Шишибар / шышыбар ‘burdock’ in the Komi-Permyak Language and Russian Dialects: Etymology and Semantic Connections

The authors analyse the Russian speech of immigrants' descendants from Russia to the Chinese Three Rivers region in the Inner Mongolia in the 20th century. The relevance of the study is due to the need to study various forms of existence of the modern Russian national language, including those in foreign countries. The research is based on both oral and written sources collected by the authors in 2017-2018 during their expeditions to Enhe Russian Ethnic Township (China). The research has shown deviations in the speech of immigrants' descendants from the norms of the Russian literary language due to the use of Russian in its dialect form, as well as interference from Chinese. The authors have proved that the Russian dialects of the Three Rivers region are genetically related to the Russian dialects of Eastern Transbaikalia, which, in turn, are related to the North Russian dialects. The dialectal features of the Russian dialects of the Chinese Three Rivers quialify them as the translitional dialects on the North Russian basis. Since there were no external factors of influence on the dialectal Russian language from its other idioms, the stated dialectal form of the Russian language remained unchaged until the early 21st century. The article considers both the dialectal originality of Russian speech in the Three Rivers region at different language levels (phonetics, morphology, syntax, vocabulary), and the cases of interlingual interference resulting from the influence of the Chinese language on the Russian dialect system. The authors describe the following factors that determine the intensity of interference: generation, education, profession, and language environment. Having described the active zones of interaction between typoLogicaLLy different Chinese and Russian and determined the areas of interference in the Russian speech of bilinguals, the authors detected “weak points” of the Russian language system in the situation of Russian-Chinese bilingualism. Thus, the authors have studied the variant of the Russian language specific for the Chinese Three Rivers region and concluded that it preserves the Russian dialect base influenced by the interference from Chinese, which is an understudied fact of the Russian language environment in emigration.

INTRODUCTION. In the Don dialects of Volgograd Oblast, the lexeme kundyubenkiy with the meaning 'ugly (about a person)' is recorded. The internal form of the word is obscured for a modern native speaker, which determines the purpose of this study: to trace the formation and development of the semantics of the base kundyub- (for convenience we denoted by the base kundyuball its phonetic variants: kundyub-, kundub-, kundum-, kundum-) in Russian dialects and in the literary language, to reveal the etymology of words of this base.MATERIALS AND METHODS. The analysis of lexicographic sources of different directions (dialect dictionaries, dictionaries of modern Turkic and Mongolian languages, etymological dictionaries) allowed us to identify dialectal and all-Russian lexemes with the kundyub- base, which differ significantly in semantics and presumably go back to one or two related ancient bases.RESULTS AND DISCUSSION. The variation of the semantics of lexemes with the kundyub- base in Russian (mainly in the southern dialects) is considered, the links of the analyzed units in Turkic and Mongolian modern languages are established, the question of the composition of lexemes within the ancient base is raised, taking into account the structure and semantics of the units.CONCLUSION. The versions of the etymology of the words of the kundyub- base with reference to lexicographic sources are given, variants of the formation and development of the semantics of the basis in diachrony are proposed, problematic and controversial points of the issue under consideration are outlined and further prospects of the study are outlined.

Introduction. The paper considers phraseological units that characterize the morbid state of a person in Russian and Moksha dialects on the territory of the Republic of Mordovia. The purpose of the study is to present the semantic characteristics of dialect phraseological units, analyze their component composition, and identify axiological and cultural-historical ideas of dialect speakers in the region. Materials and Methods. Various techniques and research methods were used in the work: a descriptive method, a comparative method, a method of component analysis, a method of contextual analysis, a method of linguistic and cultural interpretation. The study was conducted on the material of phraseological dictionaries of Russian dialects of the Republic of Mordovia and the Mordovian (Moksha and Erzya) languages. Results and Discussion. The study found that in the Russian and Moksha dialects of the Republic of Mordovia there are stable combinations known from ancient times, which name diseases and their symptoms, various painful conditions of a person. It was revealed that the languages of different types use phraseological units, which include somatisms, zoonyms, phytonyms, names of various objects, which reflects the features of a person’s figurative thinking, associative perception of the surrounding reality. A comprehensive study of phraseological units that characterize the morbid state of a person in the languages of different types on the territory of one region contributes to the comprehension of folk mentality, revealing the specifics of the national linguistic picture of the world of the Russian and Mordovian peoples, and allows us to trace the general and specific features of the linguistic community. Conclusion. The results of the study indicate that phraseological units are actively used in the compared dialects of the Russian and Moksha languages, denoting a person’s morbid condition and representing the characteristic features of the image of the disease in different cultures.

This article analyses dialect lexemes recorded in the Russian dialects of Karelia, which genetically go back to the Finnic lexical fund and represent a fragment of the semantic field “A speaking person”. The purpose of the article is to describe the features of the adaptation of loanwords and the peculiarities of their functioning in Russian dialects at the formal-grammatical level. Such an analysis of a genetically and semantically related group of words borrowed into dialects has never been carried out previously. The author focuses on verbal nominations denoting the speaking process and derivatives from them referring to Russian dialect and etymological dictionaries and dialectological and etymological research as a source base. For comparison, the author uses data from dictionaries of the Karelian, Vepsian, and Finnish languages. The analysis of words reveals a high variability of the material due to the adaptation of genetically different morphemes. As a foreign word entered the system of the receiving language, the root morpheme carried the main load, and to adapt it, the language used a Slavic word-formation element. The correlation of the derived nominations demonstrates that there are certain lacunae in the fixation of materials due to the peculiarities of data collection. In some cases, missing lexemes can be reconstructed according to well-known grammatical and most popular and active word-formation models in the Russian language. Also, the author puts forward a hypothesis about the time of possible occurrence of such words in the system of dialects. Russian studies of the features of formal and grammatical adaptation of the nominations of the speech process prove that loanwords first became a fact of the lexical system of the Russian language in the border territories of interaction between Russians and Veps and Karelians, and then they were introduced into the speech of Russian-speaking residents of Karelia in a wider space. The latter is confirmed by the geography of the existence of the studied lexemes related to the Russian dialects of Karelia and adjacent regions. The author pays special attention to bright indicators of borrowing at the grammatical and morphemic levels — the verbs ending in -андать/-айдать.

In this paper we will consider a construction with a preposition na (on) and an addressee of speech with verbs govorit’ (to speak) and skazat’ (to say) in some Southern Russian and Western Russian dialects. In standard Russian, the semantic role of the addressee of speech is marked with the dative case. We will focus on the examples from Russian dialects that use a different marker of the addressee of speech: the preposition na with the accusative case. The research is based on the data extracted from several dialectal corpora, including the Rogovatka corpus, (Starooskolsky district, Belgorod region) the Malinino corpus (Khlevinsky district, Lipetsk region), and the Opochka corpus (Opochecky district, Pskov region). Thus, we analyzed Western Russian (Opochka corpus) and Southern Russian data (Rogovatka and Malinino corpus). Constructions with the preposition na can have several meanings that can be distinguished into 2 groups: contexts with invectives and contexts that contain an impulse (motivation) to action. In the paper, we will consider these two groups of meanings as three stages of a semantic shift. We can suggest that the metaphorical transition of the construction occurs as follows: 1. A surface of a real physical object; 2. A sound wave on a surface, in which the addressee of speech acts with a component of aggression; 3. Influence and control of this addressee.

The Ukrainian literary critic Yuriy Boyko stated that Vissarion Grigoryevich Belinsky (1811–1848), the famous Russian literary critic harshly criticized Ukrainian writers who wrote in Ukrainian. In fact, he tried to persuade those who wrote not only in Ukrainian but also in Russian to use only the latter. Belinsky often referred to contemporary Ukrainian literature in his writings. His attitude towards Ukrainian literature and Ukrainian language was rather ambiguous. It was the manifestation of the interest in Ukraine and Ukrainian culture that existed in Russia at that time and also the continuation of the polemics about the existence of the Ukrainian language, which was quite vivid in the first half of the 19th century. The critic believed that the Little Russian language did exist but only in folk poetry of value. Since the time of Peter I, according to Belinsky, due to the separation of estates, noblemen began to speak Russian and at the same time, the Little Russian language spoken by people began to deteriorate. His categorical and unfair conclusion is that there is no Little Russian language but there is a regional Little Russian dialect, such as Belarusian, Siberian, and other similar regional dialects.The paper is devoted to Belinsky’s evaluation of the oeuvre of Hryhory Kvitka-Os- novyanenko (1778–1843), the Ukrainian writer and playwright. In his writings from 1839 to 1846, Belinsky analyzed and sometimes only mentioned Kvitka’s prosaic and dramatic works written in Russian or translated from Ukrainian into Russian. On the one hand, Be- linsky characterized Kvitka as a “wonderful talent” and “an excellent master” but, on the other hand, he called him ironically “the first Russian writer”, mentioning his “mediocrity” and “bad taste”. On the one hand, Belinsky spoke about witty, fascinating, and original works but, on the other, he called Kvitka’s writings artificial or late imitations.The reasons for such ambiguous attitude of Belinsky towards the Ukrainian language and literature, and in particular to Kvitka’s works, are the above-mentioned polemics about the Ukrainian language and literature, the juxtaposition of the patriarchal Ukrainian village subjected to the “disastrous” influence of Russia, and the fact that most Ukrainian writers grouped around the retrograde Mayak, an ardent opponent of Otechestvennye zapiski. The whole problem was not sufficiently explored theoretically, thus Belinsky had no opportu- nity to rely on authoritative research. The level of development of the so-called new Ukrai- nian literature also influenced the critic’s opinion.

A direct impetus for this research is the dictionary of metaphorical values of names for dishes in the Russian language (Словарь русской пищевой метафоры), whose editor is E.A. Jurina. This linguistic and cultural dictionary contains an abundance of data on food lexemes, on the basis of which it is possible to reconstruct the place of names for certain dishes in the cultural and lexical system of the Russian language. In addition to the basic meaning, the dictionary also lists all the metaphorical meanings of the chosen lexeme, derivatives and their meanings, and expressions and their meanings. A particularly useful segment of the dictionary entry is the linguo-cultural commentary, in which the authors exhaustively list the cultural significance of food, as well as its properties on which metaphorical meanings are based on. Dictionaries of the Serbian language were also used as source (primarily the Речник српскохрватског књижевног и народног језика Српске академије наука и уметности), as well as electronic corpora of both languages. In the paper, the meanings of the lexeme zrno / зерно (‘grain’) were analyzed and compared in Serbian and Russian, as well as derivatives, phraseology, verbal associations, as well as the most common phrases in which this lexeme appears in both languages. The research is based on the theoretical and methodological foundations of cognitive semantics and linguocultural studies. According to the terminology of Milka Ivić, zrno (‘grain’) belongs to particularizers and shapers. The paper answers the question of whether this meaning is primary or whether the edible fruit (seed) of the grain from which flour is made can still be treated as the primary meaning. The paper presents the criteria for determining the primary meaning of this lexeme. The similarities and differences in the way in which substances are particularized with a zrno ‘grain’ in relation to other particularizers used to indicate a small amount (eg crumbs or pieces) were analyzed. The lexeme zrno (‘grain’) attracts attention because in both languages it appears in expressive phrases as a particularizer (grain of truth, grain of humor), so one of the goals of this paper was to examine which phenomena in small quantities can be conceptualized as grain: are there pragmatic limitations that prevent some abstractions conceptualize in the form of grains, and how the round shape of the grain and its solid state relates to it. Many concrete phenomena of small scale and round shape can be called a zrno ‘grain’. The paper answers the question of whether there are any limitations in this and whether there are differences in the Serbian and Russian languages in this regard. Based on the meaning of the seed, the symbolism of the grain was developed as the essence of a phenomenon of significant value. The germination of grain is metaphorically projected onto the development of an idea. In the conclusion of the paper, the similarities and differences in the way the grain is conceptualized in the Russian and Serbian languages are analyzed, and the semantic and creative potential of this token and the symbolism of the zrno ‘grain’ are presented.

The analysis of word-formation types of verbal vocabulary on the dialect material of little studied in this aspect-Russian dialects of the Amur region is presented. They belong to the resettlement dialects of secondary formation and are characterized by diversity, high variability and peculiarities of functioning in conditions of long-term inter-project contact on a vast territory. The study of verbal vocabulary in the Russian dialects of the Amur region in the word-formation aspect was not carried out systematically. For the first time on this material the group of derived verbs motivated by a noun is considered. The classification of word-formative types and models of dialect verbal derivatives in comparison with literary analogues is proposed, which allows to identify cases of “out-of-type” word-formation determined by the peculiarities of motivating stems and additional components of the meanings of word-formants. It is concluded that word formation in this group of dialects is a peculiar form of manifestation of specific and all-Russian word-formation tendencies. The relevance of the study is due to the fact that the study of this group of dialects in the word-formative aspect is necessary for the construction of the typology of dialects of the Far East, their monographic description, identification of the features of the language in the aspect of its regional existence and reconstruction of the structure of the Russian dialect space as a whole.

This article is a description of a research project rather than a presentation of the research itself. The aim of the research is a description of phonetic and functional properties of Russian intonation with a transcription system in unambiguous symbols that will be adapted for and implemented on the Internet as a free interactive research tool and learning module ToRI: Description and Transcription of Russian Intonation. The intended result is a reliable and reproducible transcription system for spoken corpora of Russian (Moscow and St Petersburg varieties), based on the formal description by Ode (1989) and inspired by ToDI {Transcription of Dutch Intonation Gussenhoven et al. 1999).2 As will be explained below, for theoretical and language specific reasons ToRI will considerably differ from ToDI in its description and transcription. To our knowledge, ToRI will be the first transcription of its kind in which experimentally verified relations between form and contextual function are expressed in unambiguous symbols. ToRI will be designed in such a way that it can be used as a learnable system for linguists and advanced students, as a research tool for fieldwork on Russian dialects, for the study of intonational contact phenomena of Russian dialects with local languages in Russia, and for comparative and language typology studies. ToRI might also be useful for the development of speech synthesis and, possibly, speech recognition.

The article makes an attempt to analyze the structure of the semantic field warm in the Russian dialect language in order to reveal the nature of the cognitive interpretation of the corresponding type of sensations in Russian traditional linguistic culture. As a result of the study of the semantic of Russian dialect lexemes with a “warm” root, it is revealed that the nuclear zone of a given semantic field is formed by linguistic units expressing the sensation of heat, differentiated depending on the degree of intensity. The closest periphery of the investigated field is formed by two semantic blocks, actualizing the natural and anthropogenic factors that ensure the creation and preservation of heat. A group of natural factors is represented by continually interconnected signs of 'weather', 'time' and 'space'. In terms of anthropogenic factors, the concepts of 'fire', 'structure, room', 'clothing' and 'footwear' are marked. The extremely high productivity of nominative models based on the actualization of the motivational attribute warm in the nominations for heating equipment (campfire, stove), buildings and clothing in Russian dialect language testifies to the pragmatic marking in the Russian linguistic consciousness of anthropogenic factors ensuring the creation and preservation of heat. The metaphorical estimated values in the semantic field under study are ambivalent, which is connected with the possibility of various interpretations of the signs of the nuclear concept. The structure of the semantic field warm explores the corresponding cognitive structure (frame), which includes a set of knowledge about the object, obtained as a result of individual and social experience. Key words: cognitive linguistics, semantics, semantic field, dialect vocabulary, nominative model.

The paper proposes a diachronic approach to the interpretation of names. The articles “About Cognate Words of the Russian Language” by Sumɚrokov which was published in the journal “Trudolyubivaya Pchela” [“Hard-working bee”] (February, 1759) is analysed in the investigation. A hypothesis is made that the reasoning of the XVIII–century Russian writer were initiated by the dialogue of Ancient Greek philosopher Plato “Kratil”. Both handiworks are a try to create a cosmogonic world: the world is placed on the correctly created names. The names teach. Who knows names, also knows things. Sumarokov is sure that the existence of cognate words in the Russian Language indicates the antiquity of its origin. He supposes that the Russian Language originated from Scythian. Sumarokov’s article contains the big quantity of author's etymologies. The purpose of Sumarokov’s article is to prove the claim of the Russian nation and the Russian Language on antiquity, greatness and equality with ancient and modern languages. Sumarokov realizes the writer’s great role in the preservation of language and the formation of language taste. From the point of view of terminology of contemporary, it offered a look at the relation of language and thought, the role of thinking in the terms formation. The authors believe that, ultimately, it is possible to find a basis for further formalization of the presentation and translation of knowledge required in the ontological modeling, including, for ɨɧɬɨɥɨɝɢɣ of designing.

The article is devoted to borrowings from the Chukchi language, which are used as terms in ethnographic studies. The question of inclusion of foreign language inclusions in the descriptions of aborigines of the North of the 18 th - 19 th centuries is considered. It is shown that in the first works for the reconstruction of ethnic and cultural features of Chukchi the words known to the Russian language were used ( nachalnik , glava , kupecheskoye sosloviye etc.), which could not convey the specifics of social relations in a foreign ethnic environment, as well as - less - dialect words, prevailing in Russian dialects in the Far North-East ( kuhlyanka ). It is revealed that the reflection of culturally marked concepts with the help of foreign language inclusions in the texts of historical and ethnographic descriptions was developed in the 19 th century. The article pays special attention to the monograph of V. G. Bogoraz “Chukchi,” in which the scientist used the knowledge of the Chukchi language for the introduction of words with national-cultural component, which have no equivalents in the Russian language. It is noted that linguistic competence and serious study of material and spiritual culture of Chukchi allowed V. G. Bogoraz to attract a large number of terms that reflect the specific aspects of the life of this people: the relationship with neighboring tribes, family structure, social differentiation, etc. As examples, foreign-language inclusions from V. G. Bogoraz’s “Chukchi” are given. It is shown that the tradition of using Chukchi terminology in scientific research was continued by ethnographers in the 20 th century (I. S. Vdovin, A. A. Leontyev, etc.), it is preserved in modern encyclopedic publications devoted to the peoples of the North-East of Siberia.

List of maps and illustrations Symbols used 1. The Slavonic languages 2. Russian dialects 3. The origin of the Russian literary language 4. Texts in the history of Russia 5. The structure of Old Russian 6. The Russian literary language in the earliest period 7. The literary language in the 15th-17th centuries 8. Towards a single Russian language 9. The literary language of the Age of Classicism 10. The creation of the national standard language 11. The literary language in the 19th and 20th centuries Further reading Index.

The results of a comparative analysis of the vocabulary of a thematic group of Vepsian-speaking naming concepts of “boy” and “girl” are presented in the article. The authors believe that it is the historical realities of life and the special position of males in the Russian state, primarily associated with the allotment of land, reflected in the formation of vocabulary of the Veps language of this group. The question is raised about the Vepsian special desire to present and embody in language images certain complete, terminological, correspondences to Russian naming, which initiated the appearance of borrowings from the Russian language and Russian dialects. Attention is drawn to the studies of etymologists regarding the lexeme denoting a boy, a young man, which is considered to be Russian borrowing in the Veps and Karelian languages: Veps. priha Kar. Briha <Rus. pretty . In turn, dialectologists argue that the inverse link of the lexeme borrowed in the Vepsian and Karelian languages and the influence of its new phonetic appearance and semantics on Russian Pomeranian dialects of Karelia, which led to the appearance in the latter lexemes of prikhokhotye with the meaning ‘beloved, dear’, is known. This issue indicates the cycle of mutual attraction and mutual influence in the ethno-contact zone. The analysis showed that the terminology for naming a girl and a young woman did not experience the same pressure from the state language, since their figures were not so involved in public life as boys and men. In this group of vocabulary, the original lexical heritage ( adiv, neižne, neičukaine, neidine; devočk ) was preserved to a greater extent. Lexeme adiv ‘girl; guest’, in addition, allowed to some extent touch upon the secrets of the Veps guest mentality.

В русских говорах Пермского края, Кировской и Свердловской областей зафиксирована лексическая группа слов с основой ар-/арг- (арка, агыш, арган и др.), соответствий которым в других регионах не обнаружено. Согласно имеющейся этимологии, они восходят к коми слову ар ‘малек, мальки’, что с учетом структурно-семантической близости коми и русских соответствий, а также территории бытования выглядит достаточно убедительно. Однако версия кажется незавершенной, так как материал коми и русских говоров в полном объеме еще не рассматривался, хотя его анализ допускает возможность и другого источника. Цель исследования − дополнительно верифицировать изложенную гипотезу, заполнив, насколько это возможно, лакуны. Материалы для исследования извлечены из разных лексикографических источников: диалектных, областных, тематических, этимологических и других словарей коми и русского языков, а также научных работ, посвященных ихтионимической лексике, описанию разновидностей рыб, их бытования в регионе и т. д. Использованы методики и приемы сопоставительного, этимологического, ареального и этнолингвистического анализа лексики. В результате исследования 1) подтверждена связь русских и коми ихтионимов, которые появились в обоих языках как формы коми слова ар ‘малек, мальки’→ арик, арка ʻмалявкаʼ; 2) установлено, что эпицентром инновации было Верхнее Прикамье, зона тесных коми-пермяцко-русских контактов; по мере продвижения по территории Пермского края появились новые формы аргыш, аргиш, аргыж в значении ʻгольянʼ, которые были усвоены коми-пермяцкими, отчасти южно-коми-зырянскими говорами; 3) аргументирована версия о втором источнике региональных ихтионимов, в пользу которого свидетельствуют материал тюркских языков (например, тат. аргон, арган/арган балык ʻлососьʼ) и ихтиологические источники конца XIX – начала XX в. A lexical group of words with the stem ar-/arg- (arka, agysh, argan, etc.) was recorded in the Russian dialects of the Perm, Kirov, and Sverdlovsk regions, while no equivalents were found in other regions. According to the available etymology, they go back to the Komi word ar ‘malek, fry’, which seems quite convincing given the structural and semantic similarity of the Komi and Russian equivalents and the area in which they occur. However, the version appears incomplete, as the material of the Komi and Russian dialects has not yet been fully considered, although the analysis allows for other sources. The study aims to test the hypothesis further and close the gaps as much as possible. The material for the study was taken from various lexicographical sources: Dialectal, regional, thematic, etymological, etc. Dictionaries of the Komi and Russian languages, dictionaries and scientific works dealing with ichthyonymic vocabulary, description of fish species, habitat in the region, etc. The methods and techniques of areal linguistics, comparative and comparative historical linguistics were used. The result of the study is: 1) it is confirmed that the Russian ichthyonyms are related to the common Komi word ar ‘malek, fish fry’; it is shown that under the conditions of close contacts between Russians and Komi-Permians the forms arik, arka, arga ‘malyavka’ were formed, which underwent further formal and semantic transformation under the conditions of dominant Russian influence: argysh, argish, argashik, arishka , etc. ‘small river fish’, ‘minnow’; 2) it was found that the epicenter of innovation was the Upper Kama region, the zone of the closest KomiPermian-Russian contacts, from where the contamination forms penetrated both the Komi-Zyryan and the Russian dialects of the more remote areas of the Perm territory and other regions; 3) a new version is proposed about the second possible origin of the Russian ichthyonyms, which is supported by comparable material from the Turkic languages (e.g., tat. argon, argan/ argan balyk ‘salmon’), ichthyological sources from the end of the XIX – beginning of the XX century indirectly testify to this.