【计算机外文翻译】European Journal of Research Development and Sustainability外文翻译

European Journal of Research Development and Sustainability (EJRDS)
Available Online at: https://www.scholarzest.com
Vol. 2 No. 3, March 2021,
ISSN: 2660-5570

FEATURES OF THE COMPILATION OF MODERN EXPLANATORY DICTIONARIES

Lola Khodzhikulovna Bobomurodova
(Bukhara State University)
Article history: Abstract:
Received: 20 th February 2021
Accepted: 2 th March 2021
Published: 20 th March 2021
The article examines the role of dictionaries and their content, and, in particular, defines the role of explanatory dictionaries, from their compilation to their semantic meaning. Examples of lexical units and their meanings are given. Attention is drawn to the structure of explanatory dictionaries as a constituent part of the dictionaries as a whole.
Keywords: lexicography, dictionaries, explanatory dictionaries, discourse, communication, live speech, modern realities, motivation, word semantics, real description, phenomenon.

“Dictionaries are like clocks: having the worst of them is better than not having any; but even the best of them, we cannot say that they are absolutely accurate. " Samuel Johnson
Lexicography is a dynamically developing branch of linguistics. Today in the arsenal of lexicographers there is a huge variety of explanatory dictionaries of various types and genres. According to the purpose and characteristics of the presentation of the material, we propose to divide them conditionally into three groups: language dictionaries, speech dictionaries and discourse dictionaries. In the article, we set ourselves the task of analyzing the difference between the three named types of dictionaries, tracing the relationship between them and identifying the prospects for the development of discursive lexicography. Throughout its existence, vocabulary work moves “from meaning to meaning.” This direction of development is connected, first of all, with the fact that, as A. Rey correctly noted, the object of description in the explanatory dictionary “can be two different realities, which entails two possible types of descriptions.” We are talking about the dictionaries of the system (or its elements: words, phraseological units) and dictionaries of usage. “This difference is fundamental for monolingual lexicography. An explanatory dictionary can either be constructed as a description of the lexical component of the language system, or it can be aimed at a broader study, covering the action of this system in various spheres of its use ”[1, p. 264-265]. For a long time (almost the entire XX century), lexicographers tried to reflect in the explanatory dictionaries of various types, first of all, the meaning of the given vocabulary units. In the search for examples of use, they mainly turned to contexts from the works of art of classical Russian literature, choosing from them the meanings typical, the most traditional, coinciding with the “center”. This was quite justified, given the purpose of creating dictionaries and their printed form, which initially hindered the expansion of the illustrative component. If we use, slightly modifying and reducing, the criteria for determining the features and expediency of the dictionary, proposed by B. Yu. Gorodetsky [2, p. 6-7], then the dictionaries of the language can be characterized as follows: 1) the dictionaries reflect the semantic information about the unit of description (given its meaning or several meanings); 2) the dictionary is normative (in relation to the period that it describes; 3) in the dictionary entry, the motivation of the vocabulary unit, its origin can be described; 4) the dictionary shows the contextual implementation of units in the minimum amount necessary to understand the meaning of the word / phraseological unit. The absolute majority of such dictionaries in the 19th – 20th centuries. As an exception, we can name, perhaps, the dictionary of V. I. Dahl, which does not correspond to the named characteristics, since it does not pretend to be normative; it is intended to show the richness of the Russian language in all its forms and spheres of use and contains a large number of examples of the functioning of vocabulary units. It is this task, set by V.I.Dal, that modern researchers are trying to implement in the last decades of the 20th century.
So, today lexicography is faced with the question: how to reflect the variety of mexceptionings that arise in speech in the process of using words and / or phraseological units? The antinomy of Ferdinand de Saussure “languagespeech” in this aspect has become a stumbling block of modern lexicography. The dictionary, which originally arose as a means (or form) of reflecting the static meaning of linguistic (systemic) elements, pretends to demonstrate not so much language as speech, i.e. features of semantic changes in words / phraseological units in use. Paradoxically, this is a realizable task today. Solving it, lexicographers initially created a number of dictionaries showing the features of the use of linguistic units in colloquial speech: V.P Belyanin “Live speech. Dictionary of colloquial expressions “[3], V. Yu. Melikyan” Emotionally expressive turns of living speech “[4], Dictionary of the meanings of Living Russian Speech [5], VV Chemist” Large dictionary of Russian colloquial speech "[6] and etc. However, these dictionaries, striving to reflect speech, for the most part remained dictionaries of meanings (i.e., dictionaries of the language). An exception to this rule was, perhaps, the dictionary of V.V. Chemist, which really contains a large number of examples of the use of words and phraseological units, which allows the reader to get an idea of the peculiarities of using a particular vocabulary unit in live conversational communication. But even in such a voluminous dictionary, the number of usage contexts is limited. Nevertheless, despite the scope of the printed format of editions, the authors and compilers of lexicographic materials emphasize the inclusion in the dictionary of the maximum number of “contextual, discursively conditioned word usage” [7, p. 37]. The desire to fully trace the features of the functioning of words / phraseological units in speech became possible thanks to the development of corpus linguistics and the development of computer dictionaries. This approach explains the increased interest of researchers in the lexicographic description of official, incomplete words, which are reflected in the dictionaries “A Guide to Discursive Words of the Russian Language” [8], “Discursive Words of the Russian Language” [9], “Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language”. Dictionary entries of the latter contain two parts: explanatory (information about the peculiarities of use, detailed interpretation, information on compatibility, synonyms, antonyms) and demonstrating (examples of use in speech) [10]. Discursive words manifest all their properties exclusively in the process of communication, therefore, it is very problematic to reflect their features in the dictionary of the language. This requires a speech dictionary. And publications of this kind are not unique. However, not only dictionaries of discursive words have become dictionaries of speech (or dictionaries of usage). Lexicographic editions have appeared, which make it possible to trace at the level of a word or phraseological unit changes due to the specifics of the functioning of the named units in discourse as in the “actually pronounced text” (term by T. A. Van Dyuck). The authors and compilers of such dictionaries generally pay attention to the communicative and pragmatic properties of vocabulary units, since the pragmatics of a dictionary entry is perceived as a significant, defining part of it. “Provides the conditions for the lexicographic implementation of the semantics of the word” [11, p. 142]. Such works include the dictionary “Life of Russian phraseology in artistic speech”, in which, in addition to the usual normative contexts, examples of the individual author’s use of phraseological units are given, a contextual difference in the style of phraseological units is shown [12, p. 104].
How are speech dictionaries (usage dictionaries) fundamentally different from language dictionaries? 1) in speech dictionaries, semantic information about a unit of description is reflected in the fullest possible extent, depending on the capabilities of each specific unit to enter into syntagmatic relations in the process of speech functioning; 2) the vocabulary of speech is descriptive; 3) in such a dictionary, the motivation of the vocabulary unit, its origin can be described; 4) in the dictionary of speech, the contextual implementation of units is shown to the fullest extent (taking into account texts of different genres, styles, examples of ordinary and author’s uses, etc.). Considering these features, it must be admitted that in modern lexicography one can find publications that, positioning themselves as dictionaries of speech, remain, nevertheless, dictionaries of the language, for example: Dictionary-reference book “Culture of Russian speech” [13] or "Dictionary of correct Russian speech ”[14]. In recent years, there has been a new trend associated with the creation of not just a speech dictionary (or a dictionary of usage). Lexicographers began developing discourse dictionaries. This task seems to be extremely difficult, but promising, and its actualization is a natural phenomenon. For a long time, researchers have agreed that a dictionary is a special metatext (“metalinguistic text” (S. A. Zhuravlev), “text of a metasemiotic nature” (A. Rey)). This means that its potential is much richer than just a reflection of the variants of the use of vocabulary units. Each new meaning that a native speaker puts into the words or phraseological units used is born not only in a specific communicative situation. It is conditioned simultaneously by experience, goals, personal attitudes and psychological characteristics of the speaker and listener, cultural meanings, connotations caused by the specifics of relations between the subjects of communication, etc. In other words, new meanings can be explained not only (and not so much) within the text, but within the discourse, taking into account the situation and conditions of their generation. Consequently, the task of a modern dictionary is to become a means of cognition (and not just displaying) the process of verbal communication. How to do this is not yet entirely clear. Methods of lexicographic recording of this kind of information have not yet been developed, there is no experimental model of a discourse dictionary. However, lexicographers are actively working in this direction, offering two options for the lexicographic description of units. In the first of them, the authors and compilers of dictionaries strive to fully reflect the diverse, diverse information about words / phraseological units, revealing not only the meaning of units, but also trying to convey the entire range of semantic shades and connotations. At the same time, stylistic, grammatical, cultural, cognitive characteristics, etc. are given. Paradoxically, this is a realizable task today. Solving it, lexicographers initially created a number of dictionaries showing the features of the use of linguistic units in colloquial speech: V.P. Belyanin “Live speech. Dictionary of colloquial expressions “[3], V. Yu. Melikyan” Emotionally expressive turns of living speech “[4], Dictionary of the meanings of Living Russian Speech [5], V.V. Chemist” Large dictionary of Russian colloquial speech "[6] and etc.
However, these dictionaries, striving to reflect speech, for the most part remained dictionaries of meanings (i.e., dictionaries of the language). An exception to this rule was, perhaps, the dictionary of V.V. Chemist, which really contains a large number of examples of the use of words and phraseological units, which allows the reader to get an idea of the peculiarities of using a particular vocabulary unit in live conversational communication. But even in such a voluminous dictionary, the number of usage contexts is limited. Nevertheless, despite the scope of the printed format of editions, the authors and compilers of lexicographic materials emphasize the inclusion in the dictionary of the maximum number of “contextual, discursively conditioned word usage” [7, p. 37]. The desire to fully trace the features of the functioning of words / phraseological units in speech became possible thanks to the development of corpus linguistics and the development of computer dictionaries. This approach explains the increased interest of researchers in the lexicographic description of official, incomplete words, which are reflected in the dictionaries “A Guide to Discursive Words of the Russian Language” [8], “Discursive Words of the Russian Language” [9], “Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language”. Dictionary entries of the latter contain two parts: explanatory (information about the peculiarities of use, detailed interpretation, information on compatibility, synonyms, antonyms) and demonstrating (examples of use in speech) [10]. Discursive words manifest all their properties exclusively in the process of communication, therefore, it is very problematic to reflect their features in the dictionary of the language. This requires a speech dictionary. And publications of this kind are not unique. However, not only dictionaries of discursive words have become dictionaries of speech (or dictionaries of usage). Lexicographic editions have appeared, which make it possible to trace at the level of a word or phraseological unit changes due to the specifics of the functioning of the named units in discourse as in the “actually pronounced text” (term by T. A. Van Dyck). The authors and compilers of such dictionaries generally pay attention to the communicative and pragmatic properties of vocabulary units, since the pragmatics of a dictionary entry is perceived as a significant, defining part of it. “Provides the conditions for the lexicographic implementation of the semantics of the word” [11, p. 142]. Such works include the dictionary “Life of Russian phraseology in artistic speech”, in which, in addition to the usual normative contexts, examples of the individual author’s use of phraseological units are given, a contextual difference in the style of phraseological units is shown [12, p. 104]. How are speech dictionaries (usage dictionaries) fundamentally different from language dictionaries? 1) in speech dictionaries, semantic information about a unit of description is reflected in the fullest possible extent, depending on the capabilities of each specific unit to enter into syntagmatic relations in the process of speech functioning; 2) the vocabulary of speech is descriptive; 3) in such a dictionary, the motivation of the vocabulary unit, its origin can be described; 4) in the dictionary of speech, the contextual implementation of units is shown to the fullest extent (taking into account texts of different genres, styles, examples of ordinary and author’s uses, etc.). Considering these features, it must be admitted that in modern lexicography one can find publications that, positioning themselves as dictionaries of speech, remain, nevertheless, dictionaries of the language, for example: Dictionary-reference book “Culture of Russian speech” [13] or "Dictionary of correct Russian speech ”[14]. In recent years, there has been a new trend associated with the creation of not just a speech dictionary (or a dictionary of usage). Lexicographers began developing discourse dictionaries.
