scholarly journals Composition of the word family with the root * svęt- in historical dictionaries of the Russian language

2020 ◽  
Vol 210 ◽  
pp. 21002
Author(s):  
Iuliia Koreneva
Keyword(s):  
Russian Language ◽  
Old Russian ◽  
Slavonic Language ◽  
Lexical Data ◽  
The 19Th Century ◽  
The Church ◽  
The Russian Language ◽  
Russian Dictionary ◽  
National Corpus ◽  
Modern Russian

The article is devoted to the comparative analysis of the word family with the root -свят/свящ- based on historical dictionaries of the Russian language, the purpose of the study is to conduct a preliminary analysis of the presentation of the words of this family in different dictionaries of the Russian language, namely, historical and modern. The statistical approach to lexical data demonstrates that the data obtained from five historical dictionaries contain a large number of words that no longer function in the modern Russian language, compared to certain dictionaries of modern Russian. I.I. Sreznevsky's Dictionary includes 105 words; Dictionary of Old Russian Language (11th–14th centuries) has 73 words; Russian Dictionary XI-XVII Centuries involves 210 words; Dictionary of the Russian Academy includes 61 words; Dictionary of the Church Slavonic language of 1847 has 150 words; Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language by Vladimir Dahl involves 124 words. When comparing quantitative data in all the historical dictionaries, the largest group comprises lexemes with the secondary root -свящ-. Moreover, all the words of this word family are not only etymologically related, but have the same root, since they maintain unity in their seme content that allows to analyze the semantic density of the root. In addition, a homogeneous stylistic marking of words of the word family also confirms their affinity, as all the words of this word family are genetically related to Church Slavonic and belong to the religious sphere. Graphs of the use of the words святой, святость (saint, sanctity) and свящeнный (holy) based on the Russian National Corpus demonstrate a decrease in the frequency of these words since the middle of the 19th century, and a comparison of the list of words of this word family from each historical dictionary with the modern linguistic consciousness directly indicates a drastic reduction in quantitative content of this word family, that occurred due to extralinguistic (historical and ideological) reasons.

LEXICOGRAPHICAL PORTRAIT OF THE LEXEME «POGRYAZNUT’» (X - XVII CENTURIES)

2021 ◽  
pp. 23-30
Author(s):  
Е.Ю. Долгова
Keyword(s):  
Native Speakers ◽  
Word Formation ◽  
Russian Language ◽  
Distinctive Features ◽  
Old Russian ◽  
Slavonic Language ◽  
Abstract Nouns ◽  
Derivatives Of ◽  
The Church ◽  
The Russian Language

Статья посвящена описанию глагола «погрязнуть» по лексикографическим источникам, фиксирующим словарный состав русского языка X - XVII вв. В работе используется метод лингвистического портретирования, позволяющий объединить данные этимологических и исторических словарей и увидеть динамику развития семантического, словообразовательного, сочетаемостного и стилистического потенциала языковой единицы в диахронии. В статье подробно изложены материалы этимологических и исторических словарей русского языка, приведены и описаны многочисленные варианты употребления имперфектива грязнуть и перфектива погрязнуть, зафиксированные в словарях, содержащих лексику древнерусского и старорусского периодов: гр#зъти, гр#зhти, гр#зити, гр#знqти, погрязати - погр#зти, погр#зити, погр#знqти. Установлено, что в древнерусском языке глагол гр#зноути (гр`t#знuти) имел прямое номинативное значение «погружаться, тонуть» и редко употреблялся в памятниках письменности. Многозначным и наиболее частотным был положительный, результативный член глагольной видовой пары перфектив погрязнуть (погр#зноути). В статье приведены все лексико-семантические варианты глагола и примеры словоупотреблений, зафиксированные в словарях, отражающих лексику X - XVII веков. В статье приведены синонимы и многочисленные дериваты глагола погрязнуть , в том числе рассмотрена семантика абстрактных существительных, образованных от глагола погрязнуть ( погрязение, погрязнение, погрязновение ) и отражающих влияние церковнославянского языка на книжно-письменный литературный язык древнерусского и старорусского периодов. Лексикографический портрет лексемы погрязнуть проявляет неоднозначность в трактовке некоторых значений в разные исторические периоды. Проведенный анализ позволяет сравнить значения лексемы, увидеть их отличительные особенности и сделать вывод о существовании самостоятельных стереотипных образов, существующих в сознании носителей языка в X - XVII веках. The article is devoted to the description of the verb "to wallow" from lexicographic sources that fix the vocabulary of the Russian language of the X - XVII centuries. The method of linguistic portraiture is used to combine data from etymological and historical dictionaries and see the dynamics of the development of the semantic, word-formation and stylistic potential of the language unit in the diachrony. The article details the materials of etymological and historical dictionaries of the Russian language, presents and describes numerous variants of the use of an imperfective “gryaznut’” and a perfective “pogryaznut’”, recorded in dictionaries containing the vocabulary of the Russian language of the X - XVII centuries. It has been established that in the ancient Russian language, the imperfective “gryaznut’” had a direct nominative meaning of "dive, sink" and was rarely used in monuments of writing. The multi-valued and most frequency used was the positive, effective perfective “pogryaznut’”. The article presents all lexical and semantic variants of the verb and examples of word usage recorded in dictionaries that reflect the vocabulary of the X - XVII centuries. The article presents synonyms and numerous derivatives of the verb, including the semantics of abstract nouns formed from the verb “pogryaznut’” and reflecting the influence of the Church Slavonic language on the book-written literary language of the old Russian period. The lexicographic portrait of the lexeme “pogryaznut’” shows ambiguity in the interpretation of certain meanings in different historical periods. The analysis allows us to compare the meanings of the lexeme, see their distinctive features and conclude that there are independent stereotypical images that exist in the minds of native speakers in the X - XVII centuries.

scholarly journals Potential of Church Slavonic lexicology in teaching Serbian students Russian language

2020 ◽  
pp. 165-171
Author(s):  
Danilo Božović
Keyword(s):  
Professional Competence ◽  
Negative Impact ◽  
Great Influence ◽  
Russian Language ◽  
Old Russian ◽  
Slavonic Language ◽  
Russian Intelligentsia ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Church ◽  
The Russian Language

The article presents a retrospective analysis and focuses on the possibility of relying on a common Church Slavonic element that has been preserved in the Russian and Serbian languages. It points to the common roots of the Russian and Serbian languages, notes the great influence of All-Slavic Orthodox literary activity on Old Russian literature and language, as well as the influence of Russian intelligentsia and Russian language in general on the language and mentality of educated Serbs in the 18th and 19th centuries. At the same time, the negative impact of the West (primarily Austria) on the separation of the Serbian language from Russian through the reform of the Serbian language and alphabet, which was carried out with the participation of Vuk Karadzic, is shown. The article assesses the activities of Serbian intellectuals and pro-Western Serbian politicians of the second half of the 19th and early 20th centuries in shaping the attitude of Serbian society towards the Church Slavonic language, Church Slavism in Serbian language and the Russian language. The presented analysis contributes to the formation of a position among Serbian Russian students, future teachers and translators in the field of intercultural communication, and the growth of professional competence.

scholarly journals Sootechestvenniki (compatriots) in the 19th century: semantic profile based on the data of the National Corpus of the Russian language

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 72-84
Author(s):  
S. T. Zolyan
Keyword(s):  
20Th Century ◽  
19Th Century ◽  
Russian Language ◽  
The Other ◽  
State Institutions ◽  
Old Russian ◽  
Place Of Origin ◽  
The 19Th Century ◽  
The Russian Language ◽  
National Corpus

The concept “sootechestvenniki” is one of the key tools for self-description of society; it is an instrument for drawing borderlines between “we” and “they”. The article describes the development of the meaning of this word since its coinage. The word appeared in the 18th cen­tury as a merger of the Old Slavic and Old Russian ‘otechestvo’ (fatherland, understood as one’s place of origin) and the French ‘compatriot’. This merger resulted in the formation of two new prototypical meanings: one is civic, collective and elevated, and the other gravitates to ethnicity since it is used to refer to Russians. With the strengthening of state institutions in Russia, the first meaning was bound to dominate and it did at the beginning of the 19th century. However, one should speak not about the synthesis, but rather about the discordance of the two meanings. In the 19th century, another meaning developed in the semantic struc­ture of the word: ethnic Russians living abroad. Gradually, the word acquired new evaluative meanings, while negative connotations still prevailed. The basic oppositions (we — they, here — there, ours — alien) interacted in an ambiguous way, substituting each other. A variety of hy­brid “compatriots” arose: we are there, they are here, etc. The heterogeneity of the seman­tics of the word reflects collisions within society, which faced a tragic internal split in the 20th century.

On Colloquial Phenomena in the Language of the Monument of Church Slavonic Writing of the 15th Century (Based on the Material of the Torment of Paraskeva Friday)

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (9) ◽  
pp. 9-22
Author(s):  
Leonid G. Panin
Keyword(s):  
Russian Language ◽  
Main Task ◽  
15Th Century ◽  
Russian State ◽  
Slavonic Language ◽  
Language Writing ◽  
State Library ◽  
Scientific Subject ◽  
The Church ◽  
The Russian Language

The author’s earlier linguistic and textual analysis of collections containing readings on particularly revered memorable dates and the lives of the most revered saints revealed the manuscript Festal Menaion and Chrysostom from the collection of Tikhonravov No. 185 (from the collection of the Russian State Library) as containing unique information about the Church Slavonic language of the 15th century. This time, as traditionally considered, is a clear indicator of the second South Slavic influence, but evidence of this influence (according to the collection) was not in the Word on the Council of the archangel Michael and Gabriel, the author of which was Clement of Ohrid. There were obvious colloquial elements, but the colloquial (common) facts of the Russian language are especially clearly recorded in another monument of this collection – in the Torment of Paraskeva Friday. In this article, this text is analyzed in comparison with the texts presented in the Great Menaion Reader of the SVT. St. Demetrius of Rostov and in the collection of the 15th century from the Collection of the Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius. The author defines the broad and narrow contexts of the study. The first is connected with the Church Slavonic problems (language, writing), the second with the 15th century, the time when the so-called ‘second South Slavic influence’ was fully manifested. Church Slavonic itself is not a scientific term, although it emerged from a scientific tradition. We can define what the Russian language is by referring to ethnic and geographical boundaries, cultural and spiritual traditions, historical certainty, and keeping in mind, which is very important for the language, its ‘functional side’. It is impossible to evaluate the Church Slavonic language from these positions. Russian is a language that has developed different principles of development, and in relation to the Russian language, the Church Slavonic language appears to be as much an independent unit (a separate scientific ‘subject’) as the dialect language, which was the subject of lively discussions in its time, or the Russian spoken language, which occupies a strong position in the niche of the Russian language to this day. The Church Slavonic language is ultimately the desired object of Slavistic research, and the way to determine its structure and functional status lies through the analysis of specific written sources. The conclusions about the ‘colloquial’ (‘simple’, perhaps common) Church Slavonic language of the Torment of Paraskeva Friday according to the list of Thn-185 are quite obvious, the language of the monument according to this list destroys the myth of the so-called ‘second South Slavic influence’. The analysis allows us to take a new look at what we call the Church Slavonic language, to understand that the Church Slavonic language is still an unidentified linguistic object, rather than a philological one, because this language cannot be separated from the text. The text is the environment in which it exists. Linguistics has adopted the tools of linguistic analysis, which since ancient times served philological purposes, it is already presented in the ΤνΝη γραμματική of Dionysius of Thrace, but it did not serve to describe and understand language as such, the main task of grammatics was considered to be the evaluation of the work, “what is the best of all that grammar does”. This helps in the qualification of what is written in the Church Slavonic language: it should not only contain the traditional forms and vocabulary of this language (also with the traditional permissibility of innovations), but also have a functional correlation, correspond to the sphere of existence of Church Slavonic texts.

“II-composites” as an object of neology and neography of the XXI century

2021 ◽  
pp. 23-30
Author(s):  
Natalia V. Kozlovskaya ◽  
◽  
Sz. Janurik ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Growth Dynamics ◽  
Russian Language ◽  
Special Significance ◽  
Compound Nouns ◽  
Scientific Terms ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Russian Language ◽  
National Corpus ◽  
Modern Russian

The article analyzes the contents and reflects the growth dynamics of a representative group which comprises compound neologisms with the first component stem II (ИИ) (a Russian abbreviation for “artificial intelligence”). It is the process of language integration that plays a significant role in the formation of compound nouns with the first component stem II: the currently widespread functioning of the above-mentioned pattern as well as of similar patterns results from the impact the analytism makes upon the vocabulary and grammar of the Russian language. The research based on the analysis of the data contained in the Russian National Corpus and the “Integrum” mass media database has proved that the component stem II belongs to the most productive formants in the Russian language of the 2010s. The article displays the main tendencies in the formation of lexical paradigms of the “II-compounds” in the modern Russian language. Of special significance in a quantitative sense is the hypernym-hyponym composition of nouns containing a seme “the ability to perform the functions which have traditionally been considered a human’s prerogative”: II-advokat (artificial intelligence (AI) barrister), II-dermatolog (artificial intelligence dermatologist), II-sekretar’ (artificial intelligence secretary), II-yurist (artificial intelligence lawyer). The article also mentions the process of discourse transition of scientific terms with the first component stem II into the modern newspaper and magazine publicism. On the basis of the expert sampling analysis a conclusion is drawn in the article about the heterogeneity of the formant II and the principles of its lexicographic description are outlined which are going to be represented in the publication of annual neological dictionaries “Lexical innovations in the Russian language” recommenced at the department of Modern Russian Lexicography at the Institute for Linguistic Studies of the RAS.

scholarly journals Language of Russian Charity: Verbs

2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (4 (202)) ◽  
pp. 293-310
Author(s):  
Valeria S. Kuchko ◽  
◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Language ◽  
Semantic Features ◽  
Semantic Field ◽  
Specific Context ◽  
Old Russian ◽  
The Status ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Language ◽  
National Corpus

This article studies Russian verbs which name the action of gratuitous material assistance to those in need, i.e. благотворить, благотворительствовать, благодетельствовать, меценатствовать, жертвовать, спонсировать, and their few derivatives. The author focuses on the history of their origin and use in the Russian language, the development of their meanings, semantic features, and functioning in the text. The analysis of these characteristics of the life of the word in the language allows the author to identify and formulate some norms of the use of these verbs in modern charity discourse for those who speak and write about charity. The study is based on historical and modern lexicographic sources, such as explanatory dictionaries of the Old Slavic Language, Old Russian Language, Russian language of different time periods, as well as examples of word usage, retrieved from The National Corpus of the Russian Language. In spite of the fact that the verbs studied realise the predicate of a situation of charity and designate the subject’s action of providing a poor or deprived object with material support, they considerably differ in terms of time of their appearance in the language, periods of usage, and semantic capacity. The analysis demonstrates that there is no verb that could claim the status of a nuclear verbal lexeme of the semantic field of charity: the word with the widest neutral semantics благотворить has almost fallen out of use, the verbs благодетельствовать and меценатствовать have a narrower application, while жертвовать imposes semantic restrictions on the choice of words for the positions of the object and the instrument of charity, and in the case of the verb спонсировать a specific context of “market” charity is important, in which the subject receives a certain benefit from their contribution.

