Synonyms to explain what. From the work "synonymous series of verbs of destruction"

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 stylistic coloring, or both signs ”(A.P. Evgenyeva) [Dictionary of synonyms of the Russian language 1970: 8];

Identity of lexical meaning and coincidence of semantic valencies: “For the recognition of two words (or syntactically indecomposable phraseological units) A and B lexical synonyms it is necessary and sufficient (1) that they have a completely congruent interpretation, i.e. translated into the same expression of the semantic language, (2) so that they have the same number active semantic valencies, (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 as part of the implementation of the FTP "Scientific and scientific-pedagogical personnel 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, key word) a synonymic series, which has a common meaning for all members of the synonymic series: “The synonymic series begins with a supporting, or main, word. The reference word most clearly expresses the concept that the words included in the synonymous series denote. In the overwhelming 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 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, in 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 "leads in fact to the substitution natural properties semantics natural languages metalinguistic semantics, language units - 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 series, since it does not express the general, 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. So, when compiling the New Explanatory Dictionary of Synonyms of the Russian Language, the attitude towards anthropocentrism was voiced: “Most of the synonymic series included in the NOSS are combined common ideas person, i.e. selected on the basis of anthropocentricity” [Apresyan 2009: 217]. This attitude in practice is manifested in the fact that when describing synonymous series, signs associated with human activity are of paramount importance: for example, in a synonymous 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 as much as possible 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 a series of “food, edibles (outgoing), 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 synonymous series was changed here: unlike the first experiment, which included synonymous series from different dictionaries, for the second experiment, 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 (the National Corpus of the Russian Language was used for this), but unlike the New Explanatory Dictionary of Synonyms of the Russian Language, where the corpus data served 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

Fortuna 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*

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 history 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 last statement contradicts modern research human memory, in which it is proved that human memory can be "rewritten". See, for example, detailed pilot study memory in [Niser, Hymen 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 synonymous 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. However, semantic connection between these concepts is not in 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 V linguistic literature there is a not entirely correct use of the concept of Wittgenstein: such an interpretation of the term goes back to the article by E. Rosch: “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.

However, the proposed typology, like any scientific classification, describes only general rules and may not take into account transitional and difficult cases, when it is difficult to unambiguously determine what type the synonymic series belongs to, therefore, in the future it is necessary to continue the study of 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// Questions 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 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 in Russian language

A. Signs of synonyms.

Synonyms (gr. synonymos- eponymous) - these are words,

different in sound

however, identical or close in meaning,

belonging to the same part of speech

often differing in stylistic coloring .

For example: here - here, spouse - wife, look - look, homeland - fatherland, fatherland.

Synonyms, most often, denote the same phenomenon of impartial reality. The nominative function allows you to combine them into open rows, which are replenished with the development of the language, with the appearance of new meanings in words.

On the other hand, synonymous cases can fall apart, then individual words are excluded from the synonymic series, receive other semantic connections.

So, for example,

word scrupulous, previously synonymous with haberdashery(cf.: trades London scrupulous(A. Pushkin)), now synonymized with the words narrow, spicy;

word vulgar stopped being synonymous with words ubiquitous, popular(cf. the hope expressed by the writer Trediakovsky that the book he wrote would be at least a little vulgar) and approached the next: vulgar - hard, small, immoral, mercantile;

at the word dream the semantic correlation with the word is violated at the current time idea(cf.: What a terrible dream!(A. Pushkin)), but preserved with the words wish, dream.

Almost always, synonyms, denoting the same thing, characterize it with various points vision.

Synonyms are recorded in special dictionaries - dictionaries of synonyms (see Useful links below).

Some linguists do not consider synonyms:

words denoting genus-species affairs: flower - chamomile;

words denoting related concepts: house - apartment.

B.Synonymous line.

A group of words consisting of several synonyms is called synonymous next(or nest): doctor- doctor- doctor- Aesculapius.

