This article deals with a number of issues related to the display of the chronological stratification of vocabulary by Russian explanatory dictionaries using the system of corresponding litters.

We have studied "Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language" under the editorship of D. N. Ushakov (TSU), "Dictionary of the Modern Russian Literary Language" of the USSR Academy of Sciences (BAS), "Dictionary of the Russian Language" by S. I. Ozhegov (SB), "Dictionary of the Russian Language" of the USSR Academy of Sciences under the editorship of A. P. Evgenieva (MAC), "Big explanatory dictionary of the Russian language" edited by S. A. Kuznetsov (BTSR), "Small explanatory dictionary of the Russian language" by V. V. Lopatin and L. E. Lopatina (SL).

These dictionaries reflect the Russian lexicographic practice from 1935 to 1998. We believe that such a broad comparison will allow us to present the problem that interests us quite objectively.

First of all, we note that not all of the listed dictionaries solve the issue of the stylistic status of litters with time semantics in the same way. For example, D. N. Ushakov's Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language and S. I. Ozhegov's Dictionary of the Russian Language do not refer to these marks as stylistic, while BAS, MAC, and BTSR, on the contrary, call them means of stylistic (MAC) or functional-stylistic (BTSR) characterization of words.

In addition, different dictionaries define (name) different groups of litters that they use to characterize vocabulary from a "chronological" point of view. In the CU and CO, they (litters) are called "establishing a historical perspective" (CU), "indicating a historical perspective" (CO), i.e. the same. BAS does not distinguish such litters into a separate group, but points out the historical limitation of part of the vocabulary: "If the word does not have a general literary use or if it is limited historically, then it is accompanied by litters: in common parlance, regional, church, outdated, new.. . ". MAC talks about " tagging to words when exiting-

page 42

out of use in the modern Russian language". It also describes this type of litter SL (to "lexical units that are out of use in the modern language"). Finally, the BTSR defines them as "marks that characterize the chronological stratification of vocabulary".

As you can see, these definitions range from fairly narrow to very wide.

As for the" assortment "of litters of interest to us, the most extensive system of litters with the semantics of time is presented in the" Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language " under the editorship of D. N. Ushakov. The dictionary includes the following items that "establish a historical perspective in the words of a modern language":: 1) (new), i.e. new, means that the word or meaning originated in the Russian language during the World War and revolution (i.e., since 1914); 2) (church.- knizhn.), i.e. church-book, means that the word is a relic of the era when the Church Slavonic element prevailed in the Russian literary language. Note: This mark should not be confused with the mark (church), which indicates the use of the word in the special church life of believers; 3) (old), i.e. old, indicates that the word is a relic of remote epochs of the Russian language, but is sometimes used by authors for some deliberate stylistic purpose; 4) (obsolete.), i.e. obsolete, means: out-of-use or out-of-use, but still widely known, among other things, from classic literary works of the 19th century."

The dictionary defines the part litters with time semantics as "litters to words denoting objects and concepts of alien everyday life". These are such marks as: "1) (historical), i.e. historical, indicates that the word denotes an object or concept that belongs to epochs that have already passed into the past and is used only in application to these "historical" objects, phenomena and concepts. This mark, along with the mark (new), is also used to accompany those words that were created in the era of the world War and revolution, but managed to fall out of use, since the objects and concepts denoted by these words have gone down in history, for example, Vik, vikzhelyat (new history); 2) (pre-revolutionary.), i.e. pre-revolutionary, indicates that the word denotes an object or concept that was displaced by post-revolutionary life, for example: colonel, petition, servant, etc."

From our point of view, the attribution of these litters not to the category of "establishing a historical perspective", but to the designations of "alien life", is primarily due to ideological reasons.

BAS uses two labels with time semantics: obsolete and new. "The last litter is given with words whose origin and meaning are directly related to Soviet modernity (collective farm, Stakhanovets, Komsomol)." The first litter - obsolete-is not commented on.

page 43

In the Dictionary of the Russian Language by S. I. Ozhegov there are also two marks that "indicate a historical perspective": "1) (old), i.e. old; indicates that the word belongs to the terms of antiquity, used in appropriate cases in the modern literary language; 2) (obsolete), i.e. obsolete; indicates that the word is an archaism, i.e. out of living use, but still good well-known in the modern literary language, "as well as from classical literary works of the XIX century."

