

In the second chapter of our work when considering the reflection of the stylistic painted vocabulary of the Russian language, we will focus on the Ukrainian dictionary and the academic dictionary. This chapter will analyze the stylistic composition of these dictionaries - a small academic dictionary and the dictionary of the Russian language S.I. Ozhegova - in order to compare the completeness of the disclosure of the stylistic color of the Russian language.

Chapter I. The structural-typological and stylistic characteristics of the word and their reflection in the dictionary.

1 Word as a grammar object and as a component of the dictionary composition of the language.

2. Basic typological similarities and differences between Russian and English.

3. Word lanes.

4 lexicographic stylistic litters in the ratio with the stylistic characteristics of the word.

5. Grammar information for an intelligent dictionary.

Chapter II. Grammatical qualifications of the word: the name of the noun and verb.

1 Noun name. Characteristics of grammatical categories.

2. Russian verb and its semantic and grammatical characteristics.

2.1. System of grammatical forms of Russian verb

3 Representative of the Russian language language in modern sensible dictionaries (name noun and verb).

3.1. Large explanatory dictionary of the Russian language ed.

Sl. Kuznetsova (1998).

3.2. Dictionary of Russian Language Ed. A.P. Evgenaya (1999).

3.3 Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language Ed. S.I. Ozhegova, nude. Swedio (1995).

4. Stylistic coloring of words and stylistic litters.

4.1. The representation of stylistic litters in the intelligent dictionaries of the Russian language (name noun and verb).

4.2 Large explanatory dictionary of the Russian language ed.

S.A. Kuznetsova (1998).

4 3. Dictionary of Russian Language Ed. A.P. Evgenieva (1999).

4.4 Explanatory dictionary of the Russian language ed. S.I. Ozhegova, N.Yu.Shvedova (1995).

Chapter III. English word as an intelligent single-speaking dictionary.

1. English nouns as part of speech.

2 grammatical classification of the English name noun.

3 verb in English. Classification of grammatical forms of verb.

4. Grammar litters in English sensitive dictionaries (Noun and Verb).

4.1. Slovar Longman "S (2000).

4.2. The New Oxford dictionary "S (2002).

4.3. Collin dictionary "S (1996).

5. Stilistic qualifications of words in English.

5.1. Qualification of book vocabulary.

5.2. Stylistic litters in explanatory English dictionaries.

5.3. Slovar Longman "S (2000).

5.4. The New Oxford dictionary "S (2002).

5.5. Collin dictionary "S (1996).

The dissertation (part of the author's abstract) on the topic "Grammatical and stylistic litters in the intelligent dictionaries of Russian and English languages"

For modern lexicology and lexicography Analysis of vocabulary as the system is still an urgent problem (Denisov PN, Zvezytsev V.A., Karaulov Yu.N, Solntsev V.M., Stepanov Yu.S, Ufimseva A A, Shmelev D N. and etc). One of the essential methods of representing the systemism of vocabulary is the lexicographic interpretation of the word, reflected in the process of creating the philology of vocabulary definitions, in the complex presentation of the word in grammar and the dictionary, in clarifying the definitions of the words and their semantic structure.

The current lexicographic practice of the characteristics of the word in an explanatory dictionary for different languages \u200b\u200bhas similarities, and differences. Appeal to the analysis of dictionary parameters allows you to extract lexicographic information about the Word, how to reflect it in the vocabulary article, as well as to establish the generality and specificity of the lexicographic tradition as a whole. According to Ya d Apresian, "a distinctive feature of modern lexicography is the synthesis of philology and culture in the broad sense of the word" (YU D. Apresyan, 1993, from 6) than largely and the lexicographic activity in modern descriptions of the lexical and semantic language system and its Subsystems.

In the theoretical lexicography of the last decades, high creative activity is observed: periodic lexicographic magazines are published, for example: International Journal of Lexicography, Lexicographica, Dictionaries, Cahier de Lexicologie, etc.); A huge number of theoretical works are summarized in bibliography, for example. L.ZGUSTA. Lexicography Today. An Annotated Bibliography of Theory of Lexicography (1988), which includes more than 5000 items and annotations of work, mainly 197080s. It does not weaken the interest in the creation of historical and dialectological dictionaries and atlases in different countries, but special distribution and development lexicography receives the creation of machine funds of the language in the field of computer research: at the Russian language institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences since the beginning of the 80s. Card files, dialectological maps, various texts, materials of academic dictionaries and grammar are translated into machine form, computed comments on the works of authors - classics of fiction similar studies are conducted abroad. Thus, in the Wizard Center Mac Quarie (Australia), three largest databases, a card file, a dictionary building - a hull quote - the text of the texts of the Australian writers, which allows you to submit computer versions of dictionaries.

The preservation of linguistic and lexicographic information on electronic media allows not only to create powerful machine bases and extremely expand the body of the dictionary, but also to extract information on dozens of linguistic and dictionary parameters by the example of this is COBUILD database (Collins Birmingham University International Language Database) and research, We carried out using this base in Ivanovo State University under the scientific leadership of the doctor of philological sciences, Professor Om. Karpova.

Novations in lexicography arise and thanks to the needs of learning, which take into account new dictionaries.

So, according to Yu.D. Apresan and E.M. Mednikova (1994) to the number of the most notable general features of most new dictionaries include:

The desire to achieve the completeness of the word characteristic that allows not only to understand it in a given context, but also to use in its own speech;

The desire to overcome the traditional cut-off of lexicography from theoretical linguistics and semantics;

Transition from a purely philological description of the word to a solid philological and cultural description of the word-concept;

Enrichment of sources of lexicographic material due to the inclusion of these linguistic experiment data and machine databases;

Updating lexicographic techniques and means - the introduction of hydraulic ("picture") definitions, guidebooks (table of contents) for the dictionary, cross-references, assesss the correctness of the use of one word or t n.

The desire for combining scientific descriptions and practical installations leads to the need to solve a number of typical antinomy vocabulary (.)

Static typical vs. dynamism of the language;

Dictionary as a directory VS dictionary as a tutorial;

VSS Dictionary. grammar;

Lexicographic portrait of VS. Lexicographic type "(Yu.D.

Apresan, 1993, p.8).

The relevance of the study is due not only to the presence of heterogeneous - grammatical and stylistic litters in vocabulary, but also comparable analysis of the complex of the complex in the intelligent dictionaries of Russian and English languages. Concentrated in the form of a litter lexicographic information allows you to submit a complex and multifaceted picture of the word-lexemes not only in the dictionary, but also in language and speech.

In this regard, the object of the study is the grammatical and stylistic litters in modern intelligent dictionaries of Russian and English as a carrier of language information about the Word, and the subject is typologically caused similarities and differences in the litter system and the vocabulary word in compared languages.

The main objective of the work implies a comprehensive description of the vocabulary of the name and verb of Russian and English, presenting them as the semantic potential of the word-lexemes.

To achieve the goal, it is necessary to solve a number of more specific tasks:

Analyze the system of grammatical litter of names and verbs in the intelligent dictionaries of Russian and English;

Analyze the system of stylistic litter of names and verbs in the intelligent dictionaries of Russian and English;

Establish similarities and differences in complexes in typologically close, but structurally distinguished Russian and English;

Identify the nature of the grammatical and stylistic lexicographic parameters of the word in each of the compared languages.

Protection issues:

Grammar litters in sensible dictionaries belong to the word as a structural unit of the language, T e. As a combination of wordform;

Stylistic litters belong to the word as a lexicographic object, i.e. lexeme, as a set of lexico-semantic options;

And grammatical and stylistic plants are combined into a single complex of lexicographic parameters of the description of the word-lexemes in sensitive dictionaries;

Typological and structural similarities and differences are reflected in the complex of vocabulary and lexicographic descriptions of the word-lexing in explanatory dictionaries of two compared languages

The dissertation scientific novelty is:

In a detailed description in the comparative aspect of the system of grammatical and stylistic litters in the intelligent dictionaries of Russian and English;

In the characterization of the system of grammatical and stylistic litters in two compared languages \u200b\u200bfor names and verbs as a concentrated lexicographic and linguistic information.

The theoretical significance of the results of the study is that a comprehensive typologically relevant description of grammatical and stylistic litters in modern intelligent dictionaries of Russian and English languages \u200b\u200ballows you to present a word-tolex simultaneously as a unit of grammar and dictionary, as a static and dynamic unit of language and speech.

The practical orientation of the results is to matter their importance for lexicographic practice, theoretical and training lexicography, clarification of the typological characteristics of the word lexemes. The results of the study can be used in the practice of translating and learning foreign languages.

