Book vocabulary is one of the main categories of literary vocabulary, along with colloquial vocabulary (see) and neutral vocabulary (see); has a predominant distribution in book speech (see).
K. l. characterized by thematic diversity - in accordance with the breadth and variety of problems of the texts of book speech, its functional and stylistic variants. Usually to K. l. include socio-political vocabulary and terminology, often combined with socio-economic terminology; scientific (including philosophical) terminology; general scientific vocabulary (doctrine, concept, methodology, method, thesis, position, determinism, etc.); official business vocabulary, ch. arr. lexical clericalisms (see); general book vocabulary (advance, emergency, gratuitous, reality, doctrinaire, given, further, some, real, problematic, acceptable, etc.). The composition of K. l. includes the vast majority of Slavicisms (see), borrowings (see) of the 18th-20th centuries, international words (see). K. l. There is a certain generality and abstractness of semantics, especially in comparison with colloquial. vocabulary. Against the background of neutral and decomposed. vocabulary K. l. characterized by increased expressive coloring, cf. stylistic synonyms mouth - mouth (neutral), death - death (neutral), declare - say (neutral), broadcast - speak (neutral) - chat (colloquial).
K. l. from the point of view of the expression contained in it, it is usually divided into “high” or solemn, “poetic”, official, journalistic, bookish, or, according to A. N. Gvozdev’s definition, “moderately bookish”.
The main part of the “high” vocabulary consists of Slavicisms, for example. bless, benediction, resurrection, rebirth, rise to shine"), in vain, sign, irresistible, finger, transfiguration, proclaim, sacrament, etc., among which there are many archaisms (see). “High words are called words of “rare situations” "(M.V. Panov), because they are used in ceremonial, festive, ritual and dramatic situations, in order to give the speech a touch of solemnity, and can also be used to create a comic effect, for example. “But in anticipation of the coveted moment self-hugging..." (Saltykov-Shchedrin).
Vocabulary “poetic” (dream, azure, cheeks, radiant, eyes, percy, mouth, enchantment, wonderful, etc.) is found in ch. arr. in poetic speech 19 - beginning. 20th centuries; to a large extent it is archaic. In modern rarely used in texts; in poetry it is often used in comparison with neutral synonyms, for example. “This happened to you. You didn’t wipe your forehead, but your forehead?” (Vanshenkin).
Words with journalistic expression, as a rule, are endowed with a social assessment, positive or (most often) negative (fighter, faithful, citizenship, victorious, comrade-in-arms, associate, fateful, etc., vandalism, double-dealing, red-brown, obscurantist, pandemonium, etc. .); they are part of journalistic vocabulary (see Journalistic style) along with colloquial. words.
K. l., i.e., words endowed with the expression of “bookishness” (suddenly, impression, imagination, fulfill, execute, necessary, carry out, send, implementation, result, etc.), are resorted to when it is necessary to state a question in a businesslike tone, objectively, impartially discuss something, explain in detail s.-l. thought, proposal, etc.
The composition of K. l., as well as other main categories of lit. vocabulary is historically mobile, its expressive and thematic layers change, it can turn into neutral and colloquial. vocabulary, and vice versa, words of these categories can become bookish.
§ 88. According to linguistic tradition, the following vocabulary stands out against the background of neutral vocabulary: 1) book-written and 2) oral and spoken speech. In dictionaries, the first is marked as “book”, the second as “colloquial”.
Book vocabulary refers to words that are used exclusively or predominantly in the written and book sphere; introducing them into colloquial speech gives it a touch of bookishness. Actually, all categories of words with functional and stylistic overtones given in the previous section are included in book vocabulary, although the latter is not limited to the marked series of words. In the book vocabulary there is a layer of words with the coloring “bookish” and layers of words with a double coloring: “bookish and official business”, “bookish and scientific”, “bookish and journalistic”, “bookish and poetic”. At the same time, book vocabulary can have various types of expressive and emotional coloring.
Examples of book vocabulary: analogy, anomalous, antipode, apologist, apotheosis, a priori, aspect, association, vandalism, vassal, variation, vote, persecution, statehood, disorientation, dequalification, declarative, unanimity, for, isolation, impulse, quintessence etc. In part, this category of words is close to general scientific vocabulary, and in part - to commonly used ones.