Synonyms can be either multi-rooted, and from single root synonyms: face - face, get ahead - overtake; fisherman - angler, fisherman.

The first place in the synonymic series is usually taken by a word that is common in meaning and stylistically neutral - dominant(lat. dominants- 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. For example, brave -brave,dashing,dashing,.

Yes, in last example the dominant of the series is the word brave, it more capaciously conveys the meaning that unites all synonyms - “fearless” and free from expressive stylistic colors. Other synonyms stand out in the semantic-stylistic sense and in the peculiarities of consumption in speech. For example,

brave- a book word, interpreted as "very brave";

dashing- folk-poetic, means "full of daring";

dashing- colloquial - "bold, risk-taking";

synonyms brave, courageous, fearless, fearless differ not only in semantic aspects, but also in abilities lexical compatibility(they only mix with nouns that name people; you can't say "brave project", "fearless decision", etc.).

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, in the absence of an account, chickens do not peck. They all, most of all, do the same syntactic function in a sentence.

The Russian language is rich in synonyms, the rarest synonymic rows have two or three members, more often there are even more.

B. Types of synonyms.

1. Complete(absolute) synonyms, or doublets, in most cases there are parallel scientific definitions: spelling - spelling, nominative - nominal, fricative - fricative, also single-root words formed with the help of synonymous affixes: wretchedness - squalor, guard - guard. There are not many complete synonyms in the language.

2. Synonyms that differ in color in their meanings are called semantic (semantic, ideographic): wet - wet, damp reflect varying degrees manifestations of the trait - "having significant moisture, saturated with moisture"; die - perish, perish- "to cease to exist, to be destroyed (as a result of disasters, the impact of some forces, a criterion)".

3. Synonyms that have differences in expressive and emotional coloring and are therefore used in different styles of speech are called style: spouse(common) - wife(official), young(colloquial) - newlyweds(book), eyes(neutral) - eyes(vyc.), face(neutral) - erysipelas(reduced) - face(vyc.)

4. Synonyms that differ both in color in meaning and stylistically are called semantic-stylistic. For example, stray- a bookish word, meaning “to go or go in the absence of a certain direction, without having a goal, or in search of someone or something”; circling (circling) - colloquial, meaning "changing the direction of movement, often end up in the same place"; wander- everyday colloquial, meaning "to go or go in search of right direction, a suitable road"; with the same meaning: get confused- colloquial fornicate- spacious.

The language is dominated by semantic stylistic synonyms.

5. Words that come close in meaning exclusively in the criteria of the 1st context are called contextual(situational, occasional, author's) synonyms: For hundreds of versts, for hundreds of miles, for hundreds of kilometers, salt lay, the feather grass rustled, the cedar grove turned black.(A. Akhmatova). Contextual synonyms are not reflected in synonym dictionaries.

In the context, words are synonymized that are not actually synonyms of their own. So, the girl has the opportunity to name baby, beauty, laughter, whim, coquette; dog - bug etc.

D. Mainsynonym functions.

1. Clarification is based on an incomplete coincidence of the meanings of synonymous words: synonyms allow you to “add” the missing meanings, to reveal new sides in the designated: He ran, or rather rushed.

2. Substitution based on the fact that in a number of contexts the differences between synonyms are erased, and this allows you to avoid repetitions of the same words: He made a mistake, but his mistake was not seen.

3. Euphemia a deliberately incorrect designation of reality is called: boss is delayed (= late), he is not far (= stupid).

4. Contrasting synonyms emphasizes the differences between synonyms: She didn't walk, she walked.

Additionally:

"Dictionary of Russian synonyms and expressions similar in meaning" N. Abramov (online)

Dictionary of synonyms of the Russian language (online)

Material source Website

Section "Lexical synonymy" in the manual of Rosenthal D.E., Golub I.B., Telenkova M.A. "Modern Russian language". See paragraphs:

§ 13. Synonyms in the Russian language

§ 14. Types of synonyms

§ 16. The question of contextual synonyms

Chapter "Synonyms" in the manual by E. I. Litnevskaya "Russian language: a concise theoretical course for schoolchildren"

Additional to the site:

What are the types of homonyms?

How to distinguish between homonyms and ambiguous words?

What is a paronym?

How do paronyms differ from homonyms?

What are the lexical errors associated with the use of paronyms, synonyms?

What are the types of antonyms?

Synonyms ( syndnymos‘homonymous’) are words that belong to the same part of speech and have completely or partially coinciding meanings (cf. linguistics - linguistics , fear - horror).

Synonymy refers to rather complex linguistic phenomena that have different interpretations. Most scientists understand synonymy as such semantic relations, developing between words, in which words that are in synonymous relations express the same meaning (coincidence can be complete or partial), but at the same time have miscellaneous subject designations, the so-called synonymy by signification (cf., for example, synonyms manner - habit - habit - gimmick : they all mean ‘a way of acting fixed as a result of a habit that has become characteristic of someone’ or ‘a way of behaving’, but the word manner a way of intellectual and practical behavior of a person can be conveyed, for example, manner of speaking , manner of dressing , word habit - the behavior of not only a person, but also an animal, cf., for example, coachman habits and bear habits).

There is, however, another point of view (and there are also many supporters of it), which is that synonymy should be not only according to the significate, but also according to the denotation, i.e. there must be not only the identity of the meaning, but also the identity of the object (or phenomenon of reality), only in this case is full (or partial) interchangeability of synonyms in the text possible (compare, for example, the name of the plant Lycopodium clavatum ‘plun’: quicksand , rubbish , greenery, snake moss). However, such cases are rare in the language, so Professor G. O. Vinokur believed that synonymy (if you are dealing not with a linguistic abstraction, but with a real language) is a scientific fiction, since “a synonym is a synonym only as long as it is in the dictionary ... and in the context of live speech, you cannot find a single position in which the speaker would not care how to say: child or child , horse or horse , road or way" .

Such definitions, however, do not exclude, but complement each other, contributing to a deeper understanding of the essence of this phenomenon.

When identifying and classifying synonyms, we take into account different criteria: the degree of closeness of the meanings of synonyms, the ability to interchangeability, the functions performed in the text, structural features, etc.

According to the degree of synonymy, proximity of meanings, synonyms are divided into full (or absolute) and partial (or relative). Full synonyms (or doublets) are synonyms that completely coincide in their meaning and use (for example, spelling - spelling, linguistics - linguistics) or meanings differing in slight shades (cf. cold - frost , good - a great). There are especially many such synonyms in expressive vocabulary(cf. nonsense - nonsense , headless - brainless ), they are also found among cognate words (cf. tiny - tiny , everywhere - everywhere). These synonyms have the same set of semantic features, so they can, as a rule, replace each other in any context without changing its meaning. In this regard, they are called absolute synonyms. However, often the language imposes a "ban" on such a substitution, since even these exact synonyms have a different degree of freedom of compatibility (cf. he doesn't understand anything , doesn't understand and he understands everything if it is impossible *he understands everything). This is because the language does not absolutely need identical words, so these full synonyms often differ either in their use, or in compatibility, or in word-formation features (cf. synonyms flexion and the ending and adjectives: inflectional , but not * final or *final).

Partial synonyms- these are synonyms that converge in their meanings in context, but differ in stylistic coloring, compatibility, denotations, therefore they are sometimes called contextual synonyms(cf. heavy , evil feeling; stuffy , oppressive darkness). Partial synonyms include quasi-synonyms(quasi has the meaning ‘as if’, i.e. imaginary, fake) - synonyms with partially coinciding meanings, when the relationship between them is built on the principle of either genus-species (cf. get sick - whine - prick - shoot - burn : in this synonymous series get sick is a hypernym, i.e. generic name for all other verbs specifying its meaning), or species-specific (cf. whine - prick - fire - burn - hurt - break and etc.).

