What does lexicology study? Branch of science that studies vocabulary. From the history of vocabulary of the Russian literary language of the 17th – 19th centuries The history of words is studied in the section

V.V. Vinogradov

Etymology, divorced from the real history of a word-thing, loses its solid social and everyday basis and turns into an empty play of the imagination. An example would be different etymological explanations of the word pillow. Miklosic, Bogoroditsky and Preobrazhensky were ready to see the prefix in this word under-, and connect the second part of it with ear(see Preobrazhensky, 2, p. 87). Prof. R. F. Brandt derived this word from the supposed root *under- meaning “to put under.” Berneker erected the word pillow to the root spirit, soul. G. A. Ilyinsky also agreed with this etymology (see Ilyinsky, Sound ch, p. 29). M. O. Kogen considered it possible to recognize this word as borrowed from Turkish or Tatar (cf. Serbian. darlings –"mattress"). It is clear that beyond the history of words pillow none of these etymologies will have the slightest credibility. An example can also be hypotheses about the origin of the Russian word Kondrashka meaning “nervous shock, paralysis.” The historian S. M. Solovyov and the ethnographer S. Maksimov, who showed a passion for Russian antiquity, tried to connect the origin of this word with the name of Kondraty Bulavin and with the uprising he raised (this is where the expression supposedly came from: Kondrashka had enough). No specific evidence was provided to support this interpretation. M.R. Vasmer (Greek-Slavic studies, 3, p. 91) - due to his specialty as a Hellenist - sought to somehow “attach” this word to Staroslav. kondrat, Old Russian code from Greek κοδρ &Ґ940; ντης – "a kind of small coin." Here I remembered Kondrat’s name and dialect. Novgorod kondrat –“comrade, brother”, even contamination with German was allowed. kamrat! A.G. Preobrazhensky reasonably remarked: “But it’s a long way from a “brother” to paralysis!” (Preobrazhensky, 1, p. 345). Or: what can a researcher of the history of words give, for example? sled reference in Preobrazhensky's dictionary? From there he learns that Goryaev brought “this word closer to slimy(cm. slimy), Czech slzký and so on,” which Preobrazhensky considered more likely to be compared with climb, climb in the meaning “to go down, slide down”, and the initial sa- explain by contamination with sled. However, all this, according to the author’s modest admission, is “fortune-telling” (ibid., 2, p. 246). Or rather: simply incredible. All these fantastic speculations have nothing to do with the history of the meaning of the word. Even less historical are Preobrazhensky’s reflections on the verb distort: “Isn’t it borrowed from German werk or wirken? However, even if this is allowed, the pref. remains unclear. co-"(ibid., 2, p. 327). Meanwhile, the word distort and its derivatives distorted, distorted, distorted, distorted etc. are widespread in regional folk dialects [cf. Uglichsk: at!disfigured disgraceful thing - distorted everything(Shlyakov); So she distorts the pies, which is what they look like(N. Popov) and others.]. Apparently, this word is most widespread in the North Russian dialect. It has been known in literary use since the 18th century. For example, in M.D. Chulkov’s “Russian Fairy Tales” (Sorcerer) “ distortion He enchanted him with his invisible fire to scorch him.” In “Russian Theater” (part 35, p. 299): “many women will see more in faces mangling rather than pleasantness." From A. T. Bolotov in “Notes” (1871, 1, p. 712): “He had no sooner had time to drink than he began to torment and distort, and exactly as if he were in a fit.” Wed. In Kirsha Danilov’s poem “About the Fool”: “He grabbed him, the fool, and began to beat him with a crutch. distort And the whole crutch was broken.” M. P. Veske in his study “Slavic-Finnish cultural relations according to language data” (Kazan, 1890) attributed the word distort to the number of Finnish borrowings in the Russian language (p. 96 et seq.). Academician did not object to this either. A.I. Sobolevsky (see Living Antiquity, 1890, issue 1, p. 6).

The etymological basis for the connection of the word is questionable gopher with verb suck. “In addition to the Russian language, this word is also known in Slovenian: sûslik. Both of these names represent deminutiva from Prasl. *susolъ, which was preserved in Russian. dial salt. With a different vocalization of the root and in a different meaning, this word is used in the Bulgarian language ate"rat"; identical to Russian in meaning, but also different from it in vocalism Czech sysel and his deminutivum syslik"Zieselmaus". Since the animals that are designated by these names in Slavic languages ​​belong to the order of rodents, I see no reason to separate the well-known root from these words sъs“suck” (Dr. Sl. s’sati, Srb. säti, Sl. sesáti, Chsh. sesáti, Russian suck). How does Fr. Miklosich (see Miklosich, 1886, p. 355): after all, “sucking” and “gnawing” in practice are often impossible without one another, and therefore it is not surprising that the Slavs called gopher according to the first of these two characteristic features. To a certain extent, this etymology is confirmed by the Belarusian gopher“sucking child”, next to which the verb is also used gopher“suck” (Ilyinsky G. A. Slavic etymologies // Zbornik u Slavu Vatroslava Jagiča. Berlin, 1908, p. 293).

The boundaries of etymological interpretation of the word are narrow. “Etymology is primarily an explanation of words by establishing their relationships with other words. To explain means to reduce it to elements already known, and in linguistics to explain a word means to reduce it to other words, because the necessary relationship between sound and meaning does not exist.” Correct etymology reveals only the motives for the origin of a word and the first steps of its social existence. But even in these cases, etymological research is most often aimed at discovering the genesis of only those words that underlie a large lexical group of derivative formations. Essentially, etymology has nothing to do with the definition of a concept or even with the determination of the original meaning of a word. The etymological explanation of a word in most cases is not at all a disclosure of the object denoted by the word. It is clear that for the correct and productive application of the etymological method, in addition to knowledge of the system of historical-phonetic correspondences between languages, based on comparative historical grammar, in addition to knowledge of the history of spiritual and material culture, linguistic geography of words, clear and accurate information on the history of morphological composition is also necessary languages, on the history of different models and types of word formation. Etymology, while explaining individual words, rarely accompanies the analysis of their root elements with a theory of their formatives, prefixes, and suffixes.

In the history of the Russian language (as well as in the history of other Slavic languages), the evolution of word formation has been almost completely unstudied. And this circumstance creates great difficulties for the proper synthesis of etymological and historical-semantic research in the field of lexicology. For example, in Preobrazhensky, under the word Kubar we read: “without a doubt, to cube. Suffix -ar, like a cracker" (1, p. 703). M. O. Kogen was perplexed about this: “What do these words have in common, except for accidental consonance?” (Izv. ORYAS AN, 1914, vol. 19, book 2, p. 296). F. E. Korsh proposed withdrawing Russian Kubar from to "bar through Greek κομβάριοv from κóμβος "c ka", suggesting here confusion with κουβάρι (οv) – "ball, skein".

Word handicraftsman some trace it back to the German Künstler, others compare it with bush. According to Cohen, it “originally could have meant “an artisan engaged in processing bushes”” (op. cit., p. 297).

The homogeneity of the morphological structure of words does not yet indicate the simultaneity of their origin and the sameness of their semantic history. For example, words - dominance, violence And effort had completely different fates in the Russian literary language. An effort - Old Church Slavonic in origin. Its meaning “work, exertion of force to implement, achieve something” acquired only a more abstract and logically defined character (see Sreznevsky, 3, p. 1265), but did not undergo either a radical break or verbal ramifications in the history of the Russian literary language . Almost the same can be said about the history of the word violence, however, more diverse in its meanings and shades. This word is also bookish (see Izbornik 1073). But it took root early in the state, business language (see in the Treaty of Oleg of 911, in the Chronicle, in the charters, in the Lay of Igor’s Campaign) (ibid., vol. 2, p. 330). Its main meaning is “oppression, coercion, use of force.” It is clear that this meaning, in connection with changes in legal norms, was layered with new semantic shades (see, for example, such a shade of meaning as: “lawless use of force, abuse of power”). Moreover, the word violence entered into a synonymous relationship with a later book word rape. The word moved in completely different ways dominance. It was alien to the Russian literary language of the 18th and first half of the 19th centuries. It was not even registered either in the dictionaries of the Russian Academy or in the dictionary of 1847. It is not in Dahl’s dictionary, although the verbs are included here: strengthen –"to force by force, against the will" become stronger -"intensify" and strengthen -“to catch by force from the hands by throwing a snare.” Only in the dictionary of A. A. Shakhmatov the word is given dominance and the circle of its meanings is outlined. Two meanings are indicated here (the same as those later included in Ushakov’s dictionary): 1) Strength, influence, power, violence. 2) Prosperity, wealth. Obviously, the second meaning remains national-regional, although it is illustrated by an example from Saltykov-Shchedrin’s “Well-Intentioned Speeches”: “Yes, and dominance The men don’t have the real deal - everything is done in installments and over the course of years.” The main literary meaning of this word – “predominant influence” – was established no earlier than the 50s and 60s of the 19th century. and also came out of popular speech. V.I. Chernyshev cites the following phrase from folk dialects near Moscow: “How dominance a man will take it, what will you do with him.” In this meaning the word dominance noted in the language of Saltykov-Shchedrin and Mamin-Sibiryak. The context of the use of this word, which spread in newspaper and journalistic styles of the late 19th century, has changed greatly. Compare, for example, Mamin-Sibiryak in the novel “Gold”: “He cannot do evil, dominance no” or from Saltykov-Shchedrin in “Little Things in Life”: “Oh, if only I... here’s at least a little for me dominance... it would seem that I...” In the stylistic coloring of the word dominance and there is still a palpable echo of colloquial speech. It is less “bookish” than an effort And violence. It bears the bright stamp of its oral and folk existence.

The etymology of words is not only narrower and more limited than the history of words, but may also be very far from this latter. In fact, for etymology, the center of gravity is in the genealogy of the word, in the origin of its elements, in their genesis. Etymology establishes, in the words of J. Vandries, “the track records of words, finding out where each of them came from in a given language, how it was formed and through what changes it went through.” With a comprehensive study of these problems, the question of changes in the meaning and use of words is not alien to etymology. But etymology is least capable of revealing the diversity of semantic changes experienced by a word in different social environments and in different eras. The sequence and course of changes in the meaning of a word, the explanation of the real historical conditions in which these changes took place, remain for the most part beyond the scope of etymological research. In addition, etymological analysis often traces a word or its basic meanings to the origins of their life, preceding the formation of a given language. In this case, etymology goes far beyond the framework of the history of a particular language and the history of words, conceivable within the boundaries of the language being studied. Being a historical science, etymology provides only materials for the history of culture. But it does not seek to establish, based on language data, a natural sequence of all stages of the spiritual or material development of each people in any sphere of life and knowledge.

The concept of semantic patterns in the field of etymology usually comes down to either the principle of semantic parallelism between phenomena of different languages, or to the method of analogies between different languages. For example, O. Grunenthal in his “Etymological Notes” erects the Russian stump besides the root that heel, stick out, kick, kick, kick etc., and reinforces this conclusion with a chain of foreign language parallels (see Izv. ORYAS AN, 1913, vol. 18, book 4, pp. 135–136, 147). The same method of comparing parallel semantic series in closely related languages ​​was also used by I. A. Baudouin de Courtenay in “Linguistic Notes and Aphorisms. Regarding the latest linguistic works of Prof. V. A. Bogoroditsky" (see ZhMNP, 347, 1903, May, p. 22).

The history of words over many centuries can be completely separated from etymology. You can follow the historical fate of a word from any moment in its life. At the same time, etymology, in essence, as has already been said, deals not with the word as a historical reality, as a member of a living linguistic structure, but with a semantic fiction, conventionally accepted as the etymological center of various words. Etymology studies the movements of this imaginary center in time and space and the associated changes in its functions. A. A. Potebnya noted: as one of the members of the clan, “although it can serve as a premise for the conclusion about the properties of the ancestor, by no miracle will it become the concept of this ancestor. Likewise, the root as an abstraction contains some indications of the properties of the root as a real word, but can never be equal to this latter. It would be strange to assert that the ancestor lives in his offspring, even if not “by himself,” but in conjunction with something extraneous” (Potebnya, Iz zap. on Russian gram. 1958, p. 16). It is also true that the etymology of a single word has no value in itself. It has meaning for a linguist only as a support for a general position, a general conclusion (see J. Vandries on this, op. cit., pp. 183–184). Etymology only receives a solid scientific foundation when it merges with historical lexicology or historical semantics. In this case, the etymological study of words expands to the limits of the historical-semantic. According to Schuchardt's witty expression, such etymology is nothing more than an abbreviated history of the word (SchuchardtBrevier, p. 105). The fate of words reveals the laws of changing meanings - at different stages of language and thinking - with all the socially determined deviations in the development of individual chains of phenomena. But one has only to narrow the boundaries of etymological study, and a sharp gap will immediately emerge between etymology and the history of the meanings of the word.

Unlike etymology for the history of the meaning of words, for historical lexicology all the constructive elements of a word, all the shells of its semantic structure and all moments of the semantic development of a word are of interest. The historical and lexicological study of a word presupposes precise knowledge of its semantic boundaries in different periods of language development. The boundaries of a word are determined by its functions within phrases and its place in the general system of language. Delimiting a word from other linguistic structures correlating with it is tantamount to defining a word as a historical or diachronic unit. This unit, without breaking up into independent, isolated objects, can change in its phonetic appearance, and in various elements of its semantic structure, in the forms of its phraseological connections.

The study of historical changes in a word falls within the scope of the projection method. The word is taken beyond the boundaries of individual and collective linguistic consciousnesses and language systems. It is considered as a historically given objective fact. It is projected externally, as a unique real entity, conditionally isolated from specific linguistic consciousnesses and linguistic systems, as a kind of “thing” independent in its existence. This “thing” seems to be constantly changing and at the same time invariably the same. In fact, the same words - at each new moment of their historical existence - turn out to be differently distributed and differently understood as a result of events playing out in language. But it is natural that such a “diachronic” study of the history of a word cannot but be accompanied by at least a vague idea of ​​its historical relationships with other words and word series within different semantic systems. Complete isolation of a word from the context of its use, from its various connections, from adjacent, albeit small, sections of the semantic system is impossible. And yet, semantic changes in a word in a projection sense are most often understood against the background of all changes in the language system as a whole and not in connection with them, but more or less detachedly, in isolation from them. This involuntary or forced isolation of a single lexical fact is a temporary flaw in most modern historical-linguistic research, and not an organic feature of “diachronic linguistics.” On the contrary, true historicism is inextricably linked with a wide coverage of the context of the era or the language system as a whole at different stages of its development. Therefore, for historical lexicology, the study of the history of word meanings and the study of the history of integral lexical systems are correlative and interdependent tasks. The more broadly and vividly the history of individual words reveals the history of entire lexical systems and reflects the main trends of their successive changes and shifts, the more specific, real and closer the history of the meanings of these words is to true historical reality. The projection-historical study of the word must take into account not only events in time, but also spatial changes in the life of the word, which, however, also come down to moments of the historical movement of the word. Here “to justify the rapprochement of two forms, it is enough if there is a historical connection between them, no matter how indirect it may be.” Such a study is socio-historical and at the same time socio-geographical. It monitors the successive changes and layers of meanings of a word within one social environment and the transitions of a word from one social circle to another.

The history of a single word is not accidental, but a consistent historical link in general shifts in semantic systems, although many changes here may be caused by partial reasons and do not directly affect all elements of the language system. But the greater the danger when studying the history of individual words is to separate the fate of the word from living and changing concrete processes in the history of the language and distort the course of semantic changes. Such distortion is sometimes caused by the suggestions of modernity, the modernization of the linguistic past. In fact, how general, typical, and for how long are the semantic-grammatical connections of concepts valid? But we are willing to recognize them as homogeneous throughout the history of the Russian language. Thus, the meanings of character and instrument in Russian are easily combined in one word. For example: fighter, reconnaissance, distributor. But is it possible on this basis to combine the corresponding meanings in the word? earphone, or is it more appropriate to see two homonyms here? Ushakov has only one word indicated earphone with the following meanings: 1) Part of a warm hat covering the ear. Hat with headphones. // A separate case made of warm material, worn over the ear. 2) A device applied to the ear or worn on the ear, connected to a sound transmitting apparatus. 3) The one who overhears (colloquially despises). However, the natural linguistic instinct resists such a unification of different meanings and designations of different objects. For modern consciousness there are two different words here. A long chain of derivatives is associated with earphone in the meaning of person: earphone, earphone, earphone, female earphone Earphone how we associate an object only with an adjective earphone. In addition, for us, both of these words have completely different internal forms and different expressive and stylistic shades: earphone secretly whispers various denunciations, gossip, slander into someone's ear; a completely different matter earphone, worn or pulled over the ears. There are two different morphological and lexical-semantic homonyms here. But were the respective spheres of meaning always sharply demarcated? Word earphone, although not noted by Sreznevsky, hardly arose later than the 16th – 17th centuries. See in “The History of Peter I” by B.I. Kurakin: “Filat Shanskoy... this drunken man, and a crafty man, was used for earpiece, and at dinners, as if in jokes or drunkenness, he told all the ministers clearly what everyone was doing and who would be offended, and how they were stealing” (Russian Starina, 1890, October, p. 255). With the same sound complex earphone already in the 16th – 17th centuries. Such different meanings could be combined: 1) Secret slanderer, slanderer; 2) The blade of a hat or helmet, covering the ear; 3) A piece of dense (woolen) fabric to protect the ears from the effects of severe frosts (Sl. 1867–1868, 2, p. 874). Were these meanings decisively differentiated and did they then refer to two different homonyms? After all, the semantic scope of a word could previously have been wider, and the relationship between the “internal forms” of different meanings had a different direction. The logical boundaries of individual values ​​could be less clear and defined. In any case, without historical research, the answer to this question cannot be considered a foregone conclusion.

For historical lexicology, for the history of the meanings of words and word series, for the history of lexical systems, the question of the unity of the semantic structure of a developing and changing word, or in other words: the question of the limits of the identity of a word with the diversity of its phonetic-morphological and subject-semantic transformations, is of enormous importance. The unity of the word does not exclude the differences in its specific manifestations. The identity of a word does not depend either on the phonetic immutability of the word, or on its morphological uniformity, or on its semantic stability. The equality of words does not in itself create their identity. So, the unity of the semantic structure of a word and the potential diversity of its historical varieties is the new antinomy of historical and lexicological research. The problem of identity, as fundamental for the science of language, was put forward by F. de Saussure. “The entire linguistic mechanism,” according to him, “revolves exclusively around identities and differences, and these latter are only the reverse side of the former.” In the synchronic aspect, the identity of a word is determined by its significance in the system of the whole. Linguistic identity is similar to the identity of a train that leaves every day at the same time, although in fact the locomotive, the carriages, and the train crew may all be different. Or is it similar to the identity of a street, which can be destroyed, rebuilt, and yet remains the same. After all, “the essence contained in it is not purely material; its essence is based on certain conditions alien to its random material, such as its position relative to other streets... And at the same time, this essence is not abstract: for a street or a fast train cannot be imagined outside of material realization.” The same is the identity of the word. The concept of identity here merges with the concept of the significance of an expression in the linguistic system. The word is like a knight in a chess game. “In its pure materiality, outside of its place and other conditions of the game, it does not represent anything for the player, and it becomes a real and concrete element in the game only insofar as it is invested with its own significance and is inextricably linked with it.” The internal justification of significance comes down to the custom and spiritual activity of a given collective - a social group, the people as a whole. At the same time, it is quite obvious that the very act of semantic transformation or complication of a word does not violate its identity, just as the move of a knight does not make it a new figure. “The movement of an individual figure is a fact absolutely different from the previous equilibrium and from the subsequent equilibrium. The change produced does not relate to either of these two states: only states matter.” Thus, according to Saussure, in the system of language there is no place for changes that occur in the intervals between one state and another. This is why Saussure considers the question of the diachronic identity of a word, that is, the identity of a word in its history, to be only a “continuation and complication” of the question of synchronic identity. “The diachronic identity of two words as different as calidum and chaud simply means that the transition from one to the other occurred through a whole series of synchronic identities in the field of speech, without the connection between them ever being broken by successive phonetic transformations.” However, in reality, “it is completely impossible for identity to be associated with sound as such” and determined by the operation of phonetic laws. The establishment of identity is due to a whole system of historical correspondences - phonetic, grammatical, lexical-semantic, which makes it possible to recognize the same linguistic unit in two different forms. It cannot be said that de Saussure’s analysis of the concept of diachronic identity was very deep. Saussure understands synchronic identity too narrowly and schematically. After all, the state already contains the potential for further movement. The linguistic state cannot be considered mechanically as inert and passive. In the synchronic identity of the word there is an echo of its previous changes and hints of future development. Consequently, the synchronic and diachronic are just different sides of the same historical process. The dynamics of the present are a rush into the future. The correlation of meanings in the modern use of words, their hierarchy, their phraseological contexts and their expressive assessment always contain diachronic deposits of past eras.

Identity should be distinguished from equality. Neither the first presupposes the second, nor the second the first. On the one hand, an object can be said to be the same as it was before, even though it has undergone significant changes over the past period of time. We very often recognize an object that has changed as the same. On the other hand, the identity of an object is not an illusion, but an objective historical fact. In other words, the same words can be different words, homonyms (especially within different dialects of a language), and the changed word most often remains the same unity. The identity of a word is of a different nature than the identity of a person and a thing. The identity of things is established through the identity of concepts, and the identity of personality - through the unity of its self-positing activity (see about this: Florensky, p. 79). The word is more tenacious, more durable than a thing and a person, and more changeable than them. When perceiving the identity of a word, a comparison of the word with a living organism involuntarily arises. This is a kind of animation of the word. From an animistic point of view, the real identity of an object rests on the continuous vitality that animates it. As soon as a limit is placed on the spiritualization of objects, the foundation on which the animistic understanding of identity rests is undermined. The identity of a linguistic unit that is subject to various phonetic, grammatical and lexical-semantic changes in the process of historical development is usually established on the basis of the modern idea of ​​the unity of the structure of a word. The researcher recognizes the same word in its various historical modifications, just as he does not doubt the identity of other historical facts or material things - with all the diversity of their historical metamorphoses, for example, the identity of a custom, saying, riddle, etc. But with in a word, here too the situation is much more complicated. The material substrate of the word - its external form - is not only changeable, but also deceptive. The fact is that the number of sound combinations in a language - especially in the most ancient periods of its life - is very limited. Consequently, frequent coincidences in the structure or in the external image of different verbal signs are possible. Intonation differences between homogeneous expressions in relation to the ancient stages of linguistic development are hidden from us. Therefore, the danger of identification and arbitrary association of different linguistic signs is especially great here. Errors and misconceptions of this kind are encountered at every step in etymological research. Here they are expressed in statements of imaginary identities of roots on the basis of similarity and correspondence. Recognition of the same word, preservation of the unity of the structure of the word does not at all imply the invariability of its external appearance. Moreover, when two closely related languages ​​are mixed, identification of different words can occur if, fitting into the system of the receiving language, they coincide phonologically and harmonize, correspond to each other semantically (cf. n " every day and Russian necessary; Polish kleczeć and Russian folk-regional. from Turkic to beg, to beg etc. etc.). In the historical process, the external form of a word can and almost always undergoes changes. Often these changes create the impression of a sharp jump - the phonetic appearance of the word changes so much. For example, from sole are formed the soil And sole(cf. sole from sole); Greek κυδώvιοv“dula” (a type of pear) and proper. Name Dunya; Fevronia gives life to the word Sow; from Philippa branches off Filya, simpleton(cf. Filka's certificate);Kirill turns into Churila etc. Thus, in the history of language, different objects, sound complexes, the phonetic structure of which are different, are considered as one and the same word, expression, for example, dashchan - vat, politavry - timpani, p'pyrts - pepper etc.

During the phonetic transformation of a word, its semantic structure becomes the core of its integrity. The strongest and most tangible support for the unity of the word in this case is the safety and immutability of its nominative use. The object to which the word pointed chban, has not changed because instead of chban a century later it began to be called jug(cf. bchela - bee, dialect. mchela under Ukrainian bjola; gingerbread from pypyryanik; potter from gurnchary and so on.). Thus, the identity of the word is not destroyed by its phonetic deformation: from a historical point of view very much And Very - the same word. In addition, phonetic changes that have occurred to a word may not affect its phonological structure (if these sound changes did not affect significant elements of phonemes, did not violate the general phonetic model and did not move the morphological series). From a phonological point of view, the sound form of a word can remain identical despite sudden phonetic changes in its appearance, perceived by the ear of a person alien to a given linguistic community (for example, glove from glove - prst-jat-ka). After all, there is a big difference between “how the speaker feels the pronounced sound as a significant unit and how it turns out in performance and pronunciation, thanks to combinatorial external circumstances.”

In this regard, it is necessary to recall the teachings of Prof. I. A. Baudouin de Courtenay about optional phonemes (i.e., about transitional historical stages from full existence to the disappearance of sound). At these stages, “there is still in the souls of the speakers the memory and representation of the oral sound, but without the need for execution, which is thus optional.” It would seem that knowledge of the patterns of phonetic development of a language ensures awareness of the identity of a word - despite the diversity of its sound changes. However, sharp phonetic transformations of a word can tear it away from the related morphological series (for example, wake up from find yourself; sink from drip; Wed drip etc.), or cause the word to split, its splitting into two units (for example, gun And weapon). Phonetic changes often lead to sharp semantic shifts in the semantic structure of a word and break its connections with other words, transforming its entire morphological appearance. Yes, change dushchan V vat was associated with word separation vat from the lexical nest board, plank, plank etc., with a morphological simplification of the structure of this word, with its transformation into a non-derivative and with its corresponding semantic transformation. The boundaries of the identity of a word will turn out to be even wider if we approach the structure of the word from a semantic-morphological point of view. In this aspect, a word belonging to the categories of significant parts of speech is represented as a system of correlative and interdependent forms that express either different syntactic functions of this word or shades - intellectual and expressive - of its meanings. For example, in the Old Russian book language - to be, am, thou, essence, would, will, existing, being and other non-prepositional verbal formations of the same roots were forms of the same word. The system of forms of one word within the category of the verb and in the sphere of nominal categories is a historically variable value. So, in modern Russian language is, essence, existent, be(with forms of future and past tense), archaic clerical union will and particle would are different words. The unity of the semantic structure of a conjugated or inflected word is determined by the entire structure of the language at one or another stage of its development.

Shifts and changes in the systems of forms of different words constantly shake the stability of its semantic boundaries and lead to bifurcation or even disintegration of the identity of the word. It is clear that the disintegration of a word into two independent lexical units is also revealed only against the background of the entire semantic system of the language, considered in its movement and in its relation to other language systems.

Here is an example from the history of the Russian professional-military dialect. In drill training at the beginning of the 19th century. there was a team all around, and this movement of the battalion, front to back, was done slowly, in three stages with the command: “ one two Three" But then - according to the Prussian model - they began to perform this movement in two steps and the command itself was shortened and pronounced all the way. It is clear that the expressions all around And all the way were initially perceived as variants of the same phrase. But the use of the expression all the way went far beyond the application of the old command all around. It underwent substantivization and became a broad symbol of front formalism and arbitrariness. Thus, all the way became a new word that penetrated for some time into the styles of the general literary language. For example, in “Notes on My Life” by N. I. Grech: “The general opinion is not a battalion: you can’t tell him all the way. Not only the officers, but also the lower ranks of the guard gained an overseas spirit” (1930, p. 387). About the team all the way, as F. Bulgarin talks about as a popular military term in his “Memoirs” (St. Petersburg, 1848, part 5, pp. 185–186).

Expression all the way acquired a sharp expressive and ironic character. For example, it was used by lieutenants Belavin and Brose in a poetic satire on the campaign of 1807. Here is the command all the way was applied to assess the actions of the Russian army in the 1807 fight against Napoleon.

Where have you gone, Russian glory?

Thunderous for so many years?

Where is your shine, strong power,

Whose light marveled?

Everything has gone dark! all the way damn,

Only invented for revenge on us,

All the way, busy with the Prussians,

He took away all the glory and honor from us.

When all-goma We did not know,

And they just knew ahead

Then we fought bravely,

The Gaul, the Turk, the Swede were afraid of us.

And they did it themselves all the way:

We gave Warsaw to the enemies,

And they did it themselves all the way

The French were crushed to dust,

And they did it themselves all the way.

Thousands were laid on the spot

And they did it themselves all the way.

Arakcheev, a former minister of war, sent the authors of this poem without swords, that is, under arrest, to the Finnish army and ordered that in the war with the Swedes they be sent “to those places where it is impossible to do all the way"(Notes “All Gom” (Satire on the campaign of 1807) // Russian antiquity, 1897, December, pp. 569–570).

For a linguist who is inclined to view language as a continuous flow of creative activity and to see in a word a unique, individual unit of speech, the word is unambiguous: “the new meaning of a word is a new word” (Potebnya, From the Notes on Russian Grammar, 4, p. 198). “In dictionaries, to save time and space, it is customary to list all its meanings under one sound complex. Such a custom is necessary, but it should not give rise to the opinion that a word can have several meanings. A homonym is a fiction based on the fact that not a real word, but only a sound is taken as a name (in the sense of a word). The real word lives not in the dictionary or grammar, where it is stored only in the form of a preparation, but in speech, as it is pronounced each time, and each time it consists of sounds of one and only one meaning (Steinthal Über den Wandel der Laute und des Begriffs // Zeitschrift für Völkerpsychologie und Sprachwissenschaft, l, pp. 425–428). The connection between sound and meaning is initially represented by representation; but over time it may be forgotten. The relationship between monophonic words, if their monophony is not only accidental or imaginary, is always as follows: a) an idea initially associated with sound can at different times become a means of consciousness of different meanings; b) each of these values ​​can, in turn, become a representation of other values. Let's put it in a word potion the plant seems to be something green; This means that the plant then serves as a representation of the medicine, the drug in general is represented by the medicine, and gunpowder is represented by the drug. All these meanings - plant, medicine, potion, gunpowder - make up not one word, but four. When each of these meanings appears, a new word is created, although the sound of the first word may remain unchanged for all subsequent ones. It is absurd to think that people who call gunpowder a potion imagine it to be green or are not aware of the difference between a plant and gunpowder” (Potebnya. Title cit., p. 96). However, A. A. Potebnya himself, in his various historical and etymological research, considered it possible to associate with the semantic structure of one word a whole series of meanings, internally connected and developed from each other.

Two forms of genetic connection between phenomena are strictly distinguished - causal, where there is a relationship of cause and effect, and evolutionary. The causal form of connection does not imply homogeneity of phenomena. Cause and effect may have absolutely nothing in common with each other. The causal series is characterized by qualitative discontinuity. Establishing a causal relationship in changes in word meanings is an extremely difficult and as yet unresolved task. In addition, searching for reasons for changing the meaning of a single word would only distract researchers from observing the gradual progress of semantic modifications of a word. After all, the reasons for these changes can be very different. An evolutionary connection is established between homogeneous phenomena. To determine the presence of an evolutionary connection, a comparative method is required, first of all, the initial premise of which is the thesis: a known, mathematically calculable degree of similarity between two phenomena serves as proof of their genetic connection with each other. But when establishing a genetic scheme, a separation from the concrete completeness of actual processes is inevitable. After all, the very consideration of a fact only as a separate link in the evolutionary series is associated with a narrowing of the specific content of the historical process. From a historical point of view, the same word includes all its varieties, between which it is possible to establish a genetic connection of meanings. Meanwhile, in specific, historically closed systems of language, many of these varieties no longer come together and are regarded as different words, as homonyms. Thus, the semantic boundaries of the word, considered from a historical perspective, turn out to be extremely wide. They do not coincide with the specific semantic scope of the corresponding verbal units within a particular language system. The word as an object of historical research does not correspond to any of those real units of language that are subsumed under this historical word. The internal semantic unity of such a historical word turns out to be “ideal”. It does not reproduce the real complexity and fragmentation of phenomena, but only concentrates them into one abstracted image. Therefore, one must always be on guard against this illusion of identity. It is the source of many false conclusions. The apparent identity of a name and its phonetic equivalence can show deep semantic and structural differences. Even the commonality of etymological elements in the composition of words is not at all a sign of their identity. For example, find And gain in the Russian literary language of the 18th – 19th centuries. were different words. The same should be said about such pairs as sink And drip, oblige And tie etc. However, the relationships between words and forms are presented in a different light lift - raise, lift - raise; hug And hug(cf. embrace). The methodology for studying identities still contains much that is controversial and unclear. For example, can monophonic words composed of the same morphemes, but independently arose on different social soils, be considered identical? The spontaneous generation of similar and homonym words is as real a fact as the spontaneous generation of motifs, plots and customs. Moreover, such homonyms that are close in meaning can arise not only simultaneously - in different dialects and adverbs of the Russian language, but also in different periods of development of the same language.

Morphological elements, very tenacious, playing an active role over many periods of the historical development of a language, can easily enter into homogeneous combinations at different times, in different language systems. After all, many word models remain productive for several centuries. In this case, identical or homogeneous words, graphic or even phonetic homonyms are formed, between which there is neither a semantic connection nor cultural-historical continuity. These are completely different words. For example, in Old Russian the word populist(ъ) served to convey Greek. δημóτης . For example, in the Izbornik of 1073: “moreover Dimoti, rekoshe populist, beginning in the (about) sum of pomp and majesty” in Pandas. Nikon (lyric 41): “Established as bishop populist(Dimot)” (Sreznevsky, 2, p. 321). This word, meaning “high official, collector of national taxes,” was used in the high Slavic syllable until the 17th century. Thus, in the handwritten Life of John the Baptist (according to the manuscript from the Archives of the Holy Governing Synod, 17th century), in the account of the miracle of the Baptist John in the Novgorod Posadnik (fol. 120–128 vol.), the word appears several times populist in this context: “Foreigners of the Latin faith... I pray to the archbishop of the great new city, the posadniks and thousanders and all of that city populists" “Help was given to many bribe-takers populist Dobrynya..."; "from vanity to cleverness populist“What a delusion that gold has made in dividing the place of the conqueror, the enemy of evil has appeared in the Church of Christ.” In the Russian literary language of the 18th century. word populist no longer used. But in the 60–70s of the 19th century. a new word is formed populist to designate representatives of the socio-political movement among the radical intelligentsia, who considered the peasantry to be the only basis of the ideal state structure. Wed. populism, populist. These words are not listed in any dictionary of the Russian literary language up to and including Dahl’s dictionary. It is also necessary to remember that with the name populist associated the concept of Slavophilism. I. S. Aksakov wrote to prof. P. A. Viskovatov: “How could you populists call them Slavophiles? (Letter dated February 29, 1884). He also remarked about Lermontov: “In all likelihood, Lermontov would have ended populist, just as Pushkin became one. Conscious or unconscious, it doesn’t matter.”

Word social activist was not included in any dictionary of the Russian language until the 40s. It was first noted in the dictionary in 1847. Here social activist is defined as: “Belonging to any society.” Dahl's dictionary develops the same definition: “ Social activist, social activist belonging to society, community, fellow member, member, fellow class” (2, p. 634). So the word social activist originally denoted a member of some class association. Late word social activist narrowed its meaning and began to apply to the peasant, a member of rural society. In this meaning the word social activist was also used by V.I. Lenin (1903, in a judgment on the situation of the village in tsarist Russia): “In every village, in every society there are many farm laborers, many impoverished peasants, and there are rich people who themselves keep farm laborers and buy their own land” forever". These rich people too social activists, and they rule in society because they are power.” Modern word social activist in the meaning of “a person actively involved in public work” arose independently of the previous old homonym. These are two different words. (But see in Ushakov’s dictionary). Wed. earlier in a letter from E. Ya. Kolbasin to I. S. Turgenev (dated September 29, 1856): “And what are you really for? social activist such, doomed by fate to be plundered by every literary scoundrel" (Turgenev and Sovremennik).

The number of homonym words that arose in the Russian language in the 19th century, as in other languages, includes a series of words associated with the same sound and morphological complex - nihilism, nihilist. In Russian, only I. S. Turgenev, using the name nihilist to the typical psychology of the sixties, gave it historical stability and the powerful force of the winged term. Turgenev could rightfully consider himself the creator of a new word (“Literary and Everyday Memoirs”, Chapter 5 “About Fathers and Sons”), although homonyms of this word existed before - not only in French and German, but also in Russian . No wonder a modern critic (N. N. Strakhov) said that of everything that is in “Fathers and Sons”, the word nihilism was a huge success. “It was accepted unquestioningly by both opponents and supporters of what it signifies.” P.V. Annenkov was also right in his own way when he said that together with Bazarov, an apt word was found, although not new at all, but perfectly defining both the hero and his like-minded people, and the very time in which they lived, – nihilism(Bulletin of Europe, 1885, 4, p. 505). As M.P. Alekseev showed, the appearance of the word nihiliste in French it dates back to the very beginning of the 19th century. It was first noted by Mercier, the author of the work “Pictures of Paris,” in his dictionary of neologisms in 1801. Here under the word nihiliste(or rienniste) of course, an extreme skeptic, a person with a devastated soul “who believes nothing, is not internally interested in anything.” In the German philosophical and journalistic language, the word Nihilismus has also been known since the end of the 18th – beginning of the 19th century. Here Nihilismus denotes the extreme manifestation of idealism, which considers the idea to be the first absolute beginning of being and from it deducing the whole world of reality. In Russian the word nihilist N. I. Nadezhdin was perhaps the first to use it in his sensational article of 1829: “The Host of Nihilists” (published in the “Bulletin of Europe” under the pseudonym Nikodim Nadoumko). According to Ap. Grigorieva: “The Word” nihilist“ did not have the meaning for him that Turgenev gave it in our days. ” Nihilists“he simply called people who know nothing, have no basis in art and life, well, but ours nihilists they know five books and are based on them...” (“My Literary and Moral Wanderings”). After Nadezhdin with the same education - nihilism – were used by N. Polevaya for a humorous and ironic characterization of materialism, and V.G. Belinsky - for a satirical qualification of emptiness, the absence of any content. In a review of “Provincial nonsense” by Dormedon Vasilyevich Prutikov (Molva, 1836, No. 4) it is said that in this work “there is neither idealism nor transcendentalism: in them, on the contrary, absolute nihilism, with sufficient admixture of tastelessness, triviality and illiteracy.” It’s interesting that I used the word in a somewhat similar sense nihilism and academician P. S. Bilyarsky in his study “The Fate of the Church Language” (1849, St. Petersburg, part 2, pp. 107–108), who remarked about the speech of I. I. Sreznevsky: “It was... only the ghost of approval and negation, under which the absence of a definite view was revealed, complete, absolute nihilism" In addition, S.P. Shevyrev in “The Theory of Poetry” (1835) uses the word nihilist following Jean-Paul - to designate extreme idealists, and M. N. Katkov in 1840 calls nihilist - materialist: “Looking at the world as it is, you are more likely to become a mystic from two extremes than nihilist: we are surrounded by miracles everywhere” (Otech. Zap., 1840, 12, October, department 2, p. 17). Thus, the same education arises at different times and in different places, since its components were international, and is filled with diverse content. The continuity of historical and semantic development was alien to these homonymous designations. Only Turgenev managed to breathe into the same education a new soul, a new historical meaning, which turned out to be very active and tenacious.

A symptom of the identity of a word in different language systems is the continuity of its historical and semantic development. If a word, as a stable real fact, as a cultural-historical thing, continuously continues to perform its functions, albeit very diversifying them, over several centuries of several periods of language development, then the historical continuity of its meanings, their internal connection remains unshakable. The unity of the “still” is preserved despite the differences in its functions in different historical contexts. Of course, in this case, the consciousness of the identity of the material substratum of the word, its phonomorphological composition, can play a large role. But the concept of continuity of semantic development of a word is very conditional. After all, only in very rare cases can a language historian directly observe the very process of formation and development of new meanings of a word from the moment of its formation. For the most part it deals only with the different states or positions of a word in different language systems. It is given only a sequential relationship between previous and subsequent meanings. The principles and forms of their genetic connection are restored and established only intuitively. However, contrary to the teachings of F. de Saussure, the synchronic and diachronic aspects of the study of words are interdependent and closely related. The idea of ​​continuity in the development of a word is correlated with the idea of ​​its changeability. But continuity itself is only one of countless modifications of discontinuity. The continuity of word development is usually only assumed and postulated. Evidence for this idea is often based on the assumption of continuous historical movement of a single collective consciousness, i.e., on the hypothesis of the homogeneity of the spiritual structure and spiritual evolution of the collective and the individual. But is the collective movement of thought continuous? With the projection method of historical research, the continuity of the development of a word is not at all the same as its active use from generation to generation within one community. In this aspect, the concept of continuity of development is by no means correlated with the concept of the unified - the unfolding collective consciousness. When a word is considered as an objective thing, as a cultural and historical fact, then not only the wanderings of the word through dialects, its movements from one social circle to another are taken into account, but also the transition of the word from being in a museum among written monuments to living life. All this is fully reconciled with the conventional concept of cultural and historical continuity, which in this case is complemented by the idea of ​​the long-term preserved state of the word, enshrined in written sources, of its potential existence and the ongoing living possibility of its everyday revival. For example, the word hotel By the 18th century it was falling out of everyday use. It is preserved only within the framework of the church-book cult dialect. Associated with it is the idea of ​​“an inn, a house or shelter for travelers” (Russian starina, 1891, April, p. 2). Even in the dictionary of 1847 this word is still considered as an uncommon “ecclesiastical” word. Wed. in the memoirs of I. A. Vtorov “Moscow and Kazan at the beginning of the 19th century.” (1842): “I stopped on Tverskaya Street in the Tsaregrad tavern (at that time it was not yet called hotels)". Only in the 30s and 40s, due to the growth of Slavophile tendencies, did the Old Russian word return to the living everyday language hotel, limiting the use of the word hotel and changing the meaning of the word tavern.

So, the concept of the identity of a word in its development presupposes the continuity of its historical existence. But this continuity is, in fact, easily reconciled with centuries-long interruptions in the real use of the word. The continuity of the history of a word does not always consist in its consistent transition from one generation to another within the boundaries of the same society. A word can wander through different dialects. It can be preserved in written monuments and then resumed in social practice, as if revived to living, active use. The contradiction between the postulated historical continuity of a word and between the discontinuity of its active use is a new antinomy in the historical-semantic study of vocabulary. The study of the continuity of development of the meanings of a word is complicated by the fact that, in relation to the distant past, the question of the composition of the active vocabulary, the volume and stylistic functions of the passive vocabulary, the transition of certain words from a latent existence or inert state to living public use are almost insoluble. Meanwhile, all these changes in the nature of the use of the word, in the way of its perception are usually accompanied by an expressive revaluation of the word. That is why the scope of meanings and shades of many words seem unchanged to us, as if fossilized over many centuries. Meanwhile, this is a historical illusion, an optical illusion for the historian of words: the semantic structure of the word did not remain motionless, preserved. For example, the word - native(in another later form native) is found in Russian monuments starting from the 11th century. (see Sreznevsky, 3, pp. 972–973 and 1035; cf. Istrin, Chronicle of George Amart., vol. 1). Its meaning is clear: “a natural resident of the country, a local resident.” In the dictionary of 1847, the meaning of this word is defined in the same way: “a natural inhabitant of any land or country, a local native.” An illusion of semantic immutability or unchangeability of the word arises. Meanwhile, in the second half of the 18th and early 19th centuries. word native was so little used that it was not included either in the dictionaries of the Russian Academy or in the dictionary of P. Sokolov. It was kept in the archival fund of the language. G. And Dobrynin in his “Notes” (The True Narrative or Life of Gabriel Dobrynin) under 1781 makes the following note to the word native: “Please do not charge us for our native word. If we know a foreigner or stranger, then we must also know native. This is what our forefathers, the Slavs, called and wrote.” In this case, a reference is made to Novikov’s “Russian Vivliofika” (Russian Starina, 1871, 4, p. 145).

The continuity of the historical existence of a word is in many cases difficult to prove. A break in the use of a word does not yet exclude its passive perception and understanding in written monuments. At the same time, falling out of the living literary lexicon, a word can retain its activity in the language of some social groups, from where it sometimes penetrates into the general literary dictionary again. It is clear that when studying all these issues, the morphological structure of the word, the vitality and frequency of its model are important. For example, there can hardly be any doubt that the words complacency And be complacent, which have become especially widespread in the Russian literary language since the second half of the 19th century, still go back to the corresponding book Slavicisms. Here it would be difficult to admit the secondary formation of this word or its “resurrection” under the influence of a revived interest in ancient Russian writing. In fact, the words complacency(cf. good nature) and even a verb be complacent noted in the monuments of ancient Russian writing of the 12th – 16th centuries. For example, in the Collection of the 16th century. “About summer circulation and air changes”: “we must... be complacent and do not be angry." Verb be complacent, apparently, had two shades: 1) to be cheerful; 2) be in a joyful mood (Sreznevsky, 3. Additions, p. 15). In Church Slavonic the words - complacency And be complacent were widely used in the 17th – 18th centuries. (cf. in the letters of the Apostle Paul to the Philippians, 2.19: “Yes and I I'm complacent, having already learned about you"). They were not alien to the high and middle style of the Russian literary language of that time. For example, in “The Temple of My Heart” by I. M. Dolgoruky about Archimandrite Parthenia: “He performed the funeral service and buried the body of my youngest daughter Evgenia, cried with me when I was sad, and was pleased when the sky sent me joy” (ed. “Russian Archives”, p. 257). But already in the dictionary of 1847 the words complacency And be complacent qualify as ecclesiastical. Verb be complacent was omitted, apparently due to its low usage, in the 1st ed. Dahl's dictionary. P. Shein, in his “Additions” to Dahl’s dictionary, drew attention to this omission: “ be grateful. Missed. This word, it seems to me, was put into literary circulation by Ostrovsky” (p. 8). In connection with the change in the stylistic functions of the word and its expression, in connection with its spread in colloquial and humorous speech, a shift in its meaning occurs. be grateful means: “to spend time without work or worries, being in a peaceful, calm, good-natured state of mind” (cf. the same expressive changes in words: complacency And complacent).

When the living use of a word is interrupted, the lost word, enshrined in written monuments, can give life to a new word with the same external form, but filled with new content. For example, the word funeral feast in the Old Russian language it meant funeral games, a funeral competition. It is used in this meaning in the initial chronicle. Old Church Slavonic texts via feast, feast conveyed by Greek στάδιον, παλάíςτρα , ゅ〈λον etc. Consequently, here too feast, feast meant: “struggle, competition.” “Competitions in memory of the deceased, as part of the funeral rite, are still known among Ossetians. These are races with prizes from the deceased’s clothes, weapons, saddles, sometimes from a horse, a bull, money,” noted academician in this regard. A. I. Sobolevsky (Materials and research, pp. 273–274). Word funeral feast in this use it gradually dies out along with the very rite of funeral games and competitions. Word funeral feast in the Novgorod glossary of the 15th century. (according to the list of 1431) is explained as follows: “suffering, feat.” Thus, already in the XIV - XV centuries. it belonged to the category of “inconvenience of knowable speech.” In the second half of the 18th century. - under the influence of growing interest in ancient Russian history - familiarity with the word is spreading funeral feast. The word gradually comes into literary use funeral feast meaning “funeral feast, wake.” This understanding was prompted by the life of that era. For example, in I. A. Krylov’s fable “The Cat and the Cook”:

He ruled the pious

And on this day according to godfather funeral feast rules...

In Pushkin’s “Song of the Prophetic Oleg” (1822)

On funeral feast, already close,

It’s not you who will stain the feather grass under the ax

And feed my ashes with hot blood!...

The circular buckets, foaming, hiss

On funeral feast deplorable Oleg...

Wed. from Nekrasov in “Reflections at the Front Entrance”:

They will bring your remains to us,

To honor the funeral funeral feast,

And you will go to your grave... hero,

Silently cursed by the fatherland,

Exalted by loud praise!...

Based on this meaning in the poetic style of the first half of the 19th century. figurative usage began to develop: funeral feast - in the sense: “sorrowful memory of someone or something lost or lost.”

In Baratynsky’s poem “Autumn”:

Sit down alone and funeral feast commit

For the earthly joys of your soul!

In dialect usage the word funeral feast received a new connotation of meaning associated with the funeral treat. According to P.I. Melnikov: “At funeral dinners, grape wine, rum, beer, honey are poured together and drunk at the end of the table. It is called funeral feast" Wed. in P.I. Melnikov’s story “Old Years”: “”... - I won’t have anything to do with brides: every young lady will go with pleasure. It won’t work, to hell with her, I’ll marry the cowgirl Masha.” Under these words they began funeral feast drink". (Melnikov-Pechersky, 1, p. 144). If we consider the main sign of identity for words that did not have continuous use, the direct genetic connection of their restored appearance with their ancient use, then the circle of identities will greatly expand. (For example, in the 40–50s of the 19th century, the widespread literary use of the word strife in the meaning of “discord, disagreement”. Thus, in the historical-lexicological aspect, the continuity of the historical existence of a word is understood as both the active use of the corresponding word in various historically changing systems of the language, and its presence, sometimes for entire centuries, in the archival fund of a given language. It is clear that in this archival fund, in this unique treasury of historical riches and potential resources of the language, not all words that have ever been in living use are stored, but only those that denote significant or characteristic phenomena and ideas of the national past, with which typical features of the style and worldview of a certain era and which are recognized in one way or another as valuable for expressing the fundamental principles of the national spirit.

There is no doubt that even in this expanded sense, the concept of continuity of existence in the history of a given language is not applicable to such words, the lexical-semantic processes of foreign languages ​​are reflected in their multi-temporal use. For example, the word progress appeared in Russian literary language at the beginning of the 18th century. (cf. Latin. progressus, German Progress). It meant: “success” or, according to the definition of the handwritten lexicon, the beginning. XVIII century: “profit, gain, prosperity” (Smirnov, Western influence, p. 244). Wed. in Shafirov’s “Discourse” (1717): “Army... many progress(winnings) repaired” (p. 43). The word was filled with completely different content progress in international pan-European socio-political terminology (cf. French. progress, English progress), from where this word again penetrates into the Russian literary language of the 30–40s of the 19th century (see Vinogradov. Essays, p. 389).

In the same way, the repeatedly renewed formation of such derivative words, which in individual and even in broad collective speech activity independently arise as new words, cannot be recognized as a continuous existence. In the Soviet language, a whole series of words appeared for a while, derived from Church Slavic Hallelujah(Heb. halleluja –"praise God"): hallelujah, hallelujah, hallelujah, hallelujah. « Hallelujah - This is a person who, by immoderately praising the existing state of things, covers up negative phenomena and thereby interferes with the fight against them” (Ushakov, 1935). The adjective for this word can be formed as follows: halleluish or more bookish Hallelujah. Curious that the word Hallelujah it was used earlier in individual speech, but it is impossible to establish a continuous tradition in this use. In Turgenev’s letter to Fet dated October 8/September 26, 1871: “My friend, adoration for Moskovskie Vedomosti must, however, be combined with a certain amount of independence - otherwise you can just start talking.” hallelujah“language” (Turgenev, Letters, p. 129).

The starting point for the historical study of a word is the modern system of its uses and meanings. But the semantic scope of a living word at the modern stage of language development is more limited, narrower, although more abstract and logically dissected, than the structure of the word at other stages of the history of language, distant from us. What in modern language has become different words - homonyms, can genetically go back to one lexical grain. The semantic scope of a word changes historically, and the internal essence of the word also changes historically. Thus, the disproportion between the modern concept of a word and the perception of a word at other stages of development creates contradictions in the understanding of the lexical unit itself as an object of historical research. The question of the unity of the semantic structure of a word in its historical development rests on the question of the origin, genetic connection and evolution of the meanings of this word. An analysis of the modern system of meanings can only be the beginning of such a study. For example, in the modern Russian language, two homonym verbs are distinguished by immediate consciousness attribute:

I. Attribute - attribute - 1) what. Write in addition to something, add to what was written before. Attribute a few words in a letter. Attribute conclusion to the last chapter of the story. 2) someone or something. Having written it down, add it somewhere, add it to the lists (office official). Attribute to the recruiting station.

II. Attribute - to attribute someone-what to someone-what. To consider as the cause of something, to attribute it to someone or something. Long absence of writing attributed mail malfunctions. In Pushkin’s “The Captain’s Daughter”: “Anna Vlasyevna, although she was dissatisfied with her unconsciousness, but attributed his provincial shyness." // Consider belonging to someone or consider belonging to someone. Attributed all sorts of virtues to her. Wed. from Pushkin: “Vampire”, story, incorrect assigned Lord Byron” (in Ushakov’s words both homonyms are merged into one word).

Is it possible to trace both of these homonyms to one word, to see in them a product of the semantic collapse of a single semantic structure? Without historical-semantic research it is impossible to immediately answer this question. It is easy to notice that the second homonym corresponds in its morphological structure and meaning to the German: “jeemandem etwas zuschreiben”. Wed. in a letter from the famous Field Marshal Barclay de Toll (dated January 15, 1813): “Wenn ich Ihnen nicht früher geantwortet habe, so schreiben sie es dem Meere von Geschäften die mich belagern z u"(If I didn’t answer you earlier, then attribute this is the sea of ​​​​deeds that besieged me) (Russian antiquity, 1888, October, p. 265). This tracing transfer of German zuschreiben originated in the Russian business language of the 18th century. In any case, in the dictionaries of the Russian Academy, all modern meanings of both homonyms have already been registered and combined in one word: Attribute, attribute - 1) Add something to what is written. Attribute why an article, a line... 2) To state in writing that someone is in possession or in the department. Attribute peasants to which district, to the factory. 3) Give someone a name based on their property or quality. Attribute to whom virtues. 4) Attribute something to someone or consider someone or something to be the cause, the main instrument of something. This victory attributed to courage, skill and foresight of the commander. 5) Regarding essays: dedicate which book to whom. Sometimes both constructions associated with a verb attribute, in Russian they are mixed. For example, in I. A. Vtorov’s memoirs “Moscow and Kazan at the beginning of the 20th century”: “Your virtues attributed to selfish views, and the weaknesses characteristic of all people are base vices” (Russian starina, 1891, April, p. 22). Thus, there is reason to assert that in the Russian literary language of the 18th century. and the first half of the 19th century. internal unity of different meanings associated with the same sound complex – attribute - was considered immediately obvious and that there was no tendency to break them up into two homonymous lexical units. Naturally, the process of divergence between two series of values: attribute –“to write additionally to something.” or “write down to some category” and attribute –“count sth. cause of something or consider it to belong to something.” was associated with the differentiation of their morphological structure: in one verb, distinct semantic features of prefixed word production were preserved ( attribute –“write with” – i.e. “in addition to”, cf. postscript, in another prefix at - increasingly lost the meaning of a special morpheme, and the feeling of the non-derivativeness of the stem grew stronger ( attribute –"acknowledge the cause").

Ideological contradictions between the modern worldview and the semantic systems of the distant past often lead to a distortion of the semantic perspective in the history of words. The history of the word is in danger of turning into a legend about the word, suggested by the dominant theory of modernity. Histories of material culture and social worldviews do not always eliminate this element of legend, since they themselves are not free from the influence of the “spite of the day.” The spotlight of modern lighting does not always disperse the fog or darkness of the past. Very often it only causes the illusion of clairvoyance. So, the contradictions between the real-historical foundations of past ideologies and between the one-sidedness of modern theories of historical knowledge can become an obstacle to an adequate comprehension of reality. The interpretation of the ancient use of a word is usually based either on archaic remnants of its use in modern regional folk dialects, or on the substitution of modern concepts under the evidence of ancient texts. In both cases, there is a historically unlawful translation into a modern language, an adaptation to the modern system of concepts. Leibniz also noted: “If it is difficult to understand the meaning of words among our contemporaries, then it is even more difficult in relation to the authors of ancient books.” History most often comprehends the reality of the past under the influence of the dominant ideas of our time. By giving image, meaning and internal unity to long-past phenomena, history, to one degree or another, creates a legend out of them. Each era has its own image of the past, its own legend about it. There is no doubt that the ideological modernization of the past, its tendentious coverage in the spirit of one theory or another, distorts the historical perspective of the development of word meanings. An example of one-sided coverage of semantic processes can be the following historical and lexicological reasoning by I. Pryzhov: “Ancient Slavic husband receives an abusive name in Moscow man, which at this time also goes to Little Russia, and abuse: you are a real man, repeating more and more often, turns into a new fashionable thing in the 18th century. word - sneaky, attached to everything folk... Name Human, high in the concept of the people (minor. man - householder), descends to the name serf, lackey; public name for lackeys: man, people. Generally the word: People, which once served as the name of the entire people, has since received some kind of evil meaning: “people, what people!” (Markovich, 1912, p. 245). Here sounds the voice of a populist indignant at social inequality - a revolutionary of the 60s, who, in order to please his propaganda goals, greatly changes the history of the meaning of words - Human(originally “male, man, husband”), people, sneaky, man.

Our contemporary A. A. Dementyev presents the semantic history of the word in this form man: “It can be assumed that the word man once had a derogatory connotation in meaning and was opposed to the word husband. In other words, on the one hand, there were husbands - representatives of the ruling elite of society, on the other hand - men - representatives of the lower classes." This guess finds some confirmation in the fact that in ancient written monuments, mostly of judicial and legal content, the wife of a boyar and generally a noble person of that time and the wife of a person from the lower classes are called differently. In the first case wife, in the second, along with wife, - often wifey" The following notes the use of the word man with the meaning “peasant” in the Chronicle according to Nikon’s list under 7064 (1556): “And guys many claims were sought." And these semantic guesses are based to a much greater extent on general historical and sociological considerations than on specific linguistic facts. Neither the accentological type of the word, nor its ancient Russian use at least during the 16th and 17th centuries, nor its relationship to the word peasant, which arose, according to P. B. Struve, in connection with ancient Russian church land ownership in the 14th – 15th centuries. .

At the end of the 80s of the XIX century. on the pages of the Russian Archive there was a lively debate on the question of the historical meaning of the word feeding. The first to speak was D. D. Golokhvastov with the article “The historical meaning of the word feeding.” He argued that feeding in the ancient language it meant not “food”, but “government”. "Words stern, helm, helmsman, helmsman's book, - wrote D. Golokhvastov, - undoubtedly the same root as the word feeding; but they obviously have nothing in common with the concept of nutrition; about exploitation for one’s personal, private benefit, and all of them directly point to the concept about management"(Russian archive, 1889, No. 4, p. 650). "Give someone a city or region in feeding – means entrusting him with the management of this area or, as they would say now, making him a governor” (ibid.). It is known that even K. S. Aksakov expressed doubt whether S. M. Solovyov acted correctly in understanding the word feed"in the modern colloquial meaning without research into the historical." “Acquaintance with the monuments shows us something completely different.” There is no doubt that the interpretation of the word is feeding(in relation to boyar activity) depended on the general concept of the ancient Russian socio-historical process. Class basis for understanding the term feeding in the meaning of “management” are revealed in such statements by P. D. Golokhvastov, who came up with the article “Boyar feeding” in defense of the opinion of D. D. Golokhvastov: “Were the boyars called feeders from birthright as satisfyingly as possible feed population, i.e. literally world-eating or from innate duty, with the palace at the head, feed land [i.e. e. to rule the earth. – V.V.], that’s the question” (Russian archive, 1890, No. 6, p. 242). “How can the historians, the Ilovaiskys, the Klyuchevskys... how can they, who have studied the book of the history of Rus' from the beginning, even to this day, not realize what the whole raison d’etre, the whole causal essence of this supposedly “sufficiently clarified” so-called system feeding? After all, it’s obvious that it’s all about fashionability, which was so disgusting to Pushkin, but then it was still only bourgeois, now street, shameless, rabid fashionability of kicking

Heraldic lion

Democratic hoof"

(there, s. 218).

In essence, in other words, but the same idea was expressed by D. D. Golokhvastov in the above-mentioned article: “If another word were misinterpreted, it might not matter, but here the whole meaning of our history is distorted. If the best servants really cared first of all about their personal benefits, and put off state affairs; If our Moscow great princes and tsars, after so much effort and such sacrifices of people’s blood, had not been able to do anything better from the newly conquered kingdom than to give it to these greedy boyars to be torn to pieces, then the Moscow principality would not have grown to the size of Russia” (Russian. archive, 1889, No. 4, p. 655). Klyuchevsky was ironic about this: “What! By interpreting one word, can the entire meaning of our history be distorted?... The meaning of our history is remarkably laconic: it is all in one word - feeding"(Russian archive, 1889, No. 5, p. 145).

P. Golokhvastov his understanding of the word feeding in the meaning of “control” is justified by reference to the expression keep feeding, to verbs feed“manage”, on phraseological contexts of use of the word feeding in ancient Russian documents of the 14th – 16th centuries. ( feeding with truth, i.e. with the right to trial and duty; proper feeding etc.), on the general etymological fate of the lexical nest associated with the verb feed. P. Golokhvastov is ready to admit that to feed is nutrire “to nourish” and feed - gubernare “to manage” – two branches of one root and that “the offspring of the wild one are still alive, in which breadwinner -"feeder" and breadwinner -"ruler" are almost indistinguishable." But “both [these] root branches grew...far apart.” Therefore, to interpret the boyar feeding how “nutrition” is impossible, despite such historians as S. M. Solovyov, B. N. Chicherin, D. Ilovaisky, V. Klyuchevsky and others. “And it doesn’t occur to anyone that this etymology feeding...they deny eo ipso governing body, as a fact and as a concept, non-existent for them, alien to them, to them - that is, to the whole of Russia of times feeding, from Rurik to Mikhail Fedorovich, through the city of Chicherin, to Peter, through the city of Ilovaisky. Recognizing themselves (the country as living food, the boyars as consumers, and the sovereign as the manager of feeding), they deny themselves as a state, recognize themselves as a flock that is given to the wolves by a shepherd-mercenary, a shepherd-wolf in sheep's clothing" (Russian archive, 1890 , No. 6, pp. 238–239). According to P. Golokhvastov, only from the half of the 16th and especially in the 17th century. the ancient Russian meaning of the term begins to be forgotten feeding and verb feed. Feed -"feeding" begin to mix with feed -“nourish” and derivatives. “Of course, this is the fate of more than one feeding: many other words were forgotten or made meaningless” (ibid., pp. 247–248).

Meanwhile, B. N. Chicherin characterized this way feeding system, organically connected with the nature of the management of the prince-patrimonial: “... incomes were complained about feeding princely servants. ...The trial was given to feeding governors and volosts. ... Murder, along with the rest of the trial, happened in feeding behind the volostels. All this was determined not by government considerations, but... by the prince’s disposition towards one or another feedman" “The fine was arbitrary; the judge extracted everything he could from the criminal. ...What was meant was not so much a crime as a profitable action. ...The crime was, as it were, the property of the judge.” This view of feeding as a way of rewarding governors and volosts for public service was later adopted by S. M. Solovyov. In “History of Russia” he wrote: “For their service to the prince, court, Duma and military, the boyars during this period began to receive remuneration in three types: feeding, estates and estates. The first type was associated with the positions of governors and volosts. By appointing governors to his cities, the prince gave the regions rulers and judges; at the same time, he gave his boyars the opportunity feed at the expense of the residents, that is, to use both court fees and various extortions in kind” (vol. 11, p. 363).

On the question of the meaning of the word feeding In connection with D. Golokhvastov’s note, D. I. Ilovaisky and V. O. Klyuchevsky presented articles. D. I. Ilovaisky, both in his article about the Kazan affairs under Grozny (Russian archive, 1889, book 1), and in his response to “My objectors” (ibid., 1889, book 5), considered the meaning of the term feeding fully disclosed in Russian historical literature: “...the question about feedings is sufficiently clear in Russian history, and no discoveries... are possible here” (ibid., p. 131). In both codes of law of Ivan III and Ivan IV, “ feeding with the boyar court" and " feeding without a boyar court." ABOUT feedings it is said in connection not so much with management as with legal proceedings, and mainly with duties or with judicial revenues in favor of feeders. Ilovaisky recommended D. Golokhvastov for more detailed information about the meaning of the word - feeding – turn to works on the history of Russian law, such as, for example, the works of Nevolin, Kalachov, Chicherin, Dmitriev, Sergeevich, Gradovsky, Vladimirsky-Budanov, etc.

The article by V. O. Klyuchevsky “On D. Golokhvastov’s note on the historical meaning of the word “feeding”” was of a more philological nature. Klyuchevsky recalls that “ feedings... in ancient Rus' were called judicial-administrative positions, combined with income in favor of officials, which they received directly from the governed... This income bore the general name stern, corresponding to the current clerical term content; hence the name of the lucrative position feeding. This is how this word was understood, if I’m not mistaken, by all learned researchers of Russian history” (“Letter to the Publisher” // Russian Archive, 1889, No. 5, p. 138). Klyuchevsky believes that verbs feed -"nourish" and feed -“manage” are homonyms, although, perhaps, going back to the same root element. But “after all, we are not talking about the etymological origin, but about the historical meaning of the word feeding. Linguists are free to derive this word from whatever roots they wish... To explain the historical meaning of a word, we have at hand a more reliable and familiar tool than a sophisticated root word dictionary: this tool is a historical document” (pp. 139–140). “...we need ancient documentary texts that would quite clearly reveal the ancient meaning of the word feeding"(p. 142). “This administrative term... appears already in the monuments of the 14th century, moreover, in such contexts that clearly expose the meaning that then belonged to it” [in the contract document led. book Dmitry Ivanovich 1362]. “At the end of the 15th century. the boyars Sudimont and Yakov Zakharyin were given in feeding Kostroma with the city divided in half between both: one of feeders complained in Moscow that both of them “have no reason to be well-fed in Kostroma.” In the language of the 14th century. sit at feeding meant “to eat bread”" (p. 143). Klyuchevsky concludes his letter with these words: “It is terrible for a Russian scientist to work when every respectable fellow citizen can print and accuse him of every word he wants, and only accuse him, not refute "(p. 145).

The controversy about feeding ended with D. I. Ilovaisky’s “Historical and Critical Notes,” published in “Russian Antiquity” (1890, November). New historical material was presented here in favor of the established understanding of the term feeding; it was stated that the word feeding to designate “use of fees, feed” was used not only in the Moscow principality, but also in the Novgorod democracy from the 14th century. “The Novgorod Chronicle under 1383 says that Prince Patrik Narimontovich came from Lithuania, and the Novgorodians “gave him feeding, the suburbs of Orekhov and Korelsky, and half of the Koporye town, and the Muskoye village” (p. 428–429). Ilovaisky, ironically calling Golokhvastov’s theory “governor’s,” notes: “Nothing can be more ahistorical than to impose modern concepts and relationships on ancient everyday forms and evaluate long-past phenomena from the point of view of modern culture” (p. 435). According to Ilovaisky, Mr. Golokhvastov brothers on the question of the historical meaning of the word feeding“we were armed not with studying the subject and taking it seriously, but with one pseudo-patriotic look at our past” (p. 435).

In conclusion, Prof. Ilovaisky, admitting the possibility of the origin of different homonyms: feed, feed, feed, helm etc. from one root, refuses any “etymological exercises” in this direction: “To explain how various expressions that came from one well-known root, or different shades of the same word, were formed in the popular language is such a a task that is often beyond the power of notable philologists” (p. 436).

In fact, the genetic connection established between different meanings of the same word in different periods of its history is not given in the material. It is revealed by the researcher himself. Consequently, in its understanding there can always be one or another degree of individual arbitrariness. It is easy to find a genetic connection between the meanings of one word where there is only a simple coexistence or independent origin of two words identical in appearance, but different in essence. The danger of mistaking different derivative word formations, which independently grow from the same morphemes, for genetically related varieties of the same word is the underwater reef that the boat of a linguist sailing on a boundless ocean of words often encounters.

F. de Saussure pointed out that when applying the projection method to the study of linguistic facts, it is necessary to distinguish between two perspectives: a prospective one, following the passage of time, corresponding to the actual development of events, and another, retrospective, directed backwards. But, contrary to Saussure, their lines must intersect and coincide. Prospective reproduction of the language process is based on “many photographs of the language taken at each moment of its existence,” that is, it is based on documents and on their interpretation. According to F. Saussure, it often comes down to a simple narrative and relies entirely on criticism of documents.” In contrast, a retrospective study "requires a method of reconstruction based on comparison." It presupposes a series of homogeneous phenomena - comparable in the respect being studied - in their totality leading to generalization. “The more numerous the supporting points of comparison, the more accurate this induction turns out to be” (see Saussure, Title cit., pp. 96, 192). In the history of words and expressions the connection between these two perspectives is closer than anywhere else in linguistics. True, their sharp divergences in different directions or only apparent coincidences are also possible. Lack of proper documentation very often makes a prospective picture of word changes illusory, highly speculative, or very superficial. Understanding those hidden historical processes that are reflected in the modern forms and functions of the word often casts a bright light on its distant past. The fact is that the history of a word, based only on documents and on the testimony of monuments, can reflect, and then only to some extent, the sequence of literary uses of the word, and not at all the change or development of its meanings.

More ancient and original meanings of a word often find a very late reflection in the literary tradition, and sometimes do not penetrate it at all, being, however, very alive and active in modern oral speech. It is clear that both prospective and retrospective research of words and expressions is always based on a general idea of ​​sequential series of semantic transformations, the historical patterns of semantic development, and the historical science of the development of thinking, material culture and social worldviews.

The pattern of changes in the meanings of a word reconstructed by historical research does not coincide with the living ideas of the speakers or speakers about the functions and use of this word. That is why the subjective evidence of contemporaries about the semantic structure of the word, about its perception in a particular era must be filtered through a sieve of historical facts. They must be verified and comprehended from an objective historical point of view. The contradiction between the subjective historical understanding of a word, inherent in a collective or its individual representatives, and between the objective-historical, projection scheme of the movement of the meanings of this word - this is a new antinomy of historical research.

The public assessment of the novelty of a word, the feeling of a word as a neologism in the literary consciousness of a particular time is by no means an objectively reliable and definitive evidence of the time of the “birth” of a word. In projection research, subjective indications of this kind have only auxiliary value. They play only a guiding role, serving as a means of orientation. These testimonies do not resolve the question of whether the same word previously existed in a different environment, in a different style, or whether it was preserved in the monuments of old writing, at least in other meanings. For example, J. K. Grot believed that the word gifted belongs to the number of “new word formations” of the post-Karamzin period. Meanwhile, at the beginning of the 19th century. (in the 20-30s) only the passive meaning of this word developed: “gifted, revealing talents.” In the meaning of “loving to give, generous” the word gifted from time immemorial it was used in the high style of bookish language and only by the 19th century. this word usage died out greatly due to the collapse of the old system of high style (cf. 1867–1868, 1, p. 641).

N. I. Grech (Readings about the Russian language, 2) and Y. K. Grot (Philological search. Works, 2, p. 14) attributed the formation of such words as emergence And disappearance by 30–40 XIX century And, indeed, these words were not included in the dictionary of 1847. V. I. Dal was inclined to consider the word emergence non-folk, non-Russian: “If... we are forced to read: when literature, then do they really think in addition to assuring us that it is in Russian, or that it was impossible to do without this incomparable turn of phrase, due to the lack of words in our language to explain the original thoughts of the writer.” Meanwhile, the word emergence – almost Old Church Slavonicism. In any case, it is in the dictionaries of the Church Slavonic language by Miklosic (with an example from the Patericon of the 14th century) and Vostokov. A. N. Popov noted the word emergence in “Reading for the Epiphany of the Lord” (according to the Serbian list of the 14th century).

And yet, subjective evidence about words, about their meanings and stylistic qualities, about their internal forms, about the general properties of the lexical system of a literary language in a given era, about the composition and functions of the vocabulary of individual styles have enormous historical value. But, like any historical documents and personal impressions, they are subject to the judgment of historical criticism. The grain of objective linguistic reality hidden in them can be extremely valuable. Very often they help the researcher to penetrate deeper into the immanent system of lexical-semantic categories and relations characteristic of the language of a particular era. Here's an example. Word age until the 18th century meant “height, size.” In a figurative and expanded meaning, it has long been able to indicate a period, a degree in human development: age: infant, adolescence, youth, man, later and senile. For this figurative meaning, the question was far from indifferent whether the connection of the word was realized age with verb increase“to increase in height, to increase.” While this connection was alive, the use of the word age by the period of human decline it turned out to be difficult. This usage could only become stronger when the basic meaning of the word age -“height, size” fell out of literary use and was preserved only in church language (cf. definition of the meaning of the word age in the dictionary of the Russian Academy and in the dictionary of 1847). It is characteristic that G.I. Dobrynin, who came from a spiritual background, in his “Notes” (late 18th - early 19th centuries) always ironizes the Academic use of the word age to the period of old age. “It was clear from everything that he was trying to make his step firm and his posture proud; in fact, out of spite for his cheerfulness, he dragged his feet, although he was not very gray; and when he read the prayer, he made it even more noticeable that the sixty-third year of his life requires a tribute that belongs to himself.” By the way life a note was made: “In academic terms: his age. But my uncle, not respecting academic sense, has long been demoted, and not increased"(Russian antiquity, 1871, No. 4, p. 205). Wed: “There is no doubt that he died, according to my account in the 60th year of his century, or in academic terms – his age"(ibid., pp. 217–218). “I am older than many universities in my country and century and service." By the way century a note was made: “In a scholarly way: age, but I’m already almost 40 years old increased, and more I'm not growing"(ibid., p. 345). Wed. in the language of A. N. Ostrovsky: come, come of age"become an adult." In the comedy “On a Lively Place”: “ Comes young woman at age and so should we.” In the play “Handsome Man”: “I entered into perfect age" Wed. "Your sister is a girl at age"("Family Picture").

The meaning of "growth" was maintained in the word age using an adjective age in the meaning of “adult, grown up” (cf. overgrown). For example, in V. T. Narezhny’s novel “Bursak”: “Askliada married Marsalia and is now the mother of many age children."

F. de Saussure argued that the subjective analysis of linguistic units, produced every minute by speaking subjects, and their objective analysis, based on history, are correlative. Both are based on the same technique - on comparing rows in which the same element occurs. Historical analysis is only a derivative form of direct analysis of the speaking subjects themselves. “It essentially consists in projecting on a single plane the constructions of different eras” (Saussure, Title cit., p. 168), in uniting identities and in establishing a genetic connection between them.

It is well known how skillfully I. A. Baudouin de Courtenay, V. V. Radlov, L. V. Shcherba used the subjective testimony of speakers, their living linguistic experience, and their understanding of the living categories of language. These testimonies of living speakers of a language system, belonging to subtle and deep “natural linguists,” are especially valuable when they relate to the stylistic use of words, to their expression, to their internal forms and to the scope and connection of their meanings. After all, the volume and content of a word - despite the apparent unity of its nominative function - change historically.

The article is a report read by V.V. Vinogradov at the Scientific Session of Leningrad State University in the second half of November 1945. The abstracts of the report were published in the same 1945, and then in the volume of Selected Works of V.V. Vinogradov on Lexicology and Lexicography (M., 1977). The full text was considered lost. The original - manuscript and typescript (74 pages) with author's corrections - was kept in the archives of V.V. Vinogradov. Judging by the corrections in the text and the numerous additions on sheets of different formats, the author intended to continue working on the text as a separate article.

The article was prepared for publication from a typewritten text, verified from the manuscript, with a number of additions made on separate sheets of paper and clearly relating to the relevant parts of the report. – V. P.

See the article by F. Oberpfalzer on the classification of semasiological changes in Μν &Ґ12319; μα . Sbornik vydaný na pamĕt" čtyřicetiletého učitelského působení prof. Josefa Zubatého na universitĕ Karlovĕ. 1885–1925. Praha. 1925 (pp. 339–352). Oberpfalzer proposes to divide the entire set of semantic changes into four main groups: 1) transfer of meanings in the broadest sense of the word (metaphors, euphemisms, metonymies, hyperboles); 2) semantic shifts under the influence of reasons of a constructive linguistic nature (the influence of forms of speech, sentence structure); 3) social factors in the life of words (transition of a word from one social group to another, borrowing of meanings); 4) the conditioning of semantic phenomena by material and spiritual culture. It is already immediately obvious that this classification is artificial.

See: Engelhardt B. Formal method in the history of literature (1927): “The study of language in terms of “abstruseness” is practiced in the field of linguistics. But there this circumstance is not only not emphasized with deliberate harshness, but rather modestly hushed up. In fact: although in almost every work on general linguistics we come across categorical statements that a word must be studied in its relationship to the whole phrase, the phrase in connection with the context, etc., that, in other words, each individual an element of complex word formation should be considered in the aspect of the whole and, above all, in the aspect of a given semantic unity, but in practice this principle is far from being followed, and the elements of a verbal series, as a single structure, are analyzed precisely in their individuality and isolation. It is clear that in this case the moment of their correlation to the semantic unity of the “content” disappears, and the research inevitably transfers to an abstruse plan” (pp. 58–59).

Gris 1. – – – Saint Nicholas of Serbia 140.3K

This article will focus on lexicology. What it studies, what it is, what sections it is divided into and what modes of action it has, we will look at here.

Introduction

Lexicology is a linguistic branch that studies vocabulary. We have learned what lexicology studies, and now we will get acquainted with its general and specific parts. The latter is busy studying the lexical composition of a certain language. This science turned all its attention to:

• the word and the meaning contained in it;
• system of relationships between words;
• historical facts through which vocabulary in the modern sense was formed;
• the existing differences in words according to their functional and stylistic nature in various speech spheres.

Object and subject

The word serves as an object that lexicology studies. Another object of study is word formation and morphology. However, if in these branches of science the word is a means by which the grammatical structure and word-formation model, as well as language rules are studied, then in the science of lexicology the word is studied with the aim of knowing the meaning of the word itself and the linguistic vocabulary. It studies not individual linguistic units of oral speech, but directly the entire language system.

What does lexicology study in the Russian language? First of all, she is concerned with the consideration of the Russian and Slavic languages, which had active development in the course of historical events.

The subject of lexicology is

• The word, as a part of language, considered using the theory of words.
• The structure of the linguistic composition of words.
• Functional capabilities of the lexical unit.
• Possible ways to replenish the language composition.
• Relationship with an extra-linguistic type of activity, for example with culture.

Main sections

Lexicology is a science that studies vocabulary, its basis. The science is quite extensive and has many sections, including:

• onomasiology - a section on the process of naming objects;
• semasiology - a section that studies words and phrases, namely their meaning;
• phraseology - studies the vocabulary relationships between each other, and among themselves;
• onomastics - busy with the study of existing names;
• etymology - a section that pays attention to the historical origin of the word, also considers the abundance of vocabulary as a whole;
• lexicography - focused on the theory and practice of compiling dictionaries;
• stylistics is a section that studies the meaning of sayings and words of a connotative type.

Total information

Lexicology is a science that studies the vocabulary of a language, and the number of words in it is impossible to count. One, only seventeen-volume collection of the “Dictionary of Modern R.Ya.” includes more than 130,000 words, and the Oxford Dictionary contains over 300,000 words.

Lexicology studies the vocabulary of a language, which also includes little-known units of speech such as agnonyms, which refer to words with unknown meanings.

Speech units that are used frequently belong to the active vocabulary of the language. There are frequency dictionaries with which you can determine frequently used words. However, there is the concept of a passive dictionary, which includes elements of language that carry information about something, but are used relatively rarely. Such words belong to limitedly used vocabulary - dialectal, professional or slang words.

Replenishment of vocabulary

We have learned what lexicology studies, and now we will turn our attention to the ways in which the vocabulary is replenished.

The phenomenon of borrowing vocabulary from the languages ​​of other peoples is one of the main such ways. Taken long ago, foreign words are now considered native Russian. However, very often this is not the case; an example of this is the unit of speech - bread, which came into the Russian language from Germanic. Due to borrowing, the original meaning of a word may change.

Another way to enrich lexical components is the formation of a new series of words. Such components of speech are called neologisms.

The further development of the fate of new words can be varied: some lose their novelty and become fixed among other elements of the language, others can be considered new formations created by an individual author (occasionalisms). The expansion of the boundaries of vocabulary also occurs due to the development of a new range of meanings for words that have been known for a long time and well.

Words that have sunk into oblivion

Lexicology studies words, among which obsolete units of language are also considered. Due to the influence of time on the word, by the way, it is falling out of use. This can be observed, for example, when an object or phenomenon that was previously often used disappears. These words are called historicisms. The disappearance of such a word also leads to the loss of the reality that it carries, but sometimes the realities themselves do not disappear, but are renamed and called archaisms.

Vocabulary as a system of mobile type

Vocabulary is like a system capable of advancement. This allows us to determine that words have a wide variety of relationships with each other for various semantic reasons. These words include synonyms - speech units that differ in form, but are close to each other in meaning.

There are words related to each other by the presence of a reason for commonality in the opposite meaning - antonyms. They point to opposite “things.” The opposite meaning of one speech unit is called enantiosemy. An example would be the phrases: “listen” in the understanding of the phrase “listen attentively”, and in the understanding “turn a deaf ear”.

The connection between words can be expressed in form. Almost every language carries words that have an external identity and can have different meanings. An example is the variety of meanings of the word - braid, which can be either an agricultural tool or a braid of hair. This type of words is called homonyms.

Homonyms, in turn, include different types of differences of the same nature. If linguistic units coincide in the “form” of sound only if there are separate reasons, then such words are called homoforms. Words that have the same spelling but differ in sound led to the creation of the term homograph. If the pronunciation is the same, but the spelling is different, then such words are called a homophone.

Paronyms include words that are similar, but have a difference in identity based on the characterized parameters of form and meaning. They also perfectly show us the essence of a formal type of communication.

There is a concept of interlingual homonyms and paronyms. Such words have formal similarities, but can have many meanings in different languages. They are called "false friends of translators."

Lexical units

Lexicology, as a branch of linguistics, studies the vocabulary components of any language, and knows that they have enormous diversity and heterogeneity. There are categories that were identified due to the presence of special distinctive features in them. In the lexicology of the Russian language, the following many subspecies are foreseen:

• by areas of application, they are divided into: commonly used types of words and units of vocabulary that are used under special circumstances in science, poetry, vernacular, dialect, etc.;
• by the magnitude of the emotional load, which includes units of speech colored by emotional or neutral “color”;
• in accordance with historical development, divided into archaisms and neologisms;
• according to the history of origin and development, divided into internationalism, borrowing, etc.;
• in accordance with functionality - active and passive type vocabulary units;

Given the continuous development of languages, what lexicology considers includes insurmountable boundaries of study, constantly expanding and changing.

Lexical problems

In this science there is a concept of certain problems that it studies. Among them are:

1. Structural problems that determine the form of perception of a word, the structural basis of its elements.
2. A semantic problem involved in studying the question of the meaning of a lexical unit.
3. Functional problems of the general system of language, exploring the role of words and speech units in the language itself.

Speaking about the first problem and the aspect of development, we can summarize that this science is busy establishing specific criteria by which the differences and identities of a separate series of words can be determined. To avoid this, a lexical unit is compared with a phrase, and a structure for analysis is developed to establish the invariance of words.

The semantic problem expresses itself as a question of semasiology - a science that studies the connections between words and specific objects. In lexicology, this is one of the extremely important objects of study. His study is focused on the meaning of the word, its individual categories and types, which allow the creation of terms: monosymy (univocality) and polysymy (ambiguity). Lexicology tries to explore the cause-and-effect relationships that lead to the loss or emergence of new meanings for words.

The functional problem tries to study a lexical unit, in the form of an object, which is associated with another similar element and creates a complete linguistic system. In this understanding, the role of interaction between grammar and vocabulary is considered extremely important. They can both support and limit each other.

conclusions

We have determined that lexicology studies the vocabulary of a language, its structure, disappearing units of speech, such as historicisms, and has built an idea of ​​the meaning of words. We examined their types and variations and determined the problems of this science. Thanks to this, we can summarize that its importance cannot be overestimated, since it is extremely important for the general system of the language and tracking trends in its development.

Lexicology(Greek lexis - “word”, “figure of speech” and logos - “teaching”) - a section of linguistics that studies the vocabulary and vocabulary of a language. Lexicology examines: 1) the word and its meaning; 2) a system of relationships between words; 3) history of the formation of modern vocabulary; 4) the functioning of words in various areas of speech; 5) the word as a special linguistic unit, its difference from other linguistic units; 6) structure of vocabulary.

There are several sections in lexicology:

1. General lexicology deals with identifying general patterns in the lexical systems of different languages. The general theory of the word develops criteria for defining a word and its boundaries in relation to all languages. General semasiology reveals general semantic laws of the evolution of word meanings and develops semantic universals.

2. Private lexicology explores the vocabulary of one language, identifies patterns in it that are inherent in all languages, and describes specific features.

3. Historical, diachronic lexicology explores vocabulary in the process of its formation and historical development. It studies the history of words in connection with the history of the objects and concepts they denote. It describes the dynamics of vocabulary or the historical cross-section of a language. The subject of research can be the history of a single word and the history of a conceptual group of words, the history of the development of the form and meaning of words.

4. Descriptive, synchronic lexicology studies the vocabulary of a certain historical period, most often a modern language.

5. Comparative lexicology explores vocabulary in order to identify the genetic relationship of languages, determines similarities and differences in the form and meaning of words in different languages. Comparison can concern any aspect of vocabulary. Individual words, groups of words, for example, verbs of motion, terms of kinship, synonymy, polysemy, antonymy can be compared. Data from comparative lexicology are used in lexicography, translation, and ethnography.

6. Theoretical lexicology provides scientific linguistic coverage of concepts, units and categories of vocabulary, develops its classifications. Particular attention is paid to the problem of systematic vocabulary and the development of a methodology for lexicological research.

7. Practical lexicology contains a description of the vocabulary necessary for practical language acquisition when teaching foreigners.

The following research methods are used in lexicology:

a) method distributional analysis(Latin Distribuere - “distribute”) is used when determining the boundaries of a word in a text, delimiting the meanings of a polysemantic word;

b) substitution method used in studying the meaning of words and synonymy. This is the replacement of one element with another, for example, evening - twilight;

V) component analysis method used to determine the structure of lexical meaning;

G) transformation method when identifying the semantic load of a word in context by collapsing or expanding syntactic structures;

e) the quantitative-statistical method is used to determine the frequency of a lexical unit and its syntagmatic connections.

Lexicology data is used in many related disciplines. In psycholinguistics - in the study of word associations. In neurolinguistics - when identifying types of brain dysfunction. In sociolinguistics - when studying the linguistic behavior of a group. Lexicology emerged as a separate branch of linguistics in the 20th century. However, many problems of lexicology were considered within the framework of other scientific disciplines. In ancient philosophy, language was studied as a way of expressing thinking. Aristotle in his treatises “Rhetoric” and “Poetics” described the artistic functions of the word. The Stoics, representatives of the Stoa, the philosophical school of the Greek scholar Zeno, were the founders of the sign theory of language. They studied the etymology of words. In the Middle Ages (17-18 centuries) in Europe, the lexicological categories of synonymy and collocation were highlighted in the prefaces to explanatory dictionaries.

There are 4 stages in the development of lexicology:

I. 18-19 centuries The term “lexicology” was first introduced. It appeared in the French encyclopedia of Daniel Diderot and Jean D'Alembert in 1765. Lexicology is defined as one of two (along with syntax) sections of the science of language. They saw the task of lexicology in the study of the general principles of the organization of vocabulary. They emphasized the study of external form, meanings and etymology of words.

In treatises on stylistics of the 18th century. ways of forming figurative meanings of words were outlined. More than 200 types of trails have been identified.

In the 19th century Comparative historical linguistics is developing. In his first works on comparative historical linguistics, the Danish scientist Rasmus Rask laid the foundations of comparative lexicology. In the 19th century The main area of ​​lexicological research in Europe was semantics. W. von Humboldt studied the internal form of the word. French linguist Arsene Darmsteter and German Hermann Paul discovered general patterns in the formation and evolution of word meanings. In 1897, a generalizing work by the French scientist Michel Bréal was published, where semasiology appeared as a special branch of linguistics.

In Russia, the foundations of lexicology were laid in the works of M.V. Lomonosov, who developed the doctrine of stylistic differentiation of vocabulary in the “Theory of Three Styles.”

At the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries. Historical lexicology and etymology are actively developing in the works of Alexander Khristoforovich Vostokov, Izmail Ivanovich Sreznevsky, Yakov Karlovich Grot. Dialects were actively studied in the works of Al. Ivanovich Sobolevsky and I. A. Baudouin de Courtenay). The works of Alexander Afanasyevich Potebnya and Mikhail Mikhailovich Pokrovsky made a great contribution to the development of world lexicology. Potebnya developed a general theory of words,

deepened the doctrine of the internal form of the word, created the doctrine of the immediate, linguistic and further, extra-linguistic meanings of the word. Pokrovsky's works lay the foundations of general semasiology and identify general patterns of development of word meanings.

II. First floor 20th century The Swiss scientist F. de Saussure and I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay set the linguistics of the 20th century. The goal is to study not dead languages, but modern language. Study not individual linguistic facts, but language as a sign system that has a certain structure. The ideas of systematicity and structure caused the rapid development of semasiology. They were reflected in the creation of the theory of lexical fields in German. Joost Trier and Walter Porzig.

General lexicology was actively developing. The problem of the word as a unit of language was developed. Linguists have tried to give lexical categories a philosophical basis. The essence of lexical meaning was philosophically comprehended. V.V. Vinogradov proposed a classification of lexical meanings.

In parallel with semasiology, the sociolinguistic study of vocabulary developed. Representatives of the French sociological school: Antoine Meillet, Emile Benveniste, M. Cohen, Paul Lafargue, studied the correlation of vocabulary with the extra-linguistic world, the history of words in the history of society. Linguists have identified functional differentiation of vocabulary.

In Russia, in the post-revolutionary years, the foundations of sociolinguistics were laid in the works of Evgeniy Dmitrievich Polivanov, Nikolai Yakovlevich Mappa, Fedot Petrovich Filin, Ruben Aleksandrovich Budagov. Investigating the problem of “Language and Society”, they identified the stratification of vocabulary (Latin Stratum - “layer”) by sphere of use, by frequency of use, by origin, and by stylistic affiliation.

III. Second floor. 20th century During this period, the growth of research in the field of general and theoretical lexicology increased. Alexander Ivanovich Smirnitsky, Olga Sergeevna Akhmanova, Dmitry Nikolaevich Shmelev, Vladimir Andreevich Zvegintsev are developing a general theory of the word as a sign, universal for all languages, the problem of meaning, the question of the relationship between words and concepts.

There are three aspects in semantics: epidigmatics, paradigmatics and syntagmatics. A.I. Smirnitsky created the doctrine of lexical-semantic variants of polysemantic words. Monographs were published on categories of lexicology: synonymy, antonymy, polysemy. D.N.Shmelev, A.A. Ufimtseva, Yuri Nikolaevich Karaulov in the 70-80s. special attention was paid to the problems of systematic vocabulary, including lexical paradigmatics. Yu.N. Karaulov, Vladimir Grigorievich Gak, O.S. Akhmanova, using the methods of American structuralism, developed a method of component analysis of the structure of lexical meaning.

Sociolinguistic study of vocabulary in the 2nd half of the 20th century. slowed down somewhat. Hybrid scientific disciplines are emerging that are on the verge of several sciences: sociolinguistics and psycholinguistics.

Significant achievements in the field of etymology are noted by Oleg Nikolaevich Trubachev, who studied the history of Slavic words and published a dictionary of the Proto-Slavic language. He translated an etymological dictionary of German into Russian. linguist Max Vasmer. In dialectology, a dialectological atlas of the Russian language, atlases of Slavic and European languages ​​have been compiled.

IV. 21st century The beginning of the century is characterized by a change in scientific directions. Linguists turn to the analysis of the functioning of words in speech. Computational linguistics, cognitive linguistics, functional linguistics, and linguoculturology emerge. In these disciplines, new concepts and categories are developed: concept, linguistic picture of the world, conceptual picture of the world.

Etymology- a branch of lexicology that studies the origin and history of individual words and morphemes.
Etymology– the actual origin of words and morphemes.
Etymology is based on the natural sound and morphological changes of words in the process of language evolution, and takes into account the regular transitions of one type of lexical meaning of a word to another. When figuring out the origin of words and their history in a particular language, etymology also takes into account data from other sciences - history, archeology, ethnography. The complex of actual linguistic information about the word, historical and cultural information about the thing it calls allows us to build more or less plausible hypotheses about the origin of the word. At the same time, etymological scientists strive to exclude random connections and associations of a given word with others.

There is such a concept in etymology as "false" or "folk" etymology. It arises mainly in oral speech, when the speaker, getting acquainted with a new word, voluntarily or involuntarily compares it with the vocabulary known to him. In such cases, the sound exchange of the word changes. Folk etymology arises on the basis of “remaking” a native or borrowed word according to the model of a word of the native language that is similar in sound, establishing semantic connections between them on the basis of a random sound, external coincidence, without taking into account the real facts of their origin.

Most often, false etymology occurs in cases where a person wants to check the spelling of a difficult word whose origin is unknown to him. The word “cutlet”, which came into English from French (côtelette), was mistakenly associated with the verb “cut” (to cut), a hint of this remained in the spelling of the word.

The etymological analysis of the word is directed to the past of the language. With the help of such an analysis, the origin of the word, its structure, meaning, previous word-formation connections are established, and phonetic changes are established.

Etymological analysis establishes the analysis of a word, its original structure, meaning, and previous word-formation connections.

The dictionary entry is structured as follows: after the headword there are words related to it, then correspondences to it in other Slavic languages; then its ancient basis and versions of the semantic and structural connections of its learned etymologists are indicated.

The English word: stalls translates as “stables” and “parterre”, a strange juxtaposition of meanings. Here we have to look at the time when the English theater arose. The fact is that at first there were simply no seats in the theater. Yes, there were good seats for wealthy audiences in the center of the stage, but they were standing room only. But horses spend their entire lives standing, and at home (in the stable) too. So, the word “stalls”, thanks to this “similarity”, acquired a new additional meaning, preserving the old one (a structure such as a stable still exists)

In studying the etymology of words in modern English, it is easier to draw an analogy with the vocabulary of other languages, mostly those that, as we know from history, had a great influence on the development of the English language. For example, Scandinavian loanwords have changed little over the centuries: “call”, “take”, “cast”, “die”, “law”, “husband”, “window”, “ill”, “loose”, “low”, and "weak". Some of them are easily distinguishable even now by the presence of the sound combination “sk”: “sky”, “skill”, “ski”, “skirt”. Many examples of French origin have reached us practically unchanged: “table”, “plate”, “saucer”, “diner”, “supper”, “river”, “autumn”, “uncle”.

Question 27. Words of Indo-European origin and words of common Germanic origin as the historical basis of the vocabulary of the English language. The main features of native English words.

The study of the vocabulary of modern English is of great interest from the point of view of etymology, since it includes a huge number of words from many languages ​​belonging to different groups (Latin, Greek, French, German, etc.). Approximately 70% of the vocabulary of the English language is made up of borrowed words and only 30% is made up of native words. It should be noted, however, that not all native vocabulary is among the most frequently used words, just as the most frequently used words do not always belong to native English. The Roman conquest, the introduction of Christianity, the Danish and Norman conquests, and the British colonial system played a large role in the development of the vocabulary of the English language.

In English, as one of the languages ​​of the West Germanic group, the following layers of vocabulary are distinguished:

1. Common Indo-European layer of words, which forms the basis of the lexical composition of the Germanic languages. These include the following:

a) all pronouns and numerals;

b) names of family members (for example, English mother, other Indian mātar, Greek mātēr, Latin māter);

c) names of parts of the body and biological properties of a person (for example, English nose, other Indian nāsā, Latin nasus, German Nase);

d) names of living beings (for example, English ewe, other Indian avih, Greek o(v)is, Latin ovis);

e) names of natural phenomena, plants, substances (for example, English night, Russian night, other Indian nakti, Greek nyx, German Nacht);

f) the most common adjectives (for example, Russian new, Old Indian navas, Greek ne(v)os, Latin novus, German neu);

g) verbs denoting the most common actions and states (for example, Russian see, know, other Indian vid “to know”, Greek (v)idein, Latin vidēre).

2. Common Germanic words
a) names of persons friend
b) parts of the face finger
c) poultry and animals horse, verd
d) surrounding phenomena and the world land, sea
e) names of human labor industries house
e) seasons
g) frequently used verbs, adjectives and adverbs

3) The third group of native English vocabulary is distinguished by the greatest originality. It includes words that are purely English combinations of morphemes of different origins. Each of the morphemes in such words has parallels in a number of related languages, but their combination does not occur outside the English language. The noun garlic (d. gar - leac) has a correspondence to the first morpheme in Old Icelandic (geirr - spear), German (Ger - dart) and the second morpheme in Icelandic (laukr - leek), Danish (log), Dutch (look) , German (Lauch). The combination of these morphemes does not occur in any of these languages.
! from a morphological point of view, native words are monosyllabic, maximum two-syllable; with phonetics and graphics – the presence of graphons w, wh, tw, sw, y – write, dwell at the beginning of a word, elements dg, tch, ng, sh, th, ee, ll, ew; from a stylistic point of view, all originals are neutral; Most native English words are polysemantic and have the ability to form new words in a variety of ways.

Lexicology- a branch of the science of language that studies vocabulary (the vocabulary of a language).
Lexicology differs significantly from phonetics and phonology. If phonetics and phonology study one-sided units that have only a plane of expression, then lexicology studies two-sided units that have a plane of expression and a plane of content.
There are general, specific, historical, comparable and applied lexicology.
General lexicology establishes general patterns of structure, functioning and development of vocabulary.
Concrete lexicology studies the vocabulary of one language.
Historical lexicology deals with the history of vocabulary, the reasons and patterns of its change.
Comparable lexicology examines the vocabulary of two or more languages ​​in order to identify structural and semantic similarities and differences between them or to derive general semantic patterns.
Applied lexicology studies the issue of concluding dictionaries, translation, linguodidactics and speech culture.

Such linguists; as M. T. Dolenko, I. Dotsyuk, A. G. Ivashchuk insisted that lexicology is a branch of linguistics that studies the vocabulary of a language. In the course of the modern Ukrainian language, the vocabulary system is considered only at the present stage of its development, i.e. in terms of synchronous characteristics:
a) the lexical richness of the Ukrainian language;
b) word and concept and their relationships;
c) the main types of lexical meanings of words;
d) development and way of enriching vocabulary;
e) the most important stylistic layers in the vocabulary of the language.

Zhovtobryukh M.A., Kulik B.M. say that our language consists of words. The word is one of the basic units of language. All other linguistic units are somehow related to the word.

The word is not just a form of materialized expression of the main thought, but a means of transforming impressions onto a new object of knowledge. “The floor goes to A. A. Potebney, - assignment to mediate between new perception and the previous means of thought”

Speech sounds are always realized only at the base; elements of language such as a root, stem, suffix, prefix, ending can only exist if there is a word; Words make up phrases and sentences with the help of which a person formalizes his thoughts and conveys them to other people. All words used in a language constitute its vocabulary, or its vocabulary. The branch of linguistics that studies the vocabulary of a language is called lexicology.

Kochergan, considering the issues of lexicology as a multifaceted science that studies the nature and essence of a word, its occurrence and change, determining the meaning of words and their use, the structure of the vocabulary, focuses his attention on a wide range of lexicological problems, which necessitate the need to distinguish between lexicology in the narrow and broad meanings .
Lexicology in the broad sense of the word includes the following sciences:
lexicology itself is the science of vocabulary;
Semasiology is the science of the meaning of words. It is also called lexical semantics. The word semantics is very often used in the sense of “meaning”. Some linguists call semasiology and semantics only the study of the meanings of words, but not other units of language. However, recently semantics is understood as:
1) all content, information conveyed by language or some of its units (morpheme, word);
2) a section of linguistics that studies this content and information.
3) onomasiology - a science that studies naming processes. It is also called nomination theory. Onomasiology is contrasted with semasiology in direction, direction of research. If semasiology goes from designation (words) to meaning, then onomasiology conducts research from a thing or phenomenon to the thought of them and to their designation by linguistic means;
3) etymology - a science that studies the origin of words;
4) phraseology - the science of stable phrases.
6) onomastics - the science of proper names, which consists of anthroponymics - the science of names of people and toponymy - the science of geographical names.
7) lexicography - the science of concluding dictionaries. Lexicology as a separate branch of linguistics stood out from other sections, for example, grammar. Back in the first half of the twentieth century. Some linguists, like, say, the American linguist Leonard Bloomfield and his school, believed that linguistics should not deal with semantics at all, which really represents the core of lexicology.

A. D. Ponomareva interprets that linguistics is a complex science, since it studies language from different points of view, at different levels; one of the branches of linguistics is lexicology, i.e. studying the vocabulary of the language. In lexicology, a word is studied not only in itself, but also in full connection with other words. Lexicology studies the vocabulary of a language from the point of view of origin, from a historical point of view, in terms of use.

Deauville's research shows that vocabulary is not a mechanical accumulation of words, but a system. The following facts indicate its systematic nature:
- The diversity of some units from other units of the same language, that is, the possibility of interpreting any word of the language by other words of the same language;
- The ability to describe the semantics of words using a limited number of elements - the semantically most important words, the so-called elementary words;
- Systematicity and orderliness of the objective world, reflected in vocabulary.

An important lexical unit that makes up the totality of all words is vocabulary.
At the beginning of the 19th century. In Russian linguistics, the first studies of vocabulary appeared, which were considered in the system. Thus, A. A. Potebnya thoroughly elaborated the general theory of the word, both in terms of form and in terms of content, and called on scientists to study the semantic relationships between words, the laws and rules of internal changes in groups of semantically related words.

Modern linguists continue to study this issue. So A. A. Buryachok states: “The systemic nature of vocabulary is manifested primarily in the systemic connections of the lexical meanings of words, which form various semantic subsystems”

In the textbooks of the modern Ukrainian language, the following definition is given: vocabulary is a set of words used in speech, with which certain meanings are associated, fixed in public use. Vocabulary is one of the main components of language, the least conservative element of the language system. In terms of comparison, it can be noted that the most conservative branch of the language is phonetics. The unit of vocabulary is the word. Outwardly, it is perceived as sound, or a set of sounds. However, not every sound, not every combination of sounds can be called a word. A word is a sound, or a complex of sounds, has a specific meaning and is used in speech as an independent whole.

A. T. Volokh and N. T. Chemirisov view vocabulary somewhat differently. They define vocabulary as a set of words used in any language. In parallel with the term “vocabulary,” the term “Vocabulary” is also used with equivalent meaning.

The modern Ukrainian language, like any other, has been formed over many eras, gradually developing and improving in all its components. The vocabulary of the modern Ukrainian language is heterogeneous in its origin. A significant part of it was inherited through the Old Russian language from the common Slavic base language.