Published for the first time under the autograph of S. I. Ozhegov (Archive of the Russian Academy of Sciences. F. 1516. Op. 1. Ed. hr. N 87 [8 ll.]). The note is written in simple pencil on separate sheets of small format. The autograph is dated by S. I. Ozhegov on December 14, 1957. The manuscript does not have an author's title. It appeared during the processing of the fund in the Archive of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Some passages that are not directly related to the problem, incomplete entries, and the author's numbering are not transmitted and are indicated by hashes in angle brackets.

These draft notes were prepared by the author for a presentation on the problem of dictionary homonymy, which was in the center of attention in the 1940s and 1950s and repeatedly caused discussion articles and discussions (see, for example, the article by V. I. Abaev "On the submission of homonyms in the dictionary" / / Voprosy Yazykoznaniya. 1957. N 3 and further discussion, the materials of which are published in the book: Lexicographic collection. Issue IV. Moscow, 1960).

In the introductory part, S. I. Ozhegov mentions the report of L. L. Kutina and the name of V. V. Vinogradov, who were probably present during the discussion of the"Dictionary of the Russian Language". And earlier, in 1940, V. V. Vinogradov published a program article (see: "The Russian language at School" No. 1) - "The problem of grammatical homonymy in modern Russian", where he pointed out the shortcomings of explanatory dictionaries of the Russian language, which inconsistently defined the boundaries of lexical homonymy. It is obvious that this issue was again relevant after a while.

All these materials should not be considered as formulated and scientifically based views of S. I. Ozhegov. But the propositions put forward by him, especially in the field of historical semantics, consideration of the issue from different positions (broad and narrow points of view) make us listen to the opinion and individual conclusions of the scientist, especially in the field of historical semantics.

page 68

Moreover, they have been left without proper attention in modern scientific and lexicographic practice.

In the opening lines of the note, S. I. Ozhegov put the question: "Why is the lexicographer interested?". And then gives the answer: "Because an attempt has been made to implement) in the dictionary of "a broader understanding of homonyms" (...). And the question has moved from a narrowly theoretical one, based on individual examples, to the field of specific (antic) classification of the entire mass of vocabulary. This could not but deepen theoretical opinions " (L. I).

* * *

(...) First of all, it is natural to raise the question of how to combine the tasks of lexicology and lexicography, bearing in mind the practical) x(arakte) r of the latter (for non-philologists).

You need help there. The reference to real-world consciousness is unconvincing (cf. the scythe).

Do sl (ovars) need to reflect om (onyms)? 1 . Proponents of the traditional) t (glasses) of vision) refer to the fact that a broad understanding of the homonym deprives the dictionary of cognitive) meaning). But they take into account only the etymological (historical) side of cognition.

At first glance, it seems that the phenomenon of homonymy is purely theoretical) x (aracter), for example (imer), in comparison with the phenomenon of synonymy in the language. The speaker doesn't seem to care what we think of as homonyms or what we don't. The value is somehow directed to a certain) reality object. A synonym is another matter. Knowing them allows the speaker to choose one or another lexical way of denoting reality. (...)

A broad t(point) of vision sees the cognitive value of Dictionary 2 in something else: namely, the display of modern 3 homonyms reveals the semantic functions of a word in communicative speech, because it is important to show not only semantic connections, but also semantic separations, delimitedness of words and former meanings of one word. words (lack of obsolete semantic associations) 4 .

Types of dictionaries

If lexical homonymy is a linguistic problem in the sense that it is the result of the internal development of the language life? If so, then it is hardly possible to confine ourselves to admitting that only words of different origin are homonyms?

This is a simple statement of the presence in the language of one-sounding words caused by external circumstances). This is a historical accident, the results of other processes, and not the semantic (historical) life of the language.

page 69

Marriage - (marriage - matrimony).

block-roll, floor-bridge.

But the appeal to such things as scolding, light, and peace also indicates some internal processes in the language that lead to splitting. Yes, there is such a splitting, disconnection of values, this is a fact of the language. But how to come to an objective understanding of the homonym?

The only) way is historical. Homonymy-semantic) disintegration of a single word-is found as a fact of speech communication of those using this language system, i.e. the phenomena of homonymy for each epoch are determined synchronously, with comparability, taking into account previously arisen phenomena.

Borders: yaz (y) pre-written, yaz (y) nationalities, yaz (y) national, modern) language and its concept (XIX-XX centuries) (...)

The question of the obsolescence of "belly-life" (...).

The system of literary) yaz (yka) and its periphery (obl (astnye) [words], prost (orechie) - mismatched semantic) transformation paths) of words. The literary) language (y) includes the ready-made, adapting) to the sem (antic) system) ( ... ), [for example], in modern) blatn (oi) music, among dudes.

I will not dwell on the accepted system of allocating homonyms in Tools. It is acceptable as a base. After analyzing the materials) of my dictionary, [it] got rid of many errors and inconsistencies.

But they will remain so, for example (imer): substantive (or adjective), person and subject, prefix (al) verbs, adverb (s), and preposition. Parts of speech that indirectly) indicate) reality): adverb (ie) - cat (egoria) comp( oya), union, particle 6 .

Relationship) of derivatives and generating [bases]: acute-to make a joke.

The theoretical legacy of Akhmanova 7 has not been clarified.

Where are the ways to objectively define homonyms?

Gram (statistical) data - related data.

The main criterion is semantic, but here the broadest subjectivity is revealed, which is more or less corrected by language experience, intuition, etc.

The objective theory of homonymy m (ozhet) b(ozhet) is based on the study of the types of semantic (word development), taking into account the historical (historical) peculiarity of the conditions of development of each 9 literary language (...)

Types of metaphors, metonym(s) and so on (s) (use) of words in connection with the features of the gram (atic) structure, synthof (axiological) usage) , etc.

page 70

The semantic links that support the unity of the word, the types of meanings( en), the relationship to (oto) of which is predetermined by a pattern: the name of the action, the result, the place, the tool (...).

Only the presence of such a teaching about this (antic) word development (ity) will protect dictionaries from gross errors.

Notes

1 Sentence is attached above the line.

2 Refers to the Dictionary of the Russian Language by S. I. Ozhegov.

3 The word is added above the line.

4 A fragment enclosed in square brackets is assigned above the line.

5 The word is added above the line.

6 In this paragraph, we have combined fragmentary records of examples placed after the text. On the left, S. I. Ozhegov attributed: tea room, worker, conductor, fighter.

7 This refers to the study of O. S. Akhmanova " Essays on general and Russian lexicology "(Moscow, 1957).

8 Next, one word is crossed out, the entry is illegible.

9 The word is added above the line.

Introduction, publication and notes by O. V. Nikitin

Permanent link to this publication: