Jovan Ajdukovich (Belgrade)
ABOUT THE
FIRST VOLUME OF A CONTACTOLOGICAL DICTIONARY OF SLAVIC LANGUAGES
This paper
is a very extended version of my talk at the
International Conference of Bulgarian Studies “The Bulgarian Language and
Literature in Slavic and Non-Slavic Contexts”, Szeged, Hungary, 28th and 29th
May 2009.
Published In: Acta Linguistica 2009/3, Eurasia Academic Publishers, Sofia, pp.
90-100.
The latest
version of the text: Balkan_Rusistics, University of Sofia, 2009.
In this paper, we will try to
answer two questions that arose while I was working on the Bulgarian Contactological Dictionary of Adaptation of Contact-Lexemes
under Russian Influence. The first refers to the problem of selecting
materials for the dictionary. The other is purely of a conceptual and
terminological nature and is related to the first: why do we use the
terminological phrase “contact-lexeme under dominant Russian influence” instead
of the traditional term “Russianism”? And why do we
use the term “contact-lexeme” instead of “loanword”? The content and structure
of the dictionary will be presented in the third part of the paper.
I
Bulgarian Slavists
have always been interested in the problem of identifying Russianisms.
The 20th century was the golden age of Bulgarian Slavistics
and it was the period of the most extensive research on language contacts
between Bulgarian and Russian. Several important works were published during
this period, the most notable being the three-volume dictionary by P. Filkova [1], R. Pavlova’s
monograph [2], and the works of B. Tsonev [3], L. Andreychin [4], and K. Babov [5].
Although there are many papers on Russianisms in
Bulgarian, specialized dictionaries where they would be treated separately have
not been published in the 20th century. We think that the reason for this is
the dominant influence of 19th and 20th century etymology and historical
linguistics on studying Russianisms, since the modern
theory of languages in contact was established in the mid-20th century.
However, R. Pavlova emphasizes the importance of
making a complete inventory of loanwords that came through Russian and
says that “making this inventory is the task of future researchers” [6].
One of the key issues is certainly
a lack of clear criteria for distinguishing between loanwords from Church
Slavic and Russian, or between indigenous Bulgarian words and those that came
through or from Russian. Attempts were made to establish fixed and systematic
criteria, for example, that Russianisms are all
lexemes with the suffix -тел,
or those pointing to the kind of borrowing, that is, whether it is
direct or through Russian. According to K. Babov, Russianisms are words that have a г instead of
the Latin h (герой),
a ф instead of the Greek υ (ефир),
groups like -ля-, -лю-
(абсолютен,
юбиляр), some
words with ав-, ев- (август),
the group -ей- instead of -ий- in adjectives (библейски),
those with the same stress (граматика),
words containing the suffix -ически
(академически),
and international words that can be found in early translations from
Russian conducted during the National Revival [7]. When discussing
distinguishing between Russian and Church Slavic influences on modern standard
Bulgarian, L. Andreychin and R. Pavlova
insist that these two languages must be differentiated from one another.
According to proponents of this theory, Russian influence begins in the 1840s
due to the strong impact of Russian literature and scientific works. On the
other hand, B. Tsonev thinks that Church Slavic
influence is in fact Russian influence [8]. According to R. Pavlova,
contrasting literary words from the damaskins and
Church Slavic words could help in distinguishing between Russianisms
and Church Slavic words in Bulgarian works written between the 17th and 19th
centuries [9]. Bulgarian researchers mostly agree that the majority of the
lexis that came into Bulgarian from or through Russian is composed of abstract
lexemes, calques, and internationalisms. In our opinion, we should take into
account the extralinguistic situation in which the influence
of the dominant language in contact is exerted so as to determine the contactological value of a contact-lexeme. On the other
hand, the need to determine contactological value
once and for all does not have a foothold in modern contactology,
but in etymology. Namely, the contactological value
of lexemes in parallel texts can differ, and it depends on the dominant
language in contact and other extralinguistic
factors, while the etymological value of a lexeme is determined in the process
of historical reconstruction.
Bulgarian researchers of language
contacts between Russian and Bulgarian also disagree about lexical Russianisms in modern Bulgarian. In the early 20th century,
B. Tsonev said there were 2,000 Russianisms
[10], whereas I. Lekov thought that this number was
“arbitrary and exaggerated” [11]. R. Pavlova wanted
more precise statistic data and identified 1,070 Russianisms
in the Bulgarian Descriptive Dictionary [12], 838 in the Dictionary
of Contemporary Bulgarian [13], and 271 Russianisms
in the Dictionary of Foreign Words [14]. In her opinion, it is necessary
to define criteria for differentiation between loanwords from Church Slavic or
Russian and the lexis used in the Bulgarian documentary tradition in order to
establish the exact number of Russianisms in
Bulgarian [15]. In other words, it is necessary to make a complex and
comprehensive research of the lexis of Bulgarian documents from the 17th and
18th centuries.