This task seems to be extremely difficult, but promising, and its actualization is a natural phenomenon. For a long time, researchers have agreed that a dictionary is a special metatext (“metalinguistic text” (S. A. Zhuravlev), “text of a metasemiotic nature” (A. Rey)). This means that its potential is much richer than just a reflection of the variants of the use of vocabulary units. Each new meaning that a native speaker puts into the words or phraseological units used is born not only in a specific communicative situation. It is conditioned simultaneously by experience, goals, personal attitudes and psychological characteristics of the speaker and listener, cultural meanings, connotations caused by the specifics of relations between the subjects of communication, etc. In other words, new meanings can be explained not only (and not so much) within the text, but within the discourse, taking into account the situation and conditions of their generation. Consequently, the task of a modern dictionary is to become a means of cognition (and not just displaying) the process of verbal communication. How to do this is not yet entirely clear. Methods of lexicographic recording of this kind of information have not yet been developed, there is no experimental model of a discourse dictionary. However, lexicographers are actively working in this direction, offering two options for the lexicographic description of units. In the first of them, the authors and compilers of dictionaries strive to fully reflect the diverse, diverse information about words / phraseological units, revealing not only the meaning of units, but also trying to convey the entire range of semantic shades and connotations. At the same time, stylistic, grammatical, cultural, cognitive characteristics, etc. are given. Paradoxically, this is a realizable task today. Solving it, lexicographers initially created a number of dictionaries showing the features of the use of linguistic units in colloquial speech: V.P. Belyanin “Live speech. Dictionary of colloquial expressions “[3], V. Yu. Melikyan” Emotionally expressive turns of living speech “[4], Dictionary of the meanings of Living Russian Speech [5], V.V. Chemist” Large dictionary of Russian colloquial speech "[6] and etc. However, these dictionaries, striving to reflect speech, for the most part remained dictionaries of meanings (i.e., dictionaries of the language). An exception to this rule was, perhaps, the dictionary of V.V. Chemist, which really contains a large number of examples of the use of words and phraseological units, which allows the reader to get an idea of the peculiarities of using a particular vocabulary unit in live conversational communication. But even in such a voluminous dictionary, the number of usage contexts is limited. Nevertheless, despite the scope of the printed format of editions, the authors and compilers of lexicographic materials emphasize the inclusion in the dictionary of the maximum number of “contextual, discursively conditioned word usage” [7, p. 37]. The desire to fully trace the features of the functioning of words / phraseological units in speech became possible thanks to the development of corpus linguistics and the development of computer dictionaries. This approach explains the increased interest of researchers in the lexicographic description of official, incomplete words, which are reflected in the dictionaries “A Guide to Discursive Words of the Russian Language” [8], “Discursive Words of the Russian Language” [9], “Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language”. Dictionary entries of the latter contain two parts: explanatory (information about the peculiarities of use, detailed interpretation, information on compatibility, synonyms, antonyms) and demonstrating (examples of use in speech) [10]. Discursive words manifest all their properties exclusively in the process of communication, therefore, it is very problematic to reflect their features in the dictionary of the language. This requires a speech dictionary.
And publications of this kind are not unique. However, not only dictionaries of discursive words have become dictionaries of speech (or dictionaries of usage). Lexicographic editions have appeared, which make it possible to trace at the level of a word or phraseological unit changes due to the specifics of the functioning of the named units in discourse as in the “actually pronounced text” (term by T. A. Van Dyuck). The authors and compilers of such dictionaries generally pay attention to the communicative and pragmatic properties of vocabulary units, since the pragmatics of a dictionary entry is perceived as a significant, defining part of it. “Provides the conditions for the lexicographic implementation of the semantics of the word” [11, p. 142]. Such works include the dictionary “Life of Russian phraseology in artistic speech”, which, in addition to the usual normative contexts, gives examples of the individual author’s use of phraseological units, shows the contextual difference in the style of phraseological units [12, p. 104]. How are speech dictionaries (usage dictionaries) fundamentally different from language dictionaries? 1) in speech dictionaries, semantic information about a unit of description is reflected in the fullest possible extent, depending on the capabilities of each specific unit to enter into syntagmatic relations in the process of speech functioning; 2) the vocabulary of speech is descriptive; 3) in such a dictionary, the motivation of the vocabulary unit, its origin can be described; 4) in the dictionary of speech, the contextual implementation of units is shown to the fullest extent (taking into account texts of different genres, styles, examples of ordinary and author’s uses, etc.). Considering these features, it must be admitted that in modern lexicography one can find publications that, positioning themselves as dictionaries of speech, remain, nevertheless, dictionaries of the language, for example: Dictionary-reference book “Culture of Russian speech” [13] or "Dictionary of correct Russian speech ”[14]. In recent years, there has been a new trend associated with the creation of not just a speech dictionary (or a dictionary of usage). Lexicographers began developing discourse dictionaries. This task seems to be extremely difficult, but promising, and its actualization is a natural phenomenon. Researchers have long agreed that a dictionary is a special metatext (“metalinguistic text” (S. A. Zhuravlev), “text of a metasemiotic nature” (A. Rey)). This means that its potential is much richer than just a reflection of the variants of the use of vocabulary units. Each new meaning that a native speaker puts into the words or phraseological units used is born not only in a specific communicative situation. It is conditioned simultaneously by experience, goals, personal attitudes and psychological characteristics of the speaker and listener, cultural meanings, connotations caused by the specifics of relations between the subjects of communication, etc. In other words, new meanings can be explained not only (and not so much) within the text, but within the limits of discourse, taking into account the situation and conditions of their generation. Consequently, the task of a modern dictionary is to become a means of cognition (and not just displaying) the process of verbal communication. How to do this is not yet entirely clear. Methods of lexicographic recording of this kind of information have not yet been developed, there is no experimental model of a discourse dictionary. However, lexicographers are actively working in this direction, offering two options for the lexicographic description of units. In the first of them, the authors and compilers of dictionaries strive to fully reflect the diverse, diverse information about words / phraseological units, revealing not only the meaning of units, but also trying to convey the entire range of semantic shades and connotations. At the same time, stylistic, grammatical, cultural, cognitive characteristics, etc. are given.