The methodological development of the work was theoretical lexicographic studies, innovative ideas for the creation of the Language Vocational Fund, the results of a number of lexicographic application programs (COBUILD - Collins; Maclluarie)

The study material was the vocabulary articles of the names and verbs of a number of modern sensitive dictionaries of Russian and English Languages \u200b\u200b"Big Dictionary of Russian (1998); Dictionary of the Russian Language (1999); Dictionary of Russian Language (1995); Longman Dictionary of Contemporary ENGLISH (2000); The New Oxford Dictionary of Contemporary English (2002); The Collins English Dictionary (1996) and others.

The total number of analyzed vocabularies - more than 3000.

Basic research methods:

Observation, comparison, typological analysis in order to identify similarities and differences; Matrix representation of the complexes of vocabulary.

The testing of the work took place at a meeting of the Department of General and Russian Linguistics of the Philological Faculty of the Russian University of Friendship of Peoples; The main provisions of the thesis are reflected in TJ-X publications: articles and theses, speeches at conferences. VII Scientific and Practical Conference of Young Scientists: Rudn, 2005; International Conference I Novikovsky Readings: RUDN, 2006.

The thesis consists of the introduction, three chapters, conclusion and literature of the reference

Similar dissertation work in the specialty "Comparative-historical, typological and comparable linguistics", 10.02.20 CIFR WAK

The evolution of the composition and values \u200b\u200bof the class of personal nouns of the male genus in the Russian literary language during the 30-80s. XX century 2000, candidate of philological sciences Zhelbova, Irina Viktorovna
Problems of the subtandard lexicography of English and Russian languages: theoretical and applied aspects 2009, Dr. Philological Sciences Ryabichkin, Galina Vladimirovna
Comparative study of vocabulary of utilitarian evaluation in Russian and English: based on materials of lexicography 2002, candidate of philological sciences Pogorelova, Svetlana Daviden
Evolution of etymological characteristics in English dictionaries of various types 2009, Candidate of Philological Sciences Gorgetkuk, Anna Vasilyevna
Illustrated and Illustrative Dictionaries: Formation, Development and Contemporary Condition 2011, candidate of philological sciences Germanov, Olga Aleksandrovna

Conclusion of dissertation on the topic "Comparative-historical, typological and comparable linguistics", Nesova, Natalia Mikhailovna

Stylistic litters given in three explanatory dictionaries of English are distributed between the literary and colloquial norm. Actually, the stylistic attribution of word-lexemes is built with the historical factor, i.e. Archaisms, territorially - dialective entries, and speech, relating to the native speaker are stylically labeled, are OKKAZIONALISM.

36 Hornby Oxford Advanced Learner "S Dictionary of Current English - London Oxford, 1996 -974 P (194 Th Words)

Webster "S New World Dictionary - 3-RD College Edition -n Y, 1997 - 1574 p (293 Th Words) Dictionaries are brought without detailed analysis in text of the thesis, since they implemented similar principles of stylistic vocabulary litas

In more detail stylistically characterized, conversational lexemes defined by the izus are provided. However, in contrast to the Russian language (see Table P.66-67), the body of stylistic litter differs in content and practically eliminates the emotional expression component, which is presented with a connotative labels litter.

Conclusion

The vocabulary articles reflect the extralyingvistic and actually linguistic information about the header word. In sensible dictionaries that perform both the functions of the encyclopedic dictionaries, since the interpretation of the values \u200b\u200bprimarily represents the denotative or ingrowable content of the word, the language information is contained in the illustrations - language use in the immediate, explicit representation, as well as in dictionary entries, which follow directly behind the header In short. Word labeled represent the language component of the word in a compressed, a sign; Often they are represented by abbreviations that are explained in the dictionary section.

Among the litter distinguish between the grammatical and stylistic, which characterize the word from different sides: if the grammatical litter determine the features of the form, or the word formation, which is due to the word selection or its absence, then stylistic belong to the word consideration, and therefore characterize the vocabulary as a word in language and speech. In this sense, both varieties may be characterized as keys to the language.

When comparing English and Russian languages \u200b\u200bas languages \u200b\u200bof genetically close, but different, different approach is found to the nomenclature and grammatical, and stylistic litters. Naturally, this is due to typologically, since the word-byment of analyzed articles of Russian and English nouns and verbs - the leading classes of words in any language, is a reliable and objective criterion.

Nevertheless, it is impossible not to notice the influence of the research subjective linguistic tradition for Russian linguistics, the formally-containing approach is most characteristic and consistently conducted, which is expressed in the essential properties of vocabulary.

Thus, grammatical litters with a header Russian noun or a verb, analyzed in five leading sensible dictionaries of the modern Russian language (see table S.52-53) allow you to fully execute registered and verb values \u200b\u200bnot only for these words themselves, but also in Their combinations, for example, coordination by the genus and the number of nouns and verbs in the form of the past time.