Depending on the functions, which perform synonyms in the text, distinguish between semantic, stylistic and semantic-stylistic synonyms. Semantic synonyms- these are synonyms, shading different sides designated object or phenomenon of the external world (cf. timid - timid - timid - cowardly). The meanings of these synonyms may not coincide completely, since they may indicate a different degree of manifestation of a trait (cf. break - crush - crush). Stylistic synonyms- these are synonyms that give an evaluative characteristic of the designated object (phenomenon) and (or) differ in stylistic coloring (cf. horse - nag where the word nag has a ‘bad horse’ scoring element, or steal - steal - steal: steal - book word, steal - neutral, steal - vulgar, rough). Semantic-stylistic synonyms- these are synonyms, shading different sides of the designated object (phenomenon), but differing in their stylistic affiliation (cf. go - trudge - march: go - neutral, trudge ‘to walk slowly, with difficulty’ - colloquial, march ‘it’s important to go, with dignity’ - bookish).

Synonyms can differ not only in their function, but also in structure. Depending on this feature, synonyms are divided into single-root and heterogeneous. Single root synonyms are synonyms that differ in root variants or affixes (cf. similar - similar , rebel - rebel). They are represented by different linguistic phenomena: verbal species pairs(cf. fade away - fade away ), genetic pairs Old Slavonic - Russian (cf. short - short ), formations from the same foundations (cf. everywhere - everywhere) and etc. Synonyms of different roots are synonyms expressed different words(cf. cold - frost , throw - throw).

Not only words, but also phraseological phrases can be in synonymous relations (cf. to rest in a bose - to order to live long - to go to the grave ‘die’), as well as words and phrases (cf. hit and hit) including persistent ones (cf. unexpectedly - like snow on the head). At the same time, words with a specific subject meaning, proper names, numerals and pronouns do not enter into synonymous relations.

Sources of synonymy may be different linguistic phenomena: 1) development and change in the meanings of words (for example, the appearance in Russian of the word master meaning ‘a person who avoids work’ made it possible to include it in the synonymic series loafer - loafer - idler ); 2) word formation, in particular, a change in the word-formation structure of a word (cf. innocent - innocent ); 3) borrowing (cf. proof - argument ); 4) penetration into the literary language of professionalisms, dialectisms, argotisms (cf. linguistics - linguistics , rooster - rooster (dial.), thief - rogue - mazurik (slang). However main reason The existence of the phenomenon of synonymy in the language is associated with the law of asymmetry of sign and meaning, according to which the sign and meaning usually do not completely cover each other, since the meaning often cannot be limited to the framework of one word and tends to express itself by other means.

Synonyms, united by a common meaning, form synonymous rows varying degrees of complexity - from binomial to polynomial (cf. horse - horse , face - face - muzzle - face etc.). The words included in the synonymic series are combined based on the common component of the meaning (for example, in the synonymic series to sleep - to rest - to sleep , meaning ‘to be in a state of sleep’ cannot be included in the word nap , since it means ‘to be half asleep’). Moreover, each of the members of the synonymic series can have such semantic components that distinguish it from others (cf. the synonymic series to find , find , seek out , dig out , in which in verbs find , seek out , dig out there is a seme ‘intentional (and also careful) search’, and the verb to find says nothing about whether this action was intentional or accidental). The nature of the synonymic series is determined by a stylistically neutral word, dominant those. the word that most fully conveys the general meaning of the synonymic series, in addition, it is the most frequent in use, can replace any of the members of this series and is included as a semantic component in the meanings of all other members of this series (for example, in the synonymic series be afraid - fear -

to be afraid - to be afraid - to be shy - tremble - tremble etc. word is dominant afraid , and in the synonymic series loafer , lazy person , quitter , loafer , sluggard - word is dominant lazy person , since all other words either belong to colloquial style, or differ in the components of their value). Polysemantic words usually have different synonymous rows, cf. synonymous adjective rows strong:strong - healthy - strong (organism) strong - strong - crackling (freezing),strong - durable (material), etc.

The development of the language also affects the synonymic series, which undergo changes (cf .: the word eyes once in Russian it meant ‘balls’ and was a reduced synonym for neutral eyes , however, gradually it turned into the dominant of the synonymic series, and the word eyes became stylistically limited; word in german Frau ‘Madam’ was once a polite synonym for the word Weib (English, wife ‘wife’), but became the dominant of the synonymic series, while the word Weib received a rudely contemptuous tone, approximately the same as Russian. woman).

Vinokur G. O. The problem of speech culture // Russian language in Soviet school. 1929. No. 5.S. 85.

Differences in quasi-synonyms necessarily implies the presence of a nominative commonality (allows them to replace each other in contexts).

FUNCTIONS:

IDIOLOGICAL:

1. Substitution(to avoid tuftology). Performed in different sentences

2. Refinements. In one sentence for a clearer transmission of thought (scarlet-red).

STYLISTIC:

3. Expressive-stylistic for stylistic coordination (invite a doctor, call a servant). They perform stylistic synonyms, and the first two functions are ideographic.

There are a lot of synonyms! Differences of synonyms in semantics are hardly perceptible.

Semantic richness is formed through borrowings and funds mother tongue.

The means of the native language allow enriching due to:

1. Domestic borrowing.

2. Paraphrases (to win - to win).

3. Different motives for naming denotations (salary - salary).

4. Synonyms of derivational means (deviate - evade).

5. Taboo (sly, devil, tempter).

Synonyms have multiple meanings:

Words with identical meanings.

Words that necessarily have differences in semantics.

Words with similar or identical meanings.

According to Rosenthal: - these are words that are different in sound, but identical or close in meaning, often differing in stylistic coloring.

Synonyms (nest)- a group of words consisting of several synonyms. These rows can consist of heterogeneous and single-root synonyms.

The first place in the synonymic series is usually taken by the defining and stylistically neutral word - DOMINANT- core word. Other members of the series clarify, expand its semantic structure, supplement it with evaluative values.

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. All of them perform the same syntactic function in a sentence.

The Russian language is rich in synonyms, so it is very rare for a synonymic series to have only 2-3 members, usually there are more. However, compilers of synonym dictionaries use different criteria for their selection. This leads to the fact that the synonymic rows of different lexicographers often do not match. The reason for the discrepancies lies in the unequal understanding of the essence of lexical synonymy.

DICTIONARIES:

They are presented in the dictionaries of synonyms: Fonvizin 1783. "The experience of the Russian classmate" - 32 synonymous rows. In 1818 P. Kolaidovich's dictionary "The Dictionary Experience ..." has been released - 77 synonymic rows. In 1840 - " Big Dictionary Russian synonyms ", Dictionary of Alexandrova (9000 synonymic rows), Dictionary of Evgenieva.

The working unit in the study of synonymy is not a word, but a separate LSV. Insofar as different meanings polysemantic words have different synonyms.

Meaning of SYNONYMIC SERIES in the Dictionary of Linguistic Terms

SYNONYMIC SERIES

A number of lexical or phraseological synonyms. Nonsense, nonsense, carelessness, rubbish, nonsense, stupidity, nonsense, nonsense, game, rubbish, nonsense, absurdity, nonsense. Cruel, ruthless, heartless, inhuman, fierce, ferocious. Polite, well-mannered, delicate, correct, courteous, obligatory, tactful, courteous. To be afraid, to fear, to be frightened, to be shy, to be afraid, to tremble, to be afraid, to be horrified. And he was like that, and the trace caught a cold, remember what his name was, they only saw him. see also dominant.

Dictionary of linguistic terms. 2012

Synonyms to explain what. From the work "synonymous series of verbs of destruction"

Meaning of SYNONYMIC SERIES in the Dictionary of Linguistic Terms

See also interpretations, synonyms, word meanings and what is SYNONYMIC SERIES in Russian in dictionaries, encyclopedias and reference books: