scholarly journals The Concept of " Muzh" (Husband): Motivating Signs

2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 516-524
Author(s):  
A. M. Kiseleva
Keyword(s):  
Russian Language ◽  
Cultural Significance ◽  
European Language ◽  
Ancient History ◽  
Male Specimen ◽  
Public Figure ◽  
History Of ◽  
Russian Linguistic ◽  
The Russian Language ◽  
Big Men

This article presents a historical and etymological analysis of the motivating signs of the concept of "muzh" (husband) in the Russian language. Primary signs of the concept make up the internal form of a word and serves as the basis for new cognitive signs. Actual motivating signs appear first as conceptual ones and later as functional, evaluative, symbolic, and figurative. The primary motivating sign is "man": it is the oldest one and goes back to the pre-Indo-European language. The analysis of etymological dictionaries revealed 42 motivating signs. The article provides examples of the representation of this concept in the literature, including the modern one. Etymological and historical-etymological dictionaries revealed the following motivating signs of the concept of "muzh" (husband): a man; a male spouse; an adult man; a man that understands; a scientist; an ancestor; an Amazon female warrior; an age; people; community member; a serious man; a citizen; a brave man; a strong man; a fighter, a warrior; an ordinary man; a hero; a male celebrity; a respected, venerable man; a public figure; a witness; a free man; a peasant, a farmer; a feudal-dependent peasant; a peasant (low status in legal relations); to man oneself; a person with unnaturally large manhood; a male specimen; an attendant of a tsar, king, or prince, a noble man; a servant of a prince, a warrior in the prince’s squad; a divine husband; a man of desire; a blood man, a murderer; big men (a privileged part of the free population in Ancient Russia); young men (a less privileged part of the free population in Ancient Russia); nobleman (a great man); a member of household; a servant; a hand (worker); a slave; someone who is ready. Such a long list of motivating signs confirms the ancient history of the concept and its socio-cultural significance in the Russian linguistic worldview.

scholarly journals The Great Academic Dictionary of the Russian Language as a Reflection of Economic Change: Semantic Dynamics of Words with the Root Torg-

2020 ◽  
pp. 167-180
Author(s):  
Roman I. Vorontsov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Semantic Analysis ◽  
Russian Language ◽  
Soviet Period ◽  
Russian Society ◽  
History Of ◽  
Semantic Differentiation ◽  
Historic Change ◽  
Text Illustrations ◽  
Russian Linguistic ◽  
The Russian Language

The article deals with the dynamics of a fragment of the Russian linguistic worldview projected onto the experience of academic lexicography. Based on the data extracted from the three editions of the Great Academic Dictionary of the Russian Language (also referred to as the Dictionary), which serves as a reflection of the 80-yearlong history of the Soviet and Russian society, the sociocultural dynamics of a conceptual view of economy and trade is uncovered through its lexical, semantic and lexicographic realization. The aim of the research is to analyze the semantic dynamics of the words with root torg- [trade] based on the Dictionary data. This includes the study of the lexicographic interpretation of these words as well as the justification of new lexicographic solutions. The key attention is paid to a number of polysemantic words: torg, torgovat’, torgovat’sya, torgovlya, torgovyy. In the course of the research, the method of componential semantic analysis is applied together with the comparison of the entries from different editions of the Dictionary and with the selection of text illustrations by means of linguistic corpora. Two aspects of the semantic dynamics of the words with root torg- are discussed: 1) reflection of lexicographic principles adopted by the authors of the Dictionary and 2) lexical and semantic objectivation of the Russian linguistic worldview. The first aspect is represented by the trend of semantic differentiation typical of the Dictionary and manifested in both enlargement and specification of the word semantic structure. Syncretic meanings that can be seen in the first edition are later splintered into separate meanings or even shades of meaning (torgash, torgashestvo, torgovat’). The sociocultural dynamics is presented by a number of linguistic trends. The first trend is generating new collocations, and the adjective torgovyy shows here the highest productivity. Adjacent to it stands the active formation of compound words beginning with torgovo-. The second (controversial) trend is obsolescence of words and meanings: notions of the Soviet economy are going out of use (torg as a ‘trade institution’). The third trend is actualization of obsolete words and meanings, which is often only illusive. In the Soviet period, many notions of economy were considered inadmissible or typical of the Czarist era, hence, these words were defined as obsolete ones. However, the historic change of the early 1990s showed that this part of vocabulary was always commonly used, even in the Soviet texts that could not serve as a source of illustrations due to censorship. Thus, the considered aspects of the semantic dynamics of the words with the root torg- demonstrate the general way of conceptualizing the economic sphere by the Russians. It is mainly reflected in the social revaluation of the market relations, trade, and entrepreneurship. The lexical and semantic objectivation of this revaluation requires shrewd lexicographic solutions.

scholarly journals Conceptual Signs in the Structure of the Husband (Muzh) Concept (According to the Explanatory Dictionaries of the Russian Language)

2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 831-840
Author(s):  
A. M. Kiseleva
Keyword(s):  
Russian Language ◽  
Family Status ◽  
Family Responsibilities ◽  
Public Figure ◽  
The Family ◽  
Mental Abilities ◽  
Moral Qualities ◽  
Russian Linguistic ◽  
The Russian Language ◽  
Mature Person

The article introduces conceptual signs of the concept husband (muzh) on the basis of eight Russian explanatory dictionaries: 1) S. I. Ozhegov and N. Yu. Shvedova’s Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian language; 2) V. I. Dal’s Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Vernacular; 3) D. N. Ushakov’s Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language; 4) Academic Dictionary of the Russian Language; 5) Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian language edited by D. V. Dmitriev; 6) T. F. Efremova’s Interpretative and Derivational New Dictionary of the Russian Language; 7) S. A. Kuznetsov Great Dictionary of the Russian Language; 8) L. G. Babenko’s Big Explanatory Dictionary of Russian Nouns. The author analyzed the relevant vocabulary entries of the words representing the concept and described the selected conceptual signs with examples from the language material. Examples were taken from the National Corpora of the Russian Language (www.ruscorpora.ru). The research owes its scientific novelty to the fact that domestic and foreign linguistics has never featured the concept in question. The author appealed to the Russian linguistic culture from the perspective of the conceptual sphere of the family, marriage, and kinship. The research revealed 26 conceptual signs of the husband (muzh) concept: a spouse, a head of the family responsible for bringing the groceries from town to the country cottage where the family dwells, a mature (person), a scientist, a public figure / statesman, a person, male gender, a master, a worthy (person), valiant, courageous / bold / brave, physically strong / mighty, patient, sane, persistent, calm, decisive, hardworking, commoner / peasant (plowman / farmer / tiller), a peasant, a family man, a man (uneducated / ill-bred / rude / ignoramus / ignorant), a breadwinner. The following conceptual signs were represented by material from XVIII–XIX centuries: a public figure / statesman, a commoner / peasant (plowman / farmer / tiller), a peasant. All the conceptual signs of the husband (muzh) concept were concentrated in several aspects: family status and family responsibilities, anthropological and physiological characteristics, mental abilities, social status, moral qualities, and character traits.

Semantics of the Lexeme khram in Language and Text (Based on Russian Orthodox Sermons)

2020 ◽  
pp. 82-89
Author(s):  
Karina S. Khosrovyan ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Semantic Content ◽  
Russian Language ◽  
Russian Orthodox ◽  
Speech Community ◽  
Cultural Meanings ◽  
Long Time ◽  
History Of ◽  
Russian Linguistic ◽  
Descriptive Method ◽  
The Russian Language

This article scrutinizes the semantic structure of the lexeme khram (‘church’) in the Russian language. The paper is relevant due to the need to describe and analyse key lexemes in the Russian linguistic worldview. A special place among such units is occupied by religious words, including khram. Russian linguists’ turning to religious vocabulary elucidates the value of these words, which for a long time had been banned for well-known reasons. Currently, religious vocabulary is studied in different aspects: the history of individual words; the development of the semantics of specific lexemes and their functioning in various texts; the linguistic and cultural features of using religiously marked language units; religious concepts playing an important role in shaping the linguistic worldview, etc. In this paper, using the descriptive method and the comparative analysis of lexicographic sources and texts of sermons, the author characterized some peculiarities of the semantics of khram. The research showed that this word’s semantics is not confined to the meanings found in dictionary entries, which are clear and comprehensible to all members of a certain speech community. Noteworthy, linguoculturological information is not included in dictionary definitions. At the same time, a word belonging to the religious sphere is connected with a whole range of religious and cultural meanings. By studying the functioning of the lexeme khram in the texts we can trace the changes in its meanings and semantic content.

THE STAGES OF RUSSIAN LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT IN THE NEWEST PERIOD OF ITS HISTORY (AT THE TURN OF XX-XXI CENTURIES)

2021 ◽  
pp. 16-23
Author(s):  
О.В. Загоровская
Keyword(s):  
Language Development ◽  
Russian Language ◽  
General Nature ◽  
Recent Period ◽  
Semantic Level ◽  
Modern Period ◽  
History Of ◽  
Two Stages ◽  
Russian Linguistic ◽  
The Russian Language

Статья посвящена проблемам типологических особенностей новейшего периода истории русского языка, начавшегося во второй половине 80-х годов XX в. и продолжающегося до настоящего времени. Целью исследования является выделение темпоральных составляющих названного периода и определение их сущностных характеристик. На основе сопоставительного анализа развития русской лингвокультуры в последние десятилетия XX в. и первые десятилетия XXI в. сделаны выводы о неоднородности новейшего периода развития русского языка и возможности выделения в нем двух этапов: «постсоветского» (с середины 80-х годов XX в. до начала нового тысячелетия) и «собственно новейшего» (первые десятилетия XXI в.). Доказано, что названные этапы различаются и причинами языковых изменений, и их содержательными характеристиками. Если на первом («постсоветском») этапе развитие русской лингвокультуры определялось прежде всего общественными процессами внутри России, то на втором («собственно новейшем») этапе основными причинами языкового развития становятся процессы глобализации, а также виртуализации («цифровизации)» общения. При этом «собственно новейший» этап современного периода развития русского языка характеризуется не только известными изменениями в языковой системе (прежде всего - на лексико-семантическом уровне), а также изменениями в общем характере функционирования русского языка, но также и принципиальными изменениями в структуре форм бытования русского языка и возникновением новых модусов его существования, прежде всего - мультимодусной русской цифровой речи. Результаты исследования расширяют представления о развитии русского языка на рубеже XX-XXI вв., динамических процессах в его организации и функционировании. Материалы и выводы работы могут найти применение в научных исследованиях в области русистики, а также в практике преподавания русского языка. The article is devoted to the problems of typological features of the latest period of the history of the Russian language which began in the second half of the1980s and continues up to now. The purpose of the research is to identify the temporal components of the named period and determine their essential characteristics. On the basis of the comparative analysis of the development of Russian linguistic culture in the last decades of the 20 century and the first decades of the 21 century conclusions are drawn about the heterogeneity of the recent period of the Russian language development and the possibility of distinguishing two stages in it: "post-Soviet" (from the middle of the 1980s to the beginning of the new Millennium) and "actually modern" (the first decades of the 21 century). It is proved that these stages differ both in the causes of language changes and their content characteristics. Whereas at the first ("post-Soviet") stage the development of Russian linguistic culture was determined primarily by social processes within Russia, at the second ("actually modern") stage the main causes of language development are the processes of globalization, as well as the virtualization ("digitalization)" of communication. The "newest" stage of the modern period of development of the Russian language is characterized not only by certain changes in the language system (primarily at the lexical and semantic level), as well as changes in the General nature of the functioning of the Russian language, but also by fundamental changes in the structure of the forms of Russian language existence and the emergence of new modes of its existence, primarily multi - modus Russian digital speech. The results of the research expand the understanding of the development of the Russian language on the boundary of the 20 - 21 centuries, the dynamic processes in its organization and functioning. The materials and conclusions of the work can be used in scientific research in the field of Russian studies, as well as in the practice of teaching the Russian language.

scholarly journals History of emergence of Freemasonry in the early XVIII – late XIX centuries

2021 ◽  
pp. 61-71
Author(s):  
Mariya Viktorovna Khil'chenko
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Information ◽  
Russian Language ◽  
Ancient History ◽  
The Third ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
History Of ◽  
Xix Century ◽  
First Time ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The Russian Language

This article is dedicated to the history of emergence of the Masonic lodge in England and disclosure of the concept of “freemason”. The author reveals and describes the peculiarities of the emergence of Freemasonry, tracing its evolution from the antiquity until the XIX century. Its ancient history is divided into the two main periods (prior and after 1717, i.e. the creation of the Grand Lodge in England). The article describes such events from the history of Freemasonry as the establishment of the First Grand Lodge in England; creation of the Premier Lodge, Anderson’s Constitutions, and the Third Degree; the Great Schism of Freemasonry that tool place 1877; the Taxil hoax. Analysis is conducted on the relationship between the English and French factions of Freemasonry. The obtained results are accurate, since the analysis of the history of Freemasonry was carried based on the wide range of historical facts. The comprehensive analysis of the history of emergence of Freemasonry is carried out for the first time within the Russian-language historical literature, which defines the scientific novelty of this work. The author outlines the further prospects for studying the history of Freemasonry, such as accumulation of the reliable scientific information on the early history of the lodge, examination of the history of other Masonic factions (French, Italian, etc.), as well as the origin of Freemasonry in Russia.

scholarly journals КСЕНОНИМЫ-ИНТЕРПРЕТАТИВЫ В СЕТЕВОМ ДИСКУРСЕ РУССКОЯЗЫЧНОЙ ДИАСПОРЫ КИТАЯ (НА ПРИМЕРЕ КСЕНОНИМА ЧАБУДО)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Olga Orlova
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Language ◽  
Chinese Culture ◽  
Semantic Category ◽  
Russian Language ◽  
Cultural Significance ◽  
The Matrix ◽  
Experimental Linguistics ◽  
Cultural Reality ◽  
Russian Linguistic ◽  
The Russian Language

Введение. Данное исследование посвящено изучению особого типа русского сетевого диаспорального дискурса – дискурса русскоязычной диаспоры Китая как репрезентанта русской лингвокультуры, ориентированной в область китайской культуры. Наряду с ксенонимами-реалиями в данном дискурсе выделяются ксенонимы-интерпретативы. Если ксенонимы-реалии являются знаками безэквивалентных, исходно этноспецифичных явлений и понятий иноязычной действительности, то ксенонимы-интерпретативы имеют полноценные лексические соответствия в языке-реципиенте, не отмечены этнокультурной маркированностью в матричном языке и служат восприятию, пониманию и интерпретации иностранной языковой и социокультурной реальности диаспоральным сообществом. Материал и методы. Материалом исследования являются более 1000 текстов сетевой коммуникации русскоязычного диаспорального сообщества Китая, включающие ксеноним-интерпретатив чабудо. Вместе с методологическим инструментарием интерлингвокультурологии, дериватологии и лексической семантики используются приемы контекстологического и дискурс-анализа, а также корпусной и экспериментальной лингвистики. Результаты и обсуждение. Анализ данных онлайн-корпуса китайского языка и результатов пилотажного эксперимента, направленного на выявление показаний языкового сознания китайских студентов, показывает, что китайское наречие 差不多 chabuduo является типичным частотным словом в повседневном китайском словоупотреблении и не наделяется особой лингвокультурной значимостью как этноспецифичное понятие. Будучи эталонным средством выражения универсальной семантической категории аппроксимации, оно имеет прямые соответствия в русском языке: примерно, приблизительно, почти. Однако в ходе вхождения в сетевой русскоязычный диаспоральный дискурс и адаптации в нем наречие чабудо в функции ксенонима-интерпретатива претерпевает целый ряд морфолого-синтаксических и лексико-семантических трансформаций. Главными в этом ряду выступают способствующая концептуализации признаковых параметров субстантивация наречия, расширение спектра синтаксических позиций лексемы, включение ее в разнообразные словообразовательные и семантические деривационные модификации. Заключение. На уровне гипертекста дискурса ксеноним-интерпретатив наделяется особым этноспецифичным значением, происходит интенсивный рост частотности его употребления, внедрение ксенонима в структуру квазипрецедентных высказываний и иные формы лингвокреативных практик сетевого диаспорального сообщества.Introduction. This article is devoted to studying a special type of network of the Russian Diaspora discourse is the discourse of the Russian-speaking Diaspora of China as a representative of the Russian linguistic culture, which is focused in the area of Chinese culture. Along with xenonyms-realities, xenonyms-interpretatives are distinguished in this discourse. If xenonyms-realities are signs of non-equivalent, initially ethnospecific phenomena and concepts of foreign-language reality, then xenonyms-interpretatives have full-fledged lexical correspondences in the recipient language, are not marked by ethno-cultural marking in the matrix language and serve the perception, understanding and interpretation of foreign language and socio-cultural reality by the Diaspora community. Material and methods. The material of the research is more than 1000 texts of network communication of the Russian-speaking Diaspora community of China, including the xenonym-interpretative chabudou. Along with the methodological tools of interlinguoculturology, derivatology and lexical semantics, the methods of contextual and discourse analysis, as well as corpus and experimental linguistics are used. Results and discussion. The analysis of data from the Online Chinese corpus and the results of a pilot experiment aimed at identifying indications of the language consciousness of Chinese students shows that the Chinese adverb 差不多 chabuduo is a typical frequency word in everyday Chinese word usage and is not endowed with special linguistic and cultural significance as an ethnospecific concept. As a reference means of expressing the universal semantic category of approximation, it has direct equivalent in the Russian language: примерно (about), приблизительно (approximately), почти (almost). However, in the course of entering into the network Russian-speaking diasporal discourse and adapting in it to the function of the xenonym-interpretative adverb chabudou undergoes a number of morphological-syntactic and lexical-semantic transformations during its entry into the network Russian-speaking diasporal discourse and adaptation in it. The main ones in this series are the substantiation of the adverb that contributes to the conceptualization of the characteristic parameters, the expansion of the range of syntactic positions of the lexeme, its inclusion in a variety of word-forming and semantic derivative modifications. Conclusion. At the level of the hypertext of discourse xenonym-interpretative is endowed with a special ethnospecific meaning, there is an intensive increase in the frequency of its use, the introduction of the xenonym into the structure of quasi-precedent statements and other forms of linguocreative practices of the network Diaspora community.

SYSTEM OF PARTICIPLES IN THE OSSETIAN LANGUAGE COMPARED TO THE RUSSIAN LANGUAGE.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
З.И. Годизова ◽  
Д.В. Габисова
Keyword(s):  
The State ◽  
Russian Language ◽  
Past Tense ◽  
Language Family ◽  
European Language ◽  
Parts Of Speech ◽  
Imperfective Aspect ◽  
The Past ◽  
The Russian Language ◽  
Conversion Transition

Актуальность предпринятого исследования обусловлена тем, что причастие в современном осетинском языке не привлекало активного внимания ученых, имеются лишь общие описания причастий, а специальные исследования, посвященные причастиям, практически отсутствуют. Представляется интересным и актуальным сравнение системы причастий и их грамматических особенностей в осетинском и русском языках. Этот интерес обусловлен принадлежностью сопоставляемых языков к общей индоевропейской семье языков, а также тесным их взаимодействием в условиях двуязычия, что, очевидно, может отразиться и на системе причастий. Научная новизна данной статьи заключается в том, что в ней исследуются грамматические особенности всех разрядов причастий в осетинском языке в сопоставлении с русским языком. На основании проведенного анализа установлено, что в современном осетинском языке система причастий включает пять разрядов, разнообразных в своих грамматических проявлениях, в степени регулярности, в склонности переходить в состав других частей речи. Выявлены наиболее значительные отличия осетинских причастий от русских: существование причастий будущего времени в системе осетинского языка, отсутствие у причастий показателей времени и залога, а также именных грамматических категорий (падежа, числа, рода). Установлено также, что в осетинском языке категория вида в большей степени управляет категорией времени, в силу чего несовершенный вид причастий предполагает только настоящее время, а совершенный только прошедшее отсутствует четкая залоговая оппозиция причастий в осетинском языке. Определено также, что осетинские причастия не имеют членных (полных) форм, но функционируют в роли и сказуемого, и определения, хотя в большей степени тяготеют к предикативной роли. В осетинском языке причастия гораздо менее употребительны сравнительно с причастиями в русском языке и чаще вступают в отношения грамматической омонимии с другими частями речи. The relevance of the undertaken study is determined by the fact that participles in the modern Ossetian language are still insufficiently studied. There are only the most general descriptions of grammar features of participles. The comparison of the system of participles and their grammar features seems interesting and actual, especially considering the fact that the Ossetian and Russian languages belong to different groups of the Indo-European language family. Furthermore, in the context of bilingualism the Russian and Ossetian languages interact actively and that can affect the system of participles. The scientific novelty of the article is determined by the fact that it examines the grammatical features of all categories of participles in the Ossetian language in comparison with the Russian language. The conducted research allowed to elicit five categories in the system of participles in the modern Ossetian language. The analysis of the results showed the participles are diverse in their grammatical characteristics, in the degree of regularity, and in the tendency to transition into other parts of speech. The research defined the most significant differences between Ossetian and Russian participles: existence of future participles in the system of the Ossetian language absence of adjectival grammar categories of gender, number and case as well as formal markers of tense and voice in Ossetian participles. The tense category in Ossetian subordinates to the aspect category to a far greater extent therefore the imperfective aspect of participles accepts the present tense forms only, while perfective acts in the past tense forms Ossetian participles lack explicit voice opposition. Ossetian participles do not have full forms, but they can have syntactic functions of both the predicate and the attribute in a sentence, although the predicative function is more typical for them. Participles in the Ossetian language are much less common compared to participles in Russian and are more disposed to conversion (transition to the category of nouns, verbal adverbs, adjectives, words of the state category).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document