Common knowledge vs. scientific knowledge in the definitions of general explanatory dictionaries

Abstract

The relevance of intelligence is determined by the constant interest that linguists have in dictionary definitions, especially definitions of noun vocabulary. Each definition is a microtext that reflects a certain view of the world of the lexicographers who worked on a certain dictionary. In modern explanatory dictionaries, two opposite tendencies are manifested in the description of lexical meaning: firstly, orientation towards the knowledge possessed by the average speaker, and secondly, efforts to embody modern scientific achievements in them. The purpose of the study: to show the difference in the ways and forms of presenting knowledge about non-verbal objects in explanatory dictionaries of different orientations, as well as to analyze some of the flaws of the so-called scientific definitions. The subject of analysis is the definitions of specific noun vocabulary, which were selected from dictionaries of the Ukrainian, Polish, and English languages created in the second half of the 20th century. The main method of researching the material is the semantic analysis of dictionary definitions, supplemented by the technique of comparing definitions from different dictionaries. The results. Difficulties in constructing dictionary definitions of nouns — nominations of natural objects (for example, blood, ear, eye, lightning, moon, stars, mushrooms, etc.) — are caused by the fact that the knowledge of such realities is a long process. A person — a subject of knowledge — discovers many different features in reality and builds his / her ideas about them depending on the depth of analysis and the level of their understanding. Accordingly, dictionary definitions can be built either with an orientation to current knowledge or based on the achievements of science. Definitions of the latter type inevitably include terms that denote the conceptual apparatus of a certain field of knowledge. Because of this, scientific definitions lose the explanatory power necessary for users of dictionaries and turn out to be inadequate. It is precisely in scientific definitions that there are many flaws and shortcomings, and sometimes direct factual errors; they are caused by the lack of encyclopedic knowledge of the lexicographers themselves and the need to obtain this knowledge from specialized sources.