2659

Scientific Newsletter of Voronezh State University of Architecture and Civil Engineering

The relevance of the proposed problem is due to the following reasons:

the attempt to describe the world national picture of native speakers of different languages;

interest in the study of national peculiarities of semantics and the language thinking;

the need to improve bilingual dictionaries that demonstrate the national specific features of semantic language correspondences;

expansion of foreign language teaching [2, p. 4].

The purpose of the paper is to supplement the methodology of semantics contrastive analysis, test it on a particular lexical material denoting speech events, to reveal national peculiarity of semantics denoting speech events in Russian and English languages.

The diversity of languages has become apparent since ancient times. The comparison of languages started from the time when people faced with the need to become clear to people of other languages. In the Middle Ages the question of the diversity of languages was solved according to the Bible: the diversity of languages was explained by the legend of the Babel Tower, according to which the God "mixed" people languages who built the tower, to prevent them from penetrating into the heaven. Only during the Renaissance, when it became necessary to understand theoretically the question of the national language, the researchers began to think about the solution of this problem from the scientific point of view.

In Russia at the end of the XVIII century with the support of the Queen Catherine II the lists of words and instructions had been prepared and sent to Siberian administrative centers to the members of the Academy of Science working there, as well as in various countries, where Russia had its representative offices, to collect according to the list of words corresponding equivalents from local languages and dialects. The materials of this research were processed by the Academician P.S. Pallas and he summarized them in the large comparative dictionary, published in 1786-1787 years (first two-volume edition). It was the first dictionary of this type in Russia, which was released under the title "Comparative Dictionaries of All Languages and Dialects". It was "The Language Catalogue" of almost 200 European and Asian languages. At about the same time, similar dictionaries were prepared in Europe [3, p. 19].

The first researchers engaged in comparison of languages were the compilers of reverse dictionaries, who had to select the corresponding words of a foreign language in their native language according to their practical knowledge [4, p. 30]. Certainly any methods in contrastive research of different languages at that time did not exist.

Contrastive linguistics as a new direction emerged at the junction of the structural typology of languages and Linguodidactics. One of its main objectives is to identify linguistic differences and similarities used then to optimize the process of teaching a second language (e.g., English language). Contrastive linguistics was successfully developed by Prague School. Mathesius Willem (1882-1945), a famous Czech linguist, the founder of Prague School in 1926 realized the importance of contrastive linguistics. The Contrastive approach enabled to see the enormous wealth and diversity of means of expression existing in languages and created the basis for a special type of language comparison. The works of one of the most prominent linguists of the twentieth century Sharl Bally (1865-1947) played the great role in the development of the new science. Sh. Bally was the first who was engaged in comparative description of languages. His ideas were further developed in the works of Soviet scientists, and first of all in the works devoted to the comparison of Russian and French languages: "Comparative Typology of French and Russian Languages", "Comparative Lexicology" and other works of Vladimir Grigorevich Gak.

74

The turning point in the development of contrastive linguistics is considered the publication in 1957 the book by Robert Lado «Linguistics across Cultures». In this book the idea of Charles Fries is used, who wrote: "The most effective materials are those which are based on a scientific description of the studying language with a thorough comparison with the results of the parallel descriptions of the native language of a learner" [5, p. 9].

R. Filipovic wrote: "Where the structure of the native and foreign languages coincide formally and semantically, the process of mastering is facilitated, and where they are different, the process of teaching will be inhibited" [6, p. 107. Quote by: Sternin, 2006, p. 13]. Thus, contrastive researches are intended to reveal these differences and, therefore, facilitate the process of foreign language studying.

The merit in the development and substantiation of the problems of Contrastive Lexicology in linguistics of our country belongs first of all to V.G. Gak, A.J Gudavichius, U.A. Zhluktenko, I.A. Sternin and others. The theoretical foundations of comparative-semantic researches have been laid down in their work. A.J. Gudavichius gives comparative linguistics the following definition: "... the study of two or more languages by comparing them with each other. At this approach the differences and similarities are equally important for the researcher" [7, p. 3]. R.A. Budagov also noted: "... not only similarities but also dissimilarities are particularly important and interesting for the studying of word combinations from the comparative contrastive point of view" [8, p. 19].

It should be mentioned that the comparison of the lexical systems lags behind the other language levels - phonetics and grammar. It would seem that the most favourable circumstances could arise for the research in the field of lexicon since, to a certain extent all the lexicographers of bilingual dictionaries have to think about the similar and different shades of recorded words. However, strange as it seems, there are no major achievements in the field of the theory of contrastive lexicology [4]. These difficulties in the study of lexical semantics are explained by the specificity of the object of study – the meanings of words. The necessity of semantic contrastive researches caused by the urgency of the problem connected with of the interference phenomenon in Linguodidactics and translation, as well as the creation of bilingual dictionaries, reflecting the semantic and functional differences of lexical units of two languages. The aim of Contrastive Linguistics is comparative (contrastive, parallel) investigation of language correspondences of two languages for revealing their differences. As I.A. Sternin marks, the main thing at contrastive research is to reveal the differences; similarities are revealed "automatically" [9, p. 25]. Indeed, if at seme description of contrastive pairs national-specific semes have been revealed the rest semes - those which do not have specific national differences, will be equivalent.

Contrastive Semasiology as a part of contrastive lexicology is a description of the meanings of lexical units of one language in comparison to possible correspondences in the other language in order to identify the differences between these units. The research of analysis of contrastive strategies of the semantics of the words "in consideration of the aspect of their differentiation and universalization allows detecting both common (generalizing) features, as well as ones caused by cultural peculiarity" [10, p. 136].

Depending on the number of lexical units, which can be correspondences to the lexical unit in the source language, are allocated line of correspondences – a unit of source language corresponds only one unit of comparison language, for example,

исповедь - ispoved' – confession;

электронное письмо - jelektronnoe pis'mo – e-mail;

and vector correspondences – a unit of a source language corresponds several units of a comparison language, for example,

выступление - vystuplenie – speech, address;

утверждение - utverzhdenie – affirmation, assertion, statement,

75

Scientific Newsletter of Voronezh State University of Architecture and Civil Engineering

and also lacuna – a unit in a language of comparison does not correspond to one unit in a source language, for example,

afterthought – мысль, пришедшая позднее, после произошедшего событияmysl', prishedshaja pozdnee, posle proizoshedshego sobytija,

accost – подойти и заговоритьpodojti i zagovorit',

and non-equivalent lexical units - have no correspondences in a comparison language, for example,

Russian lexemes оговорка, предзащита, телемост - ogovorka, predzashhita, telemost have no correspondences in English language.

If there are lacunas it can be an approximate translation, which cannot fully convey the semantic content of units of a foreign language, but transmit a certain part of its semantic content.

At the present period, analyzing the meaning of the word (the sememe), two components are allocated. The first component of a sememe is a lexical meaning of the word, that is, a certain reflection of extra-linguistic reality, the second - the structural and linguistic meaning, that is, information about the functional features of the word, within the meaning of the word reflects the linguistic reality. In the lexical meaning denotational and connotational components are allocated.

Denotational component of meaning is the main component of the lexical meaning of the word. It conveys the basic information about the properties and features of the object.

Connotational component reflects the emotionally evaluative attitude to the denotatum of the word. Estimated meaning is described by marks "approvingly", "negative" and also "not value." Note that dictionaries often give only one mark "disapprovingly", others estimated marks usually are not given, so in determining the estimate characteristics the researcher must rely on their own sense of language and intuition.

Emotional characteristics are presented in dictionaries by marks "disparaging", "derogatory", "neglectful", "unceremonious", "ironic", "a jocular", "caressing", "a sympathetic", "respectful", "admiring" and also "unemotional".

Functional features express information about the peculiarities of the functioning of language units in speech and are divided into functional and stylistic, functional-social, functional-temporal, functional-territorial and functional-frequency.

Functional-stylistic characteristics are described by the following marks:

"inter stylistic" - vocabulary which is used both in writing and in speech;

"bookish" - vocabulary used in writing speech and in formal situations;

"high style" - characterized by solemnity, sublimity;

"official and business style" – vocabulary is inherent in paperwork and official documents;

"poetic" – vocabulary used primarily in poetry; "nonfiction" – vocabulary used in journalism;

"colloquial" - informal vocabulary, without departing from the literary norm;

"reduced" - vocabulary, going beyond the literary norm, including:

"slang" - expressive reduced vocabulary;

"jargon" - expressive reduced vocabulary characteristic of the speech of certain social, age, gender groups of people;

«colloquialism» - vocabulary is not accepted in the literary language;

«gross»; «abussive».

Functional-social meaning is described by the dictionaries marks:

"national", "special", "scientific", "technical", "political", "legal", "youth", "childish", "student", "criminal", etc.

Functional-territorial meaning is described as follows: "widespread", "regional", "American", "British", "Scottish", "Canadian", etc.

76

To describe functional-temporal features following marks are used “contemporary",

"new," "outdated," "obsolescent", "Soviet", etc.

Functionally-frequency features are described by the marks: "common", "littleused", "rare", "often-used", "not current" [3, p. 36].

The main concept of contrastive lexicology is the concept of language correspondences. Language correspondences according to I.A. Sternin are units of different languages that are similar in seme composition; they are semantically similar units of two languages, which can be placed in accordance to each other, regardless of whether they are often used for the mutual translation or may be used to translate only theoretically, in some specific contexts [9, p. 34].

The main unit of the contrastive analysis (description) is a contrastive pair. A contrastive pair is two lexical units of compared languages, which are language correspondences. In each contrastive pair separate semes obtained as a result of component analysis are compared. Contrastive pairs, in which there is a complete seme equivalence, are language equivalents. The unified analysis of the semantics of the compared words of two languages is that a similar seme interpretation in every language is compared, and one interpretation is chosen, giving the most general description of the certain semantic feature.

For example:

Rus. выступление “performance” - in dictionaries the following semes are allocated:

речь, доклад, заявление перед группой людей, высказывание мнения или предо-

ставление информации - speech, report, statement in front of a group of people, opinions, statement or providing information, they are summarized in the seme предо-

ставление информации или мнения группе людей providing information or opinions to the group of people;

Eng. speech - voicing opinions or providing information to a large group of people. .

On the basis of seme description of semantics of the compared words of two languages the comparison in pairs (binary) of semes in the structure of their meanings is carried out and the revealing of national semantic components (i.e., semes which do not coincide in the compared units of two languages, in a lexical unit of the source language and the language of comparison). Thus, the national peculiarity of semantics of a lexical unit is its difference in meaning from a similar unit of the language of comparison.

Therefore, it can be concluded that the national peculiarity of the English lexical unit speech is revealed in the seme in front of a large group of people.

Denotational peculiarities of meaning are revealed in discrepancy of denotational semes and causes denotational national peculiarities of meaning. In Russian language the word house means "a building, structure, intended for dwelling, for housing a variety of institutions and enterprises" has national peculiarities of semantics comparatively to its English counterpart house - "a building for dwelling, where usually one family lives." Comparing the meaning of the words дом and house, we describe as the national peculiarities of the Russian word the presence of differential seme "for various institutions and enterprises", and English - "home where one family lives."

Connotational peculiarity of meaning is a discrepancy of word emotional and evaluative content. It can reflect the different emotional and evaluative attitude to one denotatum in the various national cultures.

For example: Rus. нагоняй - nagonjaj (disapprovingly) – telling-off (not value); назидание - nazidanie (unemotional) – sermon (disparaging).

Structural peculiarity of meaning reflects the differences between the lexical units of two languages connected with historical places of lexical units in their language systems. For example: do not coincide the functional semes of Russian and English lexemes – теле-

77

Scientific Newsletter of Voronezh State University of Architecture and Civil Engineering

грамма - telegramma (contemporary, widespread, common) – telegram (outdated, British, little-used); упрек - uprek (inter stylistic, common) – reproof (bookish, little-used).

Contrastive description of lexemes is a logical sequence of the researcher actions consisting of several stages or steps of the comparative analysis.

The method of contrastive description of lexical grouping can be represented as fol-

lows.

Step 1. Selection of lexical grouping (group) in the source language.

As the material for the contrastive analysis it is advisable to choose the whole lexical group to provide a complete set of units for the component analysis.

As a source language it is more convenient to choose the native language of the researcher. Step 2. Making up a basic list of lexical group.

By the method of continuous selection from the explanatory and then synonymic dictionaries of the source language the words belonging to the analyzing lexical group are written down and compiled the basic list of words and phrases.

Texts of fiction and journalistic literature are also analyzed in which new words of the lexical group are revealed and added to the basic list.

According to the results of the text analysis and frequency dictionaries the frequency of the lexical units of investigating group is also determined.

Step 3. The structuring of lexical group.

The resulting list of lexical units of this group is divided into semantic groups and subgroups.

Step 4. The revealing of language lexical correspondences.

For every sememe in Russian language vocabulary counterparts are found in English language by using of Russian-English translation dictionaries, and English explanatory dictionaries.

Each word of the source language is verified by translation bilingual dictionaries and all correspondences of the word are written down.

All received lexemes in the language of comparison (in our case – English) are checked by explanatory dictionaries of the language, the revealed new lexemes complete the list correspondences of the analyzed Russian word and, so the list of language correspondences is made up.

Step 5. The seme description of meanings of lexical units in the comparable languages.

The seme description of meanings is carried out by using a number of methods, the main are seme analysis of dictionary definitions, component analysis, contextual analysis and others.

As a result of this analysis, the researcher receives a description of the meaning of words of the source language and the language of comparison as a list of parallel semes.

The seme analysis of compared sememes is carried out according to three categories of semes: denotational, connotational and functional. If there is no seme in the sememe of one of the languages the seme lacuna is recorded.

Step 6. The last step is the compiling of contrastive seme translation bilingual dictionary of investigated lexical group, in which full (equivalent) units are included (when lexical units in two languages completely coincide in denotational, connotational and functional semes), non-equivalent units (when by comparing the words in two languages there is denotational, connotational and functional non-equivalence), the sole correspondence (there is only one of the translated correspondence) and the optimal correspondence (when there is several vector correspondences and one of the versions is the closest in denotational, connotational and functional semes).

We will show the application of contrastive method for describing a particular language material.

78

In the analysis of Russian-English parallels of units denoting “speech events” the following mechanism of contrastive description of the lexical group was applied, comprising six basic "steps".

Step 1. Selection of lexical grouping denoting “speech events” in the source (Russian) language.

As we understand it, “speech event” should be in the form of oral or written speech, develop in time and/or space, presupposes one or several speakers or writers and one or more listeners or readers, as well as a certain goal we introduced by the participants of communication.

These lexemes have been chosen as the material for investigation due to the fact that a preliminary analysis showed the presence in this thematic group noticeable sememes and semes noncoincidence in two languages, which makes this category of lexicon interesting and relevant in terms of revealing national peculiarity of semantics and types of language correspondences [11].

The source language was Russian. Step 2. Making up the basic list.

By the method of continuous selection from the Russian explanatory dictionaries the words belonging to the lexical group “speech events” are written down and compiled the basic list of words and phrases.

The following Russian dictionaries have been analyzed:

The Big Dictionary of Russian Language. Ed. S.A. Kuznetsov (Bol'shoj tolkovyj slovar' russkogo jazyka. Pod red. S.A. Kuznecova) [1**]

The Dictionary of Russian Language: In 4 volumes / ed. A.P. Evgenyeva (Slovar' russkogo jazyka: V 4-h t. / Pod red. A.P. Evgen'evoj) [2**]

V.I. Dal The Explanatory Dictionary of Russian Language (in four volumes) (В.И.

Даль Толковый словарь живого великорусского языка (в четырех томах) [3**]

Ozhegov S.I. The Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language. Ed. N.U. Shvedova (Ozhegov S.I. Tolkovyj slovar' russkogo jazyka. Pod red. N.Ju. Shvedovoj) [4**] The Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language. Ed. D.N. Ushakov (Tolkovyj slovar' russkogo jazyka. Pod red. D.N. Ushakova) [5**]

The Explanatory Dictionary of Modern Russian Language. Under ed. G.N. Sklyarevskaya (Tolkovyj slovar' sovremennogo russkogo jazyka. Pod red. G.N. Skljarevskoj) [6**]

The Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language of the Beginning of the XXI century. Under ed.G.N. Sklyarevskaya (Tolkovyj slovar' russkogo jazyka nachala XXI veka. Pod red.G.N. Skljarevskoj) [7**]

The Frequency Dictionary of Russian Language. Ed. L.N. Zasorin (Chastotnyj slovar' russkogo jazyka. Pod red. L.N. Zasorinoj) [8**]

At this stage the list from 200 Russian lexical units belonging to the group "speech events" has been compiled.

Step 3. Structural classification of selected lexemes.

In the form of presentation in speech the analyzed group denoting “speech events” has been divided into three groups: oral, written and written-oral. The selected groups have been subjected to further division according to semantic features on speech event "Information Message", "Information Discussion" and "Information Request." It should be noted that all three mentioned subgroups have been observed in oral and written-oral speech events, and only two subgroups have been allocated in the written speech events: "Information Message" and “Information Request."

The result of the first three stages is the formation, structuring and description of the lexical group "speech events" in the Russian language.

79

Scientific Newsletter of Voronezh State University of Architecture and Civil Engineering

Step 4. The revealing of language correspondences of separate lexical units.

Every Russian unit denoting “speech events” is verified by bilingual Russian-English dictionaries, and all its correspondences in English are written down.

The following dictionaries have been used:

New Comprehensive Russian-English Dictionary, edited by D.I. Ermolovich (Novyj bol'shoj russko-anglijskij slovar', pod redakciej D.I. Ermolovich) [9**]

Taube A.M., Daglish R.S. Modern Russian-English dictionary (Таубе А.М., Даглиш Р.С. Современный русско-английский словарь) [10**]

Russian-English dictionary. Ed. O.S. Akhmanova (Russko-anglijskij slovar'. Pod red. O.S. Ahmanova) [11*]

V.K. Muller New English-Russian Dictionary (Mjuller V.K. Novyj anglo-russkij slovar') [12**]

Big English-Russian Dictionary: In 2 vol. / Under ed. I.R. Galperin and E.M. Mednikova (Bol'shoj anglo-russkij slovar': V 2-h t. / Pod obshh. ruk. I.R. Gal'perina i Je.M. Mednikovoj) [13**]

All English lexemes are checked by English explanatory dictionaries: Macmillan English Dictionary [14**], Longman Dictionary of English Language and Culture [15**], Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English [16**], Collins COBUILD English Dictionary for Advanced Learners [17**], Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary [18**], Cambridge International Dictionary of English [19**], Longman Dictionary of American English [20**], Webster’s New Dictionary of Synonyms [21**].

Three types of correspondences of Russian and English units have been chosen: linear correspondences: анонимка - anonimka – poison-pen letter; дебаты - debaty –

debate; запрос - zapros – inquiry;

vector correspondences: заявление - zajavlenie – application, statement, declaration; изречение – dictum, saying, maxim;

lacunas (units of one language do not correspond to one unit of another language):

оговорка - ogovorka – 0; предзащита - predzashhita – 0; аудиенция - audiencija – 0. In the investigated material the correspondences of all three types have been found.

It was found that in the lexical group “speech events”, one Russian lexeme can have from 0 to 7 correspondences in English language:

74 Russian lexemes have one correspondence in English language (for example, слушание - slushanie – hearing; открытка - otkrytka – post-card),

57 lexemes in Russian language have two English vector correspondences (for example, нотация - notacija – reprimand, lecture; разговор - razgovor – talk, conversation),

43 Russian lexemes have three correspondences (for example, доклад - doklad

–lecture, report, paper; ответ - otvet –answer, reply, response),

17 Russian lexemes have correspondences in English language (for example,

сплетня - spletnja – gossip, tittle-tattle, scandal, backbiting; афиша - afisha

–bill, poster, placard, notice).

The Russian lexeme трескотня has 5 correspondences in English language (chatter, blether (blather), twaddle, gabble, jabber).

The Russian lexeme спор has 6 correspondences (argument, argumentation, dispute, controversy, debate, discussion).

The Russian lexeme выговор has 7 English correspondences (talking-to, scolding, dressing-down, telling-off, wigging, reprimand, reproof).

80

The result of this step is the revealing of English correspondences to Russian units belonging to the group “speech events.”

Step 5. The component analysis of sememes of contrasting pairs in comparable languages by the method of the analysis of dictionary definitions.

As a result of this analysis sememes of Russian and English lexemes are represented as a set of semes.

409 Russian-English contrastive pairs of the lexical group “speech event” were analyzed. In every contrastive pair separate semes obtained as a result of the analysis according to three categories of semes: denotational, connotational and functional are compared.

For example, the contrastive pair отчет - otchet – report as a result of analyzing is presented in the form of a parallel set of semes.

REPORT – report

Lexemes of this contrastive pair are quite close to each other. National peculiarity of semantics is shown only at the level of denotational semes.

The result of this stage of the analysis is the seme description of the Russian and English lexical units.

Step 6. The contrastive seme dictionary.

As a result of contrastive research of a certain lexical group the contrastive translation dictionary can be made up. In this type of vocabulary the parallel seme description of the meanings of words is presented which are the translated correspondences. If semes of the source language and the language of comparison coincide they are characterized as equivalent. If one of the lexeme has no seme correspondence, it is non-equivalent.

The contrastive seme dictionary contains a complete seme description of the meaning of the word of the source language (in our case Russian) and parallel seme description of the meaning of its translated correspondences is given. Such dictionary is labour-intensive and timeconsuming in compiling, as it is necessary to carry out a full component analysis of investigated words, it is big in content, but it gives complete information about the translated correspondences and clearly shows the national peculiarity of semantics of two compared languages.

81

Scientific Newsletter of Voronezh State University of Architecture and Civil Engineering

Thus, the language of each ethnic group reflects the national peculiarities of perception and organization of the world, and Contrastive Linguistics is exploring all possible versions for expressing the content of the lexical unit of the source language against the language of comparison. This method of contrastive analysis allows quite authentically and clearly reveal and present both national peculiarities of semantics of lexical units, and semantic equivalence in two languages. Thus, according to the results of the contrastive description of the lexical group, in our case - the group denoting “speech events”, in two languages, you can reveal the level of presentation of national peculiarity of this group or its subgroups.

The contrastive method of language description, on the one hand, allows obtaining important theoretical conclusions about the character of national peculiarities of compared languages, and on the other hand, the results of contrastive research of semantics are applied and can be requested by translators and linguists, as well as be used in the teaching process.

Bibliographic list

1.Ter-Minasova S.G. Yazyik i mezhkulturnaya kommunikatsiya / S.G. TerMinasova. – M.: Slovo, 2000. – 262 s.

2.Sternin I.A. Kontrastivnaya lingvistika. Problemyi teorii i metodiki issledovaniya / I.A. Sternin. – M.: Vostok-Zapad, 2006. - 206 s.

3.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.

4.Yartseva V.N. Kontrastivnaya grammatika / V.N.Yartseva. – M.:Nauka, 1981. –

111 s.

5.Fries Ch. Teaching and Learning English as a foreign Language. - Ann Arbor,

1948.

6.Filipovic R. The Yugoslav Serbo-Croatian-English contrastive project. // Papers in contrastive linguistics. Ed. by Gerhard Nickel. Cambridge, 1971.

7.Gudavichyus A. Sopostavitelnaya semasiologiya litovskogo i russkogo yazyikov / A. Gudavichyus. – Vilnyus: Mokslas, 1985. – 278 s.

8.Budagov R.A. K sravnitelno-sopostavitelnomu izucheniyu slovosochetaniy: (Romanskiy yazyikovoy material) / R.A. Budagov // Filologicheskie nauki. – 1983. - # 1. – S. 19-31.

9.Sternin I.A. Kontrastivnaya lingvistika. Problemyi teorii i metodiki issledovaniya / I.A. Sternin. – M: AST: Vostok-Zapad, 2007. – 288 s.

10.Fomina Z.E. Metaforicheskie reprezentatsii prirodyi v poeticheskoy kartine mira Ingeborg Bahman i Sergeya Esenina v aspekte ih differentsiatsii i universalizatsii / Z.E. Fomina // Nauchnyiy vestnik Voronezh. gos. arh.-stroit. un-ta. Sovremennyie lingvisticheskie i metodiko-didakticheskie issledovaniya. – 2012. – vyip. 2 (18). – S. 135143.

11.Lukina L.V. Natsionalnaya spetsifika semantiki naimenovaniy rechevyih sobyitiy na materiale russkogo i angliyskogo yazyikov / L.V. Lukina // Nauchnyiy vestnik Voronezh. gos. arh.-stroit. un-ta. Sovremennyie lingvisticheskie i metodiko-didakticheskie issledovaniya. – 2010. – vyip. 2 (14). – S. 109-119.

Dictionaries used

1**. Kuznetsov S.A. Bolshoy tolkovyiy slovar russkogo yazyika / S.A. Kuznetsov. – SPb.: NORINT, 2006. – 1536 s.

82

2**. Slovar russkogo yazyika: V 4-h t. / AN SSSR, In-t rus. yaz.; Pod red. A.P. Evgenevoy. – 3-e izd. stereotip. – M.: Russkiy yazyik, 1985-1988. – t. 1. – 696 s.; t. 2. – 712 s.; t. 3 – 682 s.; t. 4 – 678 s.

3**. Dal V.I. Tolkovyiy slovar zhivogo velikorusskogo yazyika (v chetyireh tomah) / V.I. Dal. – M.: «Tsitadel», 1998. – t. 1. – 1744 s.; t. 2. – 2030 s.; t. 3 – 1782 s.; t. 4 – 1618 s.

4**. Ozhegov S.I. Tolkovyiy slovar russkogo yazyika: 80 000 slov i frazeologicheskih vyirazheniy / Rossiyskaya AN. Institut russkogo yazyika im. V.V. Vinogradova / S.I. Ozhegov, N.Yu. Shvedova. – 4-e izd., dop. – M.: OOO «ITI Tehnologii», 2003. - 941 s.

5**. Tolkovyiy slovar russkogo yazyika: v 4 tt. / Pod red. prof. D.N. Ushakova. – Moskva «TERRA», 1996. T. 1 – 824 s., T. 2 – 545 s., T. 3 – 712 s., T. 4 – 750 s.

6**. Tolkovyiy slovar sovremennogo russkogo yazyika. Yazyikovyie izmeneniya kontsa HH stoletiya / ILI RAN; Pod. red. G.N. Sklyarevskoy. – M.: OOO «Izdatelstvo Astrel»: OOO «Izdatelstvo AST», 2001. – 944 s.

7**. Tolkovyiy slovar russkogo yazyika nachala XXI veka. Aktualnaya leksika (Biblioteka slovarey) / Pod red. G.N. Sklyarevskoy. – M.: Eksmo, 2007. – 1136 s.

8**. Zasorina, A. Chastotnyiy slovar russkogo literaturnogo yazyika / A. Zasorina. –

M.: «Russkiy yazyik», 1977. – 844 s.

9**. Ermolovich D.I. Novyiy bolshoy russko-angliyskiy slovar / D.I. Ermolovich, T.M. Krasavina; pod obschim rukovodstvom D.I. Ermolovicha. – 2-e izd., ispr. – M. : Rus. yaz. – Media, 2006. – 1098 s.

10**. Taube A.M., Daglish R.S. Sovremennyiy russko-angliyskiy slovar / A.M. Taube, R.S. Daglish. – Izdatelstvo «Russkiy yazyik». – 2-e izd., stereotip. – M.: Rus. yaz., 2001.

– 776 s.

11**. Ahmanova O.S. Russko-angliyskiy slovar / O.S. Ahmanova, Z.S. Vyigodskaya, T.P. Gorbunova, N.F. Rotshteyn, A.I. Smirnitskiy, A.M. Taube. – M.: Izd-vo «Russkiy yazyik», 1987. – 768 s.

12**. Myuller, V.K. Novyiy anglo-russkiy slovar: Ok.200 000 slov i slovosochetaniy / V.K. Myuller. – 12-e izd., stereotip. – M.: Rus. yaz. – Media, 2005. - 945 s.

13**. Bolshoy anglo-russkiy slovar: V 2-h t. Ok. 160 000 slov / Avt. Yu.D. Apresyan, I.R. Galperin, R.S. Ginzburg i dr. Pod. obsch. ruk. I.R. Galperina i E.M. Mednikovoy. - 4-e izd., ispr. – M.: Rus. yaz., 1988. – t.1 – 1037 s.; t.2 – 1072 s.

14**. Macmillan English Dictionary for Advanced Learners. – Macmillan Education, 2007. – 1854 p.

15**. Longman Dictionary of English Language and Culture. – Third ed. - Pearson Education Ltd., 2005. - 1620 p.

16**. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. –Fifth ed., – Pearson Education Ltd., 2006.–1949 p.

17**. Collins COBUILD English Dictionary for Advanced Learners. - Third ed., - HarperCollins Publishers, 2001. – 1824 p.

18**. Merriam – Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. – Eleventh e., - Merriam – Webster, Incorporated Springfield, Massachusetts, U.S.A., 2003. – 1623 p.

19**. Cambridge International Dictionary of English. - Cambridge University Press, 1995. – 1773 р.

20**. Longman Dictionary of American English. – Second ed. - Addison Wesley Longman Limited, 1997. – 935 p.

21**. Webster’s New Dictionary of Synonyms. – A Merriam Webster, G & C. Merriam Company, Publishers. Springfield, Massachusetts, USA, 1983. – 1034 p.

83