In our opinion, the Phraseological Dictionary of N. Alefirenko and L. Zolotykh “Cultural and Cognitive Space of Russian Idioms”, whose dictionary entries reflect the most typical connections of phrasemes in the text, communicatively pragmatic properties of phrasemes, their cognitive and logically-cultural content [15, p. 2]. In the second version of discursive dictionaries, additional information is involved, allowing the reader to hear the peculiarities of the functioning of the vocabulary unit in speech. Most of these publications are still in the project, requiring additional development and accompaniment of the text with audio materials (for example, “The Sound Dictionary of the Discursive Words of the Russian Language” [16]). However, in Russian lexicography there are already unique examples of “living” dictionaries of discourse - the Angarsk Dictionary, the authors of which accompanied the dictionary entries with video recordings of conversations with native speakers of the Angara dialect, songs, etc. [17]. What are the distinctive features of discursive dictionaries: 1) semantic information about a unit of description is reflected in dictionaries (its meaning or several meanings are given, additional connotative meanings that appear in the context are described); 2) the dictionary is descriptive; 3) it can describe the motivation of the vocabulary unit, its origin, cognitive and cultural components, other additional metalinguistic information necessary for the interpretation of the meanings arising from a word or phraseological unit in discourse; 4) the dictionary shows the contextual implementation of units to the fullest extent (taking into account texts of different genres, styles, examples of conventional and author’s uses, etc.). It is worth noting that a dictionary in a computer form can fully meet these requirements, since the printed version of the publication limits the lexicographer in the volume of the presented material (our remark in no way means that the printed edition of the dictionary cannot be discursive). But even a computerized dictionary version cannot be perfect. Speech is extremely rich in meanings. In each new communicative situation, all new metalinguistic information can be used. In this respect, we agree with B. Yu. Gorodetsky, who believes that “an absolutely complete description of the semantic structure of a language is possible only ideally: the existing difficulties are associated with both depth and breadth of description. Therefore, real descriptions are limited [2, p. 12]. At the moment we can create more or less optimal versions of dictionaries. Achieving the ideal is a matter for the future. Note 1 Following the researchers, by discourse we mean “speech immersed in life” (N.D. Arutyunova), “speech inscribed in a communicative situation” (Z. Harris), “process and result of speech activity” (S.S. Sharipova). The course appears as “a complex phenomenon associated not only with the act of creating a certain text, but also with a significant number of extralinguistic factors - knowledge about the world, intentions, attitudes and specific goals of the speaker, who is the creator of the discursive text [18, p. 6]. It is this understanding of discourse that is used in our work.

LIST OF REFERENCES
1.Рей, А. Проблемы и антиномии лексикографии / А. Рей, С. Делесаль // Новое в зарубежной лингвистике. – М. : Прогресс, 1983. – Вып. 14. Проблемы и методы лексикографии. – С. 260–299.
2.Городецкий, Б. Ю. Проблемы и методы современной лексикографии / Б. Ю. Городецкий // Новое в зарубежной лингвистике. – М. : Прогресс, 1983. – Вып. 14. Проблемы и методы лексикографии. – С. 5– 23.
3.Белянин, В. П. Живая речь. Словарь разговорных выражений / В. П. Белянин, И. А. Бутенко. – М. : ПАИМС, 1994. – 192 с.
4.Меликян, В. Ю. Эмоционально-экспрессивные обороты живой речи : словарь / В. Ю. Меликян. – М. : Флинта, 2011. – 240 с.
5.Словарь значений Живой Русской Речи (Научно-популярная сокращенная версия Смыслового Толкового Словаря Живого Русского Языка). – Екатеринбург. 2008. – 122 с.
6.Химик, В. В. Большой словарь русской разговорной речи / В. В. Химик. – СПб. : Норинт, 2004. – 708 с.
7.Леденев, Ю. И. Дискурсивный подход к лексикографии неполнозначных слов / Ю. И. Леднев // Язык. Текст. Дискурс. – 2008. – № 6. – С. 34–39.
8.Путеводитель по дискурсивным словам русского языка / А. Н. Баранов [и др.] ; Рос. АН, Ин-т рус. яз. – М. : Помовский и партнеры, 1993. – 207 с.
9.Дискурсивные слова русского языка: опыт контекстносемантического описания / А. Н. Баранов [и др.] ; под ред. К. Киселевой и Д. Пайара ; МГУ им. М. В. Ломоносова, Филол. фак. – М. : Метатекст, 1998. – 446 с.
10.Объяснительный словарь русского языка: Структурные слова: предлоги, союзы, частицы, междометия, вводные слова, местоимения, числительные, связочные глаголы: Около 1200 единиц / В. В. Морковкин [и др.] ; под ред. В. В. Морковкина. – М. : ООО «Изд-во Астрель» : ООО «Изд-во АСТ», 2002. – 432 с.
11.Журавлев, С. А. Дискурсивная интерпретация феномена толкового словаря / С. А. Журавлев // II Международные Бодуэновские чтения: Казанская лингвистическая школа: традиции и современность : тр. и материалы, Казань, 11–13 декабря 2003 г. : в 2 т. ; под общ. ред. К. Р. Галиуллина, Г. А. Николаева. – Казань : Изд-во Казан. ун-та, 2003. – Т. 1.– С. 142–144.
12.Мелерович, А. М. Трансформационный потенциал фразеологических единиц различных структурносемантических типов (по материалам проспекта учебного словаря «Жизнь русских фразеологизмов в художественной речи». Кострома, 2006)
13.Соловьев, Н. В. Словарь правильной русской речи / Н. В. Соловьев. – М. : АСТ, Астрель, Хранитель, 2006. – 960 с.
14.Алефиренко, Н. Ф. Фразеологический словарь : Культурно-познавательное пространство русской идиоматики / Н. Ф. Алефиренко, Л. Г. Золотых. – М. : ЭЛПИС, 2008. – 472 с.
15.S.S. Salimovich: LEXICOLOGY AND LEXICOGRAPHY IN CENTRAL ASIA: TRADITIONS AND MODERNITY…; MAIN PROBLEMS OF TRANSLATION
16.Khodieva, Orzigul Shodimurodovna, and Sohib Salimovich Sharipov. “The history of the creation of the author’s lexicography.” Middle European Scientific Bulletin 9 (2021).
17.Salimovich, Sharipov Sohib, and Nematova Mohibegim Fazliddinovna. “Dictionaries in Modern Life.” International Journal on Integrated Education 2.6: 166-168.
18.Islamovna M.F., Umedullaevna S.S. SHADOW FORMATION IN PERSPECTIVE //International Engineering Journal For Research & Development. – 2020. – Т. 5. – №. 4. – С. 5-5.