It does not do without a single mark that characterizes words that are out of use: "Obsolete, i.e. an outdated word or meaning, indicates that the word (or its meaning) is used extremely rarely in the modern language and is perceived as archaism, for example: good morals." The note also contains a warning: "You should distinguish from obsolete words, archaisms of the language, those words that denote concepts, objects of the historical past, although obsolete, but due to the importance of their significance in the history of the people, widely known and preserved both in historical science and in the literary language their names ( druzhina, dvor cabal, etc.)".

The Large Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language uses two marks that characterize the chronological stratification of vocabulary: outdated and historical: 1) outdated. (obsolete) - for words that have fallen out of use and are used as an expressive means of imitating the speech of past eras; 2) Ist. (historical) - for words denoting the realities and concepts of antiquity. Note. Along with the Outdated and Historical litters, encyclopedic remarks are used to clarify the temporal reference of this reality and concept. They are an integral part of the interpretation: In the old days: ...(for realities that do not have an exact time frame); In Ancient Russia: (for realities typical of Russia in the 11th and 16th centuries); In the USSR: ...(for the realities typical of the USSR in 1922-1991).

And, finally, the "Small Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language" by V. V. Lopatin and L. E. Lopatina dispenses with one mark with the semantics of time: Outdated. (obsolete) - lexical units that are no longer used in the modern language.

In addition, dictionaries use the remarks "in old days", "in tsarist Russia" and under., which precede the interpretation of lexemes.

As can be seen, the register of litters that characterize the chronological stratification of vocabulary (indicating a historical perspective; denoting words, meanings, and shades of meanings that are out of use in modern Russian) is the most diverse, complex, and inconsistent (up to the inclusion of church-book vocabulary) in the Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language, edited by D. N. Ushakov and others. abruptly reduced (to one or two litters) in other dictionaries. The most common option is to use dictionaries

page 44

two litters, one of which denotes the terms of Russian antiquity, remnants of distant epochs (old. another indicates words, meanings, and shades of meaning that are out of common use or have already fallen out of common use, but are usually widely known (obsolete). We can see this in dictionaries such as CO, MAC, and BTSR.

Only two dictionaries - TSU and BAS-include litters with the time semantics of litters in the registry. (new) to denote words or meanings that emerged in the Russian language during the World War and revolution (i.e., since 1914), as in the "Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language" edited by D. N. Ushakov, or for words whose origin and meaning are directly related to Soviet modernity (kolkhoz, Stakhanovets, komsomol), as in the bass. Other explanatory dictionaries refused to identify new words and meanings, limiting the historical perspective (CO) and chronological stratification of vocabulary (BTSR) to the past tense.

Thus, the characteristic of vocabulary from the point of view of its chronological stratification (or historical perspective) is given in explanatory dictionaries in the following ways:: 1) with the help of appropriate litters (new, old, old, outdated, etc.); 2) with the help of encyclopedic remarks ( "in the old days", "in tsarist Russia", "in Ancient Russia", etc.). In addition, sometimes the interpretation itself contains an indication that the given word is an outdated, historical or ancient element of the lexical system of the language. Why some lexemes in dictionaries are characterized as obsolete (historical, old), and others in the same dictionaries do not have the corresponding marks, although they are interpreted as historical, old, or outdated words, is unclear. Thus, in MASA, the word kopi is represented as follows: kopi is "an obsolete name for coal and salt mines, as well as open-pit mining operations." The token does not have a mark indicating that it belongs to outdated words, although it is interpreted as an outdated word, archaism.

Another feature of the reflection of explanatory dictionaries of the chronological stratification of vocabulary is the discrepancy between arrays of words with corresponding marks. For example, the above-mentioned kopi token, which does not have stylistic marks in the MAC (including those with time semantics), but is interpreted as an obsolete word, is marked obsolete in CO and BTSR. in TSU, it is characterized as a regional word (with the mark obl.), and in BAS it does not have a mark and does not contain any indications of archaism in the interpretation.

We will give a few more cases of this discrepancy, noting that there are many examples of this and that this is due "not only to the fact that a certain part of words and meanings really managed to archaize. There are theoretical difficulties in identifying outdated vocabulary: the historical boundaries that are not defined are not defined.-

page 45

These factors should be taken into account when assigning words to archaisms. There is no clarity in the opposite situation: (...) it can be very difficult to determine from what point it should be abandoned (the word. - O. E.) qualifications as archaism" (Reznichenko I. L. Stylistic usage of the Russian language and its reflection in lexicography, Moscow, 1984).

For example, the lexeme amunitsiya in TSU and BTSRYA is given without any litter, in BAS it has the mark voenn., in CO and MAC it is characterized as obsolete; the lexeme dispute in TSO and CO has the mark knizhn:, in MAC-obsolete., and in BAS and BTSRYA the litter does not have; the word dissident in in the meaning of "apostate" in TSU and BAS, it is presented as historical, in SO - without litter, in MAS - as obsolete, and in BTSR - as ecclesiastical; the lexeme spirituality is absent in BAS and SO, in TSU it is given as an outdated book word, in MAS has one mark-obsolete. , in BTSR - not has no droppings. We repeat that the volume of such discrepancies is large.

Often, the litter is wider than indicated in its definition. Thus, I. L. Reznichenko notes that the word "obsolete" in CO " for words related in meaning to historical phenomena ( breter, guild, etc.), (...) performs a semantic function and is unjustified. (...) Lack of a special mark for historicisms in the CO (...) reflects, apparently, the view found in lexicology, according to which two such different layers of words as archaisms and historicisms are not distinguished" (Reznichenko I. L. Decree. op.).

Often, litters with the semantics of time, especially the "obsolete" litter, express an ideological point of view on a phenomenon, and do not serve as a means of stylistic or functional-stylistic characteristics of the word declared by the authors of dictionaries. "In the CO, for example, this applies to confessional vocabulary marked in the CU with a mark (church): God-fearing, blaspheming, for the repose, etc. The use of such vocabulary has indeed changed, but in a quantitative aspect: the number of believers has decreased, the social role of the church, so to speak, has become outdated due to its separation from the state" (Ibid.). In the TSU, for ideological reasons, as noted, historical (historical) and pre-revolutionary (pre-revolutionary) vocabulary do not belong to the category marked from the point of view of historical perspective (or chronological stratification), but to "designations of objects and concepts of alien life" (TSU) and therefore are allocated in one group with the vocabulary denoting alien life. only that which relates to foreign life (foreign).

To one degree or another, this shortcoming (an ideologized attitude to the phenomenon denoted by the word instead of the supposed functional and stylistic characteristics of the word itself) is inherent in all explanatory dictionaries.

Often, the functional and stylistic content of a tag (revealed when analyzing the vocabulary it marks) does not match

page 46

with its definition given in the dictionary. This applies, for example, to the star litter. in the Dictionary of S. I. Ozhegov, which, by definition, should indicate "that the word belongs to the terms of Russian antiquity, used in appropriate cases in the modern literary language", but in fact "not always the words that carry it are terms of Russian antiquity "(Reznichenko I. L. Decree. op.). The same can be said with more or less reason about other litters with time semantics.

The actual content of litters defined equally by different dictionaries also does not match. For example, " temporary litters common to vehicles and CO (old) and (obsolete) they are not identical in content in these dictionaries, despite the similarity of the definitions of both litters" (Ibid.).

These and other inconsistencies in the lexicographic description of the vocabulary of the modern Russian language indicate that "there are theoretical difficulties in identifying obsolete vocabulary: historical boundaries are not defined, which must be taken into account when assigning words to archaisms" (I. L. Reznichenko, Edict op. cit.). Therefore, it is necessary to adjust the register and content of stylistic litters that indicate a temporary (historical) perspective. At the same time, it is impossible to replace the stylistic function of a tag with a semantic one, i.e., to refer it "not to a word or meaning, but to the designated reality" (Ibid.), when the lexicographic interpretation of words (for example, confessional vocabulary) is given from ideological, and not from the actual stylistic positions. It is also necessary to decide which layers of native speakers should be targeted when determining the degree of archaism of a particular lexeme.

It is also impossible to ignore the fact that some linguists do not distinguish between the vocabulary of active / passive use and the vocabulary of non-outdated/outdated (when a word from the passive lexical composition comes back into use, it can be very difficult to determine from what point it should be abandoned as an archaism).

Without paying attention to these and other similar remarks, it is impossible to solve the most important problem of lexicographic description of a language-its correspondence to real, living use.

Krasnoyarsk

Permanent link to this publication: