Archaic vocabulary in literature. Ryzhkova-Grishina L.V.

The outdated vocabulary of the Russian language attracts the attention of many scientists. It is considered in connection with the solution of general issues of the development of the language in the works of V.V. Vinogradova, J1.B. Shcherby, A.A. Khaburgaeva, Yu.S. Sorokina, V.V. Veselitsky, N.M. Shansky, S.I. Ozhegov, as well as in the works of G.O. Vinokura, D.N. Shmeleva, F.P. Filina, E.P. Voitseva, A.N. Kozhin and others, who describe the functioning of obsolete and obsolete vocabulary in fiction and journalism. The reasons for the archaization of the vocabulary of the Russian language are studied in the works of E.P. Khodakov, L.N. Granovskaya, JI.J1. Kutina, E.E. Birzhakova, I.M. Maltseva, E.H. Prokopovich and others.

Archaic vocabulary is the most valuable material not only in terms of linguistic heritage, but also in terms of language learning. A comprehensive study of the processes of archaization of the modern Russian language and generalization of the results of such studies helps, first of all, to further comprehend the general laws of language development, explains some of the formation processes of the Russian national language, reveals the dynamics of the evolution of its vocabulary (semantic and stylistic shifts in the lexical system at certain stages of its development, nomination processes, the development of new meanings in some words and the reasons for the archaization of certain meanings in others, or the obsolescence of the word as a whole, a reflection of "diachrony in synchrony").

The functional aspect of the study of archaism has been developed in sufficient detail; quite a large number of works have been devoted to it. Traditionally, archaism is considered as a stylistic category, with a strictly defined scope, i.e. as a means of historical stylization in fiction or as one of the varieties of high vocabulary.

The question of the systemic nature of archaisms in modern linguistics is still controversial, since some researchers emphasize the non-systemic nature of the category, while others talk about the systemic connections of the category of archaisms with the modern language system.

Since the 50s. 20th century there is an increase in interest in archaic vocabulary, in particular, there are works devoted to its classification.

The founder of the most common approach to the typology of archaisms today is N.M. Shansky, who in 1954 in the article "Obsolete Words in the Vocabulary of the Modern Russian Language" for the first time proposed his own classification of obsolete words (in addition to dividing them into historicisms and archaisms), based on the fact that a word as a linguistic sign can also be archaized in terms of expression ( form), and in terms of content (meaning) [Shansky 1954, 27-33]. Later, this principle formed the basis of the classifications of A.C. Belousova, I.B. Golub, N.G. Goltsova, F.K. Guzhva, A.B. Kalinina, L.P. Krysin and T.G. Terekhova and others, reflected in textbooks on lexicology.

In addition to the above, there are other approaches to the typology of obsolete words. Archaic vocabulary can also be classified not only by the type of archaization within the word itself, but also a) by the nature of the causes of obsolescence (external or internal); in accordance with this, archaisms and historicisms are traditionally distinguished (some researchers propose to consider groups of a limited sphere of use as independent categories - biblicalisms, mythologisms, church-cult vocabulary); b) according to the degree of obsolescence of the word (one of the achievements in this area of ​​research is the inclusion of the label "obsolete" in modern explanatory dictionaries of the Russian language).

However, despite the existing variety of classifications of archaic vocabulary, the complexity and diversity of the object of research allows us to continue working in this direction.

The study of the processes of archaization of vocabulary is important for its more rigorous lexicographic reflection. Clarification of the qualification criteria of an obsolete word will help develop common approaches to the designation of archaic vocabulary in explanatory dictionaries and solve the problem of its universal marker, which, unfortunately, is not given enough attention in theoretical lexicography.

The formation of a common understanding of the concept of an obsolete word will contribute to a more rigorous selection of lexical material when creating specialized dictionaries archaic vocabulary, which until recently were absent in the system of explanatory dictionaries of the Russian language. The gap in this area began to be eliminated from the second half of the 1990s. XX century: since 1996, seven dictionaries of obsolete words have been published, incl. two school-type dictionaries. And although publications today are subjected to justified criticism, in general, this phenomenon, in our opinion, should be considered positive, because now when reading Russian fiction, albeit partially, the difficulties of making inquiries about not well-known words are still resolved.

The relevance of the study is determined primarily by the functional, semantic and stylistic specifics of the archaic vocabulary, its place in the system of the Russian literary language and in the language of modern fiction, especially poetry. The active use of archaic vocabulary in the functional styles of the Russian literary language requires a comprehensive theoretical development of a range of issues that have not received a sufficiently clear solution in linguistics.

So, there is still no exact terminological definition of the concept of archaic vocabulary; unified criteria for selection and designation of obsolete words are not defined.

Currently, there are no studies that systematize the principles of including obsolete words in explanatory dictionaries; the criteria for selecting archaic vocabulary for specialized dictionaries have not been finally formed.

While there is no unified approach to marks for obsolete words, the history of formation and the process of development and change in the semantic volume of markers have not been considered, there is no consensus on the issue of their status.

The problem of typology remains open, which is associated with the undeveloped composition of the qualification features of specific categories of archaisms, as a result of which linguists are still forced to use vaguely established criteria for an obsolete word, and underestimating such phenomena when considering archaic vocabulary leads either only to a description of the core various types archaisms, or to an approximate and, moreover, often incorrect qualification of one or another obsolete word.

A comprehensive analysis of proper lexical archaisms is of interest not only for linguistic research itself, but also for teaching the Russian language at school and university.

The object of the dissertation research is the archaic vocabulary of the modern Russian language.

The subject of the study was the system of explanatory dictionaries of the Russian language of the 18th-20th centuries, which included obsolete vocabulary in their dictionaries.

The main purpose of the work is the analysis of the archaic vocabulary of the modern Russian language in explanatory dictionaries of the 18th-20th centuries. - led to the solution of the following specific tasks:

Clarify the qualification features of archaic vocabulary;

Explore the history of the study of archaic vocabulary and its reflection in explanatory dictionaries of the Russian language;

To trace the history of the formation of the semantic volume of the label for obsolete words and to establish its status;

To identify the main criteria for belonging of obsolete words to the category of proper lexical archaisms;

Determine the types of intralinguistic reasons that contribute to the emergence of proper lexical archaisms in the Russian language;

Based on the refined categorical features of the category, develop its typology;

Develop a classification of archaic vocabulary of the lexico-semantic level of the language;

To trace the history of the formation of proper lexical archaisms in the explanatory dictionaries of the Russian language.

The scientific novelty of the study is determined by the fact that this work is the first study in which an attempt is made to comprehensively analyze the category of proper lexical archaisms within the chronological framework of the modern Russian language.

In this study, the qualification features of archaic vocabulary are specified.

Based on the refined features of the category of proper lexical archaisms and their comparison with the criteria of other types of obsolete words, a classification of archaisms is proposed, the peculiarity of which is due to the fact that it is based not only on the level approach and the specifics of the archaization of the expression plan, but also on the nature of the basis of the lexeme.

The paper establishes the characteristic reasons for the appearance of proper lexical archaisms, due to the semantic and structural relations of the word with its modern synonymic equivalent; statistical data on the part-of-speech composition and the origin of the category under study are given, and the history of the formation of the semantic volume of the obsolete words marker is considered.

The study develops for the first time a typology of proper lexical archaisms.

The theoretical significance of the study lies primarily in the fact that the study of the category of proper lexical archaisms of the modern Russian language makes a certain contribution not only to linguistic research proper, but also solves some problems of lexicography.

Revealing the lexicological specifics of proper lexical archaisms, developing a typology of this category, identifying the causes and conditions for the appearance of proper lexical archaisms in the Russian language is of some importance for solving theoretical problems of lexicology (for example, forecasting further development language system), and also helps to better understand the mechanism of archaization processes in the system of the modern Russian language.

The practical significance of the work is determined by the fact that identifying the causes and conditions for the formation of proper lexical archaisms is also important for lexicographic practice, as this will contribute to a more compelling justification for including them in explanatory dictionaries, as well as clarifying the main composition of obsolete words that need to be presented in modern dictionaries. Russian language; the words selected for the dissertation research can be included in the card index of the future dictionary of obsolete words.

The use of research materials, its main provisions and conclusions is possible in the practice of teaching the Russian language, in special courses and special seminars on the Russian language (in the "Lexicology" section), as well as in textbooks on the lexicology of the Russian language.

Research materials can be involved in the work of university and school electives, scientific circles devoted to the study of the word. Compiled on the material of explanatory dictionaries of the XX century. as an appendix "Dictionary of proper lexical archaisms of the Russian language", which reflects all varieties of labels that characterize this lexical and stylistic category, can be used as a guide to historical lexicology and historical stylistics of the Russian language

Research methods are based on the understanding of language as a materialistic phenomenon. The work uses a descriptive method, a component analysis method based on dictionary definitions, a historical method, comparative and statistical methods, etc.

Defense provisions.

1. The archaization of vocabulary is facilitated by a) the stylistic diversity of competing lexemes when used in literary language, as a result of which those lexical units that could not overcome the stylistic barrier pass into the passive stock of the language; b) the competition of lexemes acting as members of a synonymic series, as a result of which those words that were incapable of semantic development fall out of the active composition of the language; c) frequency of use of the word.

2. Actually lexical archaisms are unambiguous obsolete words, represented in some cases by word-building, phonetic or morphological parallels and forced into the passive stock by their active equivalents - synonymous words, synonymous phrases or brief interpretations.

3. One of the reasons contributing to the emergence of proper lexical archaisms is the violation from the standpoint of the modern language of the word-formation motivation of the lexeme, caused by a) the motivation of the derived word by secondary or connotative LSVs of the active producer; b) a high degree the obsolescence of the generating base, which for a modern native speaker no longer fills the derivative education with lexical content.

4. In the category of proper lexical archaisms, SSGs are distinguished, concentrating words on the basis of origin, on the designation of the negative qualities of a person, on the name of a person by craft, profession, occupation.

Approbation of work. The main provisions of the dissertation were presented in the form of reports and communications at scientific conferences of the faculty of the Bryansk State Pedagogical University in 1990, 1992, 1998, at a scientific conference on the problems of regional lexicology and lexicography (Orel, 1994), at the All-Russian scientific conference on problems and trends in the development of spiritual culture (Syktyvkar, 1994), at the All-Russian scientific and practical conference on topical issues student education primary school(Saransk, 1998), at a regional conference on moral and patriotic education young students (Bryansk, 1998), at the interuniversity scientific conference on problems of Russian lexicology and lexicography (Vologda, 1998). The content of the study is reflected in 8 publications.

Work structure. The dissertation consists of an introduction, three chapters, a conclusion, a list of references and an appendix.

The history of the archaization of vocabulary and the trend in the formation of the category of proper lexical archaisms can be quite fully represented, based on the data of explanatory dictionaries of the Russian language of the 18th-20th centuries.

Based on the specifics of the designation of archaic vocabulary in the explanatory dictionaries of the Russian language, we have developed our own system of marking the dynamics of the functioning of proper lexical archaisms in the modern Russian language and with its help reflected this dynamics in the appendix "Properly lexical archaisms of the Russian language according to the explanatory dictionaries of the 18th-20th centuries. ".

By origin, proper lexical archaisms are presented as borrowings from non-Slavic languages, tracing papers and vocabulary of Slavic origin (native Russian, Old Slavonic).

Among thematic associations, both in obsolete borrowings and Slavic archaisms, the most regular are groups of negatively colored vocabulary related to the qualities or actions of a person, as well as the names of persons by profession, craft, occupation.

The archaization of the category of proper lexical archaisms was primarily influenced by general reasons - semantic and stylistic shifts in the lexical system during the formation of the national Russian language, which were identified and described by V.V. Vinogradov, V.V. Veselitsky, Yu.S. Sorokin, E.E. Birzhakova and others.

The history of lexemes included in the SG "restored from explanatory dictionaries" negative qualities or properties of a person", confirms that if a neologism appears in the literary language - a synonym for an already well-known, established nomination of an object, attribute, phenomenon, then as a result of competition, these lexemes must either diverge semantically, i.e. desemantize, or change stylistic coloring. The inability to stylistic changes and semantic development leads to the fact that in a competing group of words, some of the lexemes with such criteria eventually become archaic.

In addition to general reasons, the replenishment of the category of proper lexical archaisms is influenced by the following factors:

1. The vast majority of proper lexical archaisms of Slavic origin has a derivative character. This allows us to state that the generative basis also influences the archaization of a word: approximately 50% of such words are formed from obsolete generative stems.

2. Homonymy plays an important role in the obsolescence of words (this is confirmed by quantitative data: 7.5% of proper lexical archaisms are part of homonymous pairs or groups).

3. In those cases when the actual lexical archaism, derived from the modern basis, is found in modern language active equivalent-lexeme, the reason for the archaization of a word is a violation of its word-formation motivation, expressed in the fact that its morphemic composition does not reflect the nuclear meaning of the semantic structure of the word. The violation of word-formation motivation in an obsolete word occurs because these archaisms are either "fragments" of old lexemes (since at the time of archaization, many of them finally lose their primary meanings that can semantically support secondary LSVs), or are motivated by secondary or obsolete LSVs of active producers. words.

CONCLUSION

Outdated vocabulary is the most valuable material not only in terms of linguistic heritage, but also in terms of language learning. A versatile study of the processes of archaization of the modern Russian language and generalization of the results of such studies helps, first of all, to further comprehend the general laws of the development of the language, explains some processes of the formation of the Russian national language, and reveals the dynamics of the evolution of its vocabulary.

The criteria for obsolete vocabulary are determined by the presence of specific causes of obsolescence, the fact that the word belongs to the passive stock, the degree of its obsolescence and the nature of its use (stylistic aspect).

An analysis of the wordings available in the scientific and scientific-educational literature allows us to conclude that obsolete vocabulary is a category of words belonging to the passive stock of stylistically neutral vocabulary or the corresponding functional style.

The outdated vocabulary of the Russian language consists of words with a partially or completely lost nominative function in the process of their historical development under the influence of intralinguistic reasons. The degree of loss of nominativeness can be directly proportional to the degree of obsolescence of the word. A low degree of loss of nominativity in most cases allows the obsolete word to function in other styles or perform special stylistic tasks in the modern literary language, because in this case the lost nominativity of the lexeme is compensated by the expressive-synonymous function.

Outdated vocabulary is an integral part of the Russian language, and, consequently, its explanatory dictionaries from the Dictionary of the Russian Academy of the late 18th century. to the explanatory dictionaries of our century.

The principles for including obsolete words are determined by the conceptual tasks of dictionary compilers: 1) all obsolete vocabulary (SCRL) is introduced into the dictionary, 2) the number of obsolete words may be limited by the "period embraced by the dictionary" (Grot-Shakhmatov Dictionary), 3) obsolete words are introduced into the dictionary " from Pushkin to the present day", the knowledge of which is necessary for the correct reading of fiction and journalism of the late 18th - early 20th centuries. (explanatory dictionaries published in the 20th century).

The first experiments in compiling dictionaries of obsolete words (1996-1997) show that the principles for selecting obsolete vocabulary in them are somewhat different from the principles of explanatory dictionaries. So, for example, in dictionaries of obsolete words, both historical-thematic and functional approaches can be used simultaneously with the general cultural one.

Unfortunately, the term obsolete vocabulary itself is understood differently by the authors of dictionaries of obsolete words, because there is no consensus on the set of its qualification features. As a result, the absence of clear criteria for an obsolete word in these dictionaries makes it possible to combine archaic vocabulary with functionally limited lexical units either on the basis of their low frequency, or classify active vocabulary that is not included in the vocabulary of a school student as obsolete words.

On the example of explanatory dictionaries of the late XVIII - early XX centuries. the history of the lexicographic designation of obsolete words is traced (from "old" /old /, "old" /old /, "weathered." /dilapidated word/ to "obsolete" /obsolete/), as well as the history of the formation of the semantic content of markers that fix archaic vocabulary.

A different understanding of the nature of the signal of obsolete words resulted in two positions in the 20th century on the issue of the content of the mark. Some authors of explanatory dictionaries (BASM, BAS-2, MAS-1, MAS-2) classify it as stylistic marks, some compilers (SU) - as exclusively diachronic. In contrast to theoretical disagreements, practical use Notes illustrates the non-normativeness of an obsolete word for the modern language, and its special stylistic tasks are characterized by the second component of the double mark or special indications in the content of the dictionary entry.

Based on a comparison of data from explanatory dictionaries of the 18th - 20th centuries. marks of archaic vocabulary can characterize an obsolete lexeme according to the following features: 1) the degree of obsolescence ([obed., old, obsolete, obsolete; historical, new. historical): 2) the stylistic characteristic of the word (church., whole, church-books., outdated. poet.) ; 3) the diachronic characteristic of the word (the absence of the second component in the litter old, obsolete, etc.); 4) an indication of certain lexical properties (obsolete, historical, pre-revolutionary, new historical); 4) grammatical signs (old, gram., old. binary h); 5) syntactic signs (old, pogov.).

The way of expressing the criterion is formed as follows: 1) a single marker, 2) a double marker, 3) in a definition using indications of chronology, the words old, ancient, etc., as well as past participles.

Up to the release of BAS-1 in dictionary practice, the conventions of obsolete words were quite diverse, and this allowed the user of the dictionary to quite accurately imagine the place of the obsolete word and its chronological framework in the system of the modern Russian language (SU and the Grot-Shakhmatov Dictionary are especially clear in this regard) . Subsequently, the quantitative indicator of markers for linguistically close vocabulary became one of the aspects of the problem of choosing labels, since there was a tendency towards their universalization.

The search for a universal marker led to the fact that in BAS-2 only one litter began to be used - obsolete, which in the broad sense is still not absolute, because. the compilers of the dictionary designate historicisms that they classify as obsolete words in the dictionary entry with the help of past participles.

Despite the tendency to unify labels for linguistically the same type of vocabulary, due to the complexity and diversity of the subject of research, it seems to us the most rational to leave three markers - old, (or old.), outdated. and obsolete, which will characterize the degree of obsolescence of archaism (subject to solving the problem of the degree of archaization of the lexeme), and in combination with other marks - indicate its stylistic affiliation (obsolete high, obsolete simple) and the ability to be used in a modern language in a different stylistic status or with a certain emotional coloring (obsolete and colloquial; obsolete and joke). The markers of archaic vocabulary themselves should be defined as one of the varieties of marks of the speech usage of the word (the other variety will be stylistic marks).

Linguistic studies of the second half of the XX century. show that archaic vocabulary is heterogeneous in terms of obsolescence, and this has led to the emergence of classifications of obsolete words on this basis. However, the unequal understanding of the chronological characteristics of the archaization of the word still prevents the emergence of a clear and complete typology of archaic vocabulary in terms of its obsolescence, and the designated issue in modern linguistics is still at the development stage.

Since the 50s. XX century., Of great interest to linguists is the classification of archaic vocabulary by character internal causes obsolescence. True in themselves approaches to the typology of obsolete words that exist in scientific literature, are still not universal enough for its full coverage, because to this day there are no clear criteria for delimiting archaic vocabulary from other linguistic units and there is a problem of selecting qualification features for specific categories of obsolete words.

The archaization of vocabulary is facilitated by a variety of intralinguistic reasons. The specificity of the causes of obsolescence within the word itself determines the allocation of certain categories of archaisms, however, the lack of reasonable criteria for the types of obsolete words sometimes leads to an approximate and, moreover, often incorrect qualification of a particular archaic unit or to a description of only the nuclear part of a particular category.

Unfortunately, the defining features of each of the parameters in various classifications are often fundamentally different from each other, since they do not have strong justifications or are offered as given. In this situation, one of possible solutions The problem may be the clarification of the qualification features of the category of proper lexical archaisms, which will help to more rigorously characterize other categories and, possibly, identify new types of obsolete words.

Having studied various positions on the issue of classifying obsolete words, we propose to take as the basis for the typology of archaic units of the language systems approach, i.e. take into account that the language as a system has interdependent levels, each of which is subject to archaization and has its own obsolete specific elements.

At the lexico-semantic level, when classifying archaisms, we, following N.M. Shansky, we consider archaism as a two-sided lexical unit, in which both the plan of expression (lexical archaisms) and the plan of content (semantic archaisms) can become obsolete, while simultaneously taking into account the nature of the generating stem of the word.

Having considered the qualifying features of the category, we define proper lexical archaisms as obsolete single-valued words, represented in some cases by phonetic, derivational or morphological variants and displaced in the modern language by their active equivalents - synonymous words with a different non-derivative stem (root), synonymous phrases or brief interpretations . A certain part of the proper lexical archaisms is the potential vocabulary.

The study of lexical archaisms proper made it possible to identify the immediate causes of their appearance.

In the modern language, along with the general causes of archaization, to which a sufficient number of studies have been devoted, when comparing some of the proper lexical archaisms with their active equivalents, there is a violation of the word-formation motivation of an obsolete derivative word, which is associated with the peculiarities of the structural-semantic relations between the derivative and the generating bases and is expressed in the following:

1) proper lexical archaism, (directly or indirectly) formed from an active stem (except for potential vocabulary), is motivated not by the entire (or main) meaning of the generating word, but by its secondary LSV (active or obsolete) or individual components of meanings. With absolute use, such a derivative word, obeying modern laws word formation is perceived as motivated by the entire meaning of the generator, as a result of which there is a discrepancy between the morphemic composition of the lexeme and its general semantic structure, which is resolved by choosing new form, more in line with modern word-formation laws;

2) archaism, formed from a completely obsolete basis, for a modern native speaker retains only a structural analogy with the corresponding lexico-grammatical category of words, and lexical correlation with the semantics of the motivating word disappears.

The specific material selected for analysis shows that, in addition to general reasons, the replenishment of the category of proper lexical archaisms depends on the following factors: b) homonymy (this is confirmed by quantitative data: 7.5% of proper lexical archaisms are part of homonymous pairs or groups); c) belonging to the so-called potential vocabulary.

By origin, proper lexical archaisms are represented both by borrowings from non-Slavic languages ​​or calques (mainly from Greek), and vocabulary of Slavic origin (originally Russian, Old Slavonic).

Among the borrowings, the largest are actually lexical archaisms - Gallicisms, Latinisms and Germanisms, among derivatives - abstract names in -ie and -stv(o) and agentive nouns with suffixes -schik, -nik and -tel.

Both in obsolete borrowings and Slavic archaisms, the most regular groups are negatively colored vocabulary denoting the qualities or actions of a person, and agentive names by profession, craft, occupation.

The history of lexemes reconstructed from explanatory dictionaries included in the semantic groups "negative qualities or properties of a person" and "names of persons by craft, profession" confirms general patterns formation of the lexical composition of the language: if a neologism appears in the literary language - a synonym for an already well-known, established nomination of an object, attribute, phenomenon, then as a result of competition, these lexemes must either disperse semantically, i.e. desemantize, or change stylistic coloring. The reasons for the obsolescence of expressively or stylistically colored words (SH "negative qualities or properties of a person") are mainly associated with their inability to stylistic changes, stylistically neutral vocabulary - to semantic development, and as a result, in a competing group of words, representatives of these groups eventually become archaic.

The performed analysis of archaic vocabulary is far from final and incomplete: a systematic examination of only one of the types of obsolete words, the category of proper lexical archaisms, has begun. - actually lexical archaisms, and also continue in-depth study other types of archaisms (the most interesting in this respect are, in our opinion, semantic archaisms)

The qualification of archaic vocabulary proposed on the basis of refined features of one of the categories is not final and complete. Further research in this direction will help to find new criteria for a more accurate systematization of archaisms, as well as to discover new categories of obsolete words.

A promising direction in the further study of archaic vocabulary, as well as the category of proper lexical archaisms, is the cognitive approach.

On the material of explanatory dictionaries (SU, BAS-1, MAS-1, MAS-2, BAS-2), as an appendix to the dissertation, a "Dictionary of proper lexical archaisms of the Russian language" was compiled, which includes more than 2000 lexemes. The Dictionary reflects all varieties of labels that characterize this lexical and stylistic category, which will make it possible to use it as a guide to historical lexicology and historical stylistics of the Russian language.

The material of the dissertation research makes it possible to create tutorial"Archaic Vocabulary of the Modern Russian Language"

1. Conventions and list of used dictionaries

2. Akhmanova O.S. Dictionary of linguistic terms. M.: Sov. Encyclopedia, 1966.

3. Akhmanova O.S. Dictionary of homonyms of the Russian language. M.: Russian language, 1986.

4. BAS-1 Dictionary of the modern Russian literary language: In 17 volumes -M.-L.: AN SSRRD958-1965.

5. BAS-2 Dictionary of the modern Russian literary language: In 20 volumes - M .: Russian language, 1991-.

6. Bulls V. Russian Fenya. Smolensk: TRUST-IMACOM, 1994.

7. Ganshina K.A. French-Russian Dictionary. M.: Russian language, 1982.

8. Golovanevsky A.L. Ideological and evaluative dictionary of the Russian language of the 19th and early 20th centuries. - Bryansk, 1995.

9. Dal V.I. Explanatory dictionary of the living Great Russian language: In 4 vols. M .: Russian language, 1989-1991.

10. Dvoretsky I.Kh. Latin-Russian dictionary. M.: Russian language, 1976. Yu. From the history of Russian words: Dictionary-allowance. - M.: Shkola-Press, 1993. P. Kuznetsova A.I., Efremova T.F. Dictionary of morphemes of the Russian language. - M.: 1. Russian language, 1986.

11. Linguistic encyclopedic Dictionary/ Ch. ed. V.N. Yartsev. M.: Sov. Encyclopedia, 1990.

12. MAS-1 Dictionary of the Russian language: In 4 volumes / Ed. A.P. Evgenieva. -M., 1957-1961.

13. MAS-2 Dictionary of the Russian language: In 4 volumes / Ed. A.P. Evgenieva. - M.: Russian language, 1981-1984.

14. German-Russian dictionary. M.: Russian language, 1998.

15. Rogozhnikova R.P., Karskaya T.S. School dictionary of obsolete words of the Russian language. M.: Enlightenment, 1996.

16. Sreznevsky I.I. Dictionary of the Old Russian language: In 3 volumes. M .: Book, 1989.

17. SU Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language / Ed. D.N. Ushakova: In 4 volumes - M., 1934-1940.

18. SCRYA Dictionary of Church Slavonic and Russian, compiled by the Second Department of the Imperial Academy of Sciences: In 4 volumes - St. Petersburg, 1847.

19. Fasmer M. Etymological dictionary of the Russian language: In 4 vols. M .: Progress, 1986.

20. Phraseological dictionary of the Russian literary language of the late XVIII-XX centuries. / Ed. A.I. Fedorov. M.: Polikal, 1995.1. Literature

21. Anikin O.E. Dress up: (From the history of words) // Rus. speech 1992. - No. 3. - S.61-62.

22. Anishchenko O.A. Seminar vocabulary and phraseology in the Russian language of the 19th century / Abstract of the thesis. dis. . cand. philol. Sciences. M.: Mill U, 1993. - 15 s.

23. Babkin A.M. Obsolete words in the modern language and dictionary // Modern Russian lexicography. L.: Nauka, 1983. - P.4-33.

24. Bagaev E.G. Old Russian measures // Rus. speech. 1997. - No. 3. - S.71-73.

25. Belousova A.S. Obsolete words // Linguistic Encyclopedic Dictionary. M.: Sov. Encyclopedia, 1990. - S.540.

26. Belyanskaya Z.F. Outdated vocabulary of the modern Russian language (historicisms) / Abstract of the thesis. dis. .cand. philol. Sciences. 1978. - 20 p.

27. Birzhakova E.E., Voinova L.A., Kutina L.L. Essays on historical lexicology of the 18th century: Language contacts and borrowings. L.: Nauka, 1972. -431 p.

28. Blinova O.I. The phenomenon of word motivation. Tomsk: Publishing House of Tomsk University, 1984, - 191 p.

29. Bloomfield L. Language. M.: Progress, 1968. - 607 p.

30. Yu. Bogatova G.A. The history of the word as an object of Russian historical lexicography. M.: Nauka, 1984. - 255 p.

31. Rosenthal D.E., Telenkova M.A. Dictionary-reference book of linguistic terms. Moscow: Enlightenment, 1985.

32. RSS Russian Dictionary of Language Extension / Comp. A.I. Solzhenitsyn. -M.: Nauka, 1990.

33. SAR-1 Dictionary of the Russian Academy: In 4 vols. - St. Petersburg, 1789-1794.

34. SAR-2 Dictionary of the Russian Academy, alphabetically located: In 6 vols. - St. Petersburg, 1806-1822.

35. Consolidated dictionary of modern Russian vocabulary: / Ed. R.P. Rogozhnikova: In 2 vols. Moscow: Russian language, 1991.

36. Dictionary of Bryansk dialects. L.: Leningrad State University, 1968-.

37. Dictionary Grot-Shakhmatov Dictionary of the Russian language, compiled by the Second Department of the Imperial Academy of Sciences / Ed. A.A. Shakhmatova. - St. Petersburg, 1891-1920.

38. Dictionary of the Old Russian language (XI-XIV century): In 10 volumes - M .: Russian language, 1988.

39. Dictionary of the Russian language of the XI-XVII centuries. / Ch. ed. F.P. Owl. - M.: Nauka, 1975 -.

40. Dictionary of the Russian language of the XVIII century. / Ch. ed. Yu.S. Sorokin. L.: Nauka, 1984

41. Dictionary of the Russian language, compiled by the Second Department of the Imperial Academy of Sciences / Ed. Ya.K. Grotto. HELL. SPb., 1891-1894.

42. Dictionary of obsolete words: By works school curriculum/ Comp. Tkachenko N.G., Andreeva I.V., Basko H.V. Moscow: Rolf, 1997.

43. Modern vocabulary foreign words. M.: Russian language, 1993.

44. Modern dictionary of foreign words. M.: Russian language, 1993.

45. Ozhegov S.I., Shvedova N.Yu. Explanatory dictionary of the Russian language: 4th ed. M., 1997.

46. ​​Somov V.P. Dictionary of rare and forgotten words. M., 1996.

47. SO Ozhegov S.I. Dictionary of the Russian language: 23rd ed. - M.: Russian language, 1990.

48. P. Bogatova G.A. One of the Russian phenomena: To the 200th anniversary of the Dictionary of the Russian Academy // Nar. education. 1989. - No. 12. - S. 138-141.

49. Bragina A.A. New life old words: Oh military ranks// Russian speech. 1978. -№6. -p.77-83.

50. Budagov P.A. The history of words in the history of society. M.: EnlightenmentD971. -270 s.

51. Bulakhovsky J1.A. Historical commentary on the Russian language. Kiev: Glad. school, 1958. -488 p.

52. Bukhareva N.T. Archaisms and historicisms in the modern Russian language // Russian vocabulary in historical and synchronous coverage. Novosibirsk: Science, 1986. - S.5-16.

