Epigram in Russian literature in the 19th - early 20th centuries. Epigrams on famous people Epigram genre

Since the end of the 18th century, the epigram has become one of the most popular artistic and verbal genres in the Russian literary environment. Many epigrams were published in magazines, others, under conditions of strict censorship, were distributed in handwritten form and passed on from mouth to mouth. In the epigram, as a topical satirical and humorous genre, lexical and phraseological means of living folk speech were widely used, which significantly contributed to the democratization of the Russian literary language.

The processes occurring in fiction, in its language and style, require deep scientific understanding. This is necessary both for the successful development of artistic creativity itself and for the further formation of a relatively new direction in linguistics - the theory of genre forms of artistic speech. The Russian epigram as a special satirical-humorous genre is considered mainly in literary works (M.L. Gasparov, L.F. Ershov, M.I. Gillelson, E.V. Novikova, L.I. Timofeev, O.B. Kushlina and others), however, it has not been previously studied in the linguistic-stylistic aspect. The speech structure of the epigram as a genre form of artistic speech, its determining influence on the selection and use of lexical and phraseological means characteristic of the genre, have not yet been studied.

The relevance of our research is related to the need to fill this gap in the scientific understanding of the epigram as a special genre form of artistic speech with its specific speech structure and a wide range of use of stylistic means of the national language. As V.V. Vinogradov emphasized, “the task of speech stylistics falls to understand the subtle differences of semantic and expressive-stylistic nature between different genres” [Vinogradov, 1959: 15]. The scientific foundations of linguistic stylistics of genre forms of speech have already been formed (V.V. Vinogradov, A.N. Kozhin, V.G. Kostomarov, G.L. Solganik, E.F. Petrishcheva, E.A. Ivanchikova, M.N. Nesterov and others). The principles of linguostylistic research into genre forms of artistic speech have found practical implementation in works devoted to the Russian fable [Shipilov, 1992], the modern joke [Perekhodyuk, 1999], the Russian lyrical song [Karapetyan, 2001], the historical novel and drama [Voronichev, 1995; Manuilova, 2006; Egorova, 2008]. Our dissertation work was also carried out in line with the linguistic stylistics of genre forms of artistic speech.

The object of the dissertation research is a Russian epigram of the 18th - 19th centuries. Such a wide chronological period allows us to show different historically determined structural and speech types of epigrams, and their stylistic commonality as a single satirical and humorous genre form, which reached its highest peak in the Pushkin and post-Pushkin periods.

The subject of the study is the expressive-semantic structure of the epigram as a satirical and humorous genre form and the lexical and phraseological means of its formation.

The main goal of the study is to identify general style-forming features of the speech structure of the epigram as a genre form of artistic speech and to show their decisive role in the selection and use of semantically and expressively dominant vocabulary and phraseology. To achieve this goal, the following tasks are planned:

1) identify and describe the features of the expressive-semantic structure of the Russian epigram of the 18th - 19th centuries as a special satirical and humorous genre;

2) show the determining influence of the microfield structure of the epigram on the selection and use of semantically and expressively dominant linguistic means;

3) analyze the main lexical and phraseological means that are used in epigrams of the 18th - 19th centuries for satirical and humorous ridicule of the addressee;

4) show the prevalence of colloquial and vernacular vocabulary, phraseology, which contributed to the democratization of the language of fiction of the 18th - 19th centuries and the Russian literary language in general.

The research material was epigrams of famous writers of the 18th - 19th centuries (M.V. Lomonosov, A.P. Sumarokov, G.R. Derzhavin, V.V. Kapnist, D.I. Khvostov, I.I. Dmitriev, I.A. .Krylov, A.E.Izmailov, V.A.Zhukovsky, D.V.Davydov, K.N.Batyushkov, P.A.Vyazemsky, A.S.Pushkin, E.A.Baratynsky, S.A.Sobolevsky , M.A. Dmitriev, N.A. Nekrasov, I.S. Turgenev, N.F. Shcherbina, D.D. Minaev and others). A total of 1670 epigrams were analyzed. The choice of research material is due to the fact that the epigrams of this period are characterized by high artistic skill and have not yet been subjected to detailed linguistic analysis.

The methodological basis of the study was the work on the stylistics of language and genres of speech by V.V. Vinogradov, A.N. Kozhin, V.G. Kostomarov, G.Ya. Solganik, O.A. Krylova, L.A. Kiseleva, E.F. .Petrishcheva, V.V.Odintsov, M.N.Nesterova; on the history of the Russian literary language by L.A. Bulakhovsky, N.A. Meshchersky, E.G. Kovalevskaya, A.I. Gorshkov, G.P. Knyazkova; on "lexicology, phraseology by N.M. Shansky, D.N. Shmelev, V.N. Teliya, A.I. Molotkov; on the theory of semantic fields by Yu.N. Karaulova, V.P. Abramova, G.S. Shchura , B.Yu. Gorodetsky and others. Methodologically, the work is based on the use of a field approach to the study of the speech structure of the epigram as a genre form of artistic speech and its lexical and phraseological means.

The main research method is descriptive with direct observation and interpretation of linguistic facts. We use it when studying linguistic means of forming the expressive-semantic structure of the genre form under study and when characterizing the types of these linguistic means. When studying the structural features of the epigram as a genre of artistic speech, the method of component analysis is used. The work also uses the method of comparing the structure of different types of epigrams, the method of stylistic comparison of the speech structure of the epigram and other small genre forms (fable, anecdote, feuilleton, impromptu). As additional ones, functional-semantic, functional-stylistic methods, and the method of stylistic experiment are used, which make it possible to clearly show the dependence of the use of lexical and phraseological means on the structural features of the genre form.

The following main provisions are submitted for defense:

1. The purpose of the epigram as a satirical and humorous genre of artistic speech is to express the author’s negative attitude towards the addressee, which is conveyed either in the form of open denunciation or through irony, creating a comic characteristic. Depending on the nature of the public ridicule of the addressee, the microfield structure of the epigram is divided into two types: 1) in epigrams with an open denunciation, all expressive-semantic microfields have a single-dimensional negative tonality, 2) in epigrams of an ironic nature, the semantics and expression of the microfields are of a contrasting nature. However, in both the first and second types of epigrams, the microfields are harmoniously combined and form a single expressive-semantic field with a sharp condemnation of the addressee.

2. The intended purpose of the epigram, the features of its expressive-semantic structure determine the widespread use in it to characterize the addressee of vocabulary and phraseology with pejorative evaluation, various nominal periphrases with pronounced negative expression, figurative artistic means with a negative evaluation, such as metaphor, comparison, likening.

3. To create a negative characteristic of the addressee in epigrams of the 18th - 19th centuries, various kinds of derivative names with pejorative evaluation are often used, such as Glupon, Kradon, Podlon, Skryagin, or parodically consonant with real names, such as instead of Bulgarin - Figlyarin, Kachenovsky - Kochergovsky, etc. .d.

4. The intended purpose of the epigram and its expressive-semantic structure determine its widespread use of polysemantic vocabulary and phraseology, lexical homonyms, through which a punning play of meanings is created, aimed at ridiculing the addressee.

5. In order to ridicule the addressee, epigrams widely use antithesis, built on the opposition of meliorative and pejorative expressive-semantic shades, which allows, through expressive-semantic contrasts, to give a sharp negative characterization to the addressee.

6. In the epigram as a special satirical and humorous genre, colloquial vocabulary and phraseology of living folk speech with its inherent pejorative evaluation are very widely used, which significantly contributed to the democratization of the language of fiction and the Russian literary language in general in the 18th - 19th centuries.

The scientific novelty of the dissertation work is determined primarily by the fact that the language of the Russian epigram as a special genre has not yet been studied enough. The dissertation is the first to examine the expressive-semantic structure of the epigram as a special genre form and comprehensively describes the dominant lexical and phraseological means of its formation. The methodology and methodology of the research are of a certain novelty: the dissertation was carried out in line with modern linguistic stylistics of genre forms of artistic speech using a field approach, due to which the general expressive-semantic qualities of the language of the genre form under consideration are identified and various linguistic means of its formation are systematically presented.

The theoretical significance of the study is that, from the standpoint of linguistic stylistics, it reveals the features of the speech structure of the epigram, reveals its main style-forming means as a satirical and humorous genre, and contributes to the study of the language and stylistic features of the Russian epigram of the 18th - 19th centuries. At the same time, the dissertation work has a certain significance for the further development of the linguostylistic theory of genre forms of artistic speech, for the creation of a linguostylistic typology of artistic and verbal genres.

The practical significance of the work is determined by the fact that the research materials, main provisions and research methodology can be used in the practice of teaching the stylistics of the Russian language, the history of the Russian literary language, in special courses and special seminars on the language of literary genres, in the linguistic analysis of literary texts, in coursework and final qualifying works of students. The dissertation research materials can be used in constructing a training course and creating a textbook on the stylistics of genres of literary speech.

Approbation of work. The main provisions of the study were presented in reports and communications at scientific conferences of the Armavir State Pedagogical University (2005-2008), at the IV, V international conferences “Culture of Russian Speech” (Armavir, 2005, 2007), at the International Scientific and Practical conference “Spiritual and moral potential of Russia: past, present and future” (Armavir, 2007), at the All-Russian scientific and practical Internet conference “Systemic relations in language” (Stavropol, 2007), at the Sixth International scientific and practical conference “ The work of V.V. Kozhinov in the context of scientific thought at the turn of the 20th - 21st centuries" (Armavir, 2007), at the International Scientific Conference "Continuity and Discreteness in Language and Speech", dedicated to the memory of Doctor of Philology, Professor A.G. Lykov ( Krasnodar, 2007), at the Interuniversity Scientific Conference “Text. Discourse. Genre" (Saratov region, Balashov, 2007), at the International scientific conference "Language system and speech activity: linguo-cultural and pragmatic aspects" (Rostov-on-Don, 2007).

The structure of the work is determined by the purpose and objectives of the study. The dissertation consists of an introduction, two chapters, a conclusion, a bibliography (190 titles) and a list of sources of language material.

1. The intended purpose of the epigram as a genre form of artistic speech for satirical and humorous ridicule of the addressee, its specific microfield structure aimed at an unambiguous negative assessment of one or another life phenomenon, determine the widespread use of mainly pejorative expressive-semantic means of language. The basis of these means is general literary vocabulary with pejorative evaluation, despite the fact that many epigrams were not originally intended for printing, were distributed in handwritten form, and were passed on from mouth to mouth. In order to enhance the negative assessment, epigrams, as a rule, combine pejorative expressive means of different significant parts of speech - adjectives, nouns, verbs, adverbs. To create an accusatory characteristic in epigrams, a descriptive designation of the addressee in a periphrastic way is often used. Periphrases not only indicate the addressee, thanks to the description of his characteristics, but also provide a condensed, reduced characteristic of a satirical nature, and serve as a clear means of expressing the author’s negative attitude towards the person depicted.

2. In order to negatively characterize the addressee, epigrams often use proper names, names of newspapers, magazines, works with symbolic semantics and pejorative expression. In the 18th century, the addressee was, as a rule, a generalized person with certain moral shortcomings; Depending on the derided shortcomings, names were given: Glupon, Kradon, Mechton, Podlon, Skupon, Khmelnin and others. Epigramists of the 19th century more often resorted to punning plays on the real names of the recipients, the titles of their works, and periodicals. To create a highly expressive contrast, against which the lowland of the addressee is more clearly shown, mythological names with a traditionally high semantic aura are used. The addressee is usually likened to ancient characters, symbolizing base moral traits.

3. The target setting of the epigram as a genre, the features of its speech structure determine the widespread use of polysemantic words and lexical homonyms, paronymically consonant words, and phrases to negatively characterize the addressee. Thanks to playing with different meanings of words, poets achieve vivid expressiveness of the images they create. The linguistic means under consideration are common in the epigrams of various authors of the 19th century (Pushkin, Vyazemsky, Baratynsky, Minaev, Davydov, Minsky, Shcherbina, Mikhailov), representing different historical eras and literary movements.

4. The epigram as a satirical and humorous genre form is characterized by the widespread use of antithesis with pejorative evaluation. To negatively characterize the addressee, different types of lexical antonymy are used, the indispensable property of which is the presence of a clearly expressed negative expressive connotation in one of its components.

5. The expressive-semantic structure of the epigram as a genre form of artistic speech determines the widespread use of a wide variety of phraseological units in it. As a dominant means that forms expressive-semantic microfields in epigrams, both the semantics of phraseological units (their polysemy, opposition to free phrases) and expressive-stylistic coloring are used, which allows creating comic ridicule of the addressee of the epigram.

6. With all the features of literary trends and literary language of different eras, despite different individual styles, an integral stylistic feature of the epigram as a genre form of artistic speech is colloquial linguistic means. Colloquial vocabulary and phraseology are observed in the epigrams of A.P. Sumarokov, M.I. Popov, I.I. Dmitriev, A.E. Izmailov, A.D. Illichevsky, P.A. Vyazemsky, A.S. Pushkin, E .A. Baratynsky and other epigramists representing different historical eras. The widespread use of colloquial linguistic means in epigrams is associated with the presence of evaluative meanings, emotional and expressive shades, through which an accusatory characteristic of the addressee is created. The nature of vernacular linguistic means varies among different authors. In epigrams of a humorous nature (M.I. Popov, I.I. Dmitriev, A.E. Izmailov, A.D. Illichevsky, P.A. Vyazemsky) crude colloquial means predominate. Epigrams of a satirical nature with a pronounced shade of sarcasm (N.F. Shcherbina, A.S. Pushkin) often use rough colloquial vocabulary and phraseology with a sharp negative connotation.

7. The Russian epigram of the 18th - 19th centuries was the most democratic artistic and verbal genre in its style; it widely used the vocabulary and phraseology of living folk speech and significantly contributed to the democratization of the Russian literary language.

CONCLUSION

In the study of the speech structure and style-forming means of the Russian epigram of the 18th - 19th centuries, we proceeded from a linguistic-stylistic understanding of the genre of artistic speech. According to experts, the main style-forming factors of speech genres are: 1) belonging to a certain style of language, 2) purpose, 3) content, 4) speech situation in a broad sense. Belonging to a specific functional style unites all genres of a given style into an integral system and brings them together. Distinctive features are formed by the characteristics of their intended purpose, content and conditions of speech. In this case, the purpose of the genre plays a decisive role.

The intended purpose of the epigram, already at the very beginning of its formation in Russian literature of the 18th century, was to express the author’s negative attitude towards the addressee, his actions, deeds. In the epigrams of the period under study, it was expressed in two ways: 1) through an open, monotonous assessment of a satirical nature, 2) veiledly, through irony. In multi-line epigrams, these two methods are often combined in different forms.

The era of classicism is most characterized by two-line and four-line epigrams, which contain a single-tone negative expression that clearly expresses a negative assessment of a specific or general addressee. At the end of the 18th - beginning of the 19th centuries, in line with sentimentalism and early romanticism, four-line and multi-line epigrams became prevalent. In terms of expressive tone, ironic ones with an underlying negative assessment of the addressee become common. But in a number of cases, both quatrains and multiverses have a single-dimensional negative expression. In the Pushkin and post-Pushkin periods, the Russian epigram as a satirical and humorous genre reaches its highest peak. Its negative expression increases significantly. The number of accusatory epigrams with one-dimensional negative expression is increasing. Subtextual ironic epigrams with a sharp negative evaluative ending also become sharper. Many epigrams are dedicated to socio-political events and are aimed at ridiculing specific reigning and high-ranking officials. As a result, the socio-political role of the epigram as a satirical and humorous genre increases.

Being, by its specificity, a lyrical genre, the purpose of which is to briefly, in a concise form, express the author’s negative attitude towards a particular person or event, and give them his assessment, the epigram is a single-field expressive-semantic structure, characterized by a single-subject artistic modality. But depending on the textual-verse format, the epigram is characterized by a different internal microfield structure. It can consist of two, three, four or more microfields that interact in different ways. This determines the structural and semantic diversity of the epigram as a genre of artistic speech.

In two-line epigrams, which are characterized by the greatest compression of artistic speech space, only two expressive-semantic microfields are clearly distinguished. By the nature of expression, they can be monotonal satirical or contrastingly ironic. As a result of the interaction of two microfields, a single expressive-semantic field is created: in epigrams of the first type - with an open, one-dimensional negative assessment of the addressee, in epigrams of the second type - with ironic overtones. Many of the four-line epigrams, like the two-line ones, consist of two microfields of a single-tone negative or contrasting ironic type. But there are also special speech structures consisting of 3-4 microfields. They can also have a monotonal negative expression. But more often they are characterized by a contrasting satirical and humorous tone. However, in all these epigrams, different in microfield structure, thanks to the interaction of microfields, a single expressive-semantic field is created, either in an accusatory tone, or satirical-humorous with an ironic overtone. In multi-line epigrams, which have a significantly larger artistic space, the microfield structure is even more complex than in four-line epigrams. The number of microfields in multi-line epigrams can reach 10 or more. In some cases, they all contain an open negative assessment and create a single expressive-semantic field of accusatory tonality. But more often, multi-line epigrams consist of microfields of diverse expression. Nevertheless, their interaction, one way or another, ultimately determines the formation of a single macrofield of a satirical and humorous nature with ironic overtones and a negative assessment of the addressee and his activities.

The intended purpose of the epigram as a genre form of artistic speech for satirical and humorous ridicule of the addressee, its specific microfield structure aimed at an unambiguous negative assessment of one or another life phenomenon, determine the widespread use of mainly pejorative expressive-semantic means of language. The basis of these means is general literary vocabulary with pejorative evaluation, despite the fact that many epigrams were not originally intended for printing, were distributed in handwritten form, and were passed on from mouth to mouth. In order to enhance the negative assessment, epigrams, as a rule, combine pejorative expressive means of different significant parts of speech - adjectives, nouns, verbs, adverbs. To create an accusatory characteristic in epigrams, a descriptive designation of the addressee in a periphrastic way is often used. Periphrases not only indicate the addressee, thanks to the description of his characteristics, but also serve as a clear means of expressing the author’s negative attitude towards the person depicted.

In order to negatively characterize the addressee, epigrams often use proper names, names of newspapers, magazines, works with symbolic semantics and pejorative expression. In the 18th century, the addressee was, as a rule, a generalized person with certain moral shortcomings; Depending on the derided shortcomings, names were given: Glupon, Kradon, Podlon, Skupon, Khmelnin and others. Epigramists of the 19th century more often resorted to punning plays on the real names of the recipients, the titles of their works, and periodicals. To create a highly expressive contrast, against which the lowland of the addressee is more clearly shown, mythological names with a traditionally high semantic aura are used. The addressee is usually likened to ancient characters, symbolizing base moral traits.

The target setting of the epigram as a genre, the features of its speech structure determine the widespread use of polysemantic words and lexical homonyms, consonant words, and phrases to negatively characterize the addressee. Thanks to playing with different meanings of words, poets achieve vivid expressiveness of the images they create. The linguistic means under consideration are common in the epigrams of various authors of the 19th century (Pushkin, Vyazemsky, Baratynsky, Minaev, Davydov, Minsky, Shcherbina), representing various historical eras and literary movements.

The epigram as a satirical and humorous genre form is characterized by the widespread use of antithesis with pejorative evaluativeness. To negatively characterize the addressee, different types of lexical antonymy are used, the indispensable property of which is the presence of a clearly expressed negative expressive connotation in one of its components.

The expressive-semantic structure of the epigram as a genre form of artistic speech determines the widespread use of a wide variety of phraseological units in it. As a dominant means that forms expressive-semantic microfields, epigrams use both the semantics of phraseological units (their polysemy, opposition to free phrases) and expressive-stylistic coloring, which allows creating comic ridicule of the addressee of the epigram.

With all the features of literary movements and literary language of different eras, despite different individual styles, an integral stylistic feature of the epigram as a genre form of artistic speech is colloquial linguistic means. Colloquial vocabulary and phraseology is observed in the epigrams of A.P. Sumarokov, M.I. Popov, I.I. Dmitriev, A.E. Izmailov, P.A. Vyazemsky, A.S. Pushkin, E.A. Baratynsky and others epigramists representing different historical eras. The widespread use of colloquial linguistic means in epigrams is associated with the presence of pejorative evaluative meanings, through which an incriminating characteristic of the addressee is created. The nature of vernacular linguistic means varies among different authors. In epigrams of a humorous nature (M.I. Popov, I.I. Dmitriev, A.E. Izmailov, A.D. Illichevsky, P.A. Vyazemsky) crude colloquial means predominate. Epigrams of a satirical nature with a pronounced shade of sarcasm (N.F. Shcherbina, A.S. Pushkin) often use rough colloquial vocabulary and phraseology with a sharp negative connotation.

The Russian epigram of the 18th - 19th centuries was the most democratic artistic and verbal genre in its style; it widely used the vocabulary and phraseology of living folk speech and significantly contributed to the democratization of the Russian literary language.

In the Soviet era, due to the intensification of repression for ideological and political reasons, sharp socio-political epigrams became very rare. The press was dominated by humorous epigrams, similar in semantics and expression to the madrigal. In the post-Soviet period, despite the proclaimed democracy and freedom of speech, laws persecuting the authors of jokes and epigrams addressed to officials were not repealed. Therefore, even at this time, the epigrams published are also characterized by a lack of socio-political acuteness. Naturally, epigrams of the 20th and 21st centuries can become the subject of special research.

1. Abramov V.P. Semantic fields of the Russian language. Krasnodar: APSN RF: KubSU, 2003. -338 p.

2. Abramov V.P. Syntagmatics of the semantic field: (based on the material of the Russian language) / Rep. ed. G.P. Nemets; North Caucasus. scientific center of higher education school R.-on-D.: RSU Publishing House, 1992. - 107 p.

3. Abramov V.P. Syntagmatic relations of units of the semantic field in the Russian language // Semantics and levels of its implementation. - Krasnodar: KubSU Publishing House, 1994. 156 p.

4. Arnold I.V. Lexico-semantic field and thematic grid of the text // Text as an object of complex analysis at the university. L: Publishing house LGPI, 1984.-160 p.

5. Artemyeva E.Yu. Psychology of subjective semantics. M: Moscow State University, 1980, - 127 p.

6. Arutyunova N.D. Genres of communication // Human factor in language. Communication, modality, deixis. M., 1992. - P.52-56.

7. Arutyunova N.D. Language and the world of man // Languages ​​of Russian culture. M., 1999.-896p.

8. Asoyan A.A. Satirical epigrams of Pushkin // Boldin Readings. -Gorky, 1982. P.126-134.

9. Aspects of semantic research. Rep. ed. N.D. Arutyunova, A.N. Ufimtsev. M.: Nauka, 1980. - 356 p.

10. Akhmanova O.S. Dictionary of linguistic terms. M.: KomKniga, 2007. - 576 p.

11. Babenko L.G. Lexical means of denoting emotions in the Russian language. Sverdlovsk, 1989. - 184 p.

12. Babkin A.N. Russian phraseology, its development and sources. L.: Nauka, 1970.-262 p.

13. Bally S. General linguistics and issues of the French language / Transl. from French M: Ed. Foreign literature, 1955. - 416 p.

14. Bally S. French stylistics. M., 2001. - 392 p.

15. Baranov A.G. Cogniotypicality of the text (to the problem of levels of abstraction of textual activity) // Genres of speech. - Saratov, 1997. pp. 4-12.

16. Baranov A.G. Functional-pragmatic concept of the text. - R.-on-D., 1993, - 182 p.

17. Bakhtin M.M. The problem of text in linguistics, philology and other humanities. Experience of philosophical analysis // Bakhtin M.M. Aesthetics of verbal creativity. M., 1979. P.297-307.

18. Bakhtin M.M. Problems of speech genres. // Bakhtin M.M. Aesthetics of verbal creativity. M.: Art, 1979. - 424 p.

19. Belchikov Yu.A. Paraphrase. / Russian language: Encyclopedia (Ed. Yu.N. Karaulov). M.: Scientific publishing house "Big Russian Encyclopedia", 2003. - 704 p.

20. Belyanin V.P. Psycholinguistic aspects of literary text. M., 1988.- 120 p.

21. Berezin F.M. Pushkin and the Russian language today // Russian language at school, 1999, No. 3, pp. 97-98

22. Bertels A.E. Dictionary sections, semantic fields and thematic groups of words. // Questions of linguistics. 1982. - No. 4. - P.52-63.

23. Bogin G.I. Speech genre as a means of individualization // Genres of speech. -Saratov, 1997. pp. 12-22.

24. Bolotnova N.S. Literary text in the communicative aspect and complex analysis of units of the lexical level. Tomsk, 1992. - 313 p.

25. Bondaletov V.D. Russian onomastics. M.: Education, 1983. - 224 p.

26. Bulakhovsky JI.A. Russian literary language of the first half of the 19th century. Vocabulary and general notes about the syllable. Kyiv, 1957. - 492 p.

27. Vakurov V.N., Kokhtev N.N., Solganik G.Ya. Stylistics of newspaper genres. -M.: Higher School, 1978. 183 p.

28. Vasiliev JI.M. On the issue of expressiveness and expressive means. Slavic philological collection. Issue 9, No. 3. - Ufa, 1962. - P.107-118.

29. Vasiliev L.M. Theory of semantic fields // Issues of linguistics. -1971. -No. 5. pp. 105-113.

30. Vasilyeva A.N. Artistic speech: A course of lectures on stylistics for philologists. M., 1983. - 256 p.

31. Vatsuro V.E. On the history of Pushkin’s impromptu // Temporary book of the Pushkin commission. 1972. L., 1974. - pp. 106-108.

32. Vatsuro V.E. On the history of Pushkin’s epigrams on Karamzin // Literary Review. 1997. - No. 27. - P.81-90.

33. Vvedenskaya L.A. The concept of lexical antonymy. // Dictionary of antonyms of the Russian language. M.: Astrel: ACT, 2006. - 445 p.

34. Vvedenskaya L.A. Synonymous pairs of antonyms // Russian language at school. 1969, no. 4. - pp. 107-109.

35. Vezhbitskaya A. Speech genres // Genres of speech. Saratov, 1997. - P.99-111.

36. Vinogradov V.V. A.S. Pushkin is the founder of the Russian literary language. - M.: Pravda, 1949. - 32 p.

37. Vinogradov V.V. Selected works. Language and style of Russian writers. From Karamzin to Gogol. M.: Nauka, 1990. - 388 p.

38. Vinogradov V.V. Selected works. About the language of artistic prose. M.: Nauka, 1980.-360s.

39. Vinogradov V.V. About the language of fiction. M.: Gosizdat, 1959.-653 p.

40. Vinogradov V.V. Problems of Russian stylistics. M.: Higher School, 1981.-320p.

41. Vinogradov V.V. Stylistics. Theory of poetic speech. Poetics. - M.: USSR Academy of Sciences, 1968.-253 p.

42. Vinogradov V.V. Gogol’s language and its significance in the history of the Russian literary language // Materials and research on the history of the Russian literary language. T.III. M., 1953. P.28-39.

43. Vinokur G.O. Selected works on the Russian language. M., 1959. - 492 p.

44. Vinokur G.O. About the language of fiction. M.: Higher School, 1991.-448 p.

45. Wolf E.M. Functional semantics of evaluation. M.: Nauka, 1985. -228 p.

46. ​​Voronichev O.E. Means of linguistic historical stylization in the dramatic trilogy of A.K. Tolstoy: Author's abstract. dis. . Ph.D. Philol. Sci. -Eagle, 1995, -24 p.

47. Galkina-Fedoruk E.M. On expressiveness and emotionality in language. Collection of articles on linguistics. - M.: 1958. - P. 103-124.

48. Galperin I.R. Essays on the stylistics of the English language. - M JL: Publishing house of literature in foreign languages, 1958. - 459 p.

49. Galperin I.R. Stylistics of the English language. M.: Higher School, 1981.-334 p.

50. Galperin I.R. Text as an object of linguistic research. - M.: Nauka, 1981.-139 p.

51. Gasparov M.JI. Epigram // TSB. M.: Soviet Encyclopedia, 1978. t.ZO. P.213

52. Gasparov M.JI. Epigram // Brief literary encyclopedia. M., 1975. -vol.8. - P.913-915.

53. Gvozdev A.N. Essays on the stylistics of the Russian language. - M.: Education, 1965.-408 p.

54. Gillelson M.I. Russian epigram. In the collection Russian epigram of the 18th - early 20th centuries. - L.: Soviet writer, 1988. - P.5-44

55. Glushkova T. Pushkin Dictionary // Moscow, 1990, No. 6, pp. 180-196

56. Golub I.B. Stylistics of the modern Russian language. M.: Higher School, 1976.-208 p.

57. Gorodetsky B.Yu. On the problem of semantic typology. M: Moscow State University, 1969.-562 p.

58. Grekhnev V.A. The world of Pushkin's lyrics. Nizhny Novgorod, 1994. -464 p.

59. Grigoriev V.P. From text to language and again to text // Ed. Academy of Sciences of the USSR. -1977. v.36. No. 3. - P.264-269.

60. Grigorieva A.D., Ivanova N.N. The language of lyric poetry of the 19th century: Pushkin. Nekrasov. -M.: Nauka, 1981. 340 p.

61. Dal V.I. Explanatory dictionary of the living Great Russian language. In 4 vols. -M.: Russian language, 1978.

62. Degtev V. Language and Pushkin. Essay // Moscow, 1999, No. 8, pp. 201-202.

63. Dementyev V.V. Study of speech genres: a review of works in modern Russian studies // Questions of linguistics. 1997. No. 1. pp. 109-121.

64. Dementyev V.V. Communicative genristics: speech genres as a means of formalizing social interaction // Genres of speech. Issue 3. Saratov, 2002. - P. 18-40.

65. Dementyev V.V. Phatic speech genres // Questions of linguistics. -1999. -No. 1. P.37-55.

66. Dolinin K.A. Speech genres as a means of organizing social interaction // Genres of speech. Issue 2. - Saratov, 1999. - P.7-13.

67. Dolotova T.N. The semantic field of emotionality and evaluativeness and its implementation in the journalism of V.M. Shukshin: Author's abstract. dis. . Ph.D. Philol. Sci. Stavropol, 2003. - 21 p.

68. Egorova O.N. Linguistic trends of Russian artistic and historical literature of the first half of the 19th century and the style of A.K. Tolstoy’s novel “The Silver Prince”: Abstract. dis. . Ph.D. Philol. Sci. - Stavropol, 2008, -25s.

69. Ershov L.F. About the Russian epigram. In the collection Russian epigram of the second half of the 17th - early 20th centuries. - L.: Soviet writer, 1975. - p.5-56

70. Ershov L.F. Satire and modernity. L., Nauka, 1978. - 272 p.

71. Ershov L.F. Satirical genres of Russian Soviet literature. L.: Nauka, 1977, ch. "Epigram". - P. 22-95.

72. Efimov A.I. Stylistics of artistic speech. M.: MSU, 1961. - 519 p.

73. Zhinkin N.I. Language speech - creativity: Studies in semiotics, psycholinguistics, poetics. - M.: Labyrinth, 2008. - 366 p.

74. Zhukov V.P. Semantics of phraseological units. M., 1978. - 160 p.

75. Zalevskaya A.A. Psycholinguistic approach to the problem of the concept // Methodological problems of cognitive linguistics. Voronezh, 2001. - pp. 36-44.

76. Zalevskaya A.A. The text and its understanding. Tver, 2001. - 172 p.

77. Zemskaya E.A., Kitaigorodskaya M.V., Rozanova N.N. Language game // Russian colloquial speech: Phonetics. Morphology. Vocabulary. Gesture. M., 1983.- P.172-213.

78. Zemskaya E.A. Russian colloquial speech. M., 1973. - 485 p.

79. Zemskaya E.A. Russian colloquial speech: linguistic analysis and learning problems. M.: Russian language, 1987. - 237 p.

80. Ivanchikova E.A. Genre forms of speech in newspaper journalism. - Stylistics of the Russian language. M: Nauka, 1987. - 73 p.

81. Ilyinskaya I.O. Vocabulary of Pushkin's poetic speech. - M.: Nauka, 1970.- 260 p.

82. Ilyushin A.A. The rage of the righteous. Notes on obscene Russian poetry of the 17th-19th centuries // Literary Review, 1991, No. 11, pp. 7-14

83. Kaida L.G. Text stylistics: from the theory of composition to decoding. - M: Flinta, 2004. 208 p.

84. Kalinin A.V. Vocabulary of the Russian language. Moscow University Publishing House, 1978.-232 p.

85. Karaulov Yu.N. Russian language and linguistic personality. - M: Nauka, 1987. - 261 p.

86. Kvyatkovsky A. Poetic dictionary. M.: Soviet Encyclopedia, 1966.-375 p.

87. Kibalnik S.A. Anthological epigrams of Pushkin//Pushkin: Research and materials. JL, 1986. T.XII. P.152-174.

88. Kiseleva JI.A. Some problems of studying emotional-evaluative vocabulary of the modern Russian language. //Problems of Russian linguistics. Academic notes of Leningrad State Pedagogical Institute named after. A.I. Herzen. L., 1968.

89. Kiseleva L.A. Language as a means of influence (based on the emotional-evaluative vocabulary of the modern Russian language). L., 1971. -59 p.

90. Klimenko A.P. Associative field and text // Functioning and development of language systems. Minsk, 1990. - P.44-46.

91. Knyazkova G.P. Russian vernacular of the second half of the 18th century. - L.: Science, 1974.-254 p.

92. Kovalev G.F. Onomastic puns by A.S. Pushkin // Russian speech 2006.-No. 1.-S.Z-8.

93. Kozhin A.N. Questions of stylistics of the Russian language. - M., 1972. 119 p.

94. Kozhin A.N. On the boundaries of stylistics of the Russian language // Basic concepts and categories of linguistic stylistics. Perm, 1982. - P.3-11.

95. Kozhin A.N., Krylova O.B., Odintsov V.V. Functional types of Russian speech. - M.: Higher School, 1982. 223 p.

96. Kozhina M.N. Speech genre and speech act (some aspects of the problem) // Genres of speech. Issue 2. Saratov, 1999. - P.52-61.

97. Kozhina M.N. Stylistics of the Russian language. M.: Education, 1983. -224 p.

98. Kolokoltseva T.N. Specific communicative units of dialogic speech. Volgograd: VSU Publishing House, 2001. - 260 p.

99. Brief literary encyclopedia. M.: Soviet Encyclopedia, 1964. - 1056 p.

100. A brief dictionary of literary terms (Compiled by Timofeev L.I., Turaev S.V.). -M.: Education, 1985. 208 p.

101. Krylova O.A. Fundamentals of functional stylistics of the Russian language. -M.: Russian language, 1979. 224 p.

102. Kryukova N.F. Metaphors and semantic organization of the text. Tver: TvGU, 2000. - 163 p.

103. Kupina N.A. Literary text as meaningful integrity//Philological hermeneutics and general stylistics. Tver, 1992. - P.78-90.

104. Kukharenko V.A. Interpretation of the text. M.: Education, 1988. - 191 p.

105. Kushlina O.B. Genre originality of Russian satirical poetry of the early 20th century (parody, epigram, fable). dis. . Ph.D. Philol. Sci. -Moscow, 1983.- 198 p.

106. Linguistic encyclopedic dictionary. - M.: Soviet Encyclopedia, 1990.-689 p.

107. Literary encyclopedic dictionary. - M.: Soviet Encyclopedia, 1987.-750 p.

108. Lotman Yu.M. Analysis of poetic text. L.: Education, 1972. - 270 p.

109. Lotman Yu.M. At the school of poetic word. Pushkin. Lermontov. Gogol. -M., 1988.-351 p.

110. Lotman Yu.M. The structure of a literary text. - M.: Art, 1970. -270 p.

111. P. Manuilova I.V. Forms and means of linguistic historical and poetic stylization in the novels by I. Novikov “Pushkin in Exile” and V. Grossman “Arion”. - Author's abstract. dis. . Ph.D. Philol. Sci. Stavropol, 2006, -23s.

112. Manuilova O.A. Expressive-semantic structure of the Russian folk ditty as a genre of artistic speech and lexical means of its formation. dis. . Ph.D. Philol. Sci. - Stavropol, 2005, - 231 p.

113. PZ.Matyash S.A. Questions of the poetics of the Russian epigram. Tutorial. - Karaganda: Publishing House of KarSU, 1991 112 p.

114. Mythological dictionary /Chief ed. E.M. Meletinsky. - M.: Sovetskaya. encyclopedia, 1990. 672 p.

115. Molotkov A.I. Basics of phraseology of the Russian language. L.: Nauka, 1977. -283 p.

116. Molotkov A.I. Phraseologisms of the Russian language and principles of their lexicographic description. // Phraseological dictionary of the Russian language. -M.: Soviet Encyclopedia, 1967. 543 p.

117. Moskvin V.P. Ambiguity as a stylistic device//Russian speech. 2008. - No. 1. - P.35-42.

118. Murzin L.N. Field structure of language: phatic field // Phatic field of language. Perm, 1998. - P.9-14.

119. Myasoedova N.E. Experience of reconstruction of an uncollected epigrammatic cycle // N.E. Myasoedova Pushkin’s plans: Experience of reconstruction. - St. Petersburg: SpetsLit, 2002. P.207-277.

120. German G.P. Semantic aspects of functional linguistics // Language personality: explication, perception and impact of language and speech. Krasnodar, 1999. - P.7-31.

121. Nesterov M.N. Linguistic and stylistic approach to the study of the historical novel as a genre // Stylistics of genres of Russian artistic speech. Bryansk, 1992. - 168 p.

122. Nesterov M.N. Problems of linguistic-stylistic study of genres of artistic speech // Stylistics of genres of artistic speech: interuniversity collection of scientific works. - Bryansk, 1991. 140 p.

123. Nesterov M.N., Karapetyan E.A. Speech structure of Russian lyrical song and its lexical means: Monograph. Armavir: RIC ASPU, 2004.-310 p.

124. Nesterov M.N., Perekhodyuk O.V. The speech structure of a modern joke and the linguistic means of comedy. Armavir: ITs AGPI, 2001. - 225 p.

125. Nesterov M.N., Shipilov V.A. Stylistics of Russian fable (functional-genre aspect). Armavir: AGPI, 1998. - 165 p.

126. Nikolina G.A. On the issue of speech means of ironic expression and its functions in a literary text // Russian language at school, 1979, No. 5, pp. 79-84

127. Novikov A.I. Semantics of the text and its formalization. M., 1983. - 215 p.

128. Novikov JI.A. Antonymy in Russian. M., 1973. - 185 p.

129. Novikov JI.A. Linguistic interpretation of literary text. -M.: Russian language, 1979. 251 p.

130. Novikov L.A. Semantics of the Russian language. - M.: Higher School, 1982. -272 p.

131. Novikov L.A. Literary text and its analysis. M.: Russian language, 1988.-300 p.

132. Novikova E.V. The choice of weapons: an epigram in the fate of Pushkin // Zvezda, 1999.- No. 6. P.164-176.

133. Novikova E.V. Poetics of the Russian epigram of the Pushkin era. - Dis. . Ph.D. Philol. Sci. M., 1998.

134. Odintsov V.V. Stylistics of the text. M.: Nauka, 1980. - 263 p.

135. Ozhegov S.I., Shvedova N.Yu. Explanatory dictionary of the Russian language. M.: Azbukovnik, 2002. - 944 p.

136. Parade of epigrams / Extract from the book “323 epigrams”: Comp. E.G. Etkind // Questions of literature. 1990, No. 5. - P.269 - 280.

137. Petrishcheva E.F. Stylistically colored vocabulary of the Russian language. -M.: Nauka, 1984. -222 p.

138. Petrishcheva E.F. Functional and stylistic differentiation of speech (Russian language stylistics). - M.: Nauka, 1987. - 222 p.

139. Field structures in the language system (scientific editor: Z.D. Popov). - Voronezh, 1989.-280 p.

140. Polyakov M.Ya. Questions of poetics and artistic semantics. M.: Soviet writer, 1979 - 448 p.

141. Principles and methods of semantic research. M.: Nauka, 1976. -377 p.

142. Propp V.Ya. Problems of comedy and laughter. M.: Art, 1976. - 183 p.

143. Pushkin A.S. in the memoirs of contemporaries. In 2 vols. (ed.

144. V.V. Grigorenko) M.: Fiction, 1974, vol. 1. - 544 p.

145. Russian writers about language (edited by B.V. Tomashevsky and Yu.D. Levin). L., 1954.-834 p.

146. Salyamon L.S. Regarding the epigram “Raised under the drum.” // Zvezda, 1998, No. 2, pp. 203-215.

147. Sirotinina O.B. On the terms “colloquial speech”, “colloquialism” and “colloquial type of speech culture” // Faces of Language. - M., 1998. P.348-353.

148. Sirotinina O.B. Some thoughts on the terms “speech genre” and “rhetorical genre” // Genres of speech. Issue 2. Saratov, 1999. -S. 26-31.

149. Dictionary of the language A.S. Pushkin in 4 volumes. M.: State. ed. dictionaries, 19561961.

150. Sokolova N.K. Stylistics of artistic speech. Voronezh, 1977. - 38 p.

151. Solganik G.Ya. On the problem of text modality // Russian language: functioning of grammatical categories. Text and context. M., 1984. -1. pp.173-186.

152. Solganik G.Ya. Newspaper vocabulary (functional aspect). M., 1981.

153. Solganik G.Ya. Practical stylistics of the Russian language. - M. Publishing center "Academy", 2006. - 304 p.

154. Sorokin Yu.A. Psycholinguistic aspects of text learning. M.: Nauka, 1985.-186 p.

155. Spiridonova L.A. Russian satirical poetry of the early 20th century. M.: Nauka, 1977.-301 p.

156. Stankeeva Z.V. The genre of the epigram in the poetry of the Iskrists // Questions of satire and humor. Perm, 1965. - pp. 149-157.

157. Stylistics of newspaper genres (edited by Rosenthal D.E.). M.: MSU, 1981. -229 p.

158. Stylistics of the Russian language. Genre-communicative aspect of text stylistics (edited by A.N. Kozhin). M.: Nauka, 1987.

159. Stylistics of the Russian language (Ed. N.M. Shansky). JL: Enlightenment, 1982.-286p.

160. Stylistic research based on the material of the modern Russian language. M.: Nauka, 1972. - 319 p.

161. Structure and functioning of a poetic text. Essays on linguistic poetics (ed. A.N. Kozhin). M.: Nauka, 1985. - 223 p.

162. Superanskaya A.V. General theory of proper names. - M., 1973. - 366 p.

163. Telia V.N. Connotative aspect of the semantics of nominative units. -M.: Nauka, 1986.- 143 p. "

164. Timofeev L.I. Fundamentals of literary theory. M.: Education, 1976. -548 p.

165. Timofeev L.I., Turaev S.V. Dictionary of literary terms. -M.: Education, 1974. 509 p.

166. Explanatory dictionary of the Russian language: in 4 volumes. (Ed. D.N. Ushakov). -M.: Russian dictionaries, 1994, vol.4. 754s.

167. Tomashevsky B.V. Questions of language in the works of Pushkin. In the book. Pushkin. Works from different years. M.: Book, 1990. - 672 p.

168. Tomashevsky B.V. Pushkin’s epigrams on Karamzin // Pushkin: Research and materials. -M., 1956, vol. 1. P.208-215.

170. Tynyanov Yu.N. The problem of poetic language. M.: Soviet writer, 1965.-301 p.

171. Tyapugina N.Yu. The epigram genre in the works of A.S. Pushkin // Problems of literary genres. Tomsk, 1979. pp. 110-112.

172. Ufimtseva A.A. Lexical meaning (principle of semasiological analysis of vocabulary). - M.: Nauka, 1986. 239 p.

173. Fedosyuk M.Yu. Complex genres of colloquial speech: “consolation”, “persuasion” and “persuasion” // Russian colloquial speech as a phenomenon of urban culture. Ekaterinburg, 1996. - P.73-94.

174. Fedosyuk M.Yu. Unresolved issues in the theory of speech genres//VYa -1997, No. 5. - P.102-120.

175. Filin M. Pushkin and Arakcheev // Moscow, 1999, No. 3, P.203-210

176. Folomkina O.S. The evolution of the Russian epigram of the 1800-1830s // Problems of literary genres. Tomsk, 1979. P.44-45

177. Phraseological dictionary of the Russian language. Compiled by: Stepanova M.I. St. Petersburg: “Polygrafuslugi”, 2006. 608 p.

178. Kharchenko V.K. Distinction between evaluativeness, imagery, expression and emotionality in the semantics of a word. - Russian language at school. - 1976. -No. 3. P. 66-70.

179. Khodakova E.P. Pun // Russian language: Encyclopedia / Ed. Yu.N.Karaulova. M.: Scientific publishing house "Big Russian Encyclopedia", 2003. - P. 174-175.

180. Tsyavlovsky M.A. Political epigrams//Articles about Pushkin. M.> 1962. - P.28-65.

181. Tsyavlovsky M.A. Pushkin and Kachenovsky // Articles about Pushkin. M., 1962. - P.359-364

182. Chubaryan T.Yu. On the issue of the semantics of an ironic statement // Semantic-pragmatic and sociolinguistic aspects of language learning.-M, 1990.-P. 104-109.

183. Shansky N.M. Linguistic analysis of literary text. L.: Enlightenment, 1990.-415 p.

184. Shmelev D.N. Russian language in its functional varieties: to the formulation of the problem. - M.: Nauka, 1977. 167 p.

185. Shmeleva T.V. Model of speech genre // Genres of speech, Saratov, 1997. -pp.88-98.

186. Shchur G.S. Field theory in linguistics. M: Nauka, 1974. - 255 p.

187. Shchurina Yu.V. Joke as a speech genre. dis. . Ph.D. Philol. Sci. -Krasnoyarsk, 1997. 155 p.

188. Elsberg E.Ya. Questions of the theory of satire. M.: Soviet writer, 1957. -427 p.

189. Etkind E.G. Pushkin the epigrammatist/Ya Tushkinsky collection. Pskov, 1973. pp. 24-41.

190. Nayer V.L. Stylistics and Pragmatics. M., 2002. - 5 lp.

191. Baratynsky E.A. Complete collection of poems / Intro. Art. I.M. Toibina; Comp., prepared. text and notes V.M. Sergeeva. L., 1989 (Poet's book. Large series).

192. Batyushkov K.N. Complete collection of poems / Intro. Art., prepared. text and notes N.V. Friedman. M.L., 1964.

193. Batyushkov K.N. Essays. In 2 volumes. M., 1989.

194. Vyazemsky P.A. Poems / Intro. Art. L.Ya. Ginzburg; Comp., prepared. text and notes K.A. Kumpan. - L., 1986 (Poet's book. Large series).

195. Lomonosov M.V. Selected works / Intro. art., comp., note. A.A.Morozova, Prepared by. text by M.P. Lepekhin and A.A. Morozov. L., 1986 (Poet's book. Large series.).

196. World epigram: An anthology in four volumes. Comp. V.E. Vasiliev. - St. Petersburg, 1998.

197. Pushkin A.S. Complete works in 17 volumes. M.: Resurrection, 1994.

198. Pushkin A.S. Collected works in 10 volumes. M., 1974.

199. Russian epigram of the second half of the 17th - early 20th centuries. / Introductory article by L.F. Ershov; Comp., prepared. text and notes V.E.Vasiliev, M.I.Gillelson, N.G.Zakharenko. L.: Sov.pisatel, 1975. - 968 p.

200. Russian epigram: (XVIII beginning of XX century) / Introductory article. M.I. Gillelson; Comp. and note: M.I. Gillelson and K.A. Kumpan; Prepare text by K.A. Kumpan. L.: Sov. writer, 1988. - 782 p.

201. Russian epigram/Comp., introductory article. and approx. V. Vasilyeva. - M., 1990 (Classics and contemporaries. Poetry library).

202. Sobolevsky S. A million sympathies. Epigrams / Compiled, author of intro. Art. and approx. V.A. Shirokov. - M., 1991.

203. Sumarokov A.P. Selected works. L., 1957.

204. Epigram and satire: From the history of the literary struggle of the 19th century. L., 19311932.

205. Epigrams. England. Germany. Spain. Russia. France / Author of the afterword and compiler V.I. Novikov. M., 1986.