Литературно-книжная лексика: термины, поэтизмы, архаизмы, варваризмы, неологизмы. Изучение стилистической особенности литературно-книжной лексики

Introduction
Modern linguistics is characterized by an increasing interest in the text, and, being a complex phenomenon, it is studied in different aspects and is treated differently in different branches of the humanities. The text is considered by researchers as a structural-semantic formation, a kind of complex unity, united by communicative integrity, semantic completeness, logical, grammatical, semantic connections.
At the same time, special attention is paid to lexis elements, the basic units that make the text, phrases and words relationships, a certain qualitative uniqueness of the functioning of the language units of various levels of the text. Thus, the study with the aim to investigate literary and book lexis such as terms, poetic words, archaic words, barbarisms and neologisms has its relevance.
The objects of this investigation are terms, poetic words, archaic words, barbarisms and neologisms. The subject is a literary and book lexis.
The study basis consists of the works of such researchers as N.F. Alefirenko, I.V. Arnold [2], L.G. Babenko, R. Bart, M. M. Bakhtin, A. Vezhbitskaya, I. R. Halperin [8], Y. M. Skrebnev [15], I. M. Kobozeva, V. G. Kolshansky, V. A. Kukharenko, O. I. Moskalskaya, V. A. Lukin, N. A. Nikolina, E. V. Paducheva, V. A. Pishchalnikova, Ya. Turaeva, and I. Chernukhina, N. E. Brekle, W. Dressier, U. Eco, H. Lausberg, D. Wunderlich, etc.
The study materials are the literary texts and books consisting of terms, poetic words, archaic words, barbarisms, and neologisms.
The tasks of the current investigation are:
- to analyse the specifics of literary and book lexis
- to describe of English lexis' stylistic groups
- the analyses of Terms’ examples
- to analyse of Poetic words’ examples
- to analyse of Archaic words’ examples
- to analyse of Barbarisms’ examples
- to analyse of Neologisms’ examples.
The method of the current study is the analytical method.
The structure of the study includes introduction, two chapters, conclusion and references.
In the first chapter the stylistics groups of English lexis are considered.
In the second chapter the terms, poetic words, archaic words, barbarisms and neologisms in the literary and book texts are considered.

 
Chapter 1 Stylistic groups of the English lexis
1.1. Specifics of literary and book lexis
The gap between lively colloquial speech and the written (literary and book) type of speech most of all, at all stages of development, manifested itself in the vocabulary. The general literary and book vocabulary of modern English is characterized by a significant number of words of Latin and French origin. Their semantic boundaries are much more clearly delineated than the corresponding synonyms for spoken language, and, therefore, they provide a more accurate expression of thought.
The contrast between general literary and book vocabulary and colloquial vocabulary is often used to achieve the desired stylistic effect.
Thus, in the O. Henry story "By Courier"[28] the opposition of the general literary-book vocabulary to the colloquial (significantly spiced with non-literary forms of speech and enhanced by figurative expressions) acquires a special stylistic function - to emphasize the difference in the social position of the heroes of the story:
"Tell her I am on my way to the station, to leave for San Francisco, where I shall join that Alaska moose-hunting expedition. Tell her that, since she has commanded me neither to speak nor to write to her I take this means of making one last appeal to her sense of justice, for the sake of what has been. Tell her that to condemn and discard one who has not deserved such treatment, without giving him her reason or a chance to explain is contrary to her nature as I believe it to be."
"He told me to tell yer he's got his collars and cuffs in dat grip for a scoot clean out to 'Frisco. Den he's goin' to shoot snowbirds in de Klondike. He says yer told him not to send 'round no more pink notes nor come hangin' over de garden gate, and he takes dis mean (sending the boy to speak for him) of putting yer wise. He says yer referred him like a has-been, and never give him no chance to kick at de decision. He says yer swiped him, and never said why."
A similar example can be cited from B. Shaw's play "Fanny's First Play", where lively spoken language is contrasted with strict, precise, literary and bookish speech. Here contrast is achieved only by lexical means:
Dora: Oh Ive let it out. Have I! (Contemplating Juggins approvingly as he places a chair for her between the table and the sideboard) But hes the right sort: I can see that. (Buttonholing him). You won't let on downstairs, old man, will you?
Juggins: The Family can rely on my absolute discretion. Dora uses words from the spoken layer of vocabulary. In Jugins' speech, the choice of words is characterized by a neutral and literary-bookish connotation.
Here is an example in which the comparison of spoken words and literary-book words in combination with other features of the two types of speech shows how written speech serves to clarify the expressed thought:
A grin twitched George's pallid lips.
"Make me a codicil. You'll find paper in the dressing-table drawer" . . .
The words came with a hoarse relish. "My three screws to young Val Dartie, because he's the only Forsyte that knows a horse from a donkey." A throaty chuckle sounded ghastly in the ears of Soames.
"What have you said?"
Soames read: "I hereby leave my three racehorses to my kinsman Valerius Dartie, of Wansdon, Sussex, because he has special knowledge of horses."
(J. Galsworthy. The White Monkey )
Some literary-literary words of modern English are clearly distinguished by their specific book-literary character. These are, for example, concord, harmony, dispute, auxiliary, opponent, volition, antagonism, calamity, partaking (compare to take part), exemption, susceptibility, morosity, in accordance with, assiduity, alacrity, succour, etc.
A significant number of phraseological combinations also belong to the literary vocabulary. So, for example, the following phraseological units are clearly bookish: to pass the Rubicon; with regard, by virtue of, to lose an opportunity, to speak at great length, to lend assistance, to draw a lesson, responsibility rests, etc.
Many of the words and phraseological units related to literary and book vocabulary can also be used in live direct communication. Because of this, they do not cease to be literary and book words. This is the penetration of literary and book vocabulary into the sphere of lively colloquial speech. If such penetration acquires a systematic character, then literary and book vocabulary is gradually "neutralized".
It is important to mention that when we talk about text – literary and book, we mean, first, discourse. Discourse is a coherent text considered in combination with extralinguistic, sociocultural, pragmatic, psychological and other factors.
There are different definitions of text coming from the past times: (text is a unit of language in use; text means discourse without context; text seems to refer to a more static object; text is a product). Nobody turned to texts for centuries - paradox - only sacral texts interested linguists.
But discourse is a much wider meaning than text and as a complex communicative phenomenon, which has its own distinctive features discourse as a phenomenon of text, speech and a communicative act correlation was studied by many scientists (Dijk, T. Van, Jørgensen, M. Grice, H., Grudeva E., Gorelov, I., Krasik V., and others). Most of these studies are connecting the distinctive features of discourse with the process and result of speech action, deriving them from the nature of socially determined verbalized activity.
The modern views on discourse are seen within the frame of this post structural approach found in theories of Norman Fairclough and Jurgen Habermas [22, p. 230], [26, p.78]. Norman Fairclough emphasizes the discourse functions as discursive practice which means «a social practice that shapes the social world». This kind of practice is viewed by N. Fairclough as «one dimension or moment of every social practice in a dialectical relationship with the other moments of a social practice» [31, p.73].
Traditionally in Russian linguistic theory and in Western linguistic studies the discourse is presented in” extended” and in “restricted” meaning. For example, Dijk T. Van defines term discourse in the extended meaning as “specific communicative event” which “involves a number of social actors, typically in speaker/writer and hearer/reader roles (but also in other roles, such as observer or overhearer), taking part in a communicative act, in a specific setting (time, place, circumstances) and based on other context features” (Dijk T. Van, 1998). Dijk T. Van also mentions that this is widely used approach in socially oriented discourse analysis. In the restricted meaning the discourse is taken in a form of the spoken or written communicative act of a communicative event and in this case, we refer to this event as to the “talk” or as to the “text”[20, p.194].
The investigations of discourse calls discourse analyses.
Not long ago some researchers came to use not the term discourse analysis but "discourse studies"
Discourse studies offers a new perspective for analysing or for finding the meaning or analysing the discourse of the text.
The discourse analysis is not a certain number of methods, but it is a range of methods and approaches investigated by such scientists as Gee J, Hammersley, M.
The conversation analysis was designed by the group of researchers: Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson (Schegloff, 1973). They were aimed at the modeling of the conversation. Though the descriptive feature of this method is that the material for the analysis is taken directly from the act of communication in the form of a video or an audio format the research method shows how the communicants act in order to make the contribution to the communicative act.
The conversational analysis takes into consideration the context but it is the roles of the participants their social roles out of the discussion are not the matter of the conversational analysis. Some principles of conversational analysis methods like the restored conversation, equality and partnership of conversation participantsare called into question [27, p. 753], [18, p. 545].
Conversation analysis has become very popular in humanities like linguistics and sociology and actually was developed by sociologists (founder of the method H. Sacks was a sociologist). However contemporary researches in linguistics rarely choose this method for material analysis though sociologist apply and use this method in their research [35, p.25].
According to Gee theory [24, p. 26], the important points of Discourse Analyze are as presented in table 1.
V. A. Andreeva considers the literary discourse as a process of time and space-mediated interaction between the author and the reader, emphasizes the central place of the text in literary discourse and calls it the sole guarantor of literary discourse [1, p.76]. The text of fiction has specific features. So, “... in a literary text, unlike other texts, in-text reality (in relation to non-text) has a creative nature, i.e. created by the imagination and creative energy of the author, is conditional, fictional, character” [10, p.86].
The most important features of literary texts also include the functioning of the language as “... a material of art, just as marble is a material of sculpture art, and canvas and paint are material of painting” [5, p. 25].
He also considers literary discourse as a communicative-pragmatic strategy of text formation, which determines the relationship of the literary work's art world to reality, which is realized, first of all, in the subjective-value aspect of the chrono tope, which, in its turn, determines genre modifications and compositional features of a literary work.