Therefore, the problem of
identifying contact-lexemes under dominant Russian influence was solved in the
first volume of the Contactological
Dictionary of Slavic Languages by incorporating the lexis marked with
appropriate lexicographical qualifiers in lexicographical sources and the words
that are cited as Russianisms in relevant scientific
sources. The author of the dictionary determined the contactological
value of a certain number of lexemes. The dictionary contains more than 8,120
contact-lexemes under dominant Russian influence and there is the same number
of Russian models, which makes a total of 16,240 lexemes. Just for comparison,
the Contactological Dictionary of
Adaptation of Russianisms in Eight Slavic Languages
contains 3,802 Bulgarian Russianisms, whereas the
corpus of all Russianisms in the analyzed languages
and of the corresponding Russian models contains 15,424 lexemes. Therefore, the
first volume, which is to be published in 2010, exceeds by far the number of
contact-lexemes given in the advance copy.
II
The uniqueness of this dictionary
can be seen in the fact that its concept is based upon the works of R. Filipović, the founder of the Zagreb school of contactology [16], on our innovations in and
reinterpretations of Filipović’s theory [17], and on
the results produced by leading researchers of inter-Slavic language contacts
[18]. In the 1990s, we made significant reinterpretations of and innovations in
R. Filipović’s theory of language in contact and
pointed to the necessity of using a cognitive approach in studying Russianisms. The main characteristics of the
Belgrade-Zagreb school of contactology are synchronic
description of the process of adaptation of the model into a replica and
denying the possibility of structural changes in the receiving language. For
example, in Filipović’s opinion, phonemic importation
does not lead to structural changes in the receiving language, but is instead a
consequence of the activation of latent elements and of filling empty places in
the system [19]. This approach to language contacts facilitates monitoring of
the expansion and restrictions on linguistic influence. Nowadays, contactologists have started to pay more attention to the extralinguistic aspects of language contact.
The Contactological
Dictionary gives a description of the adaptation strategies of contactological units in terms of the theory we developed
in two monographs and a number of papers. In the 1997 monograph [20], we
introduced transderivation as the basic
principle of formational adaptation of the model into a replica. Within
morphological adaptation we defined transmorphemization
as adaptation of the basic morphological form of the replica, whereas transmorphologization was defined as adaptation of
morphological categories. In transsemantization,
we introduced ten new semantic changes within partial semantic adaptation. At
the level of lexis and stylistics, we developed three types of
lexical-stylistic adaptation. We took into account these innovations while
compiling the dictionary of adaptations of Russianisms
in Serbo-Croat [21]. We analyzed a total of 1,089 Russianisms at the levels of phonology, derivation,
morphology, semantics, lexis, and stylistics. In the 2004 monograph [22], we
introduced the concept of tertiary adaptation (that
is, primary-tertiary and secondary-tertiary adaptation), which refers to
the influence of the intermediary language in primary and secondary
adaptations. In transsemantization, we identified 28
semantic changes, whereas the level of verbal contact-syntaxeme
government adaptation has three types of transsyntactization.
In this book, we define adaptation as the process of activating latent elements
or filling empty places in the system of the receiving language according to
certain rules. In that respect, a Russianism
is a word containing at least one independent contacteme
made by mapping the Russian model and/or internal activization
of the receiving language under the dominant influence of Russian. At different
linguistic levels, a contacteme can be manifested as
a contact-phoneme, contact-morpheme, contact-prosodeme,
contact-derivateme, distributive contacteme,
contact-grapheme, contact-grammeme, contact-styleme, contact-syntaxeme,
contact-seme, contact-lexeme, contact-phraseme or contact-concepteme.
In our latest works, we completely abandoned the terms borrowing and loanword,
because they belong to a theory of transfer that interprets language contact as
the transfer of elements from the donor language into the borrowing language.
A contacteme, or
the general unit of contactology is a quantum of
structured knowledge about the dominant language influence. A contacteme is each linguistic element formed in a
particular dominant contact situation through the activation or mapping of
latent elements and empty places. Contactological cognitive
sense, some knowledge and information underlie each contactologically
marked element. A researcher in this field is supposed to notice the
correlation between a certain contact situation and the linguistic unit
realized within it, to note the changes in contactological
value and to manage them. As a result of this correlation, various kinds of
relational and contextually marked classes appear at different levels. That
element can be a linguistic unit or class at any level. At the level of
phonetics, we can discern segmental and suprasegmental
contactemes (sounds, syllables, words, utterances,
stress in all its aspects, and intonation), whereas at other levels, contactemes are phonemes, graphemes, morphemes, words, grammemes, sememes, etc. For
example, a phoneme in a certain position or sequence within a word represents a
class [23]. Once determined, a contactological value
can change under the influence of another dominant language, that
is it can change in the course of time. A contacteme
can remember something from its past, and memory of that past can have an
impact on its usage [24]. Marking of contactological
units can depend on the typology of linguistic structures, psychological,
communicative, pragmatic, and sociolinguistic factors. Contactemes
can be found in the individual’s language awareness. Identifying them and
determining their contactological value can be
achieved through an associative experiment. Concerning psychological factors,
the most important are strategies, opinions, affective states, attitudes, age, sex, abilities, motivation, and personality features.
In terms of sociolinguistics, one language dominates through common language
acceptance, ideology and practical usage. In the contactological
dictionary, Russian is represented as the linguistically and extralinguistically dominant language, while the political
impact of the subordinate language and the impact of the language with equal
political power are of secondary importance.
III
The advance copy of the contactological dictionary was published in 2004 [25] and
has been very well accepted among Slavists in Serbia
and abroad [26]. Unlike the “dictionary of identification” where we primarily
determine the contactological value of
contact-lexemes with an obligatory citation of the source and examples that
proves a particular dominant influence, this dictionary is an “adaptation
dictionary” because it describes the way that contactological
units are adapted in the receiving language. A contact-lexeme can be a whole
word as well as a word that is related to Russian just in traces. It does not
have to have Russian origins, but it can instead originate from contact with
dominant Russian where it is an integral part of the vocabulary. It can belong
to just one part of speech, one variant of the basic form, or a homonym, if the
model is a homonym. Apart from that, a contact-lexeme can be a non-derivated word or a word derived from it.
A dictionary article of the Bulgarian
Contactological Dictionary of Adaptation of
Contact-Lexemes under Russian Influence contains five sections. Sections 1,
3, 4 and partially 5 deal with the contact-lexeme, whereas parts 2 and partly
part 5 deal with the Russian model.
SECTION 1. The first section of
the dictionary article provides a description of contactological
adaptation of a contact-lexeme. Entry words are printed in bold capitals and
arranged alphabetically. Homonyms are followed by number tags (§ 1). If we
determine that a certain contact-lexeme is a homonym (§ 2), then we put the
number tag into angle brackets (< >). The form variant of the Russianism (§ 3,4) is given as a
separate entry.
(§ 1) БАРДАК2
(§ 2)
РЕВОЛЮЦИОНЕН<1>
(§ 3) РЕЗЕРВ
(§ 4) РЕЗЕРВА
The entry word is followed by the
symbol for transgraphematization. The
orthography of a contact-lexeme can be formed according to (a) the
pronunciation of the Russian model (кавьор,
матрьошка),
(b) the orthography of the Russian model (graphemes of the contact-lexeme and
of the model coincide; дозор,
матушка),
(v) the orthography of the Russian model (graphemes of the contact-lexeme and
of the model do not coincide; наклонност,
артел), (c) the
pronunciation and orthography of the Russian model (бельо,
чертожник),
(g) the pronunciation of the Russian model and formational/morphological
features of the receiving language (гримьорен,
закльопвам),
and (e) the orthography of the Russian model and formational/morphological
features of the receiving language (нагъл,
закривам
се). The influence of the
intermediary language (пощальон,
тилда) is marked by
(d).
The type of transphonemization
of a contact-lexeme is determined according to the highest index of individual
adaptations. Zero-transphonemization (F0) was not
attested. The first subtype of first partial transphonemization
(F1/1) involves the adaptation of the Russian stressed vowels <а>,
<о>, <е(э)>, <i>,
and <u>, of the unstressed <о> and open <е> in
foreign words, adaptation of Russian hard geminate consonants whose Bulgarian
counterparts are short consonants and adaptation of Russian hard dentals and
the palatal <r> (аванпорт,
апарат, абат). The second subtype of
the first partial transphonemization (F1/2) involves
adaptation of a number of Russian soft consonants (взгляд,
герб, гимн).
The third subtype of the first partial transphonemization
(F1/3) involves quantitative adaptation of <i>
and <u> in the first or second degrees of reduction and adaptation of the
Russian soft dental consonants [t‘] and [d‘] (дублет,
дурак, етюдник). The
fourth subtype of the first partial transphonemization
(F1/4) involves substitution of the Russian vowel <y> with the Bulgarian
vowel <i> (кадри,
канти, кумис). The first subtype
of the second partial transphonemization (F2/1)
involves adaptation of the Russian consonants <ž>, <š>, <dž>, and <l> (фарш,
курзал, морж, джигит).
The second subtype of the second partial transphonemization
(F2/2) involves substitution of the Russian <a>
in the first-degree reduction with the Bulgarian vowel <а> (нарвал, набат, фарфор).
The third subtype of the second partial transphonemization
(F2/3) involves substitution of the Russian second-degree reduction vowel
<ъ> with the Bulgarian vowel <a> (трактовка,
денудация,
абсорбция).
The fourth subtype of the second partial transphonemization
(F2/4) involves adaptation of fifteen Russian palatalized consonants by
Bulgarian hard consonants, substitution of the palatal <č> with the
Bulgarian consonant <č>, and transphonemization
of Russian long soft consonants by Bulgarian hard consonants (рицар, авантюрист,
апаратчик,
сесия). The first
subtype of free transphonemization (F3/1) involves
adaptation of the Russian unstressed <е> in first or second-degree
reduction by the Bulgarian <е> (почерк,
аперцепция,
апатичен,
аркебуз).
The second subtype of free transphonemization (F3/2)
involves substitution of the Russian <ъ> and <а>
with the Bulgarian <о> (моделистка,
пеленгатор,
архитектор).
The third subtype of free transphonemization (F3/3)
involves adaptation of Russian <š':> into Bulgarian <š> and
substitution of Russian hard consonants with Bulgarian palatalized consonants (борш, вагрянка).
The fourth subtype of free transphonemization (F3/4)
involves substitution of Russian vowels and consonants with Bulgarian sounds of
different quality and articulation and substitution of Russian soft consonants
with a Bulgarian consonant cluster (свистя,
старателен,
интервюирам).
Transderivation is a general word
formation principle according to which a contact-lexeme is adapted. A
contact-lexeme (босяк,
инвентаризация)
that shares the same derivational stem and derivational morpheme as the Russian
model is adapted through zero-transderivation (D0). A
contact-lexeme (инкасатор,
интелектуален)
that has an identical derivational morpheme to that of the model and a
different derivational stem is adapted through first partial transderivation (D1/1). A contact-lexeme (конвенционализъм,
марширувам)
that shares the derivational stem with the model and a different derivational
morpheme is adapted through second partial transderivation
(D1/2). A contact-lexeme (назубрям,
оборудване)
that has a different derivational stem and different derivational morpheme is
adapted through free transderivation (D2).
Contact-lexemes that are not derived are marked with the Roman numeral I (джунгла,
диафрагма).
Our Dictionary records the
part of speech that a contact-lexeme belongs to, its grammar categories of
gender, number, reflexiveness, and
transitivity/intransitivity. Contact-lexemes undergo all three types of transmorphemization of the basic morphological form.
A contact-lexeme (бегемот,
есер, негодяй)
that consists of a free morpheme adapted according to pronunciation, to
orthography, or both together and a zero bound morpheme of the
model, that is, a bound morpheme of the model adapted according
orthography, undergoes zero-transmorphemization (M0).
A contact-lexeme (неподходящ,
третейски,
угоднича)
that consists of a free morpheme adapted according to pronunciation,
orthography, or both together and a bound morpheme of the receiving language,
undergoes partial transmorphemization (M1). A
contact-lexeme (фехтовка,
указвам, министър)
that consists of a changed free morpheme of the model and a bound morpheme of
the giving or receiving language undergoes free transmorphemization
(М2).
The label of transmorphologization
of the gender and number of the noun and of the verbal aspect is only used in
case of partial or free adaptation. A contact-lexeme (мишена,
отверженик,
миноноска)
that has identical gender to the model and different sound-endings undergoes
partial transmorphologization of the noun-gender
(TMR1). A contact-lexeme (цел,
отмел, мизансцен)
with different gender from the model undergoes free transmorphologization
(TMR2). The basic form of a contact-lexeme (включения,
перило, подзоли) that
takes only one number from the model, most often nominative singular, undergoes
partial transmorphologization of the number (TMB1).
Free transmorphologization of the number (TMB2) was
not attested. A contact-lexeme (програмирам,
прошнуровам,
маскирам)
whose aspect is formally the same as that of the model, but has different
semantics, undergoes partial transmorphologization of
the verbal aspect (TMGv1). Adaptation of biaspectual
verbs typical of one of the languages falls into this group. A contact-lexeme (нагрубявам,
отшумявам,
приютявам,
сглупявам)
whose aspect is different from that of the model undergoes free transmorphologization of the verbal aspect (TMGv2).
