The language as a cultural monument needs careful and loving attitude. A. I. Solzhenitsyn, who actively promotes lexical expansion, is deeply aware of this. The writer believes that many Russian words were undeservedly discarded "due to the haste of our century, the carelessness of word usage and the idle Soviet custom" (Russian Dictionary of Language expansion. Compiled by A. I. Solzhenitsyn. Moscow, 1990. p. 3; further-RSNR and p.). This position even allowed the French Slavist Georges Niva to categorically assert that "all Solzhenitsyn's art begins with a revolt against the ideological word, speech with lies embedded in it" (Niva Georges. Solzhenitsyn, Moscow, 1992, p. 20).

A. I. Solzhenitsyn is committed to the views of the language of V. I. Dahl, a connoisseur and connoisseur of folk speech, who believed that "a living folk language that preserves the spirit of life in freshness, which gives the language firmness, clarity, integrity and beauty, should serve as a source and treasury for the development of educated speech" (Dahl V. I. Explanatory Dictionary., 1994. T. I. P. 22). The writer turns to Dahl's Dictionary in order to choose full-blooded, expressive, but little-used words that can return to the language of artistic works, to the literary vocabulary. The selection process was thorough: "... I first read all four volumes of Dahl in a row, very carefully, and wrote out words and expressions in a form that was convenient for coverage, repetition and use. Then I found these extracts still too cumbersome and began to extract the second one from the first squeeze, and then the third one from the second " (RSNR, 3).

The author has been working on the RSNR, which contains about 30 thousand words and expressions, for forty years. In the" Explanation "to the RSNR, A. I. Solzhenitsyn writes about his acquaintance with historical attempts to restore "previously accumulated and then lost riches" in 19th-century France, considering this way of expanding the language to be the most promising. Patriotic purists of England in the XVI century also turned to the native vocabulary in search of neologisms. Among them are famous writers Spencer and Lisle. Recommendations were compiled

page 15

lists of old English words, but these intentions to revive archaisms were not crowned with success, remaining in the sphere of wishes and unfulfilled dreams (Yartseva V. N. Development of the national literary English language, Moscow, 1969, p. 117).

Of course, an attempt to enrich the Russian language system with the help of RSNR is hopeless. However, the idea of creating a dictionary of this type, combining words of lexical potential, was expressed in 1977 by Yu. M. Kostinsky and supported by other linguists. The task of making all promising groups of the linguistic periphery accessible and visible, primarily to satisfy the "expressive hunger" of fiction, seems relevant. It was this problem that A. I. Solzhenitsyn tried to solve by drawing up the RSNR, the appearance of which is quite timely and natural.

Therefore, it is difficult to agree with those who do not accept and fiercely criticize this Dictionary. Negative reviews of A. I. Solzhenitsyn's RSNR and the language of his works, rejection of native folk words, are most likely based on subjective taste, and are explained by the linguistic deafness of some of our contemporaries. Nevertheless, the very fact that the writer is not indifferent to the language reforms is indicative, which indicates the public's attention to the native language, to the bright and original manifestation of the language personality.

In response to our question about the criteria for selecting words for the RSNR, the writer emphasized that he compiled the Dictionary according to his own understanding and emotional feeling. However, the" Explanation "to the Dictionary, numerous statements by am'opa about the lexical expansion carried out by him give grounds to speak about his theoretical views on this problem. A. I. Solzhenitsyn believes that language expansion should be carried out at the expense of motivational words:" They are very close to use, to the boundaries of the field, they are clear to everyone. When you use them, everyone understands (...) And some words - they don't even notice that no one uses them, but just accept them..."(Solzhenitsyn A. I. Conversation with Slavic students at the University of Zurich / / Lit. gazeta. 1992. N 22. P. 3). The writer considers an important and simple way to enrich the language with word-forming means, by increasing the number of single-root words with different affixes (Ibid.). A. I. Solzhenitsyn appreciates the work of N. S. Leskov, M. Tsvetaeva, E. Zamyatin, V. Rasputin, E. Nosov, Astafiev - for their flowing word, which can pass from books into general use; he admits that the pages he read by these authors are dotted with the green color of his marks. The compiler deliberately includes in the RSNR some words that have already been heard by the masters, tested, and familiar to readers.

page 16

Let us consider the structure and semantics of some derivational (lexical - word-forming) archaisms of the RSNR, their artistic and expressive capabilities. These archaisms are characterized by the fact that they are forced out of active use by single-root lexemes with other affixes. The analyzed words correspond to productive word-forming patterns. Of these, six are synonymous with literary words: vomlet, vyznavat, vyznavat, zvuknut, osurovet, and three are their variants: izobezets, pomin, and osprey.

The obsolete word pomlet (Dal V. I. Tolkovyi slovar', Vol. I. P. 240), created according to the productive model " verb smelet + prefix vo -", has, in contrast to the single-root literary synonym stupefy, a word-forming meaning "to fit, to penetrate into something, inside something with the help of an action called motivating verb " (Russkaya grammatika: V 2 t. Moscow, 1982, vol. 1, p. 357;

further - Russian Grammar, etc.). A. I. Solzhenitsyn in the RSNR on page 35 shows the way of using archaism in the modern language:

gaze into the girl. The word womlet of the 19th century, now lost, acquires a fresh content in his artistic text. Thus, a high aesthetic effect is achieved - the poetic nature of the narrative. For example: "He looked into it with his eyes" (Solzhenitsyn A. I. Sobr. soch.: In 7 vols. Moscow, 1991. Vol. 4. p. 152; further - only volume and page).

The BAS contains the obsolete verb vyznavat, which is traditional for the language of fiction: 1) try to learn something; pry out; 2) test, explore (Dictionary of Modern Russian Literary Language, Moscow, 1951, vol. 2, p. 1039). According to the Dictionary of the Russian Language of the XI-XVII centuries, these archaic meanings of the word have existed in the Russian language since the XVI-XVII centuries (Issue 3, p. 204). The lexemes vyznavat - "to recognize-to know" become synonyms based on the common denotation of an object or phenomenon (denotation). At the same time, an obsolete verb constructed according to the model " the basis of the verb zna{t) + the bimorpheme you-...- va (tiU) records a different degree of intensity of the action.

The use of lexical-word-forming archaism and its literary synonym in one context allows the author of the "Circle of the First "to avoid the monotony of the means of expression, to achieve semantic accuracy:" He drank it (misfortune) like a spring, he recognized here those people and those events that could not be found anywhere else on earth.. " (\, 205).

Researcher P. P. Shuba noticed that in verbal word formation, the range of meanings introduced by prefixes is extremely rich and diverse (see: Development of the modern Russian Language, Moscow, 1975, p. 251). The prefix you-informs the base of the archaic verb vyhranit- "verb store + prefix you -" - the semantics of the intensity of performing an action on the motivating verb (Russkaya grammatika, p. 358), which is not typical for the synonym save. Specified value

page 17

The meaning is clearly highlighted in the Solzhenitsyn context: "My father carried it through the entire World War and eliminated it" (2, 135).

The archaism vyshatnut, used in the Russian language since the XVII century (Dictionary of the Russian language of the XI-XVII centuries. Issue 3, p. 276), and the obsolete verb sound, common in the XIX century, have preserved their living, undecayed roots. Words formed on the basis of the "verb base + suffix-nu (tyU)" model differ from their modern synonyms stagger, sound by the semantics of a single action (Russkaya Grammatika, p. 347).

All these obsolete verbs, which belong to the word-forming type that is productive in colloquial speech and in common parlance, lose their "high" coloring in A. I. Solzhenitsyn's texts and come closer to oral words. For example: "Even when screwing in a simple screw, you must first show care: do not deflect the axis, do not shake the screw to the side" (6, 91). Or, " But there was such sorrow in his voice, as if he were saying good-bye "(1: 162).

The obsolete verb to become severe - "to become severe" - is constructed according to the productive model " verb to become severe + prefix o -", meaning, in comparison with the modern synonym to become severe, an emphasis on effectiveness (Russkaya grammatika, p. 363).

The archaism osurovet is involved in the "high" oratorical syllable of the GULAG Archipelago. Probably, the requirements of the genre determined the author's attraction to the means of speech archaism: "This flow should be kept in mind further as a constantly flowing stream, especially abundant during the war years-and so for fifteen years (until 1947, when it will be expanded and comprehended)" (5,59).

Word-forming variants are the language's fixation of the transformation of the same word. According to the observations of O. I. Litvinnikova, they reflect the national specifics of the Russian language and serve to improve the semantic and stylistic structure of the word, contribute to more effective thinking and increase intellectual hygiene (see: Language and Culture. 2nd international conference. Abstracts. Part 1. Kiev, 1993, p. 105).

Yu. N. Karaulov noted that behind each word there is a direct indication of a particular vision of the world by the speaker( writer), on the existing conceptual model of a specific situation (Karaulov Yu. N. Russian language and language personality, Moscow, 1987, p. 22).

According to A. I. Solzhenitsyn, the obsolete noun is chosen, and the stylistic coloring is lower than its word-forming variant of the chosen one. The archaism is based on the productive model " the basis of the passive participle chosen (s) + suffix-nickname. Word-forming variants call a person by the characteristic action that this person is the object of" (Russkaya grammatika, p. 167).

page 18

The use of the archaism chosen as a characteristic of people from the" top " of society is explained by the writer's understanding of this word as a reduced meaning (RSNR, 83). For example: "The people are not all who speak our language, but also not the chosen ones who are marked with the fiery sign of genius. It is not by birth, nor by the labor of their hands, nor by the wings of their education that people are selected for the people. A-by du -. she..."(2.122).

According to V. G. Kostomarov, in the eternal competition of verbal suffixless nouns and words with suffixes-ani(e), priority is now given to the first (Kostomarov V. G. Yazykovy vkus epochy, Moscow, 1994, p. 161). The archaisms osprey and pomin are formed according to the model "verb base +", and their modern variants commemoration and accumulation are formed according to the model "verb base + suffix-anij(e); - enuj". All these lexemes are the names of an abstract action and combine the semantics of the process with the meaning of objectivity (Russkaya Grammatika, pp. 157, 219). However, V. V. Vinogradov noted that the nouns of these models differ in the degree of abstraction of action: non-suffix words have more concreteness (Vinogradov V. V. Russian language, Moscow, 1972, p. 213). This semantic connotation, identified by the linguist, develops, obviously, under the influence of the long-standing use of suffix-free formations mainly in monuments with an oral basis.

A. I. Solzhenitsyn's use of obsolete words osprey and pomin in his conversational-casual speech is due to their linguistic nature, and the artist feels this. Example: "We sipped it with spoons for the soul's wake, without anything else" (3, 143); "And so was their entire exiled household - for this one day, this month, this year, without any osprey..." (7,367).

The archaisms pomin and osprey are already based on the language of fiction, as evidenced by BAS (Vol. 10, p. 1186). The lexeme pomin is known by stable colloquial expressions: there is no sign of it, there is no sign of it, it is easy to remember.

The writer evaluates the presented derivational archaisms as words of lexical potential, probably because they are generally understandable, have lexical and word-formation motivation. and some - the tradition of use in works of art. As A. I. Solzhenitsyn writes in a letter to us dated September 1, 1996, he feels that most of the words of the RSNR are "full-fledged and unjustifiably neglected participants in our language, which is so ruinous today."

Dimitrovgrad, Ulyanovsk region.

Permanent link to this publication: