Typological originality of secondary dialects with the south Russian basis in the Middle Volga Region

The article highlights the problem of the typology of dialects of the Middle Volga region. Particular attention is paid to secondary dialects with signs of South Russian dialect bases, the status of which in the Volga atlases is determined ambiguously. The area of the described dialect type is indicated. It is indicated that in the left-bank part of the Middle Volga region, in the so-called Trans-Volga region, there is a high probability of the existence of secondary Central Russian dialects with the preservation of signs of southern Russian maternal stems. The main source is data from regional atlases. The materials of dialectological expeditions to the villages of the Samara region are used. The description of the typological characteristics of the secondary dialects with a southern base, which are designated on the maps of regional atlases as Central Russian, is based on the analysis of isogloss of phonetic, grammatical and proper lexical dialect phenomena. In dialects with a completed transition to Central Russian, typologically significant South Russian features are types of yakany with the preservation of vowel dissimilation, obstruent pronunciation of g of secondary origin and other phonetic, morphological and lexical features that make up the series of two-term dialectal correspondences. According to the linguistic basis, such dialects are often polydialectal. In some dialects, the South Russian basis is not in doubt, and we can only state the beginning of the transition to the Central Russian type. The question is raised about the existence of secondary dialect types, formed as a result of the assimilation of dialects of the South Russian dialect with other dialects, not only in the Volga region, but also in other territories with favorable conditions for inter-dialectal contact. It is concluded that the presence of the Central Russian type and South Russian bases in the described dialects is possible only if there is a sufficient amount of information on typologically significant levels of the dialect language, in which systemic relations are clearly manifested and which are represented on linguistic maps by stable isoglosses. Data on secondary types of dialects should be based on the structural-typological classification of dialectal phenomena of various levels, including the lexical one.

К вопросу о страдательном залоге в языках, распространенных на берегу Балтийского моря, с акцентом на севернорусском диалекте

The two characteristics of the passive voice found in the North Russian dialect and in other Circum-Baltic languages, the accusative case of the patient or theme as an argument of a verb with passive morphology and intransitive verbs passivized raise a number of related questions. The author of the present paper explores the issues under discussion from an areal-historical perspective, concluding that the aforementioned languages have a tendency for the agent to be the same element as the subject and the patient or theme to be the same element as the (direct) object of the sentence. In the North Russian dialect, we can see an example where the above fact holds true irrespective of whether the verb has an active or a passive morphology as the theme of the sentence assumes the accusative case regardless of whether it is an argument of a verb in the active or in the passive voice.The question as to what lexical elements can function as subjects is itself interesting. Moreover, there seems to be a correlation between what level of abstraction the syntactic category of subject has reached in a language and the existence of a pure passive mean- ing. The less abstract the category of subject is, as in case of Circum-Baltic languages, the farther structures with a passive morphology seem to be from a pure passive meaning. In languages such as English, however, where virtually any noun can function as a subject, there seems to be a pure passive meaning and there is only one morphological way of form- ing passive sentences.The nature of linguistic similarities found in genetically less related languages spoken in the same area has been given a number of varied accounts. The most salient of them ap- pears to be B. Drinka’s explanation based on the influence of Western European languages on ones spoken in the East of the area where once the Hanseatic League existed in the middle ages and I. Seržant’s theory concerning the foregrounding of the agent as passive structures with a stative interpretation gradually assumed a dynamic one.In fact, participles in the North Russian dialect ending in -n / -t can express a dynam- ic, that is, eventive interpretation with a perfect meaning and can even co-occur with the -sja / -s’ postfix, the latter phenomenon being absolutely unimaginable in Standard Russian, where the two affixes are in complementary distribution. The author assumes that the topic should be studied from the perspective of sociology and cultural anthropology as well since linguistic similarities and differences often reflect similarities and differences in thinking beyond the realm of linguistics.

Root desemantization as a problem of derivatology (based on the material of derived verbs in Russian dialects)

In derivatology (in a broader sense, in the theory of nomination), the role of an important factor in the emergence of lexical units — the semantic emptying of root morphemes — is underestimated. The article considers Russian dialect expressive verbs formed by confixation, in which there is no connection between the etymological meaning of the root and the semantics of the derived word. The meaning of such a word is not concentrated in the root, but is transmitted by the word-formation construction as a whole. According to the author, the theoretical ignoring of regular desemantization does not allow achieving adequacy in the description of the principles and mechanisms of nomination.

On the Semantic and Motivational Interpretation of Russian Dialectal Vocabulary with the Meaning of Disgust (посвирывать, кобзовать, скабежливый, etc.)

This article employs the semantic and motivational aspects to study three Russian dialect words, namely Pskov and Tver Regions посви́рывать ‘to be picky, to disdain’, Kaluga Region ко́бзовать ‘to disdain’, Don, Volgograd, Ryazan, and Tambov Regions скабе́жливый ‘squeamish’. The choice to refer specifically to these linguistic facts is determined by the fact that some of the lexical units presented have not been previously discussed in literature, while, in the author’s opinion, some have controversial etymological solutions. The author states that the word посви́рывать has the root -вир-. Here, the idea of turning is recognised as a motivationally significant one since it reflects popular observations of the behaviour of a person who rejects something. Thus, the axiological assessment of squeamish behavior is fixed in the word’s inner form. The author connects the word ко́бзовать with кобызиться ‘to act arrogantly; to be stubborn, to be obstinate’, where быз indicates ‘a whiny, capricious child’. An assumption is made that a number of lexical units, such as Vologda Region бзли́вый ‘spoiled, capricious’, Perm Region скобы́чка ‘a quarreler and a mean person’, etc. belong to the same family. The author builds potential lines of their semantic and motivational development. The family includes designations of character traits (arrogance, boastfulness, foppery, cockiness, quick temper, cunningness) and human behaviour (such ideograms as ‘to cry’, ‘to frown’, ‘to be angry’, ‘to take offense’). The author hypothesises that the lexical unit скабежливый also refers to the family of the -быз- root. This conclusion is made based on phonetic variation in the root (скабе́зливый, скабы́зливый, скобызко́й) and the similarity in the development of meaning for all the lexical units studied (also, they share the semantics of arrogance, sensitivity, and tearfulness).

ETHNOLINGUISTIC COMMENTARY ON THE DERIVATIONAL-PHRASEOLOGICAL NEST OF A WORD PECH' IN THE NORTHERN RUSSIAN DIALECT DISCOURSE

The article analyzes the cultural and semantic features of the derivational-phraseological nest of the word pech' in the Northern Russian dialects (mainly in the Russian dialects of Karelia and the border regions). Based on the linguistic data, the author reconstructs the idea of pech' in the traditional culture of the Russian North; analyzes the content of the derivational paradigm for the lexeme pech '; determines its secondary meanings associated with the development of space outside the house. The article shows the reflection of pagan ideas and practices in the semantic structure of the word and its derivatives, the interaction between the conceptual fields of “pech’” and “house”, “pech’” and “family”.

Vocabulary with the Northern Russian dialect base in the Russian literary language

We analyze a number of significant issues of historical lexicology and dialectology related to the development of the Russian literary language, as well as to the study of the nature of its inclusion in the national language. We trace the connection of the codified language with such extra-literary elements as folk patois, vernacular, jargons, we determine their historical significance for the creation in the 18th–19th centuries of a new formation language, built on a democratic basis. Northern Russian patois, including Kostroma, are regarded as the most archaic layer of linguistic phenomena that influenced the Moscow Koine, on the basis of which the literary language was later formed. In this study, the North Russian dialect vocabulary and narrower, Kostroma, is considered as a source of the formation of the vocabulary fund of the literary language, and the artistic, journalistic and scientific works of Kostroma writers and local historians of the late 19th – 20th centuries (A.O. Ablesimov, N.A. Nekrasov, А.N. Ostrovsky, S.V. Maksimov, I.M. Kasatkin, E.V. Chestnyakov, N.N. Vinogradov, V.I. Smirnov, A.V. Gromov, etc.), related to the Kostroma region, as one of the channels of the “migration” of a regional word into the literary language, which largely contributed to its adaptation and consolidation in a standardized language, the de-velopment of extensive lexical and semantic connections and relationships.

Russian Dialects as a Resource for Finniс Historical Lexicology

This article proposes a reconstruction of a number of Vepsian and Ludic Karelian derivatives of lexemes, referring to the dialectal vocabulary of the Russian dialects of Obonezhye region. Having been lost from the aforementioned Finnic languages due to the Russification of the population living along the transit waterways used for the development of Obonezhye region since the time of Veliky Novgorod, they have survived as substratum or borrowed units in geographically adjacent Russian dialects. Vepsian and Karelian language data are traditionally used for the etymological interpretation of the Russian dialect lexicon. The reverse approach, i.e. the involvement of Russian dialects as a resource for Finnic etymological studies has not been widely used. When reconstructing, it is important to consider such parameters as the area of the Russian word, aiming at a well-defined Finnic language etymon; patterns of phonetic substitution and adaptation of specific Finnic sounds and sound combinations into Russian dialects; the existence of a word and its semantics in related languages. Additional opportunities are provided by the use of toponymic data due to the massive character and good preservation of toponyms. The article reconstructs several Vepsian and Ludic derived lexemes which have not been recorded in dictionaries or other sources. Among them, there are lexemes with suffixes -(e)k and -(e)h (*katek ‘thin ice’, *torek ‘noise, crackling, rumbling’, *čapek ‘overgrown undercut’, räbeh ‘damp low place in the forest’), Vepsian verbal name *kütm <* kütkim ‘leash for cattle’ with the -im suffix, Ludic term *hörpäk ‘stake with branches for drying hay’ with the suffix -äk and Vepsian landscape term *pugend ~ *pugond ‘swift with a narrow bed on the river’, in which the suffix -nd (< -nto) is embodied. The source of Russian dialectal data is the monumental publication Russian Dialect Etymological Dictionary. Vocabulary of Contact Regions (2019) prepared by S. А. Myznikov. A lot of work was done in it to find Finnic roots for Russian lexemes. The author of the dictionary had natural difficulties in attributing Russian dialect lexemes, for which their Vepsian or Karelian etymon did not survive. The interpretations presented in the article, along the way, clarify, supplement, and sometimes correct the etymology of the Russian Dialect Etymological Dictionary.

From the History of Russian Dialect Words I (говéд(т)ник, дохóрь, есáк, жёл, жерсть, жим, дýнда, дóхта, сбрéндить)

The study of Russian dialectal vocabulary remains one of the most pressing problems of etymology. This article is devoted to the origin and history of a number of Russian dialect words. Namely, the author provides revised explanations for some dialecticisms from the already published issues of the Russian Etymological Dictionary (говéд(т)ник, дохóрь, дóхта, сбрéндить), as well as from its unpublished issues (есáк, жёл, жерсть, жúмы). Most of this material is missing from the Etymological Dictionary of the Russian Language by M. Vasmer.The essence of the explanations proposed is as follows:говéд(т)ник, говéдник, говéнник ‘fastening (in front of a sleigh)’ originates from головéнник ‘head, front part of the sleigh’ from голова ‘head’, головной; дохóрь ‘marten’ supplements the lexical data on Proto-Slavic *dъchor’ь ‘ferret’; есáк ‘motif, melody’, есáчить ‘explain with signs’ should be linked with Old Russian ясáк ‘sign, password’ = ясáк ‘tribute’ < Turkic jasaq ‘tribute’, ‘code, law’;жел (жол) ‘acorn’ is identified with Belorussian dial. жэл and Bulgarian dial. жел ‘acorn’ < Proto-Slavic *žьlъ ‘acorn’, cf. Lithuanian gìlė ‘acorn’;жерсть, etc. ‘pole’ can be related to *žьrdь > Russian жердь with the suffix -tь, as in Russian ýжасть vs. ýжас ‘horror’; жúмы ‘pleated boxcalf boots’ is correlated with жúмы ‘folds, gathers’ from жимáть, iterative to *žęti, *žьmǫ ‘press’ > Rus. жать, жму ‘press’. The initial d- in the variant джúмы could appear as a result of rebracketing in combinations вот жимы, под жимы, etc. (of boots); дýнда ‘fat man’ is explained as a reflex of Proto-Slavic *dunda ‘fat woman’, an onomatopoetic or descriptive word that cannot be separated from Lithuanian dundà ‘rake’;дóхта ‘peat’ may be a relic of the Proto-Slavic *deg- ‘burn’ (> *žeg-) with preserved d-, cf. Russian дёготь ‘tar’, etc.; сбрéндить ‘go crazy’ perhaps comes from *сбрéндить ‘break off, about the string of a wool beater’ and *брéндить ‘beat wool with a wool bow’ of onomatopoeic origin, cf. бры́ндить ‛to beat the wool’ — бры́ндить ‛play the balalaika’ and so on.

The sacred image of “tree-deer” in Northern Russian folk culture

The paper considers the hypothesis that the image of a “tree-deer”, imprinted in the Northern Russian folk culture, was formed on the basis of figurative and semantic identification of a deer / elk and a tree. The analysis of such analogies, traces of which are preserved in folklore and in Russian folk dialects, is carried out taking into account the peculiarities of pagan worldview. Due to the antiquity of the cult of these animals, which developed in the hunting period, its signs have to be searched not only among the few archaisms of Slavic culture that have come down to our days, but also among traditional cultures of the Northern peoples. The fact that these animals, like the “world tree”, were once cosmological symbols explains the origin of the figurative-semantic relationship between a deer / elk and a tree. This is what determines the interchangeability of the image of a deer / elk and the image of a tree observed in folklore. In this context, the Genesis of a number of homonyms and similar words that exist in the Russian dialect lexicon, united by a corresponding theme, also becomes comprehensible. Moreover, the author conducts analysis of a number of images of deer / elk found in Northern Russian decorative and applied art (on embroidery and wood carving) in the context of representations that existed in the Slavic magical protective practice. This allows for understanding why the “tree-deer” image was endowed with sacred properties.