19.Khodjayeva N. S., Mamurova D. I., Nafisa A. IMPORTANCE IN PEDAGOGICAL TECHNIQUES AND EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITY //International Engineering Journal For Research & Development. – 2020. – Т. 5. – №. CONGRESS. – С. 5-5.
20.Kodirovich, Mamatov Dilshod, and Azimova Mukhayo Barotovna. “THE SOUL OF THE ARTIST.” Euro-Asia Conferences. Vol. 1. No. 1. 2021.
21.Джураева, З. Р., and Л. Х. Нигматова. “Психологическое восприятие фонетического уровня поэтического текста.” Наука. Мысль: электронный периодический журнал 10 (2014).
22.Абдуллаев С. С., Рафиева Н. А. Искусства Древней Руси и Средней Азии в духовном диалоге (исторический экскурс) //Вестник науки и образования. – 2020. – №. 21-2 (99).
23.Muzafarovna, A. N., S. S. Umidullayevna, and I. Ilhamovna. “Harmonization of types of fabric art processing to students.” International Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation 24.4 (2020): 176-184.
24.Нигматова, Лола Хамидовна. “ЛЕКСИКОГРАФИЯ ТАРИХИДАН ИЗ ИСТОРИИ ЛЕКСИКОГРАФИИ FROM THE HISTORY OF LEXICOGRAPHY.” ANIQ VA TABIIY FANLAR: 93.

欧洲研究发展与可持续发展杂志（EJRDS）
可在线访问： https://www.scholarzest.com
第 2 卷第 3 期，2021 年 3 月，
国际标准刊号： 2660-5570

现代解释词典编纂的特点

洛拉·霍吉库洛夫娜·博博穆罗多娃
（布哈拉国立大学）
文章历史： 抽象：
收稿日期： 2021-02-20
录用日期： 2021-03-02
发布时间： 20 三 月 2021
本文探讨了词典的作用及其内容，特别是定义了解释性词典的作用，从其汇编到语义。给出了词汇单位及其含义的示例。提请注意解释性词典的结构，作为整个词典的组成部分。
关键词： 词典编纂，词典，解释词典，话语，交流，现场演讲，现代现实，动机，单词语义，真实描述，现象。

“字典就像时钟：拥有最糟糕的词典总比没有好;但即使是其中最好的，我们也不能说它们是绝对准确的。“ 塞缪尔·约翰逊
词典编纂是语言学的一个动态发展分支。今天，在词典编纂者的武器库中，有各种各样的各种类型和流派的解释性词典。根据材料呈现的目的和特点，我们建议有条件地将它们分为三组：语言词典、语音词典和话语词典。在这篇文章中，我们为自己设定了分析三种命名类型的词典之间的差异，追踪它们之间的关系并确定话语词典编纂发展的前景的任务。在其存在的整个过程中，词汇工作“从意义到意义”。首先，这一发展方向与这样一个事实有关，正如A. Rey正确指出的那样，解释词典中的描述对象“可以是两种不同的现实，这需要两种可能的描述类型。我们正在谈论系统的词典（或其元素：单词，短语单位）和使用词典。“这种差异是单语词典编纂的基础。解释性词典既可以构建为对语言系统的词汇成分的描述，也可以针对更广泛的研究，涵盖该系统在其使用各个领域的作用“[1，第 264-265 页]。长期以来（几乎整个二十世纪），词典编纂者试图在各种类型的解释词典中反映，首先是给定词汇单位的含义。在寻找使用示例时，他们主要转向俄罗斯古典文学艺术作品的背景，从中选择与“中心”重合的典型、最传统的含义。考虑到创建词典及其印刷形式的目的，这是完全合理的，这最初阻碍了说明部分的扩展。如果我们使用，稍微修改和减少，确定词典的特征和权宜之计的标准，由B. Yu提出。Gorodetsky [2，p. 6-7]，那么该语言的词典可以表征如下：1）词典反映了关于描述单位的语义信息（给定其含义或几种含义）;2）词典是规范性的（相对于它所描述的时期;3）在词典条目中，词汇单元的动机，可以描述其起源;4）字典以理解单词/短语单位的含义所需的最小量显示单位的上下文实现。19-20世纪的此类词典的绝对大多数。作为例外，我们也许可以命名 V. I. Dahl 的词典，它与命名特征不符，因为它不假装是规范性的;它旨在展示俄语在其所有形式和使用领域的丰富性，并包含大量词汇单位功能的示例。正是V.I.Dal设定的这项任务，现代研究人员在20世纪的最后几十年试图实施。
那么，今天的词典编纂面临着一个问题：如何在使用单词和/或短语单位的过程中反映语音中出现的各种我？费迪南德·德·索绪尔（Ferdinand de Saussure）在这方面的“语言演讲”的对立面已成为现代词典编纂的绊脚石。词典最初是作为反映语言（系统）元素的静态含义的手段（或形式）而出现的，它假装展示的与其说是语言，不如说是言语，即使用的单词/短语单位的语义变化特征。矛盾的是，这在今天是一项可以实现的任务。为了解决这个问题，词典编纂者最初创建了许多词典，展示了在口语中使用语言单位的特征：V.P Belyanin“现场演讲。口语词典“[3]，V. Yu.梅利基扬“生活语音的情感表达转折”[4]，生活俄语语音含义词典[5]，VV化学家“俄语口语大词典”[6]等。然而，这些词典努力反映言语，大部分仍然是意义词典（即语言词典）。这条规则的一个例外可能是V.V. Chemist的词典，它确实包含了大量使用单词和短语单元的例子，这使读者能够了解在实时对话交流中使用特定词汇单元的特殊性。但即使在如此庞大的字典中，使用上下文的数量也是有限的。然而，尽管印刷版格式的范围很广，但词典编纂材料的作者和编纂者强调在词典中包含最大数量的“上下文，话语条件词用法”[7，第37页]。由于语料库语言学的发展和计算机词典的发展，完全追踪语音中单词/短语单元功能特征的愿望成为可能。这种方法解释了研究人员对官方不完整单词的词典描述的兴趣增加，这反映在词典“俄语话语词指南”[8]，“俄语话语词”[9]，“俄语解释词典”中。后者的词典条目包含两部分：解释性（有关使用特性的信息，详细解释，兼容性信息，同义词，反义词）和演示（在语音中使用的示例）[10]。话语词仅在交流过程中表现出它们的所有属性，因此，在语言词典中反映它们的特征是非常有问题的。这需要一个语音词典。这种出版物并不是独一无二的。然而，不仅话语词典变成了语音词典（或用词词典）。词典编纂版本已经出现，这使得有可能在单词或短语单元的层面上追踪由于话语中命名单元的功能细节而发生的变化，如“实际发音的文本”（T. A. Van Dyuck的术语）。此类词典的作者和编纂者通常关注词汇单元的交际和语用属性，因为词典条目的语用学被认为是其中重要的定义部分。“为词语义的词典实现提供了条件”[11，第142页]。此类作品包括词典“艺术演讲中的俄语短语生活”，其中除了通常的规范上下文外，还给出了个别作者使用短语单位的例子，显示了短语单位风格的上下文差异[12，第 104 页]。
语音词典（用法词典）与语言词典有何根本区别？1）在语音词典中，关于描述单元的语义信息在最大程度上得到反映，这取决于每个特定单元在语音功能过程中进入句法关系的能力;2）言语词汇是描述性的;3）在这样的词典中，词汇单元的动机，其起源可以描述;4）在词典中，最大限度地显示了单位的上下文实现（考虑到不同体裁，风格，普通和作者使用的示例等的文本）。考虑到这些特征，必须承认，在现代词典编纂中，人们可以找到将自己定位为语音词典的出版物，但仍然是该语言的词典，例如：词典参考书“俄语演讲文化”[13]或“正确俄语语音词典”[14]。近年来，出现了一种新趋势，不仅仅是语音词典（或用词典）的创建。词典编纂者开始开发话语词典。这项任务似乎极其困难，但很有希望，其实现是一种自然现象。长期以来，研究人员一致认为字典是一种特殊的元文本（“元语言文本”（S. A. Zhuravlev），“具有元符号学性质的文本”（A. Rey））。这意味着它的潜力要丰富得多，而不仅仅是反映词汇单位使用的变体。母语人士在所使用的单词或短语单元中加入的每个新含义不仅诞生于特定的交际情境中。它同时受到说话者和听众的经验、目标、个人态度和心理特征、文化意义、由交流主体之间关系的细节引起的内涵等的制约。换句话说，新的含义不仅可以在文本中解释（而不是那么多），而且可以在话语中解释，同时考虑到它们产生的情况和条件。因此，现代词典的任务是成为一种认知（而不仅仅是显示）口头交流过程的手段。如何做到这一点尚不完全清楚。这种信息的词典记录方法尚未开发，没有话语词典的实验模型。然而，词典编纂者正在朝着这个方向积极努力，为单位的词典描述提供了两种选择。在第一篇中，词典的作者和编纂者努力充分反映有关单词/短语单位的多样化信息，不仅揭示了单位的含义，而且还试图传达整个语义阴影和内涵的范围。同时，给出了文体、语法、文化、认知特征等。矛盾的是，这在今天是一项可以实现的任务。为了解决这个问题，词典编纂者最初创建了许多词典，展示了在口语中使用语言单位的特征：V.P. Belyanin“现场演讲。口语词典“[3]，V. Yu.梅利基扬“活言语的情感表达转折”[4]，活俄语言语含义词典[5]，V.V.化学家“俄语口语大词典”[6]等。
然而，这些词典努力反映言语，大部分仍然是意义词典（即语言词典）。这条规则的一个例外可能是V.V. Chemist的词典，它确实包含了大量使用单词和短语单元的例子，这使读者能够了解在实时对话交流中使用特定词汇单元的特殊性。但即使在如此庞大的字典中，使用上下文的数量也是有限的。然而，尽管印刷版格式的范围很广，但词典编纂材料的作者和编纂者强调在词典中包含最大数量的“上下文，话语条件词用法”[7，第37页]。由于语料库语言学的发展和计算机词典的发展，完全追踪语音中单词/短语单元功能特征的愿望成为可能。这种方法解释了研究人员对官方不完整单词的词典描述的兴趣增加，这反映在词典“俄语话语词指南”[8]，“俄语话语词”[9]，“俄语解释词典”中。后者的词典条目包含两部分：解释性（有关使用特性的信息，详细解释，兼容性信息，同义词，反义词）和演示（在语音中使用的示例）[10]。话语词仅在交流过程中表现出它们的所有属性，因此，在语言词典中反映它们的特征是非常有问题的。这需要一个语音词典。这种出版物并不是独一无二的。然而，不仅话语词典变成了语音词典（或用词词典）。词典编纂版本已经出现，这使得在单词或短语单元的层面上追踪由于话语中命名单元的功能细节而引起的变化，如“实际发音的文本”（T. A. Van Dyck的术语）。此类词典的作者和编纂者通常关注词汇单元的交际和语用属性，因为词典条目的语用学被认为是其中重要的定义部分。“为词语义的词典实现提供了条件”[11，第142页]。此类作品包括词典“艺术演讲中的俄语短语生活”，其中除了通常的规范上下文外，还给出了个别作者使用短语单位的例子，显示了短语单位风格的上下文差异[12，第 104 页]。语音词典（用法词典）与语言词典有何根本区别？1）在语音词典中，关于描述单元的语义信息在最大程度上得到反映，这取决于每个特定单元在语音功能过程中进入句法关系的能力;2）言语词汇是描述性的;3）在这样的词典中，词汇单元的动机，其起源可以描述;4）在词典中，最大限度地显示了单位的上下文实现（考虑到不同体裁，风格，普通和作者使用的示例等的文本）。考虑到这些特征，必须承认，在现代词典编纂中，人们可以找到将自己定位为语音词典的出版物，但仍然是该语言的词典，例如：词典参考书“俄语演讲文化”[13]或“正确俄语语音词典”[14]。近年来，出现了一种新趋势，不仅仅是语音词典（或用词典）的创建。词典编纂者开始开发话语词典。
这项任务似乎极其困难，但很有希望，其实现是一种自然现象。长期以来，研究人员一致认为字典是一种特殊的元文本（“元语言文本”（S. A. Zhuravlev），“具有元符号学性质的文本”（A. Rey））。这意味着它的潜力要丰富得多，而不仅仅是反映词汇单位使用的变体。母语人士在所使用的单词或短语单元中加入的每个新含义不仅诞生于特定的交际情境中。它同时受到说话者和听众的经验、目标、个人态度和心理特征、文化意义、由交流主体之间关系的细节引起的内涵等的制约。换句话说，新的含义不仅可以在文本中解释（而不是那么多），而且可以在话语中解释，同时考虑到它们产生的情况和条件。因此，现代词典的任务是成为一种认知（而不仅仅是显示）口头交流过程的手段。如何做到这一点尚不完全清楚。这种信息的词典记录方法尚未开发，没有话语词典的实验模型。然而，词典编纂者正在朝着这个方向积极努力，为单位的词典描述提供了两种选择。在第一篇中，词典的作者和编纂者努力充分反映有关单词/短语单位的多样化信息，不仅揭示了单位的含义，而且还试图传达整个语义阴影和内涵的范围。同时，给出了文体、语法、文化、认知特征等。矛盾的是，这在今天是一项可以实现的任务。为了解决这个问题，词典编纂者最初创建了许多词典，展示了在口语中使用语言单位的特征：V.P. Belyanin“现场演讲。口语词典“[3]，V. Yu.梅利基扬“活言语的情感表达转折”[4]，活俄语言语含义词典[5]，V.V.化学家“俄语口语大词典”[6]等。然而，这些词典努力反映言语，大部分仍然是意义词典（即语言词典）。这条规则的一个例外可能是V.V. Chemist的词典，它确实包含了大量使用单词和短语单元的例子，这使读者能够了解在实时对话交流中使用特定词汇单元的特殊性。但即使在如此庞大的字典中，使用上下文的数量也是有限的。然而，尽管印刷版格式的范围很广，但词典编纂材料的作者和编纂者强调在词典中包含最大数量的“上下文，话语条件词用法”[7，第37页]。由于语料库语言学的发展和计算机词典的发展，完全追踪语音中单词/短语单元功能特征的愿望成为可能。这种方法解释了研究人员对官方不完整单词的词典描述的兴趣增加，这反映在词典“俄语话语词指南”[8]，“俄语话语词”[9]，“俄语解释词典”中。后者的词典条目包含两部分：解释性（有关使用特性的信息，详细解释，兼容性信息，同义词，反义词）和演示（在语音中使用的示例）[10]。话语词仅在交流过程中表现出它们的所有属性，因此，在语言词典中反映它们的特征是非常有问题的。这需要一个语音词典。
这种出版物并不是独一无二的。然而，不仅话语词典变成了语音词典（或用词词典）。词典编纂版本已经出现，这使得有可能在单词或短语单元的层面上追踪由于话语中命名单元的功能细节而发生的变化，如“实际发音的文本”（T. A. Van Dyuck的术语）。此类词典的作者和编纂者通常关注词汇单元的交际和语用属性，因为词典条目的语用学被认为是其中重要的定义部分。“为词语义的词典实现提供了条件”[11，第142页]。此类作品包括词典“艺术演讲中的俄语短语生活”，除了通常的规范上下文外，还给出了个人作者使用短语单位的示例，显示了短语单位风格的上下文差异[12，第 104 页]。语音词典（用法词典）与语言词典有何根本区别？1）在语音词典中，关于描述单元的语义信息在最大程度上得到反映，这取决于每个特定单元在语音功能过程中进入句法关系的能力;2）言语词汇是描述性的;3）在这样的词典中，词汇单元的动机，其起源可以描述;4）在词典中，最大限度地显示了单位的上下文实现（考虑到不同体裁，风格，普通和作者使用的示例等的文本）。考虑到这些特征，必须承认，在现代词典编纂中，人们可以找到将自己定位为语音词典的出版物，但仍然是该语言的词典，例如：词典参考书“俄语演讲文化”[13]或“正确俄语语音词典”[14]。近年来，出现了一种新趋势，不仅仅是语音词典（或用词典）的创建。词典编纂者开始开发话语词典。这项任务似乎极其困难，但很有希望，其实现是一种自然现象。研究人员长期以来一直认为字典是一种特殊的元文本（“元语言文本”（S. A. Zhuravlev），“具有元符号学性质的文本”（A. Rey））。这意味着它的潜力要丰富得多，而不仅仅是反映词汇单位使用的变体。母语人士在所使用的单词或短语单元中加入的每个新含义不仅诞生于特定的交际情境中。它同时受到说话者和听众的经验、目标、个人态度和心理特征、文化意义、由交流主体之间关系的细节引起的内涵等的制约。换句话说，新的含义不仅可以在文本中解释（而不是那么多），而且可以在话语的范围内解释，同时考虑到它们产生的情况和条件。因此，现代词典的任务是成为一种认知（而不仅仅是显示）口头交流过程的手段。如何做到这一点尚不完全清楚。这种信息的词典记录方法尚未开发，没有话语词典的实验模型。然而，词典编纂者正在朝着这个方向积极努力，为单位的词典描述提供了两种选择。在第一篇中，词典的作者和编纂者努力充分反映有关单词/短语单位的多样化信息，不仅揭示了单位的含义，而且还试图传达整个语义阴影和内涵的范围。同时，给出了文体、语法、文化、认知特征等。
在我们看来，N. Alefirenko 和 L. Zolotykh 的短语词典“俄罗斯习语的文化和认知空间”，其词典条目反映了文本中短语的最典型联系、短语的交际语用属性、它们的认知和逻辑文化内容 [15，第 2 页]。在话语词典的第二版中，涉及额外的信息，使读者能够听到词汇单元在语音中功能的特殊性。这些出版物中的大多数仍在项目中，需要额外的开发和伴随音频材料的文本（例如，“俄语话语词的声音词典” [16]）。然而，在俄罗斯词典编纂中，已经有“活”话语词典的独特例子 - 安加尔斯克词典，其作者在词典条目中附有与安加拉方言母语人士、歌曲等对话的视频记录[17]。话语词典的显著特征是什么：1）关于描述单位的语义信息反映在词典中（给出其含义或几种含义，描述上下文中出现的附加内涵）;2）字典是描述性的;3）它可以描述词汇单元的动机，其起源，认知和文化成分，解释话语中单词或短语单元产生的含义所必需的其他附加元语言信息;4）词典最大限度地显示了单元的上下文实现（考虑到不同体裁，风格，常规和作者使用的示例等的文本）。值得注意的是，计算机形式的词典可以完全满足这些要求，因为出版物的印刷版本限制了词典编纂者所呈现材料的体积（我们的评论绝不意味着词典的印刷版不能是话语的）。但即使是计算机化的词典版本也不是完美的。言语的含义极其丰富。在每一个新的交际情境中，都可以使用所有新的元语言信息。在这方面，我们同意B. Yu的观点。戈罗德茨基认为，“对语言语义结构的绝对完整描述只有在理想情况下才有可能：现有的困难与描述的深度和广度有关。因此，真实的描述是有限的[2，第12页]。目前，我们可以创建或多或少的最佳词典版本。实现理想是未来的事情。注1 在研究人员之后，我们所说的话语是指“沉浸在生活中的言语”（N.D. Arutyunova），“铭刻在交际情境中的言语”（Z. Harris），“言语活动的过程和结果”（S.S. Sharipova）。该课程表现为“一种复杂的现象，不仅与创造某种文本的行为有关，而且还与大量的语言外因素有关——关于世界的知识、意图、态度和说话者的具体目标，说话者是话语文本的创造者[18，第 6 页]。正是这种对话语的理解被运用到我们的工作中。

参考文献列表
1.Rey， A. 词典编纂的问题和对立面 / A. Rey， S. Delesal // 外国语言学新学。– M. ： 进步， 1983.–卷。14.词典编纂的问题和方法。– S. 260–299.
2.戈罗德茨基，B.Y.现代词典编纂的问题和方法/B.Y.戈罗德茨基//外国语言学的新。– M. ： 进步， 1983.–卷。14.词典编纂的问题和方法。– 第 5– 23 节。
3.贝利亚宁，V.P.日瓦亚·口语表达词典/V.P.别利亚宁，I.A.布坚科。– M. ： PAIMS， 1994.– 192 页
4.Melikyan，V.Y.生活言语的情感表达转折：字典/V.Y.梅利基扬。– M. ： 弗林特， 2011.– 240 页
5.活俄语语音含义词典（活俄语语义解释词典的科普缩写版）。——叶卡捷琳堡。2008. – 122 页
6.希米克，V. V. Bolshoi slovar’ russkogo 口语’noi rechi [俄语口语大词典]。– 圣彼得堡。：诺林特，2004年。– 708 页
7.I. 劣等词词词编纂的话语方法/Y. I. Lednev // 语言。发短信。话语。– 2008.– 第 6 号。– 第 34-39 节。
8.俄语话语词指南/ A. N. 巴拉诺夫[和其他人];长大。安，在-t罗斯。亚美尼亚语。莫斯科：波莫夫斯基及合伙人，1993年。– 207 页
9.俄语的话语词：上下文语义描述的经验/A. N. 巴拉诺夫[和其他人];由K.基谢列娃和D.帕亚德编辑;罗蒙诺索夫莫斯科国立大学，菲洛尔。法克。– M. ： 元文本， 1998.– 446 页
10.俄语解释词典：结构词：介词、连词、助词、感叹词、介绍性词、代词、数字、交配动词：约 1200 个单位 / V. V. Morkovkin [和其他];由 V. V. 莫尔科夫金编辑。- M. ： LLC “Astrel Publishing House”： LLC “AST Publishing House”， 2002.– 432 页
11.茹拉夫列夫，S.A.解释词典现象的话语解释/S.A.茹拉夫列夫//II国际博杜安读物：喀山语言学派：传统与现代：tr。和材料，喀山，2003 年 12 月 11 日至 13 日：共 2 卷;在 K. R. 加柳林、G. A. 尼古拉耶夫的总编辑下。- 喀山：喀山出版社。大学， 2003.– T. 1.– S. 142–144.
12.梅列罗维奇，A.M.各种结构语义类型的短语单元的转换潜力（基于教育词典“艺术言语中俄语短语单元的生活”的招股说明书的材料。 科斯特罗马，2006）
13.索洛维耶夫，N. V. 正确俄语词典 / N. V. 索洛维耶夫。– M. ： AST， Astrel， Khranitel， 2006.– 960 页
14.Alefirenko，N.F.短语词典：俄罗斯惯用语的文化和认知空间/N.F.Alefirenko，L.G.Zolotykh。– M. ： ELPIS， 2008.– 472 页
15.S.S.萨利莫维奇：中亚的词典学和词典编纂：传统与现代性…;翻译的主要问题
16.霍季耶娃、奥尔齐古尔·肖迪穆罗多芙娜和索希布·萨利莫维奇·沙里波夫。“作者词典编纂的创作史。”中欧科学公报 9（2021 年）。
17.萨利莫维奇、沙里波夫·索希布和涅马托娃·莫希贝吉姆·法兹利迪诺夫娜。“现代生活中的词典。”国际融合教育杂志2.6：166-168。
18.Islamovna M.F.， Umedullaevna S.S. SHADOW FORMATION IN PERSPECTIVE//INTERNATIONAL ENGINEERING JOURNAL FOR Research & Development.– 2020.– Т. 5.– 4号。– С. 5-5.
19.Khodjayeva N. S.， Mamurova D. I.， Nafisa A. 在教学技术和教育活动中的重要性 //国际研究与开发工程杂志.– 2020.– Т. 5.– 不，国会。– С. 5-5.
20.科迪罗维奇、马马托夫·迪尔肖德和阿齐莫娃·穆哈约·巴罗托夫娜。“艺术家的灵魂。”欧亚会议。第 1 卷。1号。2021.
21.尤拉耶娃，Z.R.和L.Kh.尼格马托娃。“对诗歌文本语音水平的心理感知。” 科学。思想：电子期刊杂志10（2014）。
22.Abdullaev S. S.， Rafieva N. A. 古代俄罗斯和中亚艺术在精神对话（历史游览）// 科学与教育公报.– 2020.– 第 21-2 号 （99）。
23.穆扎法罗夫娜，A.N.，S.S.乌米杜拉耶夫娜和I.伊尔哈莫夫娜。“向学生协调织物艺术加工的类型。”国际社会心理康复杂志24.4（2020）：176-184。
24.Нигматова, Лола Хамидовна.“ЛЕКСИКОГРАФИЯ ТАРИХИДАН ИЗ ИСТОРИИ ЛЕКСИКОГРАФИИ 来自词典编纂史。”阿尼克·瓦·塔比伊·范拉尔：93。