Colloquial vocabulary is words that, being literary, give speech a colloquial character. Being introduced into book and written speech, they violate the unity of style. Examples: gasp, joke, balam, chase, to smithereens, fidgety, grunt, waddle, cry, dress up, bungler, reveler, cheap, malicious, greedy, hitch, sucker, mischief, snapped up, tender, slap, get sick, push through and etc.
The difference in stylistic coloring between book and colloquial vocabulary is more noticeable when comparing synonyms (where they exist) and against the background of neutral vocabulary. Wed:
The vocabulary of conversational stylistic coloring (at the same time characteristic of the predominantly oral form of everyday communication) is correlated with the colloquial everyday functional style and has its coloring.
§ 89. At the same time, the vocabulary of oral and everyday speech can be differentiated according to the “degree of literariness.” As the name suggests, this is a normative aspect, not a stylistic one. However, the layers of vocabulary that make up the spoken vocabulary are stylistically colored differently and differ in their areas of application. Therefore, this aspect can also be considered as functional-stylistic (in the broad sense of the word).
According to the “degree of literaryness” and according to the stylistic coloring accompanying one or another “degree,” the vocabulary of oral and colloquial speech is represented by the following varieties:
1) strictly colloquial vocabulary (which has already been discussed), often with a touch of familiarity;
2) colloquial vocabulary.
Actually, colloquial words do not violate the norms of the literary language and are limited only by the sphere of use (oral and everyday life), while colloquial words seem to stand on the verge of literary use and even usually go beyond the boundaries of the literary language. (Colloquial speech is usually defined in comparison with dialect vocabulary. Vernacular is the vocabulary of a low-culture urban environment, known and used, unlike dialect, everywhere.) Vernacular speech is usually divided into coarse (non-literary) and non-coarse (acceptable in everyday oral speech).
Examples of non-rude vernacular: nonsense, feeding, weasel, idle talker, stingy .; huge, stupefied, cowardly, flimsy", get up in arms, lie, bawle, squeeze, catch a cold, reproach, blurt out, yell, strum, spout and etc.
Rubo-colloquial vocabulary (vulgarisms): nonsense, firebrand, pentyukh, belly, snout, bitch, mug, hakhal, trash, punks; eat, smack, crack(There is), stitch up(translated), get high(with anyone), bark, lick(kiss), etc. As you can see, this includes swear words.
There are also colloquial words that, while violating the norms of the literary language, do not have evaluative or stylistic coloring (except for the signs that define a given word as colloquial non-literary). Therefore they are not considered here. Examples of similar words: see, quickly, ahead of time, theirs, click, kid, here, go(introductory word) dress up(bargain) click, passion(Very), frighten, ill, very(Very). They are used in fiction to characterize characters' speech.
Colloquial vocabulary, although undesirable, is possible in the sphere of written and book communication and only violates stylistic norms (and even then not always: the use of colloquial words is completely justified in journalism, even in scientific polemics, not to mention fiction). It is known that the modern Russian literary language is characterized by a tendency to spread the means of colloquial speech in various spheres of communication. Colloquial speech, especially rude language, is unacceptable in any sphere of literary speech, with very rare exceptions and with a clear stylistic motivation. It is used, for example, in journalism - to express indignation or in fiction - as a means of verbal characterization of a character from a certain social environment. However, in these cases, even in the oral and everyday sphere of communication, the use of colloquial vocabulary should be limited and stylistically motivated. In any case, the speaker must be aware that in such and such a case he is using a colloquial word.
Among the extraliterary vocabulary of oral and colloquial speech, dialectisms should also be mentioned. However, these words, unlike the vast majority of colloquial words, do not themselves have a stylistic connotation. They act in a nominative function, naming objects and phenomena. Of course, among dialectisms there are expressively colored words, but they appear as such in the system of dialectal, not literary speech. So, dialectisms are not a stylistic (or at least not specifically stylistic) layer of the vocabulary of a common language, and a non-literary language at that. Although, as is known, they can and are used for stylistic purposes, especially in fiction, most often as a means of creating local color and speech characteristics of characters. In this book, dialectisms will not be specifically considered.
However, in connection with the process of interaction between the literary language and dialects, the gradual inclusion of some dialectisms in the literary dictionary, as well as in connection with the tradition of using dialectisms in fiction, there is a basis for considering the ethos of the layer of non-literary vocabulary in our classification. From a functional point of view (that is, in terms of its functionality and tradition of use), dialect vocabulary has stylistic potential and can, with a certain reservation, act as one of the stylistic reserves of the dictionary.
In the lexical system, there are often cases when the same word simultaneously has several stylistic connotations (from the point of view of different stylistic aspects). For example: drink(bookish, rhetorical), creator(bookish, rhetorical), clique(book, pub., contempt), painted(colloquial, disdainful), dunce(colloquial, contemptuous), etc.
In addition, there are cases when this or that expressively-emotionally colored word, depending on the context, can modify the shade of its stylistic meaning, i.e. has a peculiar polysemy of shades. For example, in different contextual conditions the following words can acquire different, sometimes even opposite, stylistic connotations - from disapproving or ironic to affectionate (however, they are unable to be neutralized): liar, darling, news, brother, fool, admirer, bigwig, peering etc. Stylistic colors of vocabulary are both a historical and changing phenomenon. The changes cover a range of both emotional-expressive and functional-stylistic colors. Among the latter, terms (especially scientific and business ones) are more stable in color.
Examples of changes in emotional-expressive coloring: battle, battle(from previously neutral and even lofty they turn into playful and ironic), if you please(previously respectful - now humorous), inquire(bookish, solemn - ironic), recline(same) etc.
An example of a change in functional-stylistic coloring: the most humble(previously book-official - now ironic). Wed. also a change in the emotional connotation of words in the post-revolutionary period: master, lady, bureaucrat, official, owner and in post-perestroika: opposition, business, entrepreneur, repentance.
§ 90. All noted variations of stylistically colored vocabulary are revealed, as indicated, against the background of stylistically neutral vocabulary and in connection with contextual conditions and stylistic devices. Neutral in this regard is vocabulary that, being used in all spheres of communication and genres, does not introduce stylistic shades into them and does not have an emotionally expressive assessment, for example: house, table, father, mother, mountain, strong, blue, read, sew, do, through, right, seventh etc. Neutral vocabulary, which makes up a huge fund of the dictionary, is interpreted, however, as such, usually in its basic meanings and typical (generally accepted and commonly used) conditions of use.
It is neutral in the vocabulary and in its most ordinary functioning. At the same time, in real life use, especially in oral speech, in fiction and journalism, so-called neutral words are capable of acquiring the most diverse and unexpected emotional, expressive and even functional stylistic colors. Thus, in these cases, words turn from neutral to stylistically colored (contextually).
In relation to artistic speech, the term neutral vocabulary turns out to be conditional and even simply untenable. After all, this vocabulary makes up the vast majority of words in prose works of art (especially in the author’s speech). Moreover, with the help of these means (although not only these, i.e. not only lexical), a true artist of words achieves unusually bright, impressive imagery. The task of the stylistic researcher is precisely to determine the stylistic significance of vocabulary that is neutral in the general linguistic sense.
Book words (vocabulary of book styles) are words that are found in scientific literature (in articles, monographs, textbooks), and in journalism (including in newspapers), and in business documents, and in fiction*, why They are difficult to assign to any particular style. These include: aboriginal, hypothesis, hyperbolize, view, disharmonize, given("this"), disorient, declarative, slapstick, introduction, emergence, innate, pompous, hegemony, illusion, illusory, intuition, eradication, dry up, for, origins, count, indifferent, proper, transformation, touch, illumination("image, display"), colleague, motive("cause"), punctual, original, unreal, find, sudden, prevail, due to the fact that, loss and etc.
* So, for example, the word transformation can be found in the author’s language of the fiction writer, in journalistic and scientific works (below it is in italics): “At that time I was very busy transformation Konstantinovsky Land Surveying School to the Konstantinovsky Land Surveying Institute" (S. Aksakov); "Methods were demonstrated transformation telephone into a microphone that transmits received speech over a distance of hundreds of kilometers" (New World. 1971. No. 11. P. 176), etc.
In addition, bookish words are words that can hardly be said to be used in different styles of writing, but which are clearly uncharacteristic of casual conversation. These are, for example, memorable, excess, overthrow, gain and so on.
Some book words stand out for their “scientific” character, gravitate towards (but do not belong!) to scientific terminology ( impulsive, intense, hypothesis, hyperbolize, prevail, illusory etc.), which gives rise to some linguists calling them “general scientific words”. Others make up a category that can conditionally be called book-literary ( overthrow, loss, mortal, hope, thirst, lofty, sweet-tongued, memorable, scourge, trend, powerful, unattainable, visit, pet, gain etc.). At the same time (this is worth emphasizing again) neither one nor the other belongs to any one style. So, hypothesis, intensive, identical, isolate, interpretation, ignore, transform, characterize and others are used not only in scientific works, but also in journalism (and some of them, such as, intense, transformation, characterized, and in official business documents); words introduction, implementation, implementation and others are characteristic not only of the language of journalism, but also of the language of official business documents; book and literary plunge, crave, memorable, scourge, fermentation, unattainable etc. are inherent not only in the language of fiction, but also in the language of journalism, etc.
The “bookishness” of book vocabulary can be different. In some cases it is not very noticeable, not very distinct; words with such a faint bookishness are called moderately bookish*. These include many verbal nouns in -nie, -nie, -ie, formed from stylistically neutral and moderately literary verbs: arising, taking, touching, weighing, receiving, touching, considering, walking etc., as well as nouns such as significance, exile, incident, origins, measure, enemy, innovation, appearance, inhabitant, object(in the meaning of “a phenomenon, object, person to which someone’s activity, someone’s attention is directed”), carnage etc. The words are also moderately bookish congenital, lofty(And pomp), significant(And significantly, significance), visible(visibly), perverted(perverted, perversity), sophisticated(sophisticated, sophistication), sudden(suddenly, suddenness), unattainable(unattainable), immemorial;inexhaustible, repeated(repeatedly, repeated), charming(charming, charming), seductive(seductively), erect, lay down, arise, renew, infuse(hope, faith) choose, get rid of("to eradicate"), isolate, dry up, resent, decapitate, effectuate, characterize;very, from the outside, must;something, several(meaning "to some extent": " some tired"), some, as a result, since and etc.**
* The authors of the 4-volume Dictionary of the Russian Language, in which bookish vocabulary is in principle distinguished (by the mark “bookish.”), do not give marks to moderately bookish words, considering them stylistically neutral. More or less consistently, this vocabulary is qualified as book vocabulary in the "Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language" according to d ed. D.N. Ushakova.
** You can indicate that some, i.e. moderate, bookishness distinguishes gerunds and participles formed not only from moderately bookish, but also from stylistically neutral verbs.
In other words, “bookishness” is felt much more clearly. That is why they are called purely bookish. This: altruism, hypothesis, doctrinaire, hypothetical, hyperbole, hyperbolize, hypertrophied, for, illusory, indifferent, colleague, lapidary, nuance, unshakable, neophyte, bearer, nostalgia, promised, clothe, foreseeable, acquire, odious, burden, prerogative, pet, piety, precedent, zealous, truism and etc.
A significant part of bookish words (moderately and strictly bookish) do not express any emotional assessment, but only name some phenomena, objects, properties, actions (usually of an abstract nature). In many cases, they have an inter-style synonym that completely matches their meaning: given – this;hyperbolize - exaggerate;someone - someone;significant - big;a few - a little;for, since - because;lapidary - short;once upon a time - once upon a time etc.
But among the book vocabulary there are also words that, in addition to denoting the corresponding phenomena, properties, actions, also contain their assessment - positive or negative, disapproving. This evaluation of words is usually indicated in explanatory dictionaries by the corresponding mark (“iron.” - ironic, “joking.” - humorous, “with a tinge of disapproval,” “with a tinge of disdain,” etc.) or by the interpretation of the meaning itself. Litter "shutl." stands, for example, in the words great, green, dwelling, clothe (and vestments) and some etc.; marked "iron." we find with the words mortal, lofty, most humble, panacea, notorious, person(in the meaning of “person”, “personality”), etc. And the evaluative value of such words as doctrinaire, vandalism, insinuation, obscurantist, spotlight and so on. shown in dictionaries with a corresponding explanation of the meaning of the word. For example:
Vandalism– merciless destruction and destruction of cultural and artistic monuments*.
Doctrinaire- a person who blindly and pedantically follows any particular doctrine; scholastic, reciter.
* In this and other interpretations given below, words expressing an assessment of the phenomenon or person they call are highlighted.
Book vocabulary consists of words that are used primarily in written and oral functional versions of book speech.
Book vocabulary is grouped mainly into such large subject-thematic associations as:
socio-political vocabulary ( state, party, fatherland, independence, labor and so on.);
scientific and technical terminology ( dialectics, history, literature, writing, literature, art, linguistics, decay, exudative and so on.);
general scientific vocabulary ( a priori, methodology, analysis, thesis, principle, relevant, procedure, reason, definition, parameter, theoretical and so on.);
official vocabulary, including the dictionary of office work, legal, diplomatic vocabulary ( order, reprimand, send, business trip, prosecutor, preamble, embassy, attache, diplomat etc.).
Among book words there is a large grouping that can be designated as general book vocabulary. It consists of lexemes of a very diverse subject-thematic nature, many of them are distinguished by a large semantic capacity; such words usually appear in expansive and figurative meanings, since by origin they are associated with one or another special terminosphere. For example, absolute, abstraction, absurdity, adventurism, accident rate, amplitude, banality, debatable, data, information, because, paradox, acceptable, refined, clear etc. The listed and similar words are used throughout the entire “space” of book speech. They are also quite active in the speech habits of native speakers of a literary language at the level of their informal communication, i.e. in colloquial speech. Meanwhile, this kind of words should, in our opinion, be considered as “borrowings” from book speech.
Some book words, being polysemantic, in one meaning act as terms of natural science, socio-political, philosophical content, and in the other - as general scientific words, for example apogee, argument, class, crisis, reaction, center, element etc. There is movement within the book vocabulary. A certain part of words undergoes semantic changes as a result of extensive and figurative-metaphorical use.
General scientific terms include such mathematical terms as constant, extrapolate, set.
There is also a process of dissemination of scientific and technical terminology as general book vocabulary. This applies primarily to the terminology of nuclear physics, cosmonautics, and rocketry as the most relevant for modern public opinion: radiation, chain reaction, epicenter, orbit, trajectory, atomic, nuclear.
Scientific and scientific-technical terms in the modern era are becoming widespread in their basic meanings due to the spread of corresponding instruments, technical devices or procedures beyond the narrow framework of production, one or another special area of scientific research and technical activity. This refers to terms such as TV, television, computer, laser, laser, noise, interference and etc.
The book vocabulary also includes layers of expressively colored words. This vocabulary is solemn, poetic, bookish, and official.
“High” words are used in special solemn situations, dynamic contexts of oratory and journalism, full of civic pathos ( apostle, sing, love, future, foresee, champion, pillar, advocate, thorns and so on.). The “high” vocabulary includes most archaisms ( associate, babble and etc.).
Poetic vocabulary, closely related to “high” vocabulary, consists of words used in poetic speech, as well as in artistic prose (in solemn monologues of heroes, in lyrical digressions, etc.). This includes words such as cheeks, lips, cold, face, brow, golden, abode, eyes, gates etc. These and similar words are practically not used in modern speech, with a single exception. They were inherited by the Russian poetic language from the poetic speech of the 19th – early 20th centuries.
“High” and “poetic” words also function in ironic contexts. In fiction and journalism, they are often used as a means of expressing the comic (by combining diverse styles).
The expressive coloring characteristic of the words of the lexical layer under consideration is clearly revealed when comparing the following lexical units: imitate - imitate, reflect - think, argue - prove.
The emphasized “dryness” of the official vocabulary is clearly visible when comparing it with synonyms of other styles: spouse - wife, declare - say, should - must, implement - do, such - this, authentic - the same, appear - come and so on.