The complex of the element in the name of the noun testifies to the need to take into account their structure, namely, non-production production, the presence of the pretext in the form of a case and other, as well as a semantic discharge, for example: collective nouns, exclusive names and other discharges.

For the verbs, the most relevant plates associated with the category of species, pledge and transition, inclination, which themselves are already endowed with the semantic component. In addition, references to the hybrid form of communion regularly include, which requires a special implementation of the verbal complex of grammatical values.

For English to the actual grammatical criterion, the outer spelling is also connected.

The system of grammatical litter, characterized in five English sensitive dictionaries (see Table P.90), in addition to the actual grammatical parameters of the word, reflects both spelling norms, including omographs. For nouns, the spelling is important from the capital letter of the names of its own, because It signals a change in the correlation of the forms of a single - multiple number, and for verbs - the difference in forms and spelling, for example, in the last time- Learn - learnt / learned.

Also essential is the presence of a dephysic and separate writing for the same unit, for example: Hurdy-Gurdy; Alarm Clock.

The special group is the abbreviations for nouns names, and phrasal verbs, fundamentally transforming the value of the base single verb, for example: to take - Take Off, Take In, Take Out, etc.

If for nouns formally, the grammatic aspect is covered by the opposition in terms of the number and regularity - the irregularity of the flexions, which draw up the value of the number, then for the verbs, flexses are most substantial, both external and internal.

Another brighter the difference in the approaches is found in the stylistic area. In fact, the Russian tradition represents the stylistry of the language. Hence the differences in terminology and essence: stylistic and stylistic aspects, language resources. Among the stylistic resources, expressive-emotional and evaluation meanings are greatly played, as well as the means of language.

Unlike grammatical litters, which represent the word as part of speech and addressed to word form, i.e. First of all, it is characterized by the word, stylistic litter facing a lexeme, to the content of the word and its functioning in the language and speech. They appeal to the value, including the estimated and connotative components of the wide spectrum.

In addition to the style litter - the book., Officer, talking, noting the belonging to one or another functional style, the most common places characterizing the expressive-estimated substantive component reflecting the emotional color of the lexeme functioning in speech. A special place is occupied by peorative - a meerative assessment, represented by numerous litters, for example: intensive., Rough, humiliates, and others.

Despite the uniform distribution of stylistic litters in the intelligent dictionaries of the Russian language (see Table P.66-67), not all of them are consistently reflected in each of the dictionaries. The most presented are emotional and expressive and stylistic, and the least - dialect and historical. We assume that this is due to the stylistic norms of the Russian language.

In the English language, the stylistics does not distinguish between the language and speech aspect, but relies on the differences in the norm and uzus, while the norm is represented by the literary language, and the uzus - conversational practice, therefore, vocabulary stylistic litters do not form a certain meaningful holistic complex, and appear as symmetrical reflections of the norm And Uzusa, with the priority of the norm. This approach, naturally, is poured into the study of stylistic synonymy, isosemichetic means of language and speech.

Stylistic litters given in three explanatory dictionaries of English are distributed between the literary and colloquial norm. Actually, the stylistic attribution of the word - lexemes is built with the historical factor, i.e. Archaisms, territorially - dialective entries, and speech, relating to the native speaker are stylically labeled, are OKKAZIONALISM.

In more detail stylistically characterized, conversational lexemes defined by the izus are provided. However, in contrast to the Russian language, the style of stylistic litter differs in content and practically eliminates the emotional and expressive component, which is represented by the connotative labels litter.

The functional and styling color of the English nouns and verbs is polarized on the "Book / Literary - Conversational" axis styles.

And for English, as well as for Russian, vocabulary is presented in a compressed form information about Word / Wordforme-Gramsmatic litters, and about Word / Lexeme - Stylistic litters; However, the latter do not open the estimated or expressive component of the value, combining it in one connotative sense.

Thanks to the vocabulary, the vocabulary article and the Russian and English intelligent dictionary represents a compressed, compact description of the central unit of the language system - the words. It accumulates the properties of the word as wordformes and as a lexemes, and therefore is a description and grammatical, and lexico-semantic language plans in their organic unity.

Comparison of complexes of stylistic and grammatical litters of the names of nouns and verbs of genetically close, but different language languages \u200b\u200b- Russian and English - is organically included in the typological study and objectively indicates the most significant similarities and differences, since the basic structural and semantic characteristics of the verbal sign are detected in his vocational presentation.

References dissertation research candidate of Philological Sciences Nesova, Natalia Mikhailovna, 2006

1. Actual problems of training lexicography. M.: Russian, 1977.-320 p.

2. Alpatov V.M. On the clarification of the concepts of "flexive language" and "agglutinative language" // Linguistic typology. M., 1985. - 243 p.

3. Anichkov I. E. On determining the word // The morphological structure of the word in the languages \u200b\u200bof various types. M., 1963. - 150 p.

4. Antrushina i.e. LEXICOLOGOLOGY English. M., 2001. - 276 p.

5. Apresan Yu. D. Integral description of language and systemic lexicography // Apresyan Yu.D. Selected Works. T. 2: M.: School, "Languages \u200b\u200bof Russian Culture", 1995. - 767 p.

6. Apresan Yu. D. Lexic semantics. Synonymic language of language. // Apresian Yu.d. Selected Works. T. 1: m.,: School "Languages \u200b\u200bof Russian Culture", 1995. - 472 p.

8. Arakin in D. Comparative Typology of English and Russian Languages.-L, 1979.-380 p.

9. Arnold I.V. The lexicology of modern English. M., 1973.-326 p.

10. Akhmanova O.S. Essays in common and Russian lexicology. M., 1957. -174 p.

11. Barhudar Ji.C., Schlling Yes. English grammar. 4th ed., Act. - M.: Higher School, 1973. - 422 p.

12. Berezhan S.G. Reflection of systemic bonds of lexical units in the uniastoneial explanatory dictionary. M., 1984. P. 5-16.

13. Berkovich etc. The content and function of the litter for the terminological vocabulary in general dictionaries of different types. P. 206 210.

14. Blatova A.R. Lexicological interpretations of Russian verbs with the meaning of changes in the quality of the object: author. dis. .kand. philol. science M., 1980.-20 s.

15. Bloomford L. Language. M.: Progress, 1968. - 606 p.

16. Boduen de Courtae I.A. On the mixed nature of all languages \u200b\u200b// Boduen de Courtae I.A. Selected works on general linguistics. T. 1-2. M., 1963.-328 p.

17. Large English-Russian Dictionary. In 2 volumes // Yu.D. Apresian, I.R. Galperin, R.S. Ginsburg and others under total. ed. I. R. Galperin, 3. M. Mednikova. 4th ed., Act. and add. - M.: Russian, 1987. T. 1: A-M. - 1038 p.

18. Large English-Russian dictionary. In 2 volumes // Yu.D. Apresian, I.R. Galperin, R.S. Ginsburg and others under total. ed. I. R. Galperin, 3. M. Mednikova. 4th ed., Act. and add. - M.: Russian, 1988. T. 2: N-Z.- 1073С.

19. Large Russian-English dictionary. Cost. A.I. Smirnitsky // O.S. Akhmanova, Z.S. Profitable, etc. Gorbunova et al. Hands. A. I. Smirnitsky. Ed. O. S. Akhmanova. 27th ed., Stereotype. - M.: Russian. - Media, 2004. - 768 p.

20. Large explanatory dictionary of the Russian language // Ed. Kuznetsova S.A. St. Petersburg: Norint, 1998. - 1535 p.

21. Vinogradov V.V. On the form of words // Elected, works: research on Russian grammar. M., 1975. P. 33-50.

22. Vinogradov V.V. Russian language // Grammatical doctrine of the word 2nd ed., Stereotype. - M., Higher School, 1982. - 222 p.

23. Vinokur T. G. Need a regulatory sensible dawn "Spatrical", P. 133-145.

24. Vorontsova G.N. Essays in grammar English. M.: Publishing House of Literature in Foreign Languages, 1960. - 400 p.

25. Verb and name in Russian lexicography. Ekaterinburg.: Publishing House of Urals University, 1996. - 224 p.

26. Grammar of modern English A new University English Grammar / under. ed. A. V. Zelenshchikova, E.S. Petrova. - M.: SPb.: Academia, 2003. - 640 p.

27. Gurevich V.V. Theoretical English grammar. Comparative typology of English and Russian languages. M.: Flint: Science, 2003. - 168 p.

28. Denisov P.N. Actual problems of training lexicography. M., Russian, 1977. P. 205-225.

29. Denisov P.N. On the universal structure of the vocabulary article // Actual problems of educational lexicography. M.: Russian, 1977. P. 205-225.