53. Weinreich U. Language contacts: Status and problems of research. - Kiev: Vishcha school, 1979. 263 p.

54. Valgina N.S., Rosenthal D.E., Fomina M.N. Modern Russian literary language. M.: graduate School,1987. - 471 p.

55. Warbot Zh.Zh. Old Russian and nominal word formation. M.: Nauka, 1969.-230 p.

56. Varichenko G.V. New life of old words: Linguistic notes // Russian language at school. 1990. - No. 3. - P.72-77.

57. Veselitsky V.V. Abstract vocabulary in the Russian literary language of the 18th and early 19th centuries. - M.: Nauka, 1972. - 319 p.

58. Veselitsky V.V. The development of abstract vocabulary in the Russian language in the first third of the 19th century Moscow: Nauka, 19964. - 178 p.

59. Vinogradov V.V. Questions of the formation of the Russian national literary language // Vinogradov V.V. History of the Russian literary language: Selected works. Moscow: Nauka, 1978. - S.278-202.

60. Vinogradov V.V. Studies in Russian grammar. Moscow: Nauka, 1975. -559 p.

61. Vinogradov V.V. Lexicology and lexicography: Selected Works. M.: Nauka, 1975.- 312 p.

62. Vinogradov B.B. History of words. M.: Talk., 1994. - 1138 p.

63. Vinogradov V.V. The main stages of the history of the Russian language // Vinogradov

64. B.V. History of the Russian literary language: Selected works. pp. 10-65.

65. Vinogradov V.V. Russian language: Grammatical doctrine of the word. M.: Higher school, 1986. - 639 p.

66. Vinogradov V.V. Word and Meaning as a Subject of Historical and Lexicological Research // Questions of Linguistics. 1995. - No. 1.1. C. 5-36.

67. Vinokur G.O. History of the Russian literary language // Vinokur G.O. Selected works on the Russian language. M.: Uchpedgiz, 1959. - S.1-228.

68. Vinokur G.O. About Slavicisms in Modern Russian Literary Language // Vinokur G.O. Selected works on the Russian language. pp.443-459.

69. Voitseva E.A. Features of the functioning of the vocabulary of the church book fund in the Russian literary language // Synchronic and diachronic analysis of linguistic units of the Russian language: Sat. scientific works. Kiev: Publishing house KGPID989. - P.39-46.

70. Galkina-Fedoruk V.E., Gorshkova K.V., Shansky N.M. Modern Russian language: Vocabulary. Phonetics. Morphology. M.: Uchpedgiz, 1958. - 411 p.

71. Gvozdev Yu.A. Forgotten phrases: (From the history of words and expressions) // Russian speech. 1994. -№6. -p.99-105.

72. Golovanevsky A.L. Semantic and derivational composition of socio-political vocabulary // Semantics of the word and word forms in the text: Sat. scientific works. M., 1988.

73. Golovanevsky A.L. Social and ideological differentiation and evaluation of the socio-political vocabulary of the Russian language // Problems of linguistics. 1987. - No. 4. - S.35-42.

74. Golovanevsky A.L. Formation of ideological-evaluative and socio-political vocabulary in the Russian literary language of the 19th and early 20th centuries / Abstract of the thesis. dis. . Dr. Philol. Sciences. - M.: Publishing house of MPGU, 1993. - 30 s.

75. Golub I.B. Lexicology // D.E. Rosenthal, I.B. Golub, M.A. Telenkova. Modern Russian language. M .: Higher School, 1991. - P. 7-175.

76. Goltsova N.G. Vocabulary // Modern Russian language / Ed. P.A. Le-kant. M.: Higher school, 1998. - S.8-83.

77. Gorbachevich K.S. Changing the norms of the Russian literary language. M.: Enlightenment, 1971. - 270 p.

78. Granovskaya L.M. The development of the Russian literary language in the 70s of the 19th and early 20th centuries. - M.: Nauka, 1981. - S. 183-318.

79. Graudika L.K., Itskovich V.A., Katlinskaya L.G. Grammatical correctness of Russian speech: Experience of the frequency-stylistic dictionary of variants. -M.: Nauka, 1976. -452 p.

80. Guzhva F.K. The composition of the vocabulary of the modern Russian literary language from the point of view of its formation // Guzhva F.K. Modern Russian literary language. 2nd ed. Kiev: Vishcha school, 1978. - 4.1. - P.133-153.

81. Dementiev A.A. Agentive suffixes -schik, -chik in Russian // scholarly notes Kuibyshev, state ped. and teaches, university. 1938. -Issue 2.

82. Demicheva V.V. Names of female persons in the Russian language of the 18th century / Abstract of the thesis. dis. . cand. philol. Sciences. Voronezh, 1995, - 24 p.

83. Dobrodomov I.G. About dictionaries of rare and obsolete words // Problems of Russian lexicology and lexicography. Vologda: "Rus", 1998. - S. 84-85.

84. Dunday A.I. Suffixal word-formation models of nouns in the ancient period of the Old Russian language / Abstract of the thesis. dis. . cand. philol. Sciences. Vilnius, 1975. - 22 p.

85. Zemskaya E.A. Notes on modern Russian word formation // Questions of linguistics. 1965. - No. 3. - S. 102-110.51. Zemskaya E.A. How words are made. M. .Nauka, 1963. - 93 p.

86. From the history of words and dictionaries: Essays on lexicology and lexicography. - L .: Publishing House of Leningrad State University, 1963. 154 p.

87. Instructions for compiling the "Dictionary of the modern Russian literary language". M.-L.D958. - 86 p.

88. Itskovich V.A. In search of a single name: On the elimination of the plurality of names of an object in a language // Russian speech. 1978. - No. 6. -S.77-83.

