Desemantization as a specificity of everyday communication

Introduction. The problem of desemantization in linguistics is considered from different sides: as a consequence of the development of the meaning of a word, as a phenomenon caused by the weakening of the nominative function, as a result of the influence of its lexical compatibility on the development of the meaning of a word. The relevance of the article is based on the lack of works devoted to various manifestations of the process of noun desemantization in modern colloquial speech. The purpose of the article is to identify the specifics of the semantic structure of names, the significativedenotative component of which is reduced in colloquial speech.

Materials and methods. Russian dictionary definitions of a number of lexemes and a selection of texts including these nominations from the National Corpus of the Russian language served as the material. The following methods were used: component analysis, the method of definitional analysis of dictionary entries, the comparative method, and the method of contextual analysis.

Analysis. Based on the collected material, the author identifies three groups of nouns with different types of desemantization, as a result of which special meanings are formed: a) a pronominal meaning, b) an independent evaluative meaning, on the basis of which a homonymous interjection can arise, c) a numerological meaning acting in unity with an emotional-evaluative one. The author reveals that the pronominal meaning or use is characterized by accentuation of the blurred designation of the subject of reality, attention to its general generic affiliation, indication of the subject, the presence of an antecedent or postcedent. In the second type of the desemantization process, the name has a pragmatic component as the apex of its meaning, and its significative-denotative component is located on the periphery. In the third form of the process of desemantization, a noun that has in its main meaning a component “a significant excess of standard characteristics” acquires diffuse semantics, in which both numerological and pragmatic components are present at the same time.

Results. In general, the material allows the author to conclude that colloquial everyday communication is based on superficial knowledge, which is reflected in the various types and results of the desemantization process in the content of the presented noun groups.

1. Apresyan Yu. D. Dictionary entry IMAGINATION. New explanatory dictionary of synonyms of the Russian language. First issue. Ed by Yu.D. Apresyan. Moscow: YAzyki russkoj kul'tury; 1997. p. 44-46. (In Russ.).

2. Apresyan V. YU., Apresyan YU. D., Dragoj O. V. ect. On the method of complex semantic, statistical and psycholinguistic analysis of ambiguity. Russkaya rech'. 2019;1:8-17. (In Russ.).

3. Arutyunova N. D. Language and the human world. Moscow: YAzyki russkoj kul'tury; 1999. 896 p. (In Russ.).

4. Axmanova O. S. Dictionary of Linguistic Terms. Moscow: Sovetskaya e`nciklopediya; 1966. 608 p. (In Russ.).

5. Gryaznova V. M. Mamedova A. N. The specifics of the semantic structure of nouns with reclamation evaluation in the significativedenotative component of direct meaning in Modern Russian. Gumanitarnye i yuridicheskie issledovaniya. 2021;1:196-204. (In Russ.).

6. Zaliznyak A. A. Pronoun in Linguistic encyclopedic dictionary'. Moscow: Sovetskaya enciklopediya. 1990. P.295. (In Russ.).

7. Zaliznyak A. A. Ambiguity in language and ways of its representation. Moscow: YAzyki slavyanskih kul'tur; 2006. 672 p. (In Russ.).

8. Karasik V. I. Linguistic crystallization of meaning. Volgograd: Paradigma, 2010. 433 p. (In Russ.).

9. Korsunova I. N. Deictic nouns in modern Russian; composition, semantics, pragmatics: abstract of thesis. Stavropol'; 2015. 29 p. (In Russ.).

10. Krylov S. A., Paducheva E. V. Pronominal words in Linguistic encyclopedic dictionary. Moscow: Sovetskaya enciklopediya; 1990. P. 295. (In Russ.).

11. Mamedova A. N. Evaluative-characterizing nouns with weakened or lost nominative function in modern Russian: composition and dynamics of semantic structure: abstract of thesis. Stavropol'; 2020. 29 p. (In Russ.).

12. Nikiforova E. B., Mordvinkina E. S. Evolution of lexeme semantics lexico-semantic group “sweets” in Russian in Izvestiya Volgogradskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta. 2018;6(129):94–99. (In Russ.).

13. Pisarenko D. A. The word death in the Russian language: semantic, semiotic, linguoculturological aspects: abstract of thesis. Stavropol'; 2021. 30 p. (In Russ.).

14. Rahilina E. V. Cognitive analysis of subject names: semantics and compatibility. Moscow: Russkie slovari; 2008. 416 p. (In Russ.).

15. Reformatskij A. A. Introduction to Linguistics. Ed by V.A. Vinogradov. Moscow: Prosveshchenie; 1967. 542 p. (In Russ.).

16. Russian grammar. Vol. 1. Moscow: Nauka; 1980. 783 p. (In Russ.).

17. Russian: Theoretical description. D. A. Galaj, N. V. Gutova, I. L. Zamyatkina, ect; ed by A. A. Kurulyonk, E. D. CHerneva. Kujbyshev: Barabinskaya tipografiya; 2012. 191 p. (In Russ.).

18. Uryson E. V. Dictionary entry PREMONITION. in New explanatory dictionary of synonyms of the Russian language. First edition. Under the general guidance of academician. Yu.D. Apresyan. Moscow: Yazyki russkoj kul'tury; 1997. P. 272–276. (In Russ.).

19. Uryson E. V. Shift of semantic emphasis in the meaning of the lexeme (premonition, hunger, appetite) in Russian language today. Vol. 1. Sat. articles. / RAS. Institute of Russian Language named after. V.V. Vinogradova. Rep. ed. L.P. Krysin. Moscow: Azbukovnik; 2000. P. 456–463. (In Russ.).

20. SHahovskiy V. I. Emotional picture of the world in a verbal presentation. Mir russkogo slova. 2019;1:35-43. (In Russ.).

21. SHmelev D. N. Modern Russian language. Vocabulary. Moscow: Prosveshchenie; 1977. 335 p. (In Russ.). Dictionaries and sources

22. Dictionary of modern Russian literary language. In 17 vols. Vol. 1–17. Moscow–Leningrad: RAS of USSR publ.; 1950–1965. (In Russ.).

23. Large explanatory dictionary of the Russian language. St. Petersburg: Norint; 2009. 1536 p. (In Russ.).

24. Linguistic Encyclopedic Dictionary. Moscow: Sovetskaya e`nciklopediya; 1990. 685 p. (In Russ.).

25. Dictionary of the Russian language. In 4 vols. Moscow: Russkii yazyk; Poligrafresursy; 1999. (In Russ.).

26. National corpus of Russian language URL: http://www.ruscorpora.ru (accessed: 21.07.2022). (In Russ.).

27. Ozhegov: S. I. Dictionary of the Russian language. Moscow: Russkij yazy`k; 1994. 796 p. (In Russ.).

28. Russian semantic dictionary. Ed by N.Yu. Shvedova. Vol.3. Moscow: Azbukovnik; 2003. 630 p. (In Russ.).

29. Dictionary of Russian Argot (materials 1980–1990). Moscow: Azbukovnik, Russkie slovari; 2000. 693 p. (In Russ.).

30. Ushakov D. N. Explanatory dictionary of the Russian language: In 4 t. Moscow: Russkie slovari; 1995. (In Russ.).