Учебное пособие 1782

Scientific Journal “Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-Didactic Researches” Issue 2 (21), 2018 ISSN 2587-8093

[3٭] Bunin I. Cursed Days. A Diary of Revolution. Translated from the Russian, with an introduction and notes, by Thomas Gaitan Marullo. Ivan R. Dee: Chicago. 1998. 286 p. PT2.

Dictionaries used

[1٭٭] Obshchij tolkovyj slovar russkogo yazyka. – EHlektronnyj resurs. Rezhim dostupa: http://tolkslovar.ru (Data obrashcheniya: 18.04.2018).

[2٭٭] Larousse: encyclopédie et dictionnaires gratuits en ligne. – EHlektronnyj resurs. Rezhim dostupa: http://www.larousse.fr/ (Data obrashcheniya: 18.04.2018).

[3٭٭] Centre National de Ressources Textuelles et Lexicales. – EHlektronnyj resurs. Rezhim dostupa: http://www.cnrtl.fr/ (Data obrashcheniya: 18.04.2018).

[4٭٭] Cambridge Dictionary. – EHlektronnyj resurs. Rezhim dostupa: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/ru/ (Data obrashcheniya: 18.04.2018).

[5٭٭] Informacionnyj portal Classes.ru. – EHlektronnyj resurs. Rezhim dostupa: http://www.classes.ru/all-french/dictionary-french-russian-phrase-term-46286.htm (Data obrashcheniya: 18.04.2018).

[6٭٭] Wiktionnaire. Le dictionnaire libre. – EHlektronnyj resurs. Rezhim dostupa: https://fr.wiktionary.org/ (Data obrashcheniya: 18.04.2018).

[7٭٭] Slovari i ehnciklopedii na Akademike. – EHlektronnyj resurs. Rezhim dostupa: https://phraseology.academic.ru/11535/%D0%A1%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%82%D1 %8C_%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%B0%D1%85 (Data obrashcheniya: 18.04.2018).

[8٭٭] The Free Dictionary. – EHlektronnyj resurs. Rezhim dostupa: https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/for+one%27s+pains (Data obrashcheniya: 18.04.2018).

124

Scientific Journal “Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-Didactic Researches” Issue 2 (21), 2018 ISSN 2587-8093

UDC 801. 3:808. 2 + 802. 0

THE NATIONAL PECULIARITIES OF SEMANTICS

AND LANGUAGE EQUIVALENCE

L.V. Lukina

___________________________________________________________________________

Voronezh State Technical University

Ph.D. (Linguistics), Associate Professor of the Foreign Languages and Technology of Translation Department

Lyudmila Vladimirovna Lukina e-mail: lookyna@gmail.com

___________________________________________________________________________

Statement of the problem. The article analyses the problem of the national peculiarities of semantics and language equivalence of Russian lexemes denoting speech events in comparison with their language correspondences in English on the basis of the comparative-parametric method. The investigation is based on the material of the most authoritative Russian and foreign lexicographic sources. The concepts of optimal correspondences and language equivalence based on objective numerical indices are made more exact.

Results. The mechanism of definition of language equivalence of lexemes of the lexical group denoting speech events in the Russian and English languages, allowing to reveal the national peculiarities of the semantics of lexical units by means of a technique of the seme contrast analysis is described.

Conclusion. In the contrastive studies the problem of language equivalence is given great importance. The national peculiarities of word semantics and language equivalence are closely connected and correlated concepts. Both national peculiarities and equivalence of lexemes can be objectively characterized through a set of formalized parameters in the form of indices. The contrastive analysis of semantics makes it possible to reveal national peculiarities of the English lexical units on the background of the language of comparison (in the case of Russian).

Key words: contrastive lexicology, optimal correspondences, language equivalence, semantic, national peculiarities, denotational and connotational components of lexical meaning, parallel seme description, formalized parameters, comparative-parametrical method.

For citation: Lukina L.V. The national peculiarities of semantics and language equivalence / L.V. Lukina // Scientific Journal “Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-didactic Researches”. – 2018. - №2 (21). – P. 125-133.

Introduction.

Since ancient times, linguists have shown great attention to the problems of comparative study of the national peculiarities of language systems. In the XIX-XX centuries the problems of the correlation between people language and their national consciousness were of interest to such representatives of the new directions in the linguistic science as W. Humboldt, F. Forthunatov, K. Fossler, A. Martin, W. Weinreich, S. Bali, V. Matesius, V. Abaev and others. Attention to comparative studies is appropriate, since they allow supplementing the opinion of each nation about their cultural peculiarity determining the special features of the language, and ultimately giving the opportunity to develop research areas characterizing the national mentality.

At the end of the XX century in the linguistic science a new theoretical and applied areas appeared - contrastive linguistics, which came out of comparative linguistics and its method of studying is a synchronous comparison of lexical units of two languages for all components of meanings. The main task of contrastive linguistics is the objective revealing and studying of national characteristics of word semantics.

___________________

© Lukina L.V., 2018

125

Scientific Journal “Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-Didactic Researches” Issue 2 (21), 2018 ISSN 2587-8093

The growing popularity is the study of language in correlation with the national culture of the people speaking this language. First of all, the study and description of the national peculiarities of the language is connected with the examination of lexical units and vocabulary, since the lexicon constantly reflects the historical, social and cultural phenomena of society and the people. In the recent years many scientific works have appeared devoted to the contrastive study of language different levels. However, many theoretical and practical problems of contrastive science remain unsolved. Primarily, the contrastive study of the language lexical structure develops more slowly than other levels - phonetics and grammar. “It would seem that the most favourable circumstances could be formed for research in the field of vocabulary, since to a certain extent, all writers of bilingual dictionaries are forced to think about similarities and differences of recorded words. However, as it may seem strange it is in the field of contrastive lexicology major achievements in theory that are imperceptible.” [1, p. 11].

Today, there are new approaches, methods to solve problems in the study of the language vocabulary. Semantic systems of different languages contain distinct denotational and connotational elements of meanings of lexemes having national-peculiar information. The study and description of the national peculiarities of semantics in all its aspects is essential for the further development of forms and methods of teaching foreign languages, cross-cultural communication, the theory and practice of translation, and the practice of compiling dictionaries.

Specific national characteristics of the world perception and organization are reflected in the language of the nation. Noting the importance of language for the ethnic groups and culture, many researchers naturally compare the language with the mirror, which reflects the world around them, and the reality: «… even if they speak the same language, people do not always understand each other correctly, and the reason is often the difference of cultures» [2]. The outstanding Russian linguist S.G. Ter-Minasova notes that: «language is a mirror of the culture, it reflects not only the real world surrounding a person, not only the real conditions of his/her life, but also the social consciousness of the people, their mentality, national character, and the way of life, traditions, customs, morals, values, attitude, the world vision» [3, p. 38].

In contrasting linguistics in order to reveal and describe the national peculiarities of word semantics, one of the relatively young but very promising linguistic areas is the contrastive or synchronous-comparative research method, i.e. "binary comparison of the languages" [4], namely the study of lexical correspondences is carried out from a lexical unit in one language to its optimal counterparts in the other. This method is based on the comparison of the peculiarities of lexical systems in two unrelated languages and parallel correspondences in order to find translated equivalents.

As soon as people could speak different languages, they had a need to communicate with people who speak other languages. In the Middle Ages the variety of languages was explained by the Biblical legend about the construction of the Tower of Babel. In ancient times people spoke the same language and, having agreed, decided to build a tower to the heaven. To stop the construction God had given the mankind many languages, so they could not longer understand each other, continue the construction of the tower and get to the heaven. Separating language differences remain from the ancient times to our days. And only in the Renaissance it became necessary to solve the problems of the national language peculiarities with the help of the science.

The aim of contrastive lexicology is to reveal similarities and differences by a comparative study of optimal correspondences in two languages. Contrastive linguistics studies general and peculiar features in the structures of different languages. Comparison with contrastive study acts as the scientific method. The contrastive method «consists of studying similar and dissimilar characteristics of two or more languages with the aim of diversified description of the functioning of the system of separated cases of each of the compared languages» [5, p. 216].

126

Scientific Journal “Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-Didactic Researches” Issue 2 (21), 2018 ISSN 2587-8093

The problem of language equivalence of lexemes is a key one in contrastive study of vocabulary. According to the dictionary of linguistic terms a unit of speech that coincides in function with another, and capable of performing the same function as another unit of speech is called the equivalent [1**, p. 522].

The methodology of the research.

The aim of our work is to study the problem of the language equivalence and optimal correspondence in the field of lexical semantics, which is an actual task of contrastive linguistics at the present time. The object of comparison is Russian and English languages.

The semantic group including Russian lexical units which denote speech events, as well as their English correspondences and equivalents, represent the object of research. In Russian and English linguocultures, the interpretation of speech events transfers the national characteristics of the mentality, culture and traditions inherent in the representatives of these ethnic groups, and hence it is necessary to determine their lexical and other linguistic peculiarities. The subject of the study is the optimal correspondence of lexemes related to speech events in Russian and English languages, which were studied on the basis of the method of contrastiveparametric analysis on the material of lexicographical dictionary sources. Speech event is a lexical unit related to oral or written speech, presupposes one or more speakers (writers), as well as one or several listeners (readers), and participants of communication are connected by a certain goal. As a material for contrastive study this lexical group has been selected due to the fact that marked seme discrepancies in two languages are noted in it, which makes this lexicon interesting for studying and revealing the national peculiarities of semantics and types of optimal correspondences.

The most important task of contrastive study of the language semantics is not so much the enumeration of several variants of word meanings transference of the source language in the language of comparison and their classification according to seme structure, as explanation of the scientific approach to the revealing of national peculiarities of the semantics of lexical units in the two compared languages with the aim of solving the problems of oral and written language communication.

For the language contrastive description and the revealing of optimal correspondences, the number of lexical units of the target language and the number of correspondences in the source language are important.

Examining the lexical unit by the contrastive method the linear and vector counterparts are selected depending on the number of units that can be put in correspondence to the unit of the source language. If there are no correspondences it is noted the presence of l a c u n a s . In case of linear correspondences, only one unit of the source language corresponds to the single unit of the target language. The following contrastive pairs are examples of linear correspondences:

zdravica (здравица) – toast; oglaska (огласка) – publicity; molva (молва) – rumour;

politinformaciya (политинформация) - political briefing; govorilnya (говорильня) – talking shop;

razgovor po dusham (разговор по душам) – heart-to-heart talk (conversation).

With vector correspondences the unit of the source language (Russian) corresponds to several units of the language of comparison (English). As an example of vector correspondences the following lexical units having from two to six English correspondences are given:

diskussiya (дискуссия) – discussion, debate; beseda (беседа) – talk, conversation, chat;

127

Scientific Journal “Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-Didactic Researches” Issue 2 (21), 2018 ISSN 2587-8093

boltovnya (болтовня) – chatter, tittle-tattle, twaddle, jabber; treskotnya (трескотня) – chatter, blether, twaddle, gabble, jabber;

spor (спор) – argument, argumentation, dispute, controversy, debate, discussion.

In the course of revealing the national peculiarities of semantics, vector correspondences are more interesting but also more difficult. A.A. Reformatsky noted, «more interesting such cases when one lexical unit of one language corresponds to two or more units in another language» [6].

Comparing the facts of different languages, one can easily make sure that the concept is often indicated in one language has no denomination in another language and, consequently, it is impossible to find an appropriate equivalent of a lexical unit in the other, for example: in the Russian language: polilog (полилог) - conversation of many participants; predzashchita (предзащита) (dissertation, thesis) - the procedure for the preliminary examination of a fully completed scientific work in the organization where it was performed. In English, no correspondences have been found to these Russian lexical units.

A striking demonstration of national peculiarities of word semantics can be considered nonequivalence. For example: in the Russian language: mom-and-pop – a small family enterprise owned by husband and wife, fortnight – two weeks, five-o’clock tea – the tradition of drinking tea at five o'clock in the afternoon, green fingers (Brit.), green thumb (Amer. Engl.) - a person who has a talent for growing plants, etc. These English words are non-equivalent units concerning Russian ones.

The key problem facing linguists studying the problems of the national peculiarities of semantics is the task of revealing a language correspondence, an appropriate equivalent. In the solution of this problem, there is still no universal opinion among scientists. Most researchers consider that the equivalent is the most exact correspondence of a micro-unit of translation.

Y.I. Retsker's classification of correspondences includes three types of correspondences: constants, "equivalent" correspondences, in fact, are equivalents; analogs (sometimes called variant correspondences), which can be referred to vector correspondences, since the lexical unit of the source language corresponds to several units in another language, and adequate substitutions or non-equivalent units, when inexact lexical correspondences must be used to convey the original thought. As regards equivalents, the scientist also divides them into two types: full and partial equivalents. Full equivalents are units of two languages that coincide in all of their meanings. Partial equivalents do not coincide in all meanings, but only in one or several [7, p. 15].

According to the well-known specialist in the field of translation theory, V.N. Komissarov, considered equivalence at the level of the text, «the equivalence of translation is the maximum identity of all levels of content of the original texts and translation» [8, p. 66].

Today, however, the problem of language equivalence is interested not only theorists and practitioners of translation, but also linguists dealing with problems of language theory, comparative and contrastive research, lexicography.

The linguist R.A Budagov was interested in comparative studies of related languages, presented types of language correspondences according to functional and conceptual features. [9, p. 250-252]. The classification of semantic correspondences by conceptual characteristics proposed by R.A. Budagov (singles out a gender meaning and a specific meaning, meaning within the spiritual comprehension and meaning within the physical comprehension) can be applied to unrelated languages.

The famous linguists E.M. Vereshchagin and V.G. Kostomarov studying the problems of the relationship between language and culture, proposed the following concept of equivalence: «words which lexical concepts are interlanguage are called equivalent: they are easily translated, and during their learning it is quite acceptable a semantic transfer» [10, p. 55-56]. On their view the language lexical concept (or correspondence) «is a concept that is present in two

128

Scientific Journal “Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-Didactic Researches” Issue 2 (21), 2018 ISSN 2587-8093

(three, etc.) ethnocultural communities (for example, Russian and English) and without loss of information is adequately expressed in two different languages» [11, p. 24-25]. For example, in Ozhegov’s dictionary [2 **] the word stul (chair) is "the type of furniture for sitting" (the first seme or the semantic part CD, the term of E.M. Vereshchagin and V.G. Kostomarov), "with the back" (the second seme or CD), "per person" (the third seme or CD). In the English dictionary [3 **] the lexeme chair (stul) is explained as "a seat" (the first seme or CD), "for one person" (the second seme or CD), "usually with a back” (the third seme or CD) [11, p. 16-17]. As can be seen from the example in both languages, the interpretations of words coincide, i.e. the same semes (or concepts - the term of E.M. Vereshchagin and V.G. Kostomarov). Thus, the words stul (chair) and chair are associated with language lexical concepts which coincide, i.e. they are equivalents.

In P.P. Mikhailov’s opinion when establishing language equivalence, it is necessary: 1) to reveal the criteria by which the comparison is carried out; 2) to determine the degree of semantic correspondence in each of the languages; 3) to reveal the full or partial equivalence between the lexical units of the compared languages. The author gives the following definition of language equivalence «the language equivalence of a word is the preservation of the relative equality of the content and functional-communicative information contained in the words of two (or more) compared languages» [12].

In our understanding, the equivalent is a full correspondence providing complete seme equivalence for all meanings.

In recent years at Voronezh Theoretical and Linguistic School for comparative and contrastive studies a methodology has been developed for the objective study of the language subsystems of different languages and for the visual revealing of national peculiarities on the basis of formalized (numerical) parameters. Professors I.A. Sternin and M.A. Sternina developed and first applied the comparative-parametric method in their studies. Theoretical and practical foundations of this method have laid down in the works of the scientists, as well as in the works of their numerous followers. The comparative-parametric method allows to reveal the degree of demonstration of the national peculiarity of a particular language subsystem with a certain parameter, i.e. calculating the corresponding index [13].

To determine language correspondences or equivalents first of all it is necessary to determine the factors by which the comparison is made. The factor of contrasting comparison is the analysis of lexemes according to denotational, connotational and functional semes.

To avoid subjectivity in the choice of an equivalent correspondence it is necessary to determine the optimal variant for the translation of the lexical unit among all language correspondences taking into account denotational, connotational and functional components. Optimal correspondences are those contrastive pairs with several counterparts in the compared language for which the largest value of the indices of the denotational, connotational and functional identity of lexemes is noted with the dominating role of the index denotational identity. The choice of the optimal counterpart is made on the basis of the calculation of formalized parameters represented in the form of indices of denotational, connotational and functional identity of lexemes, which is the ratio of coinciding denotational, connotational and functional semes respectively to the total number of semes of this category revealed in the analysed lexemes.

The calculation of indices denotational, connotational and functional identity of lexemes is carried out in the following way: if there is a complete (full) semes coincidence in both languages, it is given the value of one; in the absence of coincidence the seme is given the value of zero; in the case of a partial coincidence of semes – 0,5 [14].

In the course of determining the optimal correspondence while comparing Russian and English lexemes with the parametric method in contrastive pairs the values having national peculiarities are fixed.

As an example consider the Russian lexeme obshchenie (общение) and its three counterparts in English: communication, contact, intercourse.

129

Scientific Journal “Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-Didactic Researches” Issue 2 (21), 2018 ISSN 2587-8093

In this contrasting pair there is inequality in denotational and functional semes. The index of denotational identity equals 63%, the index of connotational identity is 100% and the index of functional identity is 40%.

Compare the values of indices denotational, connotational and functional identity for the examined contrastive pairs:

As it can be seen in the table, the seme study of all three English counterparts (communication, contact, intercourse) to the Russian lexeme obshchenie (общение) its optimal translation counterpart as well as language equivalent on the basis of the values of the introduced indices can be recognized the English lexeme communication having 100% coincidence of all indices. The most national peculiarity has been found in the contrastive pair obshchenie (общение) - intercourse, its indices of denotational and functional identity are the least and equal to 63% and 40% respectively.

The example shows that in a parallel seem analysis in the contrastive pair nationalpeculiar semes are defined (for visualization non-equivalent semes are marked in space out type), the other semes which do not have national differences will be equivalent.

At the seme description the connotational component reflects the national peculiarity of the emotional and evaluative content of the word in different national societies.

The consideration of the functional component of lexical meaning and the selection of appropriate stylistic and functional means in the native language is also an important problem. Functional semes are divided into functional-stylistic, functional-social, functional-temporal, functional-territorial and functional-frequency. As for the stylistic component semes can belong to interstylistic or colloquial vocabulary, to official-formal or bookish.

In the course of the study in the semantic group “speech events” a number of new lexical units that appeared in the Russian language at the end of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century and represent borrowings from the English language have been singled out: prezentaciya (презентация - presentation), videokonferenciya (видеоконференция – videoconference), tok-shou (ток-шоу - talk show), ehsehmehska (эсэмэска – SMS), imehjl (имэйл - email), ehkzit-pol (экзит-пол - exit-poll), banner (баннер - banner), bilbord (билборд - billboard), etc. The total number of such lexical units in the studied group is 3% and is obviously related with the development of informational systems and advertising business.

Based on the above, it can be summed up that the application of the comparativeparametric method and the system of indices denotational, connotational and functional identity of lexemes made it possible to reveal and determine language correspondences on the basis of objective numerical parameters, and, accordingly, the national peculiarities of the semantics of English lexical units in comparison with the Russian ones.

131

Scientific Journal “Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-Didactic Researches” Issue 2 (21), 2018 ISSN 2587-8093

Conclusion.

Thus, at the present stage of the development of linguistic science, the methods of comparative and contrastive research are the main methods for revealing and studying the national peculiarity of semantics and language equivalence. The task of the comparative-contrastive study is to identify equivalence and the national peculiarity of the language subsystems. Linguistics of the 21st century includes the study of the language equivalence to the primary tasks of contrastive linguistics. The revealing of optimal and equivalent correspondences while comparing the semantics of words is closely related to the study of national differences of lexical units in the compared languages. For the last few years, a new research area has appeared in the study of the national peculiarities of semantics, based on the use of a system of formalized parameters (indices) in contrastive studies of vocabulary. Modern methods of describing the national peculiarities of language systems in comparison with previously used techniques are more objective and precise.

Practice shows that the use of noted above formalized parameters to determine the national peculiarities of the semantics of lexical units and language equivalence in two languages turned out to be quite productive.

References

[1] Yarceva V.N. Kontrastivnaya grammatika / V.N.YArceva. – M.:Nauka, 1981. –

111s.

[2]Vereschagin E.M. Yazyik i kultura: Lingvostranovedenie v prepodavanii russkogo yazyika kak inostrannogo / E.M. Vereschagin, V.G. Kostomarov. – M.: Russkiy yazyik, 1983. – 269 s.

[3]Ter-Minasova S.G. Yazyk i mezhkul'turnaya kommunikaciya / S.G. Ter-Minasova. – M.: Slovo, 2000. – 262 s.

[4]Reformatskij A.A. Vvedenie v yazykoznanie: ucheb. dlya vuzov / A.A. Reformatskij

//Pod red. V.A. Vinogradova. - M.: AspektPress, 2003. – 536 s.

[5]Gal'perin I.R. Izbrannye trudy / I.R. Gal'perin. – M.: Vysshaya shkola, 2005. – 255 s.

[6]Reformatskij A.A. Lingvistika i poehtika / A.A. Reformatskij. - M., 1987. – 243 s.

[7]Retsker Ya.I. Teoriya perevoda i perevodcheskaya praktika. Ocherki lingvisticheskoy teorii perevoda / Ya.I. Retsker. – M.: Izd-vo «R. Valent», 2004. – 240 s.

[8]Komissarov V.N. Slovo o perevode / V.N. Komissarov. – M.: Mezhdunarodnyie otnosheniya, 1973. – 215 s.

[9]Budagov R.A. Yazyik i rech v krugozore cheloveka / R.A. Budagov. – M.: Dobrosvet - 2000, 2000. – 304 s.

[10]Vereschagin E.M. Yazyik i kultura: Lingvostranovedenie v prepodavanii russkogo yazyika kak inostrannogo / E.M. Vereschagin, V.G. Kostomarov. – M.: Russkiy yazyik, 1983. – 269 s.

[11]Vereschagin E.M. Lingvostranovedcheskaya teoriya slova / E.M. Vereschagin, V.G. Kostomarov. – M.: Russkiy yazyik, 1980. – 320 s.

[12]Mihaylov P.P. Mezh'yazyikovaya semanticheskaya ekvivalentnost, nepolnoekvivalentnost i bezekvivalentnost leksicheskih edinits (na materiale chuvashskogo, tatarskogo i russkogo yazyikov): dis. … kand. filol. nauk / P.P. Mihaylov. – Cheboksaryi, 2006. – 194 s.

[13]Sternina M. A. Sopostavitelno-parametricheskiy metod lingvisticheskih issledovaniy: Monografiya/ M.A. Sternina. – Voronezh: izdatelstvo «Istoki», 2014. – 115 s.

[14]Lukina L.V. Natsionalnaya spetsifika semantiki slova i problema mezh'yazyikovoy semanticheskoy ekvivalentnosti (na materiale naimenovaniy rechevyih sobyitiy v russkom i angliyskom yazyikah): dis. … kand. filol. nauk. – Voronezh, 2008.

Dictionaries used

132

Scientific Journal “Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-Didactic Researches” Issue 2 (21), 2018 ISSN 2587-8093

[1**] Ahmanova O.S. Slovar lingvisticheskih terminov / O.S. Ahmanova. – M.: Sovetskaya entsiklopediya, 1969. – 608 s.

[2**] Ozhegov S.I. Tolkovyj slovar' russkogo yazyka: 80 000 slov i frazeologicheskih vyrazhenij / Rossijskaya AN. Institut russkogo yazyka im. V.V. Vinogradova / S.I. Ozhegov, N.YU. SHvedova. – 4-e izd., dop. – M.: OOO «ITI Tekhnologii», 2003. - 941 s.

[3**] Hornby, A.S.: Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary – Oxford University Press, 2005. – 1072 p.

UDC 882 Чех – 32. 08

POLYASPECT LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS OF ANTON CHEKHOV'S SHORT STORY

"THE DEATH OF A GOVERMENT CLERK"

M.R. Miloud

___________________________________________________________________________

Algiers University 2 named after Abu Elkassem Saad Allah, Doctor of Philology, Teacher of Turkish and Russian languages Department

Mohamed Rachid Miloud e-mail: pawug2007@mail.ru

___________________________________________________________________________

Statement of the problem. The article is devoted to polyaspect linguistic analysis of Anton Chekhov's short story "The Death of a Goverment Clerk". The paper is aimed at mastering the methodology of linguistic analysis of literary text. The article deals with the linguistic structure of the short story in terms of vocabulary, word formation, morphology and onomastics.

Results. The article describes the features of the semantic adaptation of borrowed words for the expression of historical facts in the story of A.P. Chekhov "The Death of a Goverment Clerk". In the paper, the individual author's use of language units has been analyzed and it is proved that the author's image manifests itself in the lexical, stylistic and semantic aspects of the linguistic units involved in creating the text of this story. It was found out with the help of which language units the connection between the author and the reader is most often revealed, also it is revealed due to what linguistic phenomena and units there is an expression of the author's modality plan in the story.

Conclusion. As a result of the analysis, the author proves that during the writing of this story A.P. Chekhov actively used the possibilities of such linguistic levels as vocabulary, word formation, morphology and onomastics. On the basis of the conducted research it can be argued that the story, after 134 years, has not lost its artistic value, because it is brilliantly simple and raises a current topic "the veneration and servility of people".

Keywords: short story, stylistic analysis, Russian literature, word formation, borrowing, onomastics, linguistics.

For citation: Miloud M.R. Polyaspect linguistic analysis of Anton Chekhov's short story "The death of a goverment clerk" / M.R. Miloud // Scientific Journal “Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-didactic Researches”. – 2018. - №2 (21). – P. 133-139.

Introduction.

This article deals with the use of stylistic features of such language levels as vocabulary, word formation, morphology and onomastics in the story of A. P. Chekhov's "The Death of a Government Clerk". Particular attention is drawn to the consideration of this short story under a linguistic angle.

Anton Pavlovich Chekhov is a remarkable Russian writer who entered the history of Russian literature as the greatest author of short stories. It is interesting to note that he decided to link his life with medicine. A. P. Chekhov himself wrote that he did not remember why he chose medicine. The author paid great attention to both medical activity and writing. At the medical faculty of Moscow University, to which he entered to study, he had such a hobby, he

___________________

© Miloud M.R., 2018

133