30. Dvitsyankyan R. A. English Perfect in the language of translation of art text: Author. dis. .kand. philol. science M., 2005. - 23 s. (and dissertation).

31. Efremova T.F. New dictionary of Russian language. M.: Russian, 2000. T. 1: A.-Kh. - 1210 p.

32. Zaliznyak A.A. Russian nominal word. -M.: Science, 1967. 370 p.

33. Ivanova I.P., Burlakova V.V., Povigets G.G. Theoretical grammar of modern English language. M.: Higher School, 1981. -286 p.

34. Iliish B.A. Structure of modern English. (Theoretical Course). M.: L.: Enlightenment, 1965. - 378 p.

35. Kalakutskaya L.P. Morphological options for words and qualifying them in dictionaries of different types // Word Categories. -M.: Science. 1988. P. 176-182.

36. Karaululov Yu.N. Linguistic design and thesaurus of the literary language. M.: Nauka, 1981. - 356 p.

37. Kobzevy them. Linguistic semantics. M.: URSS, 2000. - 352 p.

38. Kobrina N.A., Korneva E.A., Osovskaya M.I. Grammar English. St. Petersburg: Union, 1999. - 496 p.

39. Kozhin A.N., Krylova Oa., Odintsov V.V. Functional types of Russian speech. Studies. Manual for studies specialist. Philologist, University. M.: Higher School, 1982. - 222 p.

40. Krylova O.A. Fundamentals of the functional stylist of the Russian language. -M.: Russian, 1979. 223 p.

41. Kubryakova E.S. Types of language values \u200b\u200b// Semantics derivative word. M.: Science, 1981.-200 p.

42. Kuznetsova E.V. Lexicology of the Russian language. M.: Higher School, 1989.-216 p.

43. Lyonz J. Introduction to theoretical linguistics. M.: Progress, 1978.-543 p.

44. Martin A. Basics of general linguistics // New in linguistics. Vol. Z.-M., 1963. P. 366-566.

45. Mednikova E.M. The adequacy of lexicographic liters of stylistic characteristics of the word // Word Categories. M.: Nauka, 1988. P. 145-150.

46. \u200b\u200bMeiet A. The main features of the German group of languages. M.: Forers. LIT-RA, 1952. P. 8.

47. Melchuk I.A. The course of general motofology. T.I Moscow-Vienna, 1998. P. 96104.

48. Melchuk I.A. The course of general motofology. T.II Moscow-Vienna, 1998. - 237 p.

49. Murat V.P. The stylistic system of the modern Russian language according to the dictionary of the Russian language dictionary S.I. Ozhegova. 14th ed., Stereotype., 1982. P. 134-139.

50. Novikov pl. Semantics of the Russian language. M.: Higher School, 1982. -272 p.

51. New in overseas linguistics. M., Progress, 1983. - 399 p.

52. New large English-Russian dictionary. In 3 volumes / Yu.D. Apresyan, Z.M.Mednikova, A.V.Petrov, etc. under total. ed. 3. M. Mednikova, Yu.D. Apresan M.: Russian, 1999 T. 1: A-F. - 832 p. (6-22).

53. General Linguistics II Internal structure structure. M.: Science, 1972. -565 p.

54. Panov M.V. On the degree of segment of words // The development of the modern language 1972. - M., 1975. - 216 p.

55. Panov M.V. Feature article. Russian language // Languages \u200b\u200bof the peoples of the USSR. T.i M., 1967.-347 p.

56. Rey A., Delesal S. Problems and antinomy of lexicography // New in foreign linguistics. Vol. 14. M., 1983. P. 261-300.

57. Remchekova E.N. Creative potential of Russian grammar. M.: Publishing House Rudn, 2005.-332 p.

58. Remchekova E.N. Morphology of modern Russian language. Tutorial. -M.: Flint: Science, 2004. 144 p.

59. Reformed A.A. Agglutination and Fusion as two trends in the grammatical structure of the word // Linguistics and poetics. M., 1987. -384 p.

60. Russian grammar: in 2 volumes. M.: Science, 1980. T. 1. - 783 p. (563-680).

61. Serebrennikov B.A. The reasons for the stability of agglutinative system // Morphological typology and the problem of classifying languages. M.; J1., 1965.-284 p.

62. Skarevskaya T.N. Lexicographic style: condition and problems // Word Categories. M.: Science, 1988. P. 150-155.

64. Dictionary of the Russian language. In 4 volumes // Ed. A.P. Evgenaya 4th ed., Stereotype. - M.: Rus. Jaz.: Poligraphressurs, 1999. T.1: A-th. - 702 p.

65. Smirnskiy A.I. Lexicology of English. M., 1956. - 422 p.

66. Smirnsky A.I. Lexical and grammatical in Word // Questions of grammatical system. M., 1955. - 387 p.

67. Smirnskiy A.I. Morphology of English. M., 1959. - 427 p.

68. Smirnskiy A.I. Essays on comparative grammar of Russian and English. M.: Higher School, 1970. - 399 p.

69. Stepanov Yu.S. Basics of general linguistics. 2nd ed., Pererab. - M.: Enlightenment, 1975. - 270 s.

70. Explanatory dictionary of the Russian language // Ed. D.N. Ushakov. M.: Astrel: Act, 2000. - 1568 p.

71. Explanatory dictionary of the Russian language 2nd ed., Ups added. // Ed. S.I. Ozhegova, N.Yu. Swedio - M.: Az, 1995. - 908 p.

72. Ufimseva A.A. Word in a lexico-semantic language system. M., 1968.-307 p.

73. Kholodovich A.A. Problems of grammatical theory. L.: Science, 1978. -304 p.

74. Shandin A.Ji. Verb in the history of domestic linguistics. -Tambov: Publishing House of Tambov University, 2003. 123 p.

75. Shirova A.V. Comparative typology of multiple languages. -M.: Dobrosvet, 2000. 200 p.

76. Shmelev D.N. Problems of semantic analysis of vocabulary. M., 1973. -95 C.11. Shemelev D.N. Modern Russian language // vocabulary. M., 1977. P. 92185.

77. Scherba Ji.B. Language system and speech activity. L.: Science, 1974. P. 78-81; P. 295-299.

78. Jacobson R. Favorite work. M.: Progress, 1985. - 455 p.

79. Yartseva V.N. Contrast grammar. M.: Science, 1981. - 107 p.

80. Algeo J. ON Defining The Proper Names. Gainesville, 1973. - 289 p.

81. Blond S. R. Intermediate Grammar: From form to Meaning and Use. N. Y., OXFORD: Oxford University Press, 1996. - 531 p.

82. Blokh M. A Course in theoretical English Grammar. M.: VYSSAJA SKOLA, 2000.-381 p.

83. BOLINGER D. ASPECTS OF LANGUAGE. 2-ND Edition. - N.Y. - Chicago - San Francisco, 1975. - 682 p.

84. BRAYANT M. A FUNCTIONAL ENGLISH GRAMMAR. Boston, 1995. - 462 p.

85. Brazil D. A Grammar of Speech. OXFORD, ETC.: OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS, 1995.-264 p.

86. Burchfield R. The Russian Language. London, 1985. - 376 p.

87. Close R.A. The New English Grammar. Cambridge, Etc.: Cambrige University Press, 1964. - 184 p.

88. Crystal D. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. 2-ND Edition. -Cambridge, etc.: Cambrige University Press, 1997. - 480 p.

89. Crystal D. WHO CARES ABOUT English USAGE? London, 1985. - 462 p.

90. Galperin I. Stylistics. 3-RD EDITION. - M.:vyssaja Skola, 1981. - 334 p.

91. Gardiner A. Theory of Speech and Language. 2-ND Edition. - London: Oxford, 1951.-326 p.

92. Greenbaum S. The Oxford English Grammar. OXFORD, ETC.: Oxford University Press, 1996. - 652 p.

93. Harrison B. From Kriphe "S Puzzle to a New Description // Description Theory of Proper Names. London, 1997. 368 p.

94. Hornby Oxford Advanced Learner "S Dictionary of Current English. London: Oxford, 1996.-974 p.

95. Johnson S. The Plan of a dictionary. London, 1947. - 453 p.

96. Laho R. Linguistics Across Cultures. Chicago: Ann Arbor, 1957. - 246 p.

97. Leech G. english grammar for today. London: Longman, 1982. - 224 p.

98. Longman Dictionary of CONTEMPORARY ENGLISH. London: Longman, 2000. -1229 p.

99. Palmer H.E. The Principles of Language Study. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1965. - 278 p.

100. QUIRK R. THE USE OF ENGLISH. London: Longman, 1978. - 215 p.

101. Quirk R., Greenbaum S. A University Grammar of English. London: Longman, 1975.-484 p.

102. The Collin "s english dictionary. London: Oxford, 1996. - 1771 p.

103. The Encyclopidia of Language and Linguistics. N.Y., Seoul, Tokyo, 1994. V. 10.-580 p. (243-265).

104. The New Oxford Dictionary of CONTEMPORARY ENGLISH. London: Oxford, 2002. - 846 p.

105. Vallins G. The Best English. London, 1963.-384 p.

106. Webster "S New World Dictionary. 3-RD College Edition. - N. Y., 1997. -1574 p.

107. WHORF B. LANGUAGE, THOUGHT AND REALITY. Cambridge: Cambrige University Press, 1956. - 307 p.

108. Widdowson H. Aspects of Language Teaching. OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS, 1990.-372 P.

109. YesPersen O. Essentials of English Grammar. London: Longman, 1946. -338 p.

110. Yespersen O. The Phylosophy of Grammar. London: Longman, 1924. -360 p.

Please note the scientific texts presented above are posted for familiarization and obtained by recognizing the original texts of theses (OCR). In this connection, they may contain errors associated with the imperfection of recognition algorithms. In PDF the dissertation and the author's abstracts that we deliver such errors.

Emotional-expressive coloring of the word and its belonging to a specific functional style in the lexical system of the Russian language is usually interconnected. Neutral words in emotionally expressive terms are usually included in the formation of common vocabulary. The exceptions are the terms: they are always stylistically neutral, but they have clear functional consolidation. Emotional-expressive words are distributed between the book and the colloquial (spaticral) vocabulary.

Book vocabulary belongs to the words high, giving speeches solemnity, as well as emotional-expressive, expressing both positive and negative assessment of the concepts called. Thus, in book styles, the vocabulary is used in the book styles (beautiful, words, contamination), disapproving (pedantic, manneriness), contemptuous (subject, corrupt), etc. Therefore, it is incorrect that the book vocabulary consists only of the words of a positive evaluation value, although these in it, of course, prevail (the whole poetic, rhetorical, solemn vocabulary).

Speaking vocabulary includes words stabs (Golubushka, mommy), joking (butuz, mixture), as well as some units that express a negative assessment of the concepts called (however, not too coarse): Relive, giggle, befall, Mel Slag. The spacious vocabulary belongs to sharply reduced words that are outside the literary norm. Among them, there may be forms containing a positive assessment of the concepts of the concepts (workers, Bashchoven), but much more forms expressing the negative attitude of the indicative concepts (to impact, crush, chlipky, reached and under.).

In the Word often, functional signs and emotional and expressive and other stylistic shades are intersecting. For example, the words satellite epigone, apotheosis is perceived primarily as books. But at the same time, the word satellite, used in the portable meaning, we associate with a journalistic style; In the word epigal, we note a negative assessment, and in the word apotheosis is positive. In addition, the use of these words in speech is influenced by their foreign-speaking origin (the phonetic design that is not characteristic of the Russian language can lead to their inappropriate in a specific context). And the gentle-ironic words of the gap, winding, the bloody, drong combine spoken and dialectic color, the people's sound. The wealth of stylistic shades of Russian vocabulary requires a particularly attentive attitude to the Word.

Stylistic litters

"Dictionary of the Russian Language" of the USSR Academy of Sciences in 4 tons. Ed. A.M. Evgenaya - Next Mac - Related to Stylistic: 1. Places indicating the identity of the word to various layers of vocabulary of the Russian language (region, simple, rude. Simple.); 2. Plants pointing to the stylistic limitations of the use of words in the literary language (breaking, books. Official. And officers., High., Trad.-poet., People's poet.); 3. Places indicating the special scope of the word (ASTR., Bakt., Buch., Geol., Zootal. Etc.); 4. Planets indicating the emotional color color (Bran., Iron., Slot., Presenter., Prescription, Disinforced, and not); 5. litter the statute. To the words coming out of use in modern Russian.

"Dictionary of the Modern Russian Literary Literature" of the USSR Academy of Sciences of the USSR - Next bass - accompanies the words with the following stylistic litters: R. Study. life.

Existing inconsistencies and inconsistency in the use of stylistic litters were repeatedly marked by linguists (V.P. Berekov, X. Casares, K. Ludwig, F.P. Sorokolets, L.P. Stupin, F.P. Filin, L.V. Shcherba, I.L. Reznichenko, L.V. Boyko, O.A. Nesterova, P. Kuzmina, etc.): "A description of the stylistic quality of the word is presented in almost all existing dictionaries. However (...) This description is compared with the description of other properties of lexical units so far characterized by a significantly lower degree of reasonableness and orderliness "[Boyko, 1991, C.3]