scholarly journals Functioning of Paired Naming in the Modern Russian language

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 102-119
Author(s):  
Marina Vas. Pimenova ◽  
Wu Lianlian
Keyword(s):  
Russian Language ◽  
Semantic Model ◽  
Educational Materials ◽  
Poetic Discourse ◽  
Part Of Speech ◽  
Oral Speech ◽  
Parallel Texts ◽  
The Russian Language ◽  
National Corpus ◽  
Modern Russian

The article is devoted to the functioning of paired names in modern Russian language - insufficiently studied stable combinations such as небо и земля, печки-лавочки, хлеб-соль, ни ответа ни привета . These units express a single, undifferentiated meaning, consist of two components connected by a compositional connection that belong to one part of speech (most often in paired names are nouns combinations, although there are also adverbs, verbs, adjectives, pronouns, numerals, interjections, onomatopes, prepositions and particles). Structural-semantic model, which is built on paired naming dates back to the ancient period of the language, however, continues to be used in XX-XXI centuries. The purpose of this article is consideration of features of the semantics and structure of the paired naming by the material from the resource "National corpus of the russian language". In addition, their frequency is presented in newspaper and oral speech, in parallel texts and poetic discourse, as well as in accentological and educational materials.

scholarly journals Verbalization of basic emotions on the material of the national corpus of the russian language: comparative analysis of the verbalization of emotions fear and horror

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 13-22
Author(s):  
Elena Nikolaevna Goots ◽  
Elena Dmitrievna Ivanova
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Native Speaker ◽  
Extensive Study ◽  
Russian Language ◽  
Practical Significance ◽  
Research Attention ◽  
Basic Emotions ◽  
The Russian Language ◽  
National Corpus ◽  
Modern Russian

Modern linguistics is characterized by anthropocentrism, in the center of its research attention are questions about a person based on his integrity and exclusivity. This article is devoted to the study of the verbalization of such basic emotions as fear and horror. The subject of the research is the features of the basic emotions of fear and horror in the modern Russian language. The work was carried out on the basis of the material of the National Corpus of the Russian Language. The purpose of the work is to identify and define the features of the verbalization of emotions fear and horror in the modern Russian language. The relevance of the study is due to the inevitable dependence of every sphere of a person's life on his emotional state. Despite the extensive study of emotions by psychology, psycholinguistics, linguistics, a number of questions remain in this problem. The materials of the Russian National Corpus provide great opportunities for studying the verbalization of the emotions of a native speaker of the Russian language in various genres and styles, which allows reaching a new level of research. The peculiarity of the study of emotions is found in the variety of linguistic means of their expression, which include the appropriate vocabulary, phraseological constructions and a certain compatibility. The novelty of the research lies in the fact that the comparative analysis of the verbalization of the basic emotions of fear and horror is carried out on the basis of the material of the National Corpus of the Russian language. In the course of the work, the following methods were used: descriptive, involving the analysis of both theoretical and empirical material, generalization and interpretation of the results obtained; component analysis; introspection method; comparative and comparative and statistical methods. The practical significance of the study is due to the fact that its materials and conclusions can be used in university courses in lexicology, lexicography, psycholinguistics.

Relics of Some Old Russian Linguistics Features in Modern Russian

2018 ◽  
Vol 79 (8) ◽  
pp. 59-65
Author(s):  
E. A. Galinskaya
Keyword(s):  
Russian Language ◽  
Russian Linguistics ◽  
Standard Language ◽  
Old Russian ◽  
Colloquial Language ◽  
Linguistic System ◽  
Russian Linguistic ◽  
The Russian Language ◽  
Modern Russian ◽  
Indefinite Pronouns

This paper‘s aim is to identy some Old Russian lingustic relics in present-day Russian. For this purpose, the method of comparison of synchronous linguistic levels is used. Most elements of the Old Russian linguistic system have undergone some kind of evolution; some of them disappeared completely (e.g., relativizers to and že), or stayed unchanged (e.g., the declension in singular of feminine *ĭ-stem nouns), or survived only in some dialects (e.g., infinitive r’uti), or are absent from the standard language, but exist in the colloquial language and dialects (e.g., indefinite pronouns identical to interrogative pronouns). Some features are present in the Russian language as unique relics only. Such relics are manifold and sometimes not easily recognizable.

Rusins in the Works by P.D. Draganov

Rusin ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 76-98
Author(s):  
S.G. Sulyak ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Public Library ◽  
Russian Language ◽  
Slavonic Language ◽  
Language And Literature ◽  
The World ◽  
Imperial Academy ◽  
Academy Of Sciences ◽  
The Village ◽  
The Russian Language ◽  
Russian Dictionary

Pyotr Danilovich Draganov (February 1 (13), 1857 – February 7, 1928), a native of Bessarabia, Russian philologist, historian, ethnographer, bibliographer, and teacher. Born into a family of Bulgarian colonists in the village Comrat of Bessarabian region, he graduated from the Bulgarian Central School in Comrat (1875), then studied at the Chișinău progymnasium, the provincial gymnasium (1875–1877) and the Kharkov gymnasium (1877–1880). After graduating from the gymnasium, he entered the Faculty of History and Philology of the Imperial Kharkov University (1880–1882), then continued his studies at the Imperial St. Petersburg University, graduating in 1885 with a candidate’s degree. In 1885–1887, he taught general history and Church Slavonic language at the St. Cyril and Methodius Male Gymnasium (Thessaloniki, Macedonia). In 1888, he was appointed teacher of the Russian language and literature of the Comrat real school. Since 1893, he taught Russian at the Chișinău Women’s Gymnasium. In 1896, he became a junior assistant librarian at the Imperial Public Library in St. Petersburg, in charge of the category of Slavs and Galician-Russian books of the Manuscript Department of the library. Due to the difficult financial situation, he had to resign from the library and return to teach Russian at the Comrat real school. In 1906–1912, P.D. Draganov worked as an inspector of a real school in Astrakhan, director of a teacher’s seminary in the village Rovnoe of the Samara province. In 1913, he returned to Bessarabia and was appointed director of the male gymnasium in Cahul. When Bessarabia was occupied by Romania, the Romanian authorities issued a decree on the preservation of the gymnasium and proposed to P.D. Draganov to remain its director. However, he decided to return to his native Comrat, where he taught Bulgarian at the Comrat real school until retirement. P.D. Draganov is the author of over 100 historical, literary, ethnographic, philological, bibliographic and critical works. His articles were published in the “Journal of the Ministry of Public Education”, “Historical Bulletin”, “Izvestia of the Imperial Academy of Sciences in the Department of Russian Language and Literature”, “Russian Philological Bulletin” and others. Some of his works have remained unpublished. Most of P.D. Draganov’s studies focus on Bessarabian and Balkan themes. He wrote many works about A.S. Pushkin. Draganov was the founder of Macedonian studies in Russia. One ofhis most important works is “The Macedonian-Slavic Collection” (Issue 1. St. Petersburg, 1894), which received many reviews. Another well-known work of his is the compilation “A.S. Pushkin in Fifty Languages, i.e. Translations from A.S. Pushkin into 50 languages and dialects of the world. A Bibliographic Wreath on the Monument to A.S. Pushkin, Woven for the Centenary of His Birth, May 26, 1799 – May 26, 1899 with a Portrait of the Poet” (St. Petersburg, 1899). Draganov also participated in the compilation of the Bulgarian-Russian Dictionary, published the first universal index Bessarabiana, where he listed the sources and literature published over 100 years since the annexation of Bessarabia to Russia. Among the numerous works by P.D. Draganov, there are studies about Rusins.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document