89. Kalinin A.B. Lexicology // Modern Russian language / Ed. D.E. Rosenthal. Moscow: Higher school, 1984. - S. 15-97.

90. Katsnelson S.D. The content of the word, meaning and designation. M.-L.: Nauka, 1965. - 110 s.

91. Klyukina T. Secret and obvious: About biblicalisms in Russian // Science and religion. 1990. - No. 2. - S. 40-50.

92. Knyazkova G.P. Russian vernacular second half of XIX v. L.: Nauka, 1974. - 253 p.

93. Kozhin A.N. Lexico-stylistic processes in the Russian language of the Great Patriotic War. M.: Nauka, 1985. - 328 p.

94. Komlev N.G. Components of the content structure of the word. M.: Publishing House of Moscow State University, 1969. - 192 p.61. Kondratov H.A. E.R. Dashkova and Dictionary of the Russian Academy // Russian language at school. 1993. - No. 6. - S. 87-90.

95. Kononova N.S. Archaic vocabulary and phraseology and its expressive and stylistic functions in the works of N.S. Leskova / Author. dis. . cand. philol. Sciences. Saratov, 1966. - 15 p.

96. Kolosov L.F. R.P. Rogozhnikova, T.S. Karskaya. School dictionary of obsolete words of the Russian language//Russian language, 1997. No. 4. - S. 96-98.

97. Krasilnikova S.Yu. "Tubes. And tables were written with herbs." (From the history of the appearance of the terms grass and grass) // Russian speech. 1997. - No. 6. - S. 91-96.

98. Kurdiani M. Changes in the vocabulary of the modern Russian literary language (According to dictionaries Soviet era) / Abstract. dis. . cand. philol. Sciences. Tbilisi: Publishing House of Tbilisi University, 1966. - 24 p.

99. Kutana L.L. Questions of lexical semantics in the Dictionary of the Russian Academy // Dictionaries and vocabulary in Russia in the XYIII century. L .: Nauka, 1980. - S. 7089.

100. Kutina L.L. Formation of physics terminology in Russia: Pre-Lomonosov period; first third of the 18th century M.-L.: Nauka, 1966. - 288 p.

101. Kutina L.L. Formation of the language of Russian science: Terminology of mathematics, astronomy, geography in the first third of the 18th century. M.-L.: Nauka, 1966. -219 p.

102. Lomonosov M.V. Preface on the benefits of church books // Collected Works: In 8 volumes. T.7. M.-L.: Nauka, Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1952. - S.587-592.

103. Lopatin V.V. The birth of the word: Neologisms and occasional formations. -M.: Nauka, 1973. 152 p.

104. Lykov A.G. Modern Russian lexicology (Russian occasional word). Moscow: Higher school, 1976. - 119 p.

105. Maltseva I.M. New formations in the circle of abstract nouns // Maltseva I.M., Molotkov A.I., Petrova Z.P. Lexicological neoplasms in the Russian language of the 18th century. L.: Nauka, 1975. - S. 10-145.

106. Mikhailova E.G. Archaization of language elements in the process of its development (On the material of the Russian literary language of the 18th century) / Abstract of the thesis. dis. . cand. philol. Sciences. Kiev, 1987. - 15 p.

108. Nesterov M.N. Russian obsolete and obsolete vocabulary. Smolensk-Bryansk, 1988. - 88 p.

109. Obnorsky S.P. The origin of the Russian literary language // Obnorsky S.P. Selected works on the Russian language. M.: Uchpedgiz, 1960. - S. 29-34.

110. Ozhegov S.I. The main features of the development of the Russian language in the Soviet era // Ozhegov S.I. Lexicology. Lexicography. A culture of speech. M .: Education, 1974. - S. 20-36.

111. Ozhegov S.I. About three types of explanatory dictionaries of the Russian language // Questions of linguistics. 1952. - No. 2. - S. 85-103.

112. Essays on the historical grammar of the Russian literary language of the 19th century: Changes in word formation and noun and adjective forms in the Russian literary language of the 19th century. M.: Nauka, 1964. - 600 p.

113. Popov R.N. Archaic verbal forms in set phrases // Russian language at school. 1965. - No. 4. - S. 72-78.

114. Pylakina O.A. Words of French origin in the monuments of Russian writing (late 17th - early 18th centuries) / Abstract of the thesis. dis. . cand. philol. Sciences. - M., 1976. - 15 s.

115. Rosenthal D.E., Golub I.B., Telenkova M.A. Modern Russian language. -M.: Higher school, 1991. 559 p.

116. Rosenthal D.E., Telenkova M.A. Linguistic encyclopedic dictionary. M.: EnlightenmentD976.

117. Russian grammar / Ch. ed. N.Yu. Shvedova: In 2 volumes. T. 1. M.: Nauka, 1980. -783 p.

118. Russian language. Encyclopedia / Ch. ed. F.P.Filin. M.: Sov. Encyclopedia, 1979.

119. Russian language / Kasatkin L.L. etc. M.: Education, 1989. - 4.1. - 287 p.

120. Sandler L.L. Speech embodiment of the era of Peter I in artistic prose: (Based on the material works of XIX XX centuries) / Abstract. dis. . cand. philol. Sciences. - Voronezh, 1995. - 22 p.

121. Sarapas M.V. A.S. Shishkov and the development of the Russian literary language in the first decades of the 19th century / Abstract of the thesis. dis. . cand. philol. Sciences. Moscow: MPGUD993. - 16 s.

122. Sverdlov L.G. Verbal nouns in -nie (-enie), -tie in the Russian literary language of the 18th century / Abstract of the thesis. dis. . cand. philol. Sciences. -M, 1961. -20 s.

123. Senin P.I. Notes on dictionaries of the first decade of the Soviet era // Nauch. reports of higher schools. Philological Sciences. - 1965. - No. 3. - S. 150-153.

124. Siverina E.G. Administrative vocabulary borrowed from German language in the Petrine era (On the history of the semantic-stylistic development of the Russian language) / Abstract of the thesis. dis. cand. . philol. Sciences. Kuibyshev, 1984. - 18 p.

125. Sklyarevskaya G.N. Once again about the problems of lexicographic stylistics // Questions of Linguistics. 1988. - No. 3. - S. 84-97.

126. Sklyarevskaya G.N. Notes on lexicographic style // Modernity and dictionaries L .: Nauka, 1978. - S. 101-111.

127. Sklyarevskaya G.N. Language metaphor in the dictionary. Experience of the system description // Questions of linguistics. 1980. - No. 1. - S. 98-107.

128. Dictionary of the Russian language of the XVIII century / Rules for using the dictionary. Source index. D.: Nauka, 1984. - 141 p.

129. Soviet Encyclopedic Dictionary / Ch. Ed. A.M. Prokhorov. 4th ed. -M.: Sov. Encyclopedia. 1990.

130. Modern Russian literary language / Ed. P.A. Lekanta. Moscow: Higher school, 1988. - 416 p.

131. Modern Russian / Ed. D.E. Rosenthal. 3rd ed. Moscow: Higher school, 1979. - Part 1. - 375 p.

132. Modern Russian language / Popov R.N. etc. M.: Enlightenment, 1978. -464 p.

133. Solieva K.A. Evolution of archaic elements in the newspaper vocabulary of the Soviet era / Abstract of the thesis. dis. . cand. philol. Sciences. M., 1985. - 25 s.

134. Sorokin Yu.S. The development of the vocabulary of the Russian literary language in the 30-90s of the XIX century. M.-L.: Nauka, 1965. - 565 p.

135. Sorokoletov F.P. Lexico-semantic system and dictionary of the national language // Modernity and dictionaries. L.: Nauka, 1978. - S. 4-19.

136. Sorokoletov F.P. Dictionaries of the Russian language // Russian speech. 1980. - No. 5. -S. 60-65.

137. Suffixal word formation of nouns in the East Slavic languages ​​of the XV-XVIII centuries. / Prokopovich E.H. etc. M.: Nauka, 1974. - 224 p.

138. Ulukhanov I.S. Motivation and derivation: On the possibilities of the synchronous-diachronic description of the language // Questions of linguistics. 1992. - No. 2. -S. 5-20.

139. Ulukhanov I.S. On the degrees of word-formation motivation of words // Questions of linguistics. 1992. - No. 5. - S. 74-80.

140. Yu9. Ulukhanov I.S. About language Ancient Russia. Moscow: Nauka, 1972. - 135 p.

141. PO.Ulukhanov I.S. Meaning and meaning in word formation and vocabulary // Russian language at school. 1992. - No. 2. - From 37-40.

142. Sh.Ulukhanov I.S. Word-building semantics in the Russian language and the principles of its description. M.: Nauka, 1977. - 256 p.

143. Fedorov A.I. Vocabulary of Modern Russian Dialects as a Source for Historical Lexicography // Questions of Linguistics. -1981.- No. 1.- S. 142-146.

144. Z.Filin F.P. The origins and fate of the Russian literary language. M.: Nauka, 1981.-327 p.

145. Filin F.P. Historical lexicology of the Russian literary language. -M.: Nauka, 1984. 176 p.

146. Filin F.P. On the vocabulary of the language of the Great Russian people // Questions of linguistics. 1982. - No. 5. - S. 18-28.

147. Filin F.P., Sorokoletov F.P., Gorbachevich K.S. On the new edition of the Dictionary of the Modern Russian Literary Language (in seventeen volumes) // Problems of Linguistics. 1976. - No. 3. - S. 3-19.

148. Fomina M.I. Modern Russian language: Lexicology. M.: Higher school, 1990. -415 p.

149. Khaburgaev G.A. Old Slavonic Church Slavonic - Russian literary // History of the Russian language in the most ancient period. - M.: MSU, 1984. -S. 5-35.

150. Khanpira E.N. "Explanatory dictionary of the Russian language" edited by D.N. Ushakov: on the 50th anniversary of the publication of the 1st volume // Russian language at school. 1984.-No. 6.-S. 71-75.

151. Hodakova E.P. Changes in the vocabulary of the Russian literary language in Pushkin's time // Lexicon of the literary language of the late XIX - early XX centuries. -M.: Nauka, 1981. S. 7-182.

152. Khodakov E.P. From the Concrete to the Abstract: The Development of New Meanings for Words in late XVIII beginning of the 19th century // Russian speech. - 1979. - No. 4. - S.72-76.

153. Khokhlacheva V.N. Word-formation of nouns with the meaning of a person // Suffixal word-formation of nouns in the East Slavic languages ​​of the XV-XVII centuries. - M.: Nauka, 1974. - S. 10-142.

154. Shansky N.M. Vocabulary // Shansky N.M., Ivanov V.V. Modern Russian language. M.: Education, 1987. - 4.1. - S. 10-63.

155. Shansky N.M. Lexicology of the modern Russian language. M: Enlightenment! 964. - 316 p. 125. Shansky N.M. Obsolete words in the vocabulary of the modern Russian language // Russian language at school. 1954. - No. 3. - S. 27-33.

156. Shvedova N.Yu. Preface to the twenty-third edition // Ozhegov S.I. Dictionary of the Russian language. 23rd ed. M.: Russian language, 1991. - S. 6-13.

157. Shvedova N.Yu. Preface to the ninth edition // Ozhegov S.I. Dictionary of the Russian language. 23rd ed. pp. 12-13.

158. Shelikhova N.T. Word-formation of nouns with the meaning of abstract action // Suffixal word-formation of nouns in the East Slavic languages ​​of the XV-XVII centuries. - M.: Nauka, 1974. - S. 143-220.

159. Schlozer A.-L. Dictionary of the Russian Academy: Review of a German scientist for the first work Russian Academy. 1801 // Questions of linguistics. -1985,-№6.-S. 104-110.

160. Shmelev D.N. Archaic forms in modern Russian. M.: Uchpedgiz, 1960. - 116 p.

161. Shmelev D.N. Modern Russian language: Vocabulary. M.: Enlightenment, 1977. - 335 p.

162. Schneiderman L.A. Obsolete vocabulary and its stylistic use in the works of Alexei Konstantinovich Tolstoy / Abstract of the thesis. dis. . cand. philol. Sciences. Voronezh, 1996. - 19 p.

163. Shuneiko A.A. Farmazon: (On the origin of the word) // Russian speech. -1992.-№3,-S. 109-113.

164. Shustov A.N. Murin, arap, African: (From the history of words and expressions) // Russian speech. 1989. - No. 1. - S. 149-152.

165. Encyclopedia. Russian language / Ch. ed. Yu.N. Karaulov. 2nd ed. M.: Bolshaya Russian Encyclopedia, 1997.

166. Yakovleva E.S. On the concept of "cultural memory" as applied to the semantics of the word // Questions of Linguistics. 1998. - No. 3. - S. 43-73.