Abstract

Young scholars from Moscow, St. Petersburg, Smolensk, Kazan, Minsk (Republic of Belarus), Budapest (Hungary) took part in the “Linguistics” section. A wide range of topical issues of Slavic linguistics were discussed in four thematic sessions. The first was devoted to contact linguistics and language policy issues. The results of field and corpus research were presented. The speakers paid special attention to issues of epigraphy in ethnically mixed regions. Language policy in Upper Silesia after World War II was also discussed. The analysis of the accent system of the Upper Sorbian language and the study of contact phenomena in the Czech language were based on corpus material. The next session brought together reports that developed the problems of ethnolinguistics and toponymy of Slavic areas. The features of the folk culture of the Macedonians, Bulgarians, and Eastern Slavs were highlighted. Chinese folk ideas about the crane were presented against the background of associations that arise in connection with this bird among modern Belarusians. On the second day of the conference, issues of grammar, lexicology and pragmatics were discussed. Borrowings in the Czech and Bulgarian languages were examined, the pragmatics of the headlines of the modern Polish press were analyzed, archaic and innovative phenomena in the system of Slovenian clitics were discussed, strategies were proposed to help the teacher of the Russian language in a Serbian-speaking audience explain the correspondences between Russian and Serbian verbs of speech. The final session was devoted to the language of written and printed documents, as well as the diachronic study of the semantics of some lexemes. The features of the Slavic translation of the life of St. Gregory of Sinai, the graphic and orthographic features of the Apostolus Christinopolitanus of the 12th century were discussed in detail, and a strategy for studying biblical quotations in Church Slavonic grammars of the 16th–17th centuries was proposed. Versions of the origin of the adjective “хороший” (“good”) and the adverb “зря” (“in vain”) were also analyzed. Active discussion of reports within the framework of discussions in the hall and during informal communication between sessions indicates the relevance of the scientific event.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call