Theme: Analisys of stylistic connotation

2. Thematization of the relationship between connotation and style.
An important aspect in contemporary studies of connotation is the thematization of the relationship between connotation and style. If we consider connotation as a component of knowledge about the language associated with preferences and / or restrictions in the use of the word, then the stylistic marking of the lexical unit becomes the dominant connotation. So, K.A. Dolinin, focusing on the semiotic concept of L. Elmslev and R. Barth, equates connotation with stylistic meaning: “the stylistic meaning of a linguistic sign is a connotative signified, whose signifier is a given sign as a unity of a denotative signifier and a denotative signified”5.
Connotation (or stylistic meaning) is realized in speech when a lexical unit is chosen from a number of denotatively equivalent synonyms and carries information about the addresser's belonging to a particular social or territorial group, about his attitude to the addressee and the subject of the message, and about a wide class of genres to which the message may belong. . In other words, the connotation carries stylistic information about the limited use of the word by certain areas and conditions of communication. At the same time, the connotative content of the message is formed by the stylistic meanings of its constituent units, and the style of the message becomes the plan of expression for the connotative content. The ratio of connotation and stylistic meaning in the concept of E.G. Rizel. According to the researcher's point of view, connotation and stylistic meaning are different, albeit close, concepts. Stylistic meaning has a paradigmatic and syntagmatic dimension. In the paradigmatic aspect, the absolute stylistic meaning is an explicit value, additional semantic information to the actual lexical meaning of a word, inherent in a linguistic unit in the language system and codified in the dictionary 6.
The absolute stylistic meaning of a word includes three components: functional (the word belongs to a certain area of use), normative (the place of the word on the scale of stylistic levels) and expressive (the presence or absence of increased expressiveness in the word). As for connotation, this linguistic category, according to E.G. Rizel, “is and remains an association that has a semantic, emotional and voluntarily character. … It is not expressed verbally, but it can be deduced and understood from the explicit, actually expressed content”7. The connotation can be subjective and inter subjective, positive and negative. E.G. Riesel emphasizes that connotation is not included in the lexical-semantic structure of the word. However, the denotative meaning and the absolute stylistic meaning together give rise to “fluctuating connotative additional information” that “layers ... as a possible connotative potential" 1 .
The stylistic meaning of a lexical unit in syntagmatics consists of two heterogeneous elements - the contextual stylistic coloring of the word and the connotation, arising either directly from the contextual stylistic coloring, or from all information. Consequently, connotation is additional information that goes beyond the meaning of the statement expressed by linguistic means, and due to its implicit, unexpressed nature, has a special effect. E.G. Riesel emphasizes that the connotation of a single word can evoke side ideas, and the connotation “in connected speech leads to the creation of a secondary text, a semantic undercurrent that reveals the deep meaning of the statement”2.
It is easy to see that in this aspect, the opinion of E.G. Risel is very consonant with the understanding of connotation among semioticians, in L. Elmslev in particular. E.A. Goncharova also considers connotation as a stylistic phenomenon. In her opinion, connotation carries "knowledge about the features of the communicative-pragmatic use" of language units, that is, knowledge of a pragmatic order, while denotation characterizes the cognitive structures of knowledge 3 . E.A. Goncharova proposes to distinguish between two types of (stylistic) connotations: “usual (potential) stylistic connotations”, corresponding to the understanding of “absolute stylistic meaning” by E.G. Riesel, and "contextual or actual stylistic connotations" 4 . In this conceptual opposition, potential connotations are understood as “a pragmatic component immanently present in the lexical meaning of a linguistic unit, which serves as a basis for the user of the language to prefer this unit to others that have a cognitive component similar to it, as well as to comply with certain conventions arising from the linguistic experience of the speaker and restrictions when using this unit in one’s own one-time statements and texts”5 . At the same time, stylistic connotation is understood broadly, not only as an indication of the relation of a word to a certain stylistic register. So, to the potential connotations of E.A. Goncharova attributes functionalistic, stratified, emotionally expressive (evaluative), associative, socio-stylistic and temporal connotations. Usual connotations are realized in syntagmatics, where they correlate with the subjective mode of the author of the text and acquire the status of contextual 6 . As can be seen from the above, in the concept of E.A. Goncharova (stylistic) connotation is understood as a complex phenomenon in potentia, realized in re by the complex interaction of its various components in the actual communicative situation