Home Berries Expressive vernacular words are rude and rudely expressive vocabulary. Types of emotionally expressive stylistic coloring

Berries

Expressive vernacular words are rude and rudely expressive vocabulary. Types of emotionally expressive stylistic coloring

Emotionally expressive coloring of words

At the same time, it should be noted that the concepts of emotionality and evaluativeness are not identical, although they are closely related. Some emotional words (for example, interjections) do not contain evaluation; and there are words in which the assessment is the essence of their semantic structure, but they do not belong to the emotional vocabulary: good, bad, joy, anger, love, suffer.

A feature of the emotional-evaluative vocabulary is that the emotional coloring is "superimposed" on the lexical meaning of the word, but is not reduced to it: the denotative meaning of the word is complicated by the connotative one.

As part of emotional vocabulary three groups can be distinguished.

1. Words with a bright connotative meaning, containing an assessment of facts, phenomena, signs, giving an unambiguous description of people: inspire, delightful, daring, unsurpassed, pioneer, predestinate, herald, self-sacrifice, irresponsible, grump, double-dealer, businessmanship, antediluvian, mischief, defame, fraud, sycophant, windbag, slob. Such words, as a rule, are unambiguous, expressive emotionality prevents the development of figurative meanings in them.
2. Polysemantic words, neutral in the main meaning, receiving a qualitative-emotional connotation when used figuratively. So, about a person of a certain character, you can say: hat, rag, mattress, oak, elephant, bear, snake, eagle, crow, rooster, parrot; in figurative meaning verbs are also used: saw, hiss, sing, gnaw, dig, yawn, blink and etc.
3. Words with subjective assessment suffixes that convey various shades of feelings: son, daughter, granny, sunshine, neatly, close- positive emotions; beards, kid, breech- negative. Their evaluative meanings are determined not by nominative properties, but by word formation, since affixes give emotional coloring to such forms.

The emotionality of speech is often conveyed by especially expressive expressive vocabulary. expressiveness(expression) (lat. expressio) - means expressiveness, the power of manifestation of feelings and experiences. There are many words in Russian that have an element of expression added to their nominative meaning. For example, instead of the word good, getting excited about something, we say wonderful, marvelous, marvelous, marvelous; you can say I do not like, but it is not difficult to find stronger, more colorful words hate, despise, loathe. In all these cases, the semantic structure of the word is complicated by connotation.

Often one neutral word has several expressive synonyms that differ in the degree of emotional stress; compare: misfortune - grief, disaster, catastrophe; violent - unrestrained, indomitable, frantic, furious. Vivid expression highlights the words solemn ( herald, accomplishments, unforgettable), rhetorical ( companion, aspirations, proclaim), poetic ( azure, invisible, silent, sing). Expressively colored and playful words ( faithful, newly minted), ironic ( deign, don Juan, vaunted), familiar (not bad, cute, to mumble, whisper) Expressive shades delimit disapproving words ( mannered, pretentious, ambitious, pedant), disparaging ( to paint, pettiness), contemptuous ( tease, tease), derogatory (skirt, squishy), vulgar ( grabber, lucky), swear words ( ham, fool). All these nuances of the expressive coloring of words are reflected in the stylistic marks to them in explanatory dictionaries.

The expression of a word is often superimposed on its emotional and evaluative meaning, and in some words expression prevails, in others - emotionality. Therefore, it is often not possible to distinguish between emotional and expressive coloring, and then they talk about emotionally expressive vocabulary ( expressive-evaluative).

Words that are similar in nature of expressiveness are classified into: 1) vocabulary expressing positive assessment of the named concepts, and 2) vocabulary expressing negative assessment of the named concepts. The first group will include words high, affectionate, partly playful; in the second - ironic, disapproving, abusive, contemptuous, vulgar and so on.

The emotional and expressive coloring of a word is influenced by its meaning. Thus, such words as fascism, Stalinism, repression. A positive assessment was attached to the words progressive, peace-loving, anti-war. Even various meanings of the same word can noticeably diverge in stylistic coloring: in one sense the word acts as a solemn, lofty one: Stop, prince. Finally, I hear not a boy speaking, but husband (P.), in another - as ironic, mocking: G. Polevoy proved that the venerable editor enjoys the fame of a scientist husband (P.).

The development of expressive shades in the semantics of the word is also facilitated by its metaphorization. So, stylistically neutral words used as metaphors get a vivid expression: burn at work, fall from fatigue suffocate under the conditions of totalitarianism, blazing gaze, blue dream, flying gait and so on. The context finally shows the expressive coloring of words: in it, stylistically neutral units can become emotionally colored, high - contemptuous, affectionate - ironic and even a swear word ( scoundrel, fool) might sound positive.

In a semantic aspect

Introduction

In linguistics, there are such linguistic phenomena that the deeper they are studied by researchers, the more remains and reappears a lot of unclear, controversial in understanding their essence. Expressivity is one of these phenomena. Through the prism of some of the discussion points outlined below (partially presented in: [Lukyanova 2009]), this article introduces some corrections, additions, clarifications to the understanding of this category, its connections with other categories, which reflect the subjective view of native speakers of the world, of relations between people in society, as well as a conceptual and terminological system for describing expressive vocabulary that functions in the colloquial strata of the modern Russian language - literary colloquial, colloquial and dialectal. Since these strata are united by a common feature colloquial, then we unite the expressive units of these strata by the definition colloquial use. Using modern terminology, they can also be called units colloquial discourse(the definition of this term is given below).

Expressive lexical units (hereinafter - ELE) function in different stylistic spheres of Russian literary language and social strata(or environments) - from various genres of the language of fiction, journalistic style, speech genres of the media, literary colloquial speech to purely peripheral social environments such as non-literary vernacular, territorial dialects (Russian folk dialects), jargons, slang, slang. Expressiveness can be considered as a general language category and as a particular category - in relation to units of a certain level of language: lexical, phraseological, word-building, morphological, syntactic. If you go beyond the actual systems approach, into the area of language functioning, then the boundaries of private categories of expressiveness will naturally expand. For example, B. Toshovich level expressiveness relates: graphic, lexical, phraseological, phonetic-phonological (its means are various “phonetic figures”: assonance, alliteration, anaphora, epiphora, ankop, etc.), word-formation, grammatical (including morphological and syntactic), textual [Toshovich 2006: 41–42]. This classification presents both linguistic expressiveness and speech expressiveness (stylistic and textual). Expressiveness is interpreted in stylistic, semantic, pragmatic (functional), linguoculturological, lexicographic and other aspects (see about this in: [Lukyanova 2008]). This article is devoted to the consideration of the expressiveness of lexical units (hereinafter - LU) in the semantic aspect. The object of our description is the expressive vocabulary of colloquial strata - literary colloquial and dialectal. The expediency of involving in the field of research dialect expressive LE, along with colloquial ELE, is due to the fact that the expressiveness of both the literary language and dialects has more common features than different, for example:

– general cognitive mechanisms of its generation and implementation in LE semantics,

– general directions and models of metaphorization as one of the ways to generate expressive semantics,

- the same means of formal expression of expressive semantics,

– general models speech implementation expressive units,

– ELEs of different strata perform the same functions,

– ELE participate in the creation of a common value picture of the world of the Russian people.

The differences are related to the composition and number of those LEs in which expressive semantics is embodied, and this is explained by the difference in the sensory-practical experience of speakers using literary colloquial speech and dialect speakers. Differences also refer to the formal means of expressive semantics expression: in their arsenal there are, for example, dialect suffixes, but their number is insignificant. Brought by us illustrative material taken from explanatory dictionaries of the Russian language, written texts that convey colloquial speech, our recordings of fragments of natural literary and colloquial speech and the speech of native speakers Novosibirsk region(dialect examples are marked with the label dial.).

The semantic range of ELE of colloquial use is quite wide: from (a) units with a “full-weighted” denotative-significative content, often without formal indicators of expressiveness, located on the border with non-expressive, nominative, LU and often receiving unequal stylistic and emotional-evaluative interpretations in explanatory dictionaries (this, as a rule, inanimate nouns, adjectives, verbs, adverbs), to (b) units with vague or even "empty" denotative-significative content, "attached" to a certain emotional communicative situation and, as a result, being on the border with interjections. Here are examples of more or less semantically close LEs with their stylistic and emotionally evaluative marks from the same dictionary - the “Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language” by S.I. Ozhegov and N.Yu. Shvedova 1997 edition (hereinafter - SOSH):

(a) slovenliness colloquial, contempt., similar in structure and similar in semantics rotosity, bungling, superficiality recorded in the dictionary only with the mark colloquial, cf. corresponding generating words: slob unfold, rotozeum unapproved, disapproved, bungler colloquial, contempt., skygazer colloquial; other examples: anonymous‘an anonymous letter reporting someone. sth. offensive, unpleasant, compromising’razg., disapproving, but fake‘false, forged document’ - only litter, fake‘forged thing, imitation’ – without marks; collusion‘negotiated agreement’ is usually frowned upon, but deal‘unseemly, reprehensible conspiracy’ – without marks; manilovism disapproved, but Oblomovism, Khlestakovism- without litters (by the way, the suffix - chin- in similar LE V.V. Vinogradov attributed to expressive);

(b) nonsense unfold ‘nonsense, nonsense’, rave unfold ‘something meaningless, absurd, incoherent’, nonsense unfold ‘absurdity, stupidity, nonsense’; nonsense unfold 1. ‘Nonsense, trifles, absurdity’ (Grind any nonsense.) . 2. ‘About smth. unimportant, unimportant (“Did you cut yourself badly?” – “Nonsense! ”) ; nonsense colloquial ‘nonsense, absurdity’; nightmare in meaning tale ‘about something that manifests itself strongly or about a large number of someone of something’ is simple, usually disapproving. (Money spent - nightmare!; And they threw away unnecessary things - just nightmare!) , and is also used as an interjection (It's cold outside – nightmare! ) ; horror in meaning skaz. ‘about something. amazing, unusual in its positive or negative properties, as well as a large number of someone-what-n’, coll. (cf. dial. contexts: Horror what a mess they have in the house!/I don't want to go there; For the wedding he[groom] how many balls bought!/ Horror! ); trouble in meaning skaz. ‘very much’ is simple. (People there - trouble!) ; in dialect speech it is used as an interjection (But "nche, how many mushrooms were born / they dragged them all summer / right trouble!) . I note that in different dictionaries the same word may have different interpretations in terms of their expressive and stylistic potential, but the relevant material is not given here.

1. Controversial moments in the interpretation of expressiveness

There are certain difficulties in interpreting the expressiveness of vocabulary as a category in terms of its semantics. This can be explained by a number of reasons.

First, in the cognitive aspect, ELEs represent the results of both logical and emotional-psychic activity of consciousness in their entirety. In lexicology (semasiology and onomasiology), they (results) are referred to by the terms denotative-significative (objective) and connotative (subjective) content (meaning, semantics) of a word. But the distinction between these two heterogeneous parts of a single, indivisible essence - the lexical meaning (hereinafter - LZ) of a word - does not have sufficiently convincing criteria and is often subjective. So, it is known that the assessments represented by words are divided by philosophers, and after them by linguists, into logical and emotional: the former are referred by linguists to the denotative-significative part of the LZ of the word, the latter to the connotative. Wed the following oppositions of cognate and heterogeneous words with semes ‘logical evaluation (positive or negative)’ – ‘emotive evaluation (positive or negative)’: kind, kindness – kindest,good-natured; evil, anger - angry,vicious, hottie, the villain; silly– fool,stupidity (Don't tell me these nonsense ; « And if everyone finds out about your departure?» – « nonsense !» ) ; mediocre– mediocrity;tasty - yummy; fragrant – smelly, foul-smelling; argument, scandal– buza, bazaar, bedlam, farce, benefit ironic, the circus, confusion joke, chatter. In the same way, this ‘high degree of manifestation of an attribute of an object, phenomenon’ can be qualified as significative and as connotative. Wed the following word oppositions: with a common seme ‘very hasty work’: rush - race,fever, fever, assault; with archiseme ‘strong according to the degree of its manifestation’ strong - hellish,diabolical, damn,monstrous, horrible, insane, idiotic(pain, tenderness, pride, speed, appetite, hunger, cold, weather, wind); with archiseme ‘a large number of homogeneous objects’ many, many– avalanche(feelings, questions, purchases), ‘many faces’ - constellation of fools,loafers,denim creatures,‘set of natural facts’ – herd / herds of cornflowers, Christmas trees,clouds,butterflies.

Secondly, figurativeness as one of the components of meaning is also characteristic of words with denotative semantics and words with connotative semantics. Wed pairs of cognate words with nominative and expressive meaning: coil‘spiral-curved tube’ – serpentine‘evil, hostile people gathered together’; petrified(bones) - petrify(from grief); clumsy‘with shortcomings, internal flaws’ – clumsy(life) ( He[Yura] accustomed to these changes, and in an atmosphere of eternal clumsiness [in family] his father's absence did not surprise him(B. Pasternak. Doctor Zhivago)); to be nervous - hassle; swirl(about dust, snow) - dial. swirl "rip‘go fast, run, hurry’ (Won't grandma how swirls!) .

Consequently, the problem of finding criteria for referring these entities to the denotative-significative and connotative parts of the LZ of words remains. In addition, the opinion is expressed that, apart from subjective evaluation suffixes, there are no other “own means” (not counting stylistic figures and speech techniques) of expressiveness. [Telia 1991b: 33]. In his earlier monograph, V. N. Teliya also emphasizes “tropomorphic and word-forming ways of forming expressive coloring”, and at the same time claims that “the leading role” in creating expressive coloring “belongs to metaphor as the simplest in composition, and therefore unmistakably perceived method of rethinking and amplifying the figurative signal” [Ibid: 1986: 71]. With the opinion of V. N. Telia about the "leading role" of metaphor in creation, offspring"expressive effect", of course, one cannot but agree. Her works devoted to the expressive semantics of vocabulary and phraseology are a brilliant substantiation of this position. However, the opinion about the lack of “own funds” expressions expressiveness, except for the suffixes of subjective evaluation, is controversial.

Thirdly, those features that are involved in the generation of expressiveness are referred to the connotative part (connotation) of the lexical meanings of words. It is debatable, in our opinion, the widespread assertion that connotation, and hence expressiveness, is an additional content (my discharge is N. L.) words, "its accompanying semantic or stylistic shades that are superimposed on its main meaning" [Akhmanova 1966: 203-204], as well as the statement that "the fund of expressive language tools additional (my discharge is N. L.) in relation to neutral common ones, by its very idea, it is tuned to a rarer use: expressiveness "is directly proportional to the unusualness, non-standard, rarity of a word, phrase, morpheme, construction" [Matveeva 2003: 404]. The idea of complementarity, “non-principality” of connotation in the structure of the LZ word is demonstrated by the corresponding terminology introduced into lexicology from linguistic stylistics: expressiveness is called a touch of meaning, coloration, coloration, halo, thus the interpretation of expressiveness is derived from the system-semantic channel into the linguo-stylistic sphere.

Fourthly. ELEs are stylistically marked (significant, colored). The discussion raises the question of the status of the stylistic property of ELE: some linguists single out stylistic marking as a component (“stylistic component”, according to Matveeva) of the meaning of ELE, for example, V. N. Teliya [Telia 1991a: 40–41], T. V. Matveeva [Matveeva 2003: 112]; other researchers do not include stylistic coloring in meaning, calling it significance, for example, L.M. Vasiliev [Vasiliev 1985: 5]. And E. R. Kurilovich believes that “expressive forms and stylistic options <…>could be combined under the general term stylistic in broad sense words” [Kurilovich 1955: 76]. As you know, even S. Balli, who laid the foundations of expressive stylistics, considered “expressive facts” to be its subject. language system from the point of view of their emotional content, that is, the expression in speech of phenomena from the realm of feelings and the effect of speech facts on feelings” [Bally 2001: 33]. Therefore, the problem of delimiting expressiveness from the stylistic coloring of LE remains relevant.

Fifthly, there is no single conceptual and terminological apparatus for describing the expressive fund of a language. As G. N. Sklyarevskaya notes, “in general, the terminological system of the category of language assessment (her work is devoted to emotive assessment - N. L.) has not yet been formed, is not hierarchically built, each term is not assigned one and only one meaning, and, on the contrary, only one term is assigned to each linguistic fact. Terminological polysemy and synonymy prevent each time from clarifying and defining those chosen by him (the researcher - N. L.) terms” [Sklyarevskaya 1997: 171]. How synonyms are used terms expressive meaning, connotative meaning and pragmatic meaning , expressive and emotional(meaning,word, statement, expression), expressive, connotative and pragmatic(value component, sema) and etc.

2. Semantic grounds for the expressiveness of lexical units.

It is useful to distinguish between terms that are commonly used to describe "expressive" objects. Expressiveness can have a systemic and speech status, or, in the terminology of OS Akhmanova, be integral and adherent [Akhmanova 1966: 523], this is a well-known position. However, there is another opinion: expressiveness is a purely psychological (not linguistic) phenomenon, and therefore it applies only to language activities, i.e. to speech (K. Weisgerber), is manifested in the use of the word, “and the use and meaning of the word are connected by living threads” [Zvegintsev 1957: 171.

In our concept, through the definition of expressive and derived expressivity are qualified system units, their properties and functions:

expressiveness is a property of LU, as well as units of other levels of the language;

expressive lexical meaning (content, semantics) - systemic meaning of LU;

expressive lexical unit, expressive word, expressive nomination, expressive - a lexeme and a lexico-semantic variant of a lexeme that have the property of expressivity, i.e. having an expressive meaning;

expressive language unit - a unit of any level that has the property of expressivity;

expressive lexical fund (corpus), expressive (lexical) subsystem of the language - part of the lexical fund, lexical subsystem, which is formed by expressive lexical units;

expressive fund (corpus) of the language - the whole set of multi-level units that have the property of expressivity as elements of the language system;

expressive context - a speech or text fragment of a coherent oral or written speech, expressing an expressive meaning;

expressive discourse - 1) the same as the expressive context, viewed through the prism of the external (social) context (the relationship of the speaker to the subject of speech, the emotional state of the speaker, relations between speakers, the historical background of the utterance, etc.); 2) a set of expressive contexts related to a particular style of literary language or language stratum, for example, literary and artistic discourse,literary and colloquial discourse, dialect discourse, jargon discourse etc.;

expressive function(s), "expressive effect" (V.N. Teliya), - pragmatic function(s) of expressive units - their purpose is to express emotional condition speakers at the moment of speech, characterize and give subjective assessments of surrounding objects and other people, strengthen the impression of the addressee from the information received by him, influence him, prompting a response, etc. (For more information about the functions of ele, see: [Lukyanova 2008 ]).

We use the quasi-terms expressive coloring, coloring, marking, shade of meaning to denote “speech layers”, “increments (overtones) of meaning”, which acquire language units in speech / text, without being expressive in the language system. Here, the opinion of B. A. Larin is authoritative for us: “Semantic overtones are those semantic elements that we perceive, but do not have their own signs in speech, but are formed from the interaction of a set of words” [Larin 1974: 36], i.e. these are the semantic increments that the word receives in speech under the influence of internal and external contexts. Its internal context is the surrounding words, and its external context is the extralinguistic situation. Unlike semantic overtones, the expressive components of the meaning, like the expressive meaning as a whole, have signs - these are formal means and informal indicators of expressiveness (see below). Consequently, the semantic foundations of expressiveness are organic components of the meaning of ELE, and expressive coloring refers to the actual (speech) meaning language units, i.e. associated with pragmatics and stylistics of speech.

An expressive lexical unit is a lexeme as a system of its lexico-semantic variants (hereinafter referred to as LSV), i.e. a polysemantic, and a separate LSV of a lexeme; they have the property of expressiveness in contrast to another property of lexical units - nominativeness. The position about expressiveness (emotionality) as a property of language units of colloquial speech, revealed from their opposition to "non-expressive" (logical) facts, as you know, was substantiated by S. Bally. The method of identification is connected with his concept of expressivity; on its basis, the method of stepwise identification by E. V. Kuznetsova was developed. Both methods are widely used in Russian studies.

Nominativity is a property of LU associated with the designation and naming of objects, correlated with the classifying activity of consciousness (denotation and/or signification), i.e. the work of the left hemisphere of the brain in cognitive-nominative (in the aspect of generating LU) and cognitive-communicative (in aspect of LU functioning) processes.

Expressiveness is a property of a LE associated with its ability in a figurative or (more rarely) non-figurative "form" to represent the subjective aspects of a person's perception of reality: ideas that speak about the qualitative and quantitative manifestations of realities (objects and their signs, signs of other signs, actions, states, processes) , directly experienced emotions, feelings of speakers, subjective opinions, assessments about the subject of speech, etc. This property LE is correlated with the work of the right hemisphere of the brain in cognitive-nominative and communicative processes. expressive word, strictly speaking, does not correspond to the class of homogeneous objects: in the minds of native speakers there is no class squabble,sluts, stalwart, slobbers, parasites,brawlers etc. ELE not so much calls object, sign, action, phenomenon (although ELE is also nominative, but not to everyone and not to the same extent, as was already mentioned at the beginning of the article), how much expresses the subjective "I" of the speaker / writer, i.e. the human factor, therefore the expressive fund of the language is anthropocentric.

Therefore, we consider expressiveness as a property of ELE in opposition to nominativeness and, accordingly, expressiveness - in opposition to nominativeness, and expressive function(s) - in opposition to nominative function.

A different point of view is expressed by VN Teliya. She believes that these two functions are not equivalent in terms of their "scope", and therefore cannot participate in such opposition. The nominative function “establishes a relationship between the name and the object (identified up to a class)”, “is aimed at isolating and naming the elements of extralinguistic reality”, and the expressive function between “the evaluative-emotional attitude of the subject and the designated reality”, “associated with the choice of means, which satisfy the speaker's verbal intention to influence the addressee and make him 'empathize' or 'assistant' the addresser” [Telia 1991a: 33–34]. It is impossible not to agree with this, since we are talking about the expressive text, their passages, one passage (expressive dialogical) is given by the author to illustrate this point. An expressive text “is created by selecting the means and methods of conducting a dialogue,” writes V. N. Teliya [Ibid: 34]. But for such a selection, appropriate means must exist in the language system, already “marked” as non-neutral by our consciousness.

Often, the terms expressive and expressiveness are used as synonyms for the terms expressive and expressive. In linguistic literature and explanatory dictionaries, the phenomenon expressive (expressiveness) a fairly wide range of heterogeneous features are attributed: vividly and vividly reflecting the internal state, experiences, character, well, clearly expressing something, deliberately emphasized, unusual, original, non-standard, rare, unique, concise, colorful, etc. Therefore, the nominations expressive and expressiveness cannot have the status of terms, they can only partially replace the first two terms - in situations where it is not about the semantics of expressives, but about their functioning in oral and written statements.

The property of expressiveness of lexical units and their expressive functions are determined by their semantics. A common place in the theory of expressiveness is the recognition of the connotative nature of expressiveness as a linguistic category. But the connotation, as well as the number of connotative semes identified by linguists that generate an “expressive effect”, and their ratio in the LZ of a word are interpreted differently, therefore the grounds for expressiveness receive different interpretations.

In the concept covered here, three semantic foundations of expressiveness are distinguished: in the semantics of ELE, intensity, emotiveness or emotive evaluation and imagery are presented in various combinations, or “combinations”. The emotivity and emotive evaluation components are not combined within the same PL, these semes refer to different values, excluding each other. There is a disjunction relationship between them. These three grounds are distinguished in almost all studies of expressivity, and the terms emotive, emotiveness, emotive evaluation, introduced by V. I. Shakhovsky [Shakhovsky 1987: 23–29] emotionality as the properties of the subject to emotionally perceive the world react emotionally to situations and emotivity how the properties of language units are well "embedded" in the terminological system that describes expressiveness. From the standpoint of the cognitive theory of lexical meaning, each of these components has a cognitive and mental nature. The cognitive nature of language units is due to the cognitive function of the language associated with higher mental processes used by native speakers to learn, understand and explain the world around us, to pass on the knowledge gained from generation to generation. According to W. Humboldt, “Language, as it were, acquires transparency and makes it possible to look into the inner course of the speaker's thought” [Humboldt 1984: 171]. The results of these processes are verbalized by linguistic means, and the latter are the spokesmen for our thoughts and feelings.

Intensity, emotiveness, emotive evaluation we refer to the connotative part of the LZ ELE, opposing it to the denotative (or denotative-significative, in other terminology - descriptive) part of the LZ, and imagery is considered as an independent, integral, indivisible component, equally connected with both the connotative, and with the denotative-significative content of ELE.

2. 1. Intensity

In studies of expressiveness, it has become generally accepted that one of the components of the semantics of LU is ‘a high degree of an attribute of an object, phenomenon, action / excessiveness (hyperbolization) of an attribute’. This component is called intensity (the most common term), expressiveness (in the second, narrow, meaning of this term), as well as parametric parametric-evaluative component (T. V. Matveeva). According to the definition of T. V. Matveeva, it is a qualification of the subject from the point of view of the completeness of the manifestation of its characteristic feature [Matveeva 1986]. Interpreting this component as parametric-evaluative corresponds to the understanding of the quantitative assessment allocated in the system of partial assessments in philosophical works. The thesis that intensity “provokes” communicative (speech) expressiveness (expressiveness) is indisputable. However, it is undesirable to call this component the term expressiveness, for the reason that in the system of terms describing the expressive units of the language, it turns out to be “involved” three times: as a designation, firstly, of a general language category that combines expressive intensives different levels Russian language; secondly, the lexico-semantic category - generic in relation only to ELE (categories of semasiology and onomasiology); thirdly, - specific, if it is associated with expressive intensives only at the lexical level. Thus, the content boundaries of this term are blurred.

In one of our earlier works, the terminological opposition intensity - extensiveness was singled out as a designation of the opposition of an increased (strengthened) and a reduced (weakened) feature of an object, phenomenon, action, for example: tower, verst, pole, giraffe) and button,button,dwarf, dwarf - about a person of very high - very short stature; rush, rush, fly,rush headlong, play up, run away, dial. swirl "rip and trudge,trudge like a turtle, trail, dial. kandy "bat / shkandy" bat‘to move very fast – very slowly (of a person)’. However, later we abandoned this opposition, believing that it is advisable to single out not two, but one abstract seme 'exaggeration / underestimation of the measure, the norm of the attribute', which is verbalized by the following metawords and metaword combinations, usually used in dictionary interpretations and called intensifiers, in its semantics it is semantic primitives (A. Verzhbitskaya, Yu. D. Apresyan): very, strongly, very much, unnecessarily, extremely, to a high / low degree, to the extreme, emergency, very fast / slow, as well as very much / few, in large / small quantities, great multitude etc. This seme is “soldered”, “fused” with other semes of the LU meaning, which reflect that attribute of an object, another attribute, property or action, a process that in our minds is presented either as intensive or as extensive.

We associate intensity as a semantic phenomenon not with any quantitative qualification of an object, phenomenon, but only with one that demonstrates a deviation from the “normal measure”, i.e. from the zone of normativity, from some “zero normativity”, and as a result is perceived by our consciousness , in accordance with certain cultural settings of the speakers, other than the usual, corresponding to some social norm, or measure, object, phenomenon.

Moreover, ELE actualize not exaggeration (intensification) or understatement (weakening) of some attribute of an object, phenomenon, but performance speaking about such a measure of the phenomenon (quantitative parameter), which in the culture of society is equated to a new quality. Yes, verbs run away do not convey ideas about the actually possible degree of running speed (you can run very fast, very, very fast, very, very, very fast, but not 3, 5 or 10 km per hour) - it conveys an idea of a certain social norm, “zero” degree of measure. In contrast, the metaphor verb fly expresses the speaker's idea of an exaggerated process and therefore unusual in comparison with the 'run' process. Fly, as well as rush, rush, rush headlong, play up, spit, dial . twist׳ tear denote ideas about a different quality of the ‘run’ process.

Let's give examples. Verb get'to take something given, to acquire what is given, offered, sought' (money, books, magazine, apartment, title) denotes an action that can be interpreted in terms of its measure as corresponding to some social norm, or "zero degree of measure", and therefore is a nominative in the vocabulary system: people receive money and titles for their work, an apartment - for example, in turn, and books and magazines - by subscription (as it was in Soviet time) or as a gift, titles - for achievements in science, art, sports, etc. In contrast, the verb grab actualizes the same meaning, plus the sign ‘a lot / beyond measure’, which in contexts is also represented by various linguistic means: the pronoun all,all(for example: [About children] Zagrabastali all what is left of the father(colloquial speech); [About the director of the research institute] Zagrabastal all ranks you can get(colloquial speech)), adverb a lot of, nouns with quantitative semantics (grabbed a lot of / a lot of money) and others (for example: Zagrabastal straightaway two apartments , for myself and for my daughter, and people were left homeless(colloquial speech)). This verb describes situations of a different kind than the verb get: they are associated with a violation of the moral and ethical norms: grab- means not so much ‘receive’, but rather ‘appropriate a lot, in excess of measure of something., dishonestly or using one’s official position, family or friendship ties, etc.’, as well as ‘to seize someone else’s, not earned by oneself, not belonging to you’, ‘take away, seize by force’. His internal form verb grab related to the verb rob, the primary meaning of which is ‘to rake hay or grain into a pile with a rake’, preserved in dialects (Women did everything/and milked the cows/and in the field they fought/and hay /hay robbed.) .

Gift -‘make a lot of gifts, as well as bribe with gifts’ (this ‘much / beyond measure’ is expressed by the prefix per-). Such an interpretation is given, for example, by SOSH. The meaning of this verb can also be interpreted as combined, but it can be "splitting" into two meanings: 1) nominative- 'to give, make a lot of gifts to someone' - situations are quite real when someone needs to make a lot of gifts (for example, for a wedding, anniversary), but for someone this is a normal state: a person likes to give gifts or gives a lot of gifts someone, respecting, loving this person (for example, this situation: Grandfather gave gifts to his beloved granddaughter); 2) expressive- to bribe someone. many / frequent gifts or a lot of money, thereby to win over to one’s side in any business, any situation, having received the necessary benefit from this, using the person bestowed for selfish purposes '- and this is already a violation of moral, ethical and ethical standards . Thus, both lexico-semantic variants (hereinafter - LSV) of this verb denote the measure of action, but different: "normative" (the first LSV) and "non-normative" (the second LSV). But if in the first LSV only a measure of quantity is presented, which in linguistic interpretation is called intensity, then in the second LSV the quantitative measure is combined with the "measure" of moral and ethical quality.

This example illustrate the position on the transition of quantity into a new quality at the level of extralinguistic reality. ELEs record the results of cognitive processing of such a transformation. And therefore, the LP of expressives do not reflect a violation of the normal measure of an attribute of an object, phenomenon, action, but performance talking about such a violation (exaggeration). Thus, we associate the intensity of the expressive with the idea of non-normative (exaggerated or underestimated) in the aspect of some social measure, norm, a sign of an object, phenomenon, process, action, reflected in its LZ.

In the mental space of the speakers, the idea of a high degree (a sign of an object, action, another sign) either exists as a separate structure - an image (cf. representatives hellish,canine,damn(hunger , cold) ‘very strong in its manifestation’, infernal, frenzied, crazy(speed) - in dictionaries such metaphors are summed up under a generalized interpretation scheme ‘a high degree (to a high, extreme degree) of the manifestation of a sign’), or is embodied in the image in which an object, phenomenon, action is thought in its entirety. For example: lanky‘very + tall, as a rule, thin, ungainly (of a male person)’ ( lanky formed by adding long‘long’ and elms‘neck’, preserved in some dialects, the original meaning is ‘long-necked’), long-tongued‘too + talkative (of a female person)’, starburst‘strongly + hit someone’; synonyms hit,to dazzle, stun,stun‘very much + to surprise someone with something’, get excited simple, disapproving ‘for a long time + to do something; engage in some business that delivers + a lot + of trouble, labor; unnecessarily + slowly and painstakingly do something '(in SOSH this verb is semantized through synonymous verb mess around); kick back simple. ‘for a long time + and persistently, + sometimes by deceit, + to refuse something, + having achieved his goal’.

The idea of a high degree of an attribute of an object, phenomenon is associated with both rational and subjective (emotional-psychic) spheres of consciousness: on the one hand, at the level of action

As part of the emotional vocabulary, three groups can be distinguished.

Words with strong connotative meaning containing an assessment of facts, phenomena, signs, giving an unambiguous description of people: inspire, delightful, daring, unsurpassed, pioneer, predestinate, herald, self-sacrifice, irresponsible, grumbler, double-dealer, businessmanship, antediluvian, mischief, defame, fraud, toady, windbag, slob. Such words, as a rule, are unambiguous, expressive emotionality prevents the development of figurative meanings in them.

Polysemantic words, neutral in the main meaning, receiving a qualitative-emotional connotation when used figuratively. So, about a person of a certain character, you can say: hat, rag, mattress, oak tree, elephant, bear, snake, eagle, crow, rooster, parrot; verbs are also used in a figurative sense: saw, hiss, sing, gnaw, dig, yawn, blink and etc.

Words with subjective evaluation suffixes conveying various shades of feelings: son, daughter, granny, sunshine, neatly, close- positive emotions; beards, kid, breech- negative. Their evaluative meanings are determined not by nominative properties, but by word formation, since affixes give emotional coloring to such forms.

The emotionality of speech is often conveyed especially expressive expressive vocabulary. expressiveness(expression) (lat. Expressio) - means expressiveness, the power of manifestation of feelings and experiences. There are many words in Russian that have an element of expression added to their nominative meaning. For example, instead of the word good, getting excited about something, we say wonderful, marvelous, marvelous, marvelous; I can say I don’t like it, but it’s not difficult to find stronger, more colorful words hate, despise, loathe. In all these cases, the semantic structure of the word is complicated by connotation.

Often one neutral word has several expressive synonyms that differ in the degree of emotional stress; compare: misfortune - grief, disaster, catastrophe; violent - unrestrained, indomitable, furious, furious. Vivid expression highlights the words solemn ( herald, accomplishments, unforgettable), rhetorical ( companion, aspirations, proclaim), poetic ( azure, invisible, silent, sing). Expressively colored and playful words ( faithful, newly minted), ironic ( deign, don Juan, vaunted), familiar ( ugly, cute, poking around, whispering) Expressive shades delimit disapproving words ( mannered, pretentious, ambitious, pedant), disparaging ( to paint, pettiness), contemptuous ( tease, tease), derogatory (skirt, squishy), vulgar ( grabber, lucky), swear words (boor, fool). All these nuances of the expressive coloring of words are reflected in stylistic notes to them in explanatory dictionaries.

The expression of a word is often superimposed on its emotional and evaluative meaning, and in some words expression prevails, in others - emotionality. Therefore, it is often not possible to distinguish between emotional and expressive coloring, and then they talk about emotional and expressive vocabulary (expressive-evaluative).

Words similar in expressiveness are classified into: 1) vocabulary expressing a positive assessment of the called concepts, and 2) vocabulary expressing a negative assessment of the called concepts. The first group will include words high, affectionate, partly playful; in the second - ironic, disapproving, abusive, contemptuous, vulgar and so on.

The emotional and expressive coloring of a word is influenced by its meaning. Thus, such words as fascism, Stalinism, repression. Positive assessment stuck to the words progressive, peace-loving, anti-war. Even different meanings of the same word can diverge noticeably in stylistic coloring: in one meaning, the word appears as solemn, lofty: Stop, prince. Finally, I hear not a boy speaking, buthusband(P.), in another - as ironic, mocking: B. Polevoy proved that the venerable editor enjoys the fame of a scientisthusband(P.).

The development of expressive shades in the semantics of the word is also facilitated by its metaphorization. So, stylistically neutral words used as metaphors get a vivid expression: burn at work, fall from fatigue blazing gaze, blue dream, flying gait, etc. The context finally shows the expressive coloring of words: in it, stylistically neutral units can become emotionally colored, high - contemptuous, affectionate - ironic, and even a swear word ( scoundrel, fool) can sound approvingly.

Emotionally expressive words are distributed between book and colloquial (colloquial) vocabulary. Colloquial vocabulary is used in casual conversation. The book vocabulary includes words high, giving solemnity to speech, as well as emotionally expressive, expressing both positive and negative assessment of the named concepts.

Being synonymous with interstyle words, expressive vernacular words differ from them not only in their ability to express an assessment. They often contain an additional semantic shade, which is not in the interstyle word and with which the assessment of a given object, action, attribute, etc. is usually associated. The semantic “additive” that many rough-expressive words have in comparison with the interstyle word is often reflected in the interpretation. Some linguists call them actually vernacular *, others - vernacular (rightly noting the "similarity" with dialect words).

Expressive colloquial words also play an important role as a means of expressing an assessment, often negative, ironic, mocking, condemning. Wed and the above excerpt of the text, where in one phrase with high radiant, expressive colloquial sodrav and flayer are used.

The culture of speech communication is understood as such a selection and organization of language tools that contribute to the most effective achievement of the tasks set in this area of speech ... A significant place in the textbook is occupied by material related to the culture of speech communication and the design of official documentation.

Emotionally expressive coloring of words

To vocabulary oral speech include words characteristic of oral varieties communication activities. In terms of belonging to different parts speech, colloquial vocabulary, as well as neutral, is diverse. However, it cannot be said that they are not found in the speech of cultured and educated people, that is, those who follow their language.

The ability to use a word in any style of speech indicates its general use. Many words not only name concepts, but also reflect the attitude of the speaker towards them. As part of the emotional vocabulary, the following three varieties are distinguished. 1. Words with a bright evaluative meaning, as a rule, are unambiguous; “the evaluation contained in their meaning is so clearly and definitely expressed that it does not allow the word to be used in other meanings.”

Vocabulary of oral speech (colloquial, colloquial)

Therefore, it is not possible to distinguish between emotional and expressive vocabulary. 2) words expressing their negative assessment. Even different meanings of the same word can diverge noticeably in stylistic coloring: in one case, the use of the word can be solemn (Wait, prince.

The use of stylistically colored vocabulary in speech

The appearance of additional expressive shades in a word, depending on the context, significantly expands the visual possibilities of vocabulary. 1. Neutral (interstyle) is a vocabulary that is used in all styles of the language, it is a category of words that are not expressively colored, emotionally neutral. One can compare the commonly used word to lie and the words to compose, to flood, which belong to colloquial vocabulary and have a colloquial and playful character.

Modern Russian language. Vocabulary. Phraseology. Morphology

Becoming a term, the word loses its emotionality and expressiveness. This is especially noticeable if we compare common words in a diminutive form with the corresponding terms. Zubok from the word tooth in the meaning of “a bone formation, an organ in the mouth for grasping, biting and chewing food” and the term zubok is a cutting tooth of a machine, tool.

But the same term can also be used in different areas. The word often intersects functional features and emotionally expressive and other stylistic shades. Emotionally-expressive words that are neutral are usually included in the layer of commonly used vocabulary. Colloquial vocabulary - words with a stylistically reduced, rude and even vulgar connotation, to-rye are outside literary speech (see Colloquial).

Many words not only define concepts, but also express the speaker's attitude towards them, a special kind of evaluativeness. For example, admiring the beauty of a white flower, you can call it snow-white, white, lily. These words are emotionally colored: a positive assessment distinguishes them from the stylistically neutral definition of white. The emotional coloring of the word can also express a negative assessment of the concept called: blond, whitish. Therefore, emotional vocabulary is also called evaluative (emotional-evaluative). At the same time, it should be noted that the concepts of emotionality and evaluativeness are not identical, although they are closely related. Some emotional words (for example, interjections) do not contain evaluation; and there are words in which evaluation is the essence of their semantic structure, but they do not belong to the emotional vocabulary: good, bad, joy, anger, love, suffer. A feature of the emotional-evaluative vocabulary is that the emotional coloring is "superimposed" on the lexical meaning of the word, but is not reduced to it: the denotative meaning of the word is complicated by the connotative one. As part of the emotional vocabulary, three groups can be distinguished. Words with a bright connotative meaning, containing an assessment of facts, phenomena, signs, giving an unambiguous description of people: inspire, delightful, daring, unsurpassed, pioneer, predestinate, herald, self-sacrifice, irresponsible, grouch, double-dealer, businessmanship, antediluvian, mischief, defame, fraud , sycophant, windbag, slob. Such words, as a rule, are unambiguous, expressive emotionality prevents the development of figurative meanings in them. Polysemantic words, neutral in the main meaning, receiving a qualitative-emotional connotation when used figuratively. So, about a person of a certain character, one can say: a hat, a rag, a mattress, an oak tree, an elephant, a bear, an eagle, a crow, a rooster, a parrot; verbs are also used in a figurative sense: saw, hiss, sing, gnaw, dig, yawn, blink, etc. Words with subjective assessment suffixes that convey various shades of feelings: son, daughter, granny, sun, neatly, close - positive emotions; beards, kid, bureaucracy - negative. Their evaluative meanings are determined not by nominative properties, but by word formation, since affixes give emotional coloring to such forms. The emotionality of speech is often conveyed by especially expressive expressive vocabulary. Expressiveness (expression) (lat. expressio) means expressiveness, the power of manifestation of feelings and experiences. There are many words in Russian that have an element of expression added to their nominative meaning. For example, instead of the word good, getting excited about something, we say beautiful, wonderful, delightful, wonderful; I can say I don't like it, but it is not difficult to find stronger, more colorful words I hate, I despise, I abhor. In all these cases, the semantic structure of the word is complicated by connotation. Often one neutral word has several expressive synonyms that differ in the degree of emotional stress; cf .: misfortune - grief, disaster, catastrophe; violent - unrestrained, indomitable, frantic, furious. Vivid expression highlights solemn words (herald, accomplishments, unforgettable), rhetorical (comrade-in-arms, aspirations, announce), poetic (azure, invisible, silent, sing). Words are also expressively colored playful (believing, newly minted), ironic (deign, don Juan, vaunted), familiar (good-natured, cute, mumble, whisper) Expressive shades delimit disapproving words (mannered, pretentious, ambitious, pedant), dismissive (painting, pettiness ), contemptuous (to slander, toady), derogatory (skirt, squishy), vulgar (grabber, lucky), abusive (boor, fool). All these nuances of the expressive coloring of words are reflected in stylistic notes to them in explanatory dictionaries. The expression of a word is often superimposed on its emotional and evaluative meaning, and in some words expression prevails, in others - emotionality. Therefore, it is often not possible to distinguish between emotional and expressive coloring, and then one speaks of emotional-expressive vocabulary (expressive-evaluative). Words that are similar in nature of expressiveness are classified into: 1) vocabulary expressing a positive assessment of the called concepts, and 2) vocabulary expressing a negative assessment of the called concepts.

If the homework is on the topic: » Emotionally expressive coloring of words turned out to be useful to you, we will be grateful if you place a link to this message on your page in your social network.