Page 68

AD ALTA

JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH

semantic functions (identification, generalizing, quality-term
characteristics of a person) of the German article, combined with
a synonym, in the naming of a person-having reference
assignment to a specific person, group of persons, an indefinite
multitude of individuals, 7) the game of words. The most
common model of the speech environment are semantically close
and distant correlates synonym. Enumerating various
semantically correlates with the assignment of a single reference
in the text to actualize the potential seme. The semantics of the
individual as a synonym has a regulating effect on the
environment synonym, prejudging its possible range of
contextual semantic correlates. A typical model of the speech
environment of lexemes Schönredner – “talker, Smoothie”,
Kriecher – “under-Halim, sycophant, groveler”, Speichellecker –
“sycophant, flatterer, meanly due”, Feigling – “coward” is a
comparison with different semantic correlates having identical or
different from their reference concerns, for example: Er ist ein
Miesmacher und Angsthase, ein Weichling, Defätist und
Nichtsnutz. “He's a whiner”’ (skeptic knocker) and a coward,
sissy, defeatist and a slacker (parasite, it-dyay, idler). A token
Charmeur “charming man” is found in the enumeration
semantically different nouns, comprehensively characterized by
a human and having identical with identical Charmeur
referenting relatedness: Als witziger Charmeur, souveräner
Frackträger und eleganter Gentleman-Abenteurer knüpfte er fast
nahtlos an die Karriere seines Vaters an. “How witty charming,
sovereign, wearing a suit and elegant man-tion gentleman-
adventurer, he slowly continued his father's career.” There was
no single case of the use of words among Charmeur having
different reference relatedness. Comparison with semantic
correlates not typical tokens der Geizige – “stingy”, Geizkragen
– “hunks”, Pfennigfuchser – “cheapskate, cheapskate,” relating
to the CP der Geizige – “miser” and tokens Pharisäer –
“Pharisee, the hypocrite,” a member of the CP Heuchler – “a
hypocrite.”

3 Results

According to the results of the comparative analysis on the
materials of program “Textkorpora” the discrepancies between
the frequency of the speech realization of synonyms and their
markedness in a dictionary of synonyms of H.Gerner and
G.Kempke (1999) were revealed. For example, a synonym
Drückeberger, expelled from the SS Feigling - coward of the
dictionary, is used in 146 texts, and included in the SS Feigling -
coward of the same dictionary synonyms Wagenichts, Trauminet
not recorded in any of the text. 6 synonyms members of SS
Schmeichler

Smoothie (Schmuspeter, Schmuskopf,

Fuchsschwänzer, Flaumstreicher, Schmeichelzunge,
Schmeichelkatze), were not used in the texts of the program even
once, although they are on-labeled in a dictionary of synonyms
of H.Gerner and G.Kempke (1974 and 1984's edition).
Significant differences in the frequency of using the synonyms
were revealed. They were the members of the same synonymous
series. Thus, the frequency of using the members of the SS
Heuchler - hypocrite ranges from 1177 (Biedermann) to two
occurrences (falscher Fuffziger), frequency of use of the
dominant Heuchler is to 1736, members of the CP Pharisäer - 70,
Wolf im Schafspelz - 77 cases of abuse.

As a result of the semantic interpretation of the computer
program “Textkorpora” 7 semantic distributional patterns were
identified. The most common model of the speech environment
are semantically close and distant correlates synonym.
Enumerating various semantically correlates with the assignment
of a single reference in the text to actualize the potential seme.
The semantics of the individual as a synonym has a regulating
effect on the environment synonym, prejudging its possible
range of contextual semantic correlates.

4 Discussions

Q.Cai, J. Zhang consider that corpus linguistics is a newly
developed subject with its specific characteristics and can be
widely used in many aspects of language research and

application (Qiang Cai, 2013) Many linguists throw corpora as
very important for computational linguistics and offer a survey
of how corpora for computational linguistics is “currently used
in different fields of the discipline, with particular emphasis on
anaphora and coreference resolution, automatic summarisation
and term extraction” (Orasan et al, 2007). M.Tymoczko provides
a discussion of the centrality of corpus-based studies within the
entire discipline of translation studies (Maria Tymoczko,1998).

The debate is the problem of "experimental data" in linguistics.
Linguists trust introspection as a method of study and consider
the real facts of how inaccurate reflections of abstract principles,
see the analysis of the buildings further opportunity to expand
the theoretical knowledge of the language (Eichinger, 2006).
Y.Asmussen treats the body as a large digital collection of texts,
“serving as a representative sample for a specific and in general
context is the target sample of language in general” (Asmussen,
2007). But modern housing, believes Kr.Lemann may also
include language material, specially created for the body. The
requirement for it texts and their existence as private collections
preserved today, the requirements of the exhaustion of the body
and the natural existence of the texts prior to their analysis, void
(Lehmann et al, 2007).

5 Conclusion

The results of the semantic interpretation of a computer program
“Textkorpora” using the methods of quantitative and qualitative
analysis show that the lexicographical practice does not reflect
the linguistic reality: if dictionaries of synonyms fix a non-
volatile, stable character fairy-nomen language system
synonyms, while the studing the speech synonyms of a computer
program “Textkorpora” the dynamic character of verbal
synonymy was found. It is in constant change and development.
If you have a common structural semantic models of the German
Synonyms, names of the person, the members of the 9 various
synonymous series, that we analyzed and characterized by a
qualitatively distinct features of speech realization of these
models. The research is performed according to the Russian
Governement Program of Competitive Growth of Kazan Federal
University.

Acknowledgement

The work is performed according to the Russian Government
Program of Competitive Growth of Kazan Federal University.

References

Asmussen

Korpusliguistische Verfahren zur

Optimierung lexikalisch-semantischer Beschreibungen //
Sprachkorpora – Datenmengen und Erkenntnisfortschritt.
Institut fuer Deutsche Sprache. Jahrbuch 2006. Berlin,
New Jork: Walter de Gruyter, 2007. S.123-151.

Eichinger L.M. Linguisten brauchen Korpora und
Korpora Linguisten // Sprachkorpora – Datenmengen und
Erkenntnisfortschritt. Institut fuer Deutsche Sprache.
Jahrbuch 2006. Berlin, New Jork: Walter de Gruyter,
2007. S. 1-8.

Lexikalische Semantik und Korpuslinguistok. Tuebinger
Beitraege zur Linguistik. Bd. 490. Tuebingen: Narr, 2006.
498 S.

Luedeling A. Das Zusammenspiel von qualitativen und
quantitativen Methoden in der Korpuslinguistik //
Sprachkorpora – Datenmengen und Erkenntnisfortschritt.
Institut fuer Deutsche Sprache. Jahrbuch 2006. Berlin,
New Jork: Walter de Gruyter, 2007. S. 28-48.

Lehmann Chr. Daten. Korpora. Dokumentation //
Sprachkorpora – Datenmengen und Erkenntnisfortschritt.
Institut fuer Deutsche Sprache. Jahrbuch 2006. Berlin,
New Jork: Walter de Gruyter, 2007. S. 9-27.

Mick O'Donnell “Corpus linguistics and the application
of new technologies in the foreigh language classroom:
Part 1: Corpus linguistics and the foreigh classroom”,
2013-14, p.9.//

Masters Programme in Applied

- 68 -