scholarly journals STABLE COLLOCATIONS WITH THE COMPONENT CHINITI IN THE RUSSIAN CHARTERS OF THE XIII-XVII CENTURIES

2021 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 429-437
Author(s):  
L.F. Kilina ◽  
O.S. Rusanova
Keyword(s):  
Russian Language ◽  
Normative Behavior ◽  
Term Stability ◽  
Old Russian ◽  
Wide Compatibility ◽  
Over Time ◽  
National Corpus ◽  
Modern Russian

The article discusses various definitions of the term stability, as well as criteria for identifying stable collocations, and analyzes the features of using stable collocations with the verb chiniti in the texts of old Russian charters, presented in the Russian National corpus. It was discovered that the stable collocations, contained in the charters, were used to fix various official situations, the most frequent among them were situations of committing an action that doesn`t meet the standards (disputes, disagreements, rudeness, violence, cruelty, damage, harassment, oppression). It is determined that most of the analyzed stable collocations are not used in modern Russian language. It is concluded that the verb chiniti used to have a generalized meaning and wide compatibility, the meaning was concretized over time, and the verb was used only to indicate an action that deviates from normative behavior.

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.

Replacing the Stressed [é] with the Stressed [ó]: Causes and Effects

2019 ◽  
Vol 80 (2) ◽  
pp. 80-87
Author(s):  
V. P. Moskvin
Keyword(s):  
Literary Form ◽  
Russian Language ◽  
National Language ◽  
Old Russian ◽  
Literary Forms ◽  
Modern Russian

The article considers the positional conditions of the transition of [é] to [ó], the causes of this phonetic transformation, which can be traced back to the Old Russian language, as well as the conditions for its gradual weakening. On this basis, the A.A. Shakhmatov’s hypothesis, interpreting this transition as a type of regressive labialization, was defined more precisely. Stylistically and orthologically significant reflexes of transition [é] to [ó] in the literary form of the modern Russian national language and its non-literary forms have been characterized and systematized.

scholarly journals On Adjectival Attributives Blood, Direct, Peaceful as Components of Archaic Nominations of Friends

2021 ◽  
pp. 58-68
Author(s):  
Tatyana Leontyeva
Keyword(s):  
Social Class ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
Russian Language ◽  
Cultural Layer ◽  
Spiritual Intimacy ◽  
Class Identification ◽  
Relationship Of ◽  
The Russian Language ◽  
Over Time ◽  
National Corpus

The article discusses the changes in collocability of the word friend over time. It notes that the works by A.S. Pushkin contain the forms, unexpected for the perception of the native speakers of the modern Russian language: blood friends, direct friend, peaceful friends. The analysis of the specified attributive combinations is carried out applying definitional, contextual, linguocultural analysis methods. The text material from the National Corpus of the Russian language is used. It is proved that the expression "blood friends" could denote "people connected by strong friendship" and "people of the same class". Physical kinship criterion has been proved to serve as a basis for cognitive understanding of spiritual intimacy and social class identification. However, the connection between primary and secondary semantics is not so direct here; it is mediated by the cultural layer – the custom of twinning, a form of artificial relationship noted among many peoples. Most examples of the usage of the phrase "direct friend" mean 'express your opinion to someone honestly, directly'. The expression "peaceful friends" is interpreted as based on a doubling of the meaning 'in a relationship of agreement'. The research results can be used in compiling dictionaries of the Russian language, and also in teaching linguistic disciplines.

“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 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.

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 Absence of inflexion of common nouns ending in a consonant: the boundary of the phenomenon in the modern Russian speech

2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 191-199
Author(s):  
Elena Marinova
Keyword(s):  
Russian Language ◽  
Grammatical Variation ◽  
Proper Name ◽  
Dynamic Language ◽  
National Corpus ◽  
Language Description ◽  
Modern Russian

The study was based on the texts from the “Electronic corpus of Russian newspapers” (MSU project), “Integrum”, “Russian national corpus” and recordings of speech, from the beginning of the XXI century. The aim is to analyze the absence of inflexion of common nouns ending in a consonant. The relevance of the research lies in the fact that the concerned phenomenon, previously peripheral, is becoming more and more frequent. The article describes the factors supporting indeclinability of nouns ending in a consonant: multi-functionality of a word, analogy with a proper name (onim), foreign graphics, fashion factor; as well as new categories of nouns ending in a consonant, which are used without inflexion. The analysis shows that in certain fields of the modern Russian language, deep mechanisms of traditional inflexion compete with analytical tendencies. The facts of grammatical variation of new foreign nouns prove it. The study was carried out in the framework of dynamic language description method.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document