The Proto-Slavic Name for the Gingiva: Difficulties of Reconstruction

526 SEER, 8i, 3, 2003 the stressedpluralsuffix-a referredto on p. 345 as a southerndialectalfeature (presumablynon-standard)while threelinesfurtheron thepluralforminzenera is labelled 'substandard'?'Substandard'is not used in WesternEuropean and North American sociolinguistics. There is no referenceto the huge amount of analysisof spontaneousspoken Russianby Zemskaja,Lapteva,Shmelev, Kitajgorodskajaand many others. The treatment of syntax is brief and uneven. For example, discussing examples 'Mne nuzna eta kniga', Cubberley states (p. 2I6) that 'In some impersonal constructions the logical object may appear in the Nominative, though one may argue that the Nominative is as much logical subject as object'. Nuizna is neither transitivenor a verb, the clause is active and knigais nominative. How could it be a logical object (Patient)?'Logical object' is undefined (pp. 215-I6), and the definition of 'logical subject' (p. i85) collapsesAgent with theme/topic. Middle voice (p. I96) is saidto be essentiallya morphologicalissue,but it is equally a valency issue and a discourse issue to do with how middle voice functionsin texts. What does it mean to saythatreflexiveverbsareone way of expressing the Passive (p. I97)? Cubberley neither explains nor defines 'PassiveVoice'. Crisp discussion of the genitive-accusativewith negated verbs requiresthe concept of reference to specific and non-specific entities and the distinction between singular and plural nouns and concrete and abstract nouns. Cubberley'saccount has none of these. Non-Russianists will profit more from relevant books in the LINCOM EUROPA series. Rich data and clear 'non-technical' syntactic analysis are offered in T. Wade's A Comprehensive RussianGrammar (Oxford, 200 I) or D. Offord's UsingRussian. A Guide toContemporagy Usage (Cambridge, I996). For information about on-going changes in Russian studentswill consult Ryazanova -Clarkeand Wade's TheRussian Language Today (London, I999). Three books in Englishhave yet to be written:a historicaland variationist account of standardspoken and written Russian and the many non-standard varieties; an introduction to style and the analysis of Russian discourse; a sociolinguisticaccount of the emergence and elaborationof standardRussian. Where Cubberleyhas gone astrayis in tryingto hit all these targetsand reach two differentaudiences. Theoretical andApplied Linguistics JIMMILLER School ofPhilosophy, Psychology andLanguage Studies University ofEdinburgh Pohontsch,Anja.DerEinfluss obersorbischer Lexik aufdieniedersorbische Schrftsprache. Ein Beitrag zur Entwicklungsgeschichte der niedersorbischen Schriftsprache. Schriftendes SorbischenInstituts/Spisy Serbskehoinstituta, 30. Domowina Verlag, Bautzen, 2002. 368 pp. Tables. Notes. Appendices. Bibliography .?22.90 (paperback). THOUGH the questionwhetherSorbianisone languageor twoisunanswerable, there is no doubt about the existence of the two standardlanguages.Until the REVIEWS 527 I840s they were both used to produce predominantly devotional literature. The national movement among the Upper Sorbs stimulatedthe appearance of varioussecularpublications, including a weekly newspaper,but among the Lower Sorbsit was on the initiativenot of national activistsbut of the Prussian authorities that a weekly newspaper was founded in i848. The Bramborski serbski Casnik, as it was called, circulated in a few hundred copies among the 72,000 Sorbs estimated to have been living in Lower Lusatia at that time. Since then it has changed its name several times and suffered a few interruptions,but it has managed to surviveto the present day (since I949 as NowyCasnik). Longevity alone makes it a uniquely valuable linguistic source and Dr Anja Pohontsch has chosen wisely in taking it as the basis for this excellent study of Upper Sorbian lexical influence on the Lower Sorbian standard language. A vocabulary analysing 858 Upper Sorbian borrowings used in the Lower Sorbian weekly between i 848 and I995 formsthe nucleus of the book. The preliminarychaptersinclude a helpfulsurveyof the historical background and the vocabulary is followed by a chronological account relatinglexical to historicalevents and by an examination of the treatmentof the borrowings of lexicographers. This is a thoughtful contribution to the history of the Lower Sorbian standard language, providing significant new insightsinto the mind of its users. Identifying words borrowed by one Slavonic language from another is particularlydifficultwhen the languages in question are as closely related as Upper and Lower Sorbian. Formalcriteriaalone are often inadequate. One might, for example, regardthe presence in a given word of Proto-Slavonic *g (absence of the Upper Sorbian sound change g> h)as evidence that it is not a borrowing;but it has been observed, not only in the Sorbian situation (e.g. Uriel Weinreich, Languages in Contact. Findings andProblems, 2nd...

In this paper, we focus on plural nouns in two Afroasiatic languages: Moroccan Arabic and Djibouti Somali. Within a syntactic approach to word formation, we show that not all plurals are located in the same syntactic position. In Moroccan Arabic, one plural results from the merger of a root with the head n , whereas the other realizes a feature on the number head. In a similar way, Somali displays two suffixal plurals, which realize two distinct syntactic structures. One suffix is associated to numP and behaves as a regular plural suffix; in contrast, the other suffix is analyzed as a bound root that selects for xPs (nP or numP) containing the feminine gender.

The article is devoted to the analysis of the scientific legacy of the famous Ukrainian linguist Mykola Kuzʹmych Hrunsʹkyi (10.10.1872—13.08.1951), which covers a wide range of linguistic problems. The focus is on the scientist’s studies in the field of the history of Slavic languages and literatures, the study of ancient texts, the history of orthography, and problems of the functioning of the Ukrainian language. Understanding that written records are the main source of studying the history of the formation and development of the language, the scientist paid special attention in his scientific research to the study of ancient works. His studies on texts that belong to the earliest period of the formation of the written language are valuable — the Prague Glagolitic fragments, the Zograf and Ohrid Gospels, the Freising manuscripts, and the Kyiv Glagolitic manuscripts. Mykola Hrunsʹkyi is actively involved in the development of the basic orthographic principles of the Ukrainian language, working as a member of various commissions. He is the author of a number of textbooks and manuals on Old Slavic, Russian and Ukrainian languages, lexicography, pedagogy and language teaching methods. Keywords: language history, orthography, paleography, Slavic languages

Reviews Cubberley, Paul.Russian. A Linguistic Introduction. CambridgeUniversityPress, Cambridge and New York, 2002. xvi + 380 pp. Maps. Tables. Bibliography .Index. [5o.oo; [i8.95. THISoverview of Russian testifiesto Cubberley'simpressiveknowledgeof the language and its social setting and the chapters on phonology, inflectional morphology and word formation contain interesting data and observations. However, the book is disappointing. It lacks focus; in some chapters the presentationis inadequate;much of the content does not match the intended readership;and the space availablefordiscussionof Russianhas been severely reduced by having examples both in Cyrillic and in transliteration,and with glossesas well as idiomatic translations. The contents arethese:eleven pages on Russia,Russianand Russianwithin linguistics; forty-one pages on Russian as a Slavonic and Indo-European language, the development of standard Russian, and the history of its orthography; forty-nine pages on phonology; seventy-four pages on inflectional morphology which includes brief discussions of aspect, tense, voice, case, number and gender;seventy-eightpages on syntax;fifty-sevenpages on derivationalmorphology,with a shortsection on lexical itemsborrowedfrom other languagesand on differentregistersof lexical item and phrase;nineteen pages on dialects;and thirty-one pages on sociolinguisticscovering standard and non-standard usage, variation in pronunciation and morphology, and speech etiquette. The book is for students and teachers of Russian and for non-Russianists with a professional or amateur interest in linguistics or language studies. Cubberley assumesno professionalcompetence in linguisticsbut attemptsto 'elucidatetheoreticallinguisticapproachesto descriptionwith a minimum of specialist terminology' (p. 9). The trouble is that key terms such as 'aspect', 'complement' and 'logical subject' are not introduced and explained, nor archaictermssuch as 'Supine'(p. 42). Concepts such asAgent and otherroles are ignored and, for example, 'formal subject'is used where the more usual term is now 'grammaticalsubject'. Replete with technical termsand distinctivefeaturetheory, the chapter on phonology is impenetrable to readers without an excellent grounding in phonology. Readers recently instructed in phonology will not be helped by the fact that the featuresare fromJakobson and Halle's workin the fiftiesand have been partlysuperseded. The discussionof intonation (pp. 89-92) employsRussianlinguistictheory. This is fine in principle, but intonation cannot be explained in three pages with no diagrams. The discussion of stylisticvariation in Chapter 7 is brief and offersno examples or analysisof differenttext types. According to Chapter 6 rural dialects have their own phonological and grammaticalsystemsbut urban dialects are mere 'prostorecie',an unacceptably low level of language. Why? And what is the relationship between this 'prostorecie'and the hybrid dialect of Moscow mentioned on p. 3I4? Why is 526 SEER, 8i, 3, 2003 the stressedpluralsuffix-a referredto on p. 345 as a southerndialectalfeature (presumablynon-standard)while threelinesfurtheron thepluralforminzenera is labelled 'substandard'?'Substandard'is not used in WesternEuropean and North American sociolinguistics. There is no referenceto the huge amount of analysisof spontaneousspoken Russianby Zemskaja,Lapteva,Shmelev, Kitajgorodskajaand many others. The treatment of syntax is brief and uneven. For example, discussing examples 'Mne nuzna eta kniga', Cubberley states (p. 2I6) that 'In some impersonal constructions the logical object may appear in the Nominative, though one may argue that the Nominative is as much logical subject as object'. Nuizna is neither transitivenor a verb, the clause is active and knigais nominative. How could it be a logical object (Patient)?'Logical object' is undefined (pp. 215-I6), and the definition of 'logical subject' (p. i85) collapsesAgent with theme/topic. Middle voice (p. I96) is saidto be essentiallya morphologicalissue,but it is equally a valency issue and a discourse issue to do with how middle voice functionsin texts. What does it mean to saythatreflexiveverbsareone way of expressing the Passive (p. I97)? Cubberley neither explains nor defines 'PassiveVoice'. Crisp discussion of the genitive-accusativewith negated verbs requiresthe concept of reference to specific and non-specific entities and the distinction between singular and plural nouns and concrete and abstract nouns. Cubberley'saccount has none of these. Non-Russianists will profit more from relevant books in the LINCOM EUROPA series. Rich data and clear 'non-technical' syntactic analysis are offered in T. Wade's A Comprehensive RussianGrammar (Oxford, 200 I) or D. Offord's UsingRussian. A Guide toContemporagy Usage (Cambridge, I996). For information about on-going changes in Russian studentswill consult Ryazanova -Clarkeand Wade's TheRussian Language Today (London, I999). Three books in Englishhave...

Purpose. The article attempts to discover how and under the influence of what factors Mykhailo Maksymovych perceived and described the Church Slavonic language and how the scholar’s vision of this issue influenced other assessments and characteristics in his works. Methods. The study is based on the dichotomy of the sacred and the profane described in the phenomenology of religion. Based on published works by Mykhailo Maksymovych, his memoir, letters and unpublished notes, saved in the Institution of Manuscript of Vernadsky National Library of Ukraine (Kyiv), I attempt to find out whether the sacralisation of the Church Slavonic language took place in the mind of Mykhailo Maksymovych, and if so, how this sacralisation influenced his assessment of the place and role of this language in national life. Scientific novelty. The author reveals how Mykhailo Maksymovych’s religious views and worship experiences influenced his perception of the Church Slavonic language in his scientific works. The connection between Mykhailo Maksymovych's opinions on the Church Slavonic language and his assessments of the importance of other Slavic languages is revealed. Conclusions. Mykhailo Maksymovych sacralised the Church Slavonic language under the influence of his religious beliefs and prayer practices. This process resulted from rather archaic principles of thinking described in terms of the phenomenology of religion. Influenced by the sacralisation of the Church Slavonic language, Mychailo Maksymovych characterised its influence as positive without any philological arguments. Postulating the thesis about the particular impact of the Church Slavonic language on the formation of the Russian literary language, Mykhailo Maksymovych stressed its superiority to the other Slavic languages.

Belarusian linguistic terminology: some problems of functioning and fixationThe article considers functioning and fixation of the Belarusian linguistic terminology. Scientific papers, textbooks for schools and universities, terminological and general­purpose dictionaries are under consideration.Brief excursus on the history of the Belarusian linguistics showed the diversity and randomness of the terms creation processes. Contradictions in the views of linguists on the development of the Belarusian linguistics and terminology were revealed: on the one hand, the orientation on Russian terminological system, on the other hand there is an intention to turn terminology to the national direction. Simultaneously internationalization of terminology, the process typical for other Slavic languages, occurs.This article demonstrates inconsistencies in the use of Belarusian terms indefinite pronoun and definite/indefinite article (and some other terms) in scientific, educational literature and in various dictionaries.The article argues that Russian terminological system prevails in education and subsequently affects the discourse of Belarusian linguistics.The author believes that another problem of Belarusian terminology is a relatively small amount of a Belarusian linguistics discourse and limited subjects of studies, which does not allow to settle the terms.In these difficult circumstances, an appeal to the experience of other Slavic languages with a more developed system of terminology and with an extensive linguistic discourse can help.

The article elaborates on ways of English loanwords integration into Ukrainian, with comparison to the situation in German and Serbian. The subject matter of research includes processes of adaptation in phonetics and grammar of the above-mentioned languages. The main intralinguistic factor that influences adaptation process is disparity of phonetic and grammar level configuration of languages in contacts. English has an affluent system of vowels that causes necessity of simplification of a phonetic form of English borrowings in other languages. The major factor of phonetic adaptation is an existing tradition of conveying sounds in loanwords in a certain way. However, nowadays transcription also plays a significant role in phonetic adaptation, i.e. integration of loanwords is based on their pronunciation rather than spelling. Uncertainty of patterns for conveying sounds of foreign languages in loanwords leads to variability of phonetic form of English loanwords at the initial stage of their functioning in the recipient language. Grammar adaptation involves adjusting of loanwords to the recipient language. Its course depends on morphological type of language and affinity. The research has revealed main patterns how English loanwords obtain the category of gender, which is absent in English. These patterns are based on both formal and semantic factors. Moreover, the author considers the ways of pluralia tantum nouns integration into the system of the recipient language. The analysis has shown that there is a typological difference between borrowing process on the one hand in Slavic languages and on the other hand in German, i.e. Slavic languages, unlike German, have obligatory derivational stage for verbs and adjective adaptation, which makes process of borrowing more complicated in Slavic languages.

This paper deals with the origin and development of the gender resolution rule according to which the predicate adjective agrees with the masculine antecedent when there is agreement with a conjunction of subjects at least one of which denotes a male person. Apart from Croatian, such a rule exists (or existed) in the other Slavic languages, as well as in Baltic languages, so it can safely be posited for Proto-Slavic and Proto-Balto-Slavic. We further show that most contemporary and ancient Indo-European languages had such a gender resolution rule. Where such a rule does not exist (as in Germanic languages), there is a plausible historical explanation. In Hittite, which preserves the most ancient gender system of Indo-European (with only common and neuter genders, and no feminine gender), the default agreement is with the common gender noun. Recent advances in our understanding of the development of gender in Indo-European allow us to show that the rule taking the masculine as the default gender has developed from the rule taking the common gender as default. This is because the morphemes showing gender agreement on adjectives and pronouns of the masculine gender have developed from Early Proto-Indo-European morphemes expressing the common gender.

Thorndike and Rock's criterion of learning without symbolic mediation, however, was subsequently discredited by Irwin} Kaufman, Prior, and Weaver.3 The issue was recently re-opened by a study by Greenspoon.4 His Ss were asked to say single words as they came to mind in a free-association setting. Greenspoon had nine different groups in all, three of which are particularly relevant here.6 In one group he reinforced all plural nouns by saying mmm-hmm after each such word; in another group he reinforced in the same way all words except plural nouns; a control group was given the same task but no reinforcement was used. Compared with the control group, the frequency of the reinforced response increased in both of the former groups even though subsequent questioning of the Ss failed to reveal awareness of the relation between their responses and the reinforcement. While Greenspoon did not relate his results to the hypothesis of direct action of rewards, others have

Translation and Transmission

Research Article| October 01, 2011 WHAT SHOULD WE CALL THE FORAMINIFERA? Jere H. Lipps; Jere H. Lipps 4 1Department of Integrative Biology, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720-3140 USA2Museum of Paleontology, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720-3140 USA 4Correspondence author. E-mail: jlipps@berkeley.edu Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar Kenneth L. Finger; Kenneth L. Finger 2Museum of Paleontology, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720-3140 USA Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar Sally E. Walker Sally E. Walker 3Department of Geology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602-2501 USA Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar Author and Article Information Jere H. Lipps 4 1Department of Integrative Biology, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720-3140 USA2Museum of Paleontology, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720-3140 USA Kenneth L. Finger 2Museum of Paleontology, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720-3140 USA Sally E. Walker 3Department of Geology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602-2501 USA 4Correspondence author. E-mail: jlipps@berkeley.edu Publisher: Cushman Foundation for Foraminiferal Research Received: 01 Jun 2011 Accepted: 31 Jul 2011 First Online: 13 Jul 2017 Online ISSN: 1943-264X Print ISSN: 0096-1191 © 2011 Cushman Foundation for Foraminiferal Research Journal of Foraminiferal Research (2011) 41 (4): 309–313. https://doi.org/10.2113/gsjfr.41.4.309 Article history Received: 01 Jun 2011 Accepted: 31 Jul 2011 First Online: 13 Jul 2017 Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Search Site Citation Jere H. Lipps, Kenneth L. Finger, Sally E. Walker; WHAT SHOULD WE CALL THE FORAMINIFERA?. Journal of Foraminiferal Research 2011;; 41 (4): 309–313. doi: https://doi.org/10.2113/gsjfr.41.4.309 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Refmanager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentBy SocietyJournal of Foraminiferal Research Search Advanced Search Abstract Shelled granuloreticulose microorganisms have had a complex etymological history that began in 1826 when d’Orbigny gave his new order the name Foraminifères and characterized the group. Soon afterwards, further examination and proper Latinization established them as class Foraminifera. D’Orbigny should be credited with the suprafamilial group name, regardless of rank, because he provided defining characteristics, and also because higher taxa are not governed by ICZN rules; in addition, we should consider the history of its attribution and what is traditional and customary in zoological nomenclature. The name Foraminifera is the source of a variety of informal terms, including foraminifera, foraminifer, foraminiferan, and for-am. Long after being demoted to order, the Latinized name was modified to Foraminiferida in 1964 by Loeblich and Tappan, the informal foraminiferid was introduced later. Here, we briefly examine these terms as sets of singular and plural nouns, and their derived adjectives and nouns that begin with foram-. Authors can choose any of the derived terms, but they should be consistent by using only one term-set throughout their paper. Other nouns derived from foraminifer-, such as foraminiferologist for a student of the group, are not usually part of a term-set.The informal term foram is a valid derivation and it is the most common of the names used in conversation among earth scientists and biologists. It is already accepted in major dictionaries and literature, and it has been used in specific word pairs found in scientific publications. In addition, foram eases communication by its multilingual applicability; it is also the easiest of the terms to pronounce, write, and read. For all these reasons, its use may increase in scientific literature. You do not have access to this content, please speak to your institutional administrator if you feel you should have access.

Geographical native lexicon is one of the fragments of linguistic worldview, which reflects both common and specific ideas in the folk’s perception of the environment. Features of the nationally biased units each person perceives and classifies individually, nevertheless there is a lot of common in their worldview. Thematic justification connected with geographical names led to the rich terminology in Slavic languages. For this reason, linguists are interested in above mention lexical units. Geographically native lexicon of the Ukrainian East-Slobozhansk dialects in Lugansk region has never been examined before. The work presents geographical native lexicon as target of linguistic research, underlines the theoretical significance of this lexicon considering its functions. There were studied the researches of other linguists in the field of name analysis in Slavic languages. Introductory paragraph includes the definition of purposes and tasks of scientific paper, methodological and methodical principals of the research. Moreover, it describes academic novelty, theoretical and practical significance of the research and provides the classification of resources that were used in the process of study. The target and tasks defined the main methods of the research: descriptive and lingvo-geographical. Lingvo-geographical method included areal analysis and mapping based on identified dialect differences. The work contains the feature-by-feature comparison of linguistic units. There was determined the structure of thematic lexical groups that presents the geographical terms for relief denomination, geographical objects of relief, plants, water resources, landscape and its parts. The groups comprise the lexcio-semantic units that are not totally compatible in the quantity in case of demonstration the idiographic distinctiveness of the researched thematic group. In the result of semantic, etymologic and word-building analysis there were taken common dialects and specific geographical terms with their own meanings which have peculiar functions in Lugansk region dialect in comparison with Slavic languages, standard Ukrainian language and its dialects. Specific notions were mapped out to feature territorial peculiarities of thematic lexical groups in the Ukrainian East Slobozhansk dialects in Lugansk region. Collected dialect material allows study the zone of verbal contact, features of lexical units’ semantic development in this thematic group. It contributes to the enrichment of theoretical decryptions of semantic in dialect word and specific names in general linguistics.

I shall begin with some anecdotal evidence. First episode: last year, in Venice, I took shelter from a violent downpour in a crowded vaporetto station at the Madonna della Salute. Near me there were two people talking excitedly to each other and pointing to the buildings on the Grand Canal. I found myself listening and trying to understand what they were saying: not a single word was intelligible. I started to wonder what language they were speaking. It was clearly not any of the Romance, Germanic or Slavic languages I know. It actually did not sound like Indo-European to me, nor like any of the non-Indo-European languages in which I have dabbled. So I decided to ask them: as we are in Italy, I thought, I’ll address them in Italian, and then I’ll switch to other, more international languages, and I am sure we’ll find a way of communicating. But there was no need to do that: they looked surprised and answered in ordinary, native Italian that they were talking to each other in their dialect — the dialect of Roseto, a town in the province of Teramo, in the Southern Abruzzi.KeywordsNational LanguageSlavic LanguageLocal DialectInternational LanguageLocal NewsThese keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

This paper examines the morphological markers revealing the grammatical and semantic markedness of the masculine gender in modern Slavic languages and discusses how these morphological markers have been developed narrowing down to the markers for the human male gender. All modern Slavic languages with six or seven-case declension systems have a masculine singular genitive-accusative syncretism found when the referent is animate. Almost all Slavic masculine genitive plural nouns, except BCSM, are also morphologically marked, and their one-syllable endings are apparently distinguished from the zero endings of their feminine and neuter equivalents. Unlike the East and South Slavic languages, the West Slavic languages have specific means in plural to differentiate masculine animate or masculine human referents from others. The Czech masculine animate accusative and nominative nominal plural endings and verbal past plural endings contain specific morphological markers, and the Polish and Slovak counterparts indicating a human referent are also marked with specific morphemes. West Slavic and Ukrainian also can morphologically mark masculine nouns in the dative singular. Polish and Ukrainian masculine dative singular nouns have an ending different from that of the neuter gender, and Czech and Slovak masculine animate dative singular noun endings are morphologically distinguished from those of the neuter and the masculine inanimate gender. Additionally, Slovak masculine nouns have distinct dative, instrumental, and locative plural endings. Thus the grammatical feature of the masculine gender [+Masculine] is reflected in some distinct morphological markers in Modern Slavic languages. Especially in West Slavic, it gave rise to the morphological markers for the semantic category of male humans, i.e., the virility with the additional semantic features [+Animate] and [+Human]. These Slavic morphological markers for [+Masculine], [+Animate], or [+Human] are closely related to the recognition that the animate objects and human males stand out as the cognitively more significant and marked Figure.

Men and women use language differently. Gender differences in language use in the course of the historical development of human society have been reflected in the language structure. This problem enjoys the support of the feminist movement and is being actively researched in the USA, Japan and Europe. Modern Slavic languages have been researched in this aspect too. Gender asymmetry in language and communication has been traced in Slavic and non-Slavic languages. This article deals with femininity and masculinity as socio-cultural categories inseparable from language and communication. Special attention is paid to gender asymmetry and disproportionate representation оf gender-marked speakers in language, gender stereotyping and prospects of is overcoming. Gender asymmetry and stereotyping is reflected in a set of proverbs describing women in reference to dichotomy „femininity–masculinity“, elaborated in cognitive basis, which reflects characteristic features of men and women communication. A certain role is played by the generalizing function of masculinatives. Suggestions developed by gender linguistics in reference to supporting the equal status of feminine and masculine gender in language are not always reflected in speech strategies at present. It is of importance to attract attention of speakers of both genders to this issue as it can provide the possibility of in-depth understanding of speech behavior of people representing different worldviews – masculine and feminine.