In the speech practice of recent years, there is a significant amount of word usage that does not correspond to the canons of modern academic lexicography. Thus, the adjective unpleasant is almost always found in the meaning of "unpleasant" (and not "impartial, fair"); the noun persona-in the meaning of "person" (and not "materials about an outstanding person"); exaggerate-in the meaning of "discuss" (and not "exaggerate, inflate"), etc.
How to evaluate the noted phenomena: as violations of lexical norms, i.e. mistakes, or as facts of natural language dynamics? The final answer to this question will be given by time and the corresponding codification of the outlined changes by explanatory dictionaries of the modern literary language.
To reflect such phenomena, the Dictionary of Semantic Innovations is conceived as a concordance-type publication, the dictionary of which contains several hundred "problematic" language units in terms of speech culture. For each of them, an array of documented contexts is given that reveal modern speech usage, traditional lexicographic interpretation is given, and the reasons for the observed semantic changes are explained. In addition, if there are words derived from the title, the contexts with them are placed in the final part of each dictionary entry. Here's what one of the future dictionary blocks looks like.
MONSTER 1. Giant. 2. Corypheus.
1. His (Spielberg's. - E. G.) We were not satisfied with the best conditions offered by monster studios (AiF. 1999. N 8); STS TV channel took fourth place, passing only the national "monsters" of ORT, RTR and NTV! (AiF. 2001. N 18); The program "Emerald City" had to compete with the works of such monsters of television as "TV-6 Moscow" (Kirov evening. 1999. N 18);
page 123
Today, three large conglomerates and three monsters are moving in our political space (AiF. 1999. N 45); And not so long ago, SONY also invaded the computer technology market, significantly squeezing out such monsters as IBM a ...
Read more