Transsemantization can be zero, partial,
or free. There are 26 semantic changes within partial transsemantization
(five one-member changes, ten two-member changes, nine three-member changes,
one four-member change, and one five-member change). The type of semantic
adaptation is determined for each source individually. A contact-lexeme whose
meaning is identical to the meaning of the model undergoes zero-transsemantization (S0). A contact-lexeme with restriction
of meaning in number (S1Nm) or in a semantic field (S1Fm; S1Fr) and expansion
of meaning in number (S2Nr), or expansion of meaning in a semantic field
(S2Fr), undergoes partial transsemantization. When
the semantics of a contact-lexeme are different from the semantics of the
model, it is a case of free transsemantization (S#).
(1)
Zero-transsemantization (S0): абатство,
абстрактен,
август, правосъдие
(2)
Restriction of meaning in number of the model (S1Nm): показателен,
преработка,
призрак, присъствие,
свойство
(3)
Restriction in a semantic field of the model (S1Fm): роптание,
самоуправление,
средство,
статистически
(4)
Restriction in a semantic field of the replica (S1Fr): свидетел,
аероклуб
(5)
Expansion of meaning in number of the replica (S2Nr): титул,
председателство,
самоуверен,
слушател,
сходен
(6)
Expansion of meaning in a semantic field of the replica (S2Fr): акцесионен,
девастация,
екотип, ерозия, княгиня, комендантски,
литера
(7)
Two-member type of semantic change S1Fm+S1Fr: бака,
удар
(8)
Two-member type of semantic change S1Nm+S1Fm: превъзходителство,
пребивавам,
представление,
принадлежа,
разсеян
(9)
Two-member type of semantic change S1Nm+S1Fr: отработен,
повестка,
художество
(10)
Two-member type of semantic change S1Nm+S2Nr: прелест,
преципитат,
призвание,
път, работник,
състезание,
точка
(11)
Two-member type of semantic change S1Fm+S2Fr: клиентела,
математически,
медианта
(12)
Two-member type of semantic change S1Fm+S2Nr: субект,
субстрат
(13)
Two-member type of semantic change S1Fr+S2Nr: агентура,
автор
(14)
Two-member type of semantic change S1Fm+S2Fr: венгера
(15)
Two-member type of semantic change S1Fr+S2Fr: подковавам
(16)
Two-member change of meaning S2Nr+S2Fr: конгрес,
настоятелство
(17)
Three-member type of semantic change S1Nm+S1Fm+S1Fr: предписанием,
(18)
Three-member type of semantic change S1Nm+S1Fm+S2Nr: сила,
утроба, фигура
(19)
Three-member type of semantic change S1Nm+S1Fr+S2Nr: балаган
(20)
Three-member type of semantic change S1Nm+S1Fm+S2Fr: бумага
(21)
Three-member type of semantic change S1Nm+S1Fr+S2Fr: синева
(22)
Three-member type of semantic change S1Nm+S2Nr+S2Fr: компресия
(23)
Three-member type of semantic change S1Fm+S1Fr+S2Fr: бърлога
(24)
Three-member type of semantic change S1Fm+S1Fr+S2Nr: бунгало
(25)
Three-member type of semantic change S1Fm+S2Nr+S2Fr: философ
(26)
Four-member change of meaning S1Nm+S1Fm+S1Fr+S2Fr: басурман
(27)
Five-member type of semantic change S1Nm+S1Fm+S1Fr+S2Nr+S2Fr: снемам
(28)
Free transsemantization (S#): асигнация,
титуляр,
титулярен
The type of transsemantization
is followed by a label for the type of lexical-stylistic adaptation,
which can be zero (абсолюция),
partial (абат), or
free (оклад). If
two sources share the same LSA, then only the first one is followed by a type
label. A contact-lexeme that has undergone zero or partial transsemantization
and whose certain lexical and stylistic values differ from the model undergoes
partial adaptation (LSA1). A contact-lexeme whose lexical-stylistic values are
different from the model and that is adapted through free transsemantization
undergoes free LSA (LSA2).
Several contact-lexemes in our
dictionary have a type of transconceptualization
label. Contact-lexemes that share identical concepts to the model [27]
undergo zero-transconceptualization (пространство,
вселена, территория).
If the number of basic meanings of the concept of the contact-lexeme (отчуждение)
and the model partly coincide, it is a case of partial transconceptualization
(K1). Free transconceptualization (K2) was not
attested.
Most dictionaries do not provide
sufficient information about verb government. A contact-lexeme (грозя) whose pattern
partly coincides with the pattern of the model