This article presents the draft Dictionary of Antonyms of the Russian Language as the Official Language of the Russian Federation. It explores the theoretical and applied aspects of its conceptual development, characterizes the source base and criteria for its formation, and determines the dictionary's novelty in terms of its scope, lexicographic parameters, and methods and techniques for representing antonyms. A distinctive feature of this dictionary is its inclusion in a large-scale project to create the Federal State Information System "National Vocabulary Fund", which is regulated by a number of federal laws and decrees of the Government of the Russian Federation adopted in 2024-2025. Therefore, the concept of the new dictionary of antonyms was largely predetermined and conditioned by the objectives of creating dictionaries that capture the norms of the modern literary Russian language as the official language. These parameters - normativity, modernity, focus on the functional spheres of official and public communication, reflection of one specific aspect of the lexical system - as well as reliance on the experience of predecessor dictionaries and compliance with the achievements of modern linguistic science formed the basis of the concept and were taken into account as criteria for the selection of lexicographic material. In terms of lexical unit selection, the dictionary of antonyms is differential and aspectual. It describes only those words that enter into antonymous relationships based on the opposition of semantic features in the structure of lexical meaning. The dictionary of antonyms includes linguistic interword antonyms (antonymous word pairs) - different words whose meanings are opposed to one another: contrarian (cold - hot), gradual (hot - cool), complementary (true - false), conversional (buy - sell), and vectorial (there - back). This dictionary is explanatory in its purpose. Each word in an antonymic pair receives a dictionary description of the full range of contrasting lexical meanings, with examples of their use relevant to modern communication. Each antonymic pair receives a separate description, presented as a table consisting of three lines: the first line lists the members of the antonymic pair with stress indication; the second line is divided into two columns, each containing a dictionary description of the antonymous lexeme (headword, labels, explanation, illustrative contexts); the third line provides illustrative contexts in which both antonyms function simultaneously in a figure of contrast, actualizing the semantic opposition of the denoted phenomena for specific expressive-pragmatic purposes. Contribution of the authors: The authors contributed equally to this article. The authors declare no conflicts of interests.
The article examines the role of natural science literature in recording and identifying Russian dialectal phytonyms on the material of Tambov dialects. The topic is relevant because regional and consolidated dialectal dictionaries often fail to provide precise plant identifications, omit or generalize geographic marks, or copy Latin names uncritically, which complicates the compilation of high-quality regional phytonymic and ethnobotanical dictionaries. The aim of the article is to demonstrate the potential of the 19th-century botanical works to augment, clarify, and verify the phytonymic pool of Tambov dialects on the example of Carl Anton von Meyer's Florula provinciae Tambov (1844) and its later use in N.I. Annenkov's botanical dictionaries and in the Dictionary of Russian Dialects. The research material is Tambov dialect phytonyms, extracted by the method of continuous sampling from the abovementioned work by Meyer (1844), the three editions of Annenkov's botanical dictionary (1858, 1859, 1878), and from the 52 published issues of the Dictionary of Russian Dialects. The research methods are: historical-lexicographic and comparative analysis; matching phytonymic records with botanical descriptions; finding botanical synonyms; count of coincidences and omissions across corpora; typology of transfer errors (incomplete data accounting, loss of geographical marks, mistakes in Latin names, combining names, unifying names). The study shows that Meyer published 304 botanical taxa and 226 Russian phytonyms, often with geographical marks and occasional notes on plant use. Comparison with Annenkov's first edition (1858) reveals minimal overlap; the 1859 edition contains many more Tambov phytonyms with references to Meyer, but transferring from Meyer's work displays numerous lacunae and mistakes: omitted names, altered lexical forms, disappearance of uyezd level marks. Transfer into the Dictionary of Russian Dialects produced further losses and inconsistencies: many phytonyms were either not included, or retained with different botanical identifications or without Tambov geographical marks. From these findings practical implications follow: 19th-century botanical texts are a valuable source for reconstructing regional phytonymy; they enable more accurate identification when Latin descriptions are cross-checked with usage data; they often provide uyezd geographical marks missing from later lexicographic works. Incorporating these data into modern lexicographic projects requires critical examining and systematising primary sources; standardization of Latin names according to contemporary taxonomic databases; associating phytonyms with specific uyezds; inclusion of plant use records. Contribution of the authors: V. Kolosova: conceptualization, methodology, investigation, data curation, writing - original draft, writing - review & editing, supervision. M. Titov: data search, preparing, and curation, original draft preparation, visualization. The authors declare no conflicts of interests.
This review analyzes an original dictionary of phraseological images in Alexander Pushkin's novel Eugene Onegin. It notes that a broad understanding of phraseology has enabled the authors to present idiomatic expressions in their contemporary usage as fully as possible (including not only idioms proper but also quotations, allusions, reminiscences, and winged words). Of particular interest is the reception of intertextual units across various genres of the 20th and 21st centuries. The review ascertains that the precedent name "Pushkin" remains relevant in the 21st-century media space, where it acquires new emotional, semantic, and stylistic connotations. The author declares no conflicts of interests.
This article characterizes the process and main stages of editing an electronic dictionary entry, interpreting them through the lens of the edit visualization feature. The potential of this feature is examined within the context of a digital dictionary resource's functionality, and the problems and difficulties encountered by a neographer in the lexicographic description of new units are described. An additional aim of the study is to demonstrate the transition, characteristic of 21st-century neography, from a lexicographic approach to the neologism to a concrete-historical one, which involves recording the time of emergence of a new linguistic or speech phenomenon. The article is based on material from the neological online resource of the Institute for Linguistic Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences, "New in Russian Lexis. Dictionary Materials" (neolex.iling.spb.ru), including dictionary entries (both published and in development) and lexicographers' comments extracted from the editorial interface, as well as on material from individual issues of the neological dictionary-reference books New in Russian Lexis. The research was conducted using methods such as the lexicographic method, the method of definition analysis, componential analysis, as well as general scientific methods (comparative-contrastive method, observation, data interpretation). The study describes the stages of compiling and editing dictionary entries in the online resource; demonstrates, with numerous examples, the types of most common problems arising at different stages of lexicographically describing neologisms; and visually illustrates the process of compilation and editorial work on dictionary entries. This process is often accompanied by a scholarly dialogue between lexicographers and includes a collaborative search for ways to overcome difficulties. Based on the analysis conducted, the authors conclude that the digital format for describing neological units has significant advantages over the traditional "paper" format. These advantages include the property of an online resource being open to changes (allowing, for example, for the refinement of a chronological marker or the editing of various zones of a dictionary entry) and the possibility of full-fledged communication between compilers and editors through the edit visualization feature. Thanks to this, the neographer can respond more quickly to linguistic changes, record neological phenomena, and, if necessary, rapidly edit their lexicographic representation. The results obtained in the course of the research possess both theoretical and practical significance, as they can be used to develop specific methods for lexicographic work in the era of digitalization, as well as in studies related to the issue of the lexicographer's linguistic personality.
The aim of this study is to trace the process of establishing the tradition of lexicographic description for a system of thematic groups, using one of the Baltic-Finnic languages as an example. This is achieved by examining the first dictionaries published in Russia that reflect the lexicon of the Karelian language. The research sources are a mid-17th-century manuscript work, Tsvetnik [Flower Garden] by the monk Prokhor Kolomnyatin, which contains a Karelian-Russian glossary-phrasebook, and a late 18th-century Russian printed dictionary edited by Peter Simon Pallas, which also reflects the lexical composition of the Karelian language in two of its dialects. For comparative purposes, other dictionary records from the same period are also consulted. The research methods employed include general scientific methods (deductive, inductive, analytical, synthetic, comparative, descriptive) and specific linguistic methods (historical commentary, interpretation of meanings, thematic group analysis-also known as ideographic analysis, and quantitative analysis). The examined dictionary corpus illustrates the state of the Karelian language as spoken in the territories of Karelia, Pomorye, and the Volga region (specifically, the Tver dialect of the proper Karelian dialect and the "Olonets," or Livvi, dialect). Kolomnyatin employs a thematic principle in organizing the sections of his phrase-book, which contains over 500 words and expressions. The content indicates not only the source's narrowly practical purpose but also the compiler's significant personal interest in the distinctive features of Karelian culture, religion, and daily life. The composition of the glossary confirms a close connection between Kolomnyatin's work and the tradition already existing in Russia of presenting lexical material according to ideospheres such as "God," "Man," "Nature," "Religion," and others. The Comparative Dictionaries of All Languages and Dialects, edited by Pallas (Part 1, 1787; Part 2, 1789), presents translations of 285 selected words into 200 languages of the peoples of Eurasia, including "Korelian" and "Olonets". The Karelian-Russian phrasebook and the Comparative Dictionaries... share over 100 common entries. Pallas's work is richer in adjectival, adverbial, and verbal lexemes, whereas Kolomnyatin includes more numerals; concepts of counting units were particularly important for managing economic affairs related to the buying and selling of property. The lack of a well-developed lexicographic methodology (e.g., uniform principles for formatting entries) and the absence of specialized linguistic training on the part of the compiler and his correspondents inevitably led to imperfections in representing the lexical system of a foreign language, phonetic, graphic, and grammatical distortions (including those arising from transcribing features of a language without a written tradition), and the recording of only a single (primary) meaning corresponding to a given thematic group. These factors undoubtedly diminish the strictly scientific value of the work accomplished by Kolomnyatin and Pallas. Despite these noted shortcomings, these early attempts at recording foreign-language, including Karelian, lexis undoubtedly contributed to broadening the cultural horizons of the compilers and users of the dictionaries, as well as to creating an empirical basis for the development of comparative-historical linguistics in Russia and Europe.
