ЛЕКСИКОГРАФИЧЕСКИЕ ПРИНЦИПЫ ОПИСАНИЯ ЗНАЧЕНИЯ СЛОВ В МНОГОЯЗЫЧНОМ СИНОНИМИЧЕСКОМ СЛОВАРЕ

Introduction

The theory of lexical synonymy must determine the practical principles of their lexicographic description [2]. The dictionary of synonyms must have full enough and absolutely explicit description of their semantic similarity and distinctions [1]. The description can be full if it includes all existing features of the words, adequately denote every meaning and help the language learners and speakers in choosing possible meanings of synonyms owing to situation [4, P.34].

If the synonymic dictionary has lexico-semantic mark which can be used as the commentary of the lexicographer about the combinatory peculiarities of a certain word in the examined  meaning than the learner cannot  use this kind dictionary and as it will not be possible to use the word in right meaning [5, P.10]. The person who knows language wеll can combine words with each other according to the lexico-semantic combination rules and form right constructions owing to the syntactic combinations.

Method

In order to conduct the research we use lexicо-semantic method aimed at determining the main meaning of the synonyms and their characteristics, their compatibility as well as contextual interpretation. Through distributional analysis, examples of synonymic rows from dictionaries were selected.

Discussion

Every English adjective from the synonymic row healthy, healthful, salubrious, salutary has the meaning “способствующий улучшению или сохранению здоровья” in Russian. Therefore if we say salubrious diet –здоровая диетa, salubrious mineral waters – полезные минеральные воды, salubrious way of life – здоровый образ жизни, we do not make a mistake: the chosen synonym by us may express the needed meaning and the people can understand us without difficulty. But, unfortunately, none of the given combinations is correct at all. Better variants of these combinations are healthy diet, salutary mineral waters, healthy way of life. The adjective salubrious is distinguished from Uzbek yakshi (yoqadigan) and the above given combinations may coincide with Uzbek foydali parhez, foydali mineral suv, sof (sog’lom) havo(qlim),  sog’lom turmush tarsi. Compare the above given word combinations in English, Uzbek and Russian:

healthy diet – foydali parhez – здоровая диета

salutary mineral waters - foydali mineral suv – полезные минеральные воды

healthy way of life –  sog’lom  turmush tarsi - здоровый образ жизни

salutary air (climate) – sof (sog’lom) havo (iqlim) – полезный воздух

The people who know language well may express their idea with different ways leaving the content of it without change. If the speaker tells something by heart but do not understand what he tells then you can do conclusion that he or she knows language bad.  A good speaker knows the meanings of words and can use them according to grammatical rules [3, P.160].

On the bases of the periphrastic ability of the speakers there may be knowledge of the synonymic system of a language in a broad sense. As to lexic synonymy and its place in the periphrastic sphere of a language it is well-known that in what contextual situations they can substitute each other. This feature belongs to the exact synonyms if their lexico-semantic and syntactic combinations may coincide even partially. On the other hand, some exact synonyms may also be substituted when their semantic distinctions are neutralized and also they should have similar combinatory features.

The verbs gather and collect are exact synonyms with their meaning given in the phrase “dust gathered (collected) in all the comers” [4, Р.181]; in Uzbek: hamma yerda chang yig’ilib (toplanib) qoldi [5, Р.67]; in Russian: во всех углах накопилась пыль.

The partially neutralized semantic distinctions may be observed in the English verbs menace and threaten – havf solmoq, qo’rqitmoq, “угрожать”. The verb menace is used in the meaning “to do harm to somebody”: to menace smb.with ostracism (new miseries). The second verb threaten expresses “to do harm to smb. when the latter did not carry out the demand”, for example:”If you interfere with my sister, I shall call an officer”- he threatened.

The semantic distinction between menace and threaten is neutralized partially when the demand of doing something concerns the not the person: the dog menaced (threatened) them with bared fangs [4, Р. 457].

The reverse side of the periphrastic ability of the speakers is their selective ability contributing to know language well. The selective ability of the speaker means to be able to choose the exact synonyms taking into account the social, regional and other peculiarities of the situation of communication [11, P.126].

If  the language has a number of stylistically different synonyms, in spite of the fact that they are semantically exact or not, in the certain situation which of them may be used depends on the speaker. It is very important to know which of two semantically close synonyms – situation and place from the row place, situation, position, post, office with the meaning “o’rin,mansab,lavozim” in Uzbek and “место, должность” in Russian may be used in a certain text. The newspapers publish advertisements: situation wanted – ish qidiryapman in Uzbek and ищу место in Russian and also situation vacant (available) – bo’sh o’rin bor - имеются вакансии.

There may be a stylistic mistake if the newspapers publishes: place wanted, places vacant instead of situation wanted, situation vacant(available). Such kind stylistic, functional and regional features and other similarity and distinctions between synonyms, must be given in the dictionaries.

The synonymic dictionary must include all synonyms, their meanings, lexico-semantic combination, distribution, grammatical constructions and stylistic features showing their usage in certain contexts and situations. In some cases according to their contextual meanings synonyms may be substituted depending on situation. The substitutional usage of synonyms is described as a stylistic device like metaphor.

The lexical units of different languages seldom correspond fully in spite of terms and the term forming words and they may partially correspond in meaning. Probably, we can consider that the English word fire is an adequate equivalent of the Uzbek word “gulxan” and the Russian word “костёр”. The word “костёр” means “a special kind of fire” – “огонь на основе определённым образом сложенного твёрдого топлива или только само устройство из топлива предназначенного для получения огня” [6, Р. 504] and in Uzbek it denotes “isinish yoki boshqa biror maqsadda o’tin qalab ataylab yondirilgan o’t, alanga” [8, Р. 197.]. The Uzbek word “gulxan” and the Russian word “костёр” do not simply correspond with the English word “fire” which has very general meaning.

The English word “chop” approximately corresponds to the Uzbek word ”yormoq” and the Russian word “рубить”, but there exist good equivalents of word combinations with verb: o’tin yormoq, - рубить дрова, karam to’g’ramoq  - рубить капусту, to chop wood, to chop (up) cabbage. The English verb: combination to feel (to hew) trees do not use to chop and may correspond with daraxt kesmoq, рубить деревья.The Russian  verb колоть сan not be an exact synonym of the verb рубить. Really, Russians say рубить мясо или капусту but they not use колоть. Pубить means “to cut smth. across and along” but  колоть denotes “ to cut only along”. The nuts, sugar, chalk and ice may cut along and across and in such cases it is possible to use either колоть or рубить. The Russian word combinations with one and the same verb may correspond to the Uzbek and English word combinations with different verbs: колоть орехи – yong’oq chaqmoq – to crack nuts; колоть лёд – muzny sindirmoq (parchalamoq) – to break ice.

In many examples it is not possible to find the exact synonyms as in  костёр – gulxan – fire, рубить – yormoq – chop.

The synonymic rows do not correspond quantitavely and qualitatively. The below given three approximately corresponding rows have nearly different number of elements and also within these rows there are distinctions and similarities not only by one feature but with different semantic, combinatory, distributional constructive and stylistic features:

Let’s observe one more synonymic row from English, Uzbek and Russian. The verbs choose, select, opt, elect, pick – tanlamoq, saylamoq, tanlad olmoq (saylab olmoq), ajratmoq - выбирать, избирать, отбирать, подбирать may be compared on the bases of choose – tanlamoq – выбирать which have general meaning denoting to take one or a number of things from some totality of them. The verb select denotes the broad choosing; opt means that there exist something alternative to choose; elect - very seriously choosing; pick means “to choose smth. in order to accumulate (to pick new words)” [12, P.349].

Results

The synonyms may be distinguished in English, Uzbek and Russian with different features. The verbs saylamoq – избирать – to elect denote only very serious choosing and may express very difficult decision. The verbs tanlab olmoq – отбирать - to choose denote pick up from a greater number of things by a certain feature, and ajratmoq – подбирать - to select mean choosing the thing which correspond to the other thing being very much alike.

Usually the words often used in a language are polysemantic and the isolated meaning of the polysemantic word may enter different synonymic rows. Some meanings of the words are become synonyms with words of very remote semantic structure [10, P.58]. The word go in the basic meaning walk may be correlated with the word leave which is not in one semantic field with go. The same may be approved about the word lift which is correlated with the word steal and enter into different semantic fields. In the given examples the words are included into the semantic fields with one isolated meaning which is connected with their distribution and other various meanings of the polysemantic word have different distribution. For example, the words expressing the meaning of to be in some position have general distribution N-V-A (Noun-Verb-Adjective): to appear modest, to bang shut, to become red, to blow open, to fall sick, to make good etc. Subject –Verb – Object –Adjective model may also be explained by general distribution: to leave the head open, to colour smth. black, to cut hear cut etc. The same type general distribution is used in Adjective – Infinitive expressing different shades of modality: ready to assist, prone to cry, sorry to leave etc [9, Р. 426].

Conclusion

The complex and subtle distributions between synonyms within a language and semantically close words in three languages may be theoretically studied on the bases of translation which must exist in the multilingual dictionaries of synonymy. However, it is not enough to have translations of synonyms in different languages but the most important lexicographic principle of giving synonyms in dictionaries requires to describe all their semantic, distributional, combinatory, constructive and stylistic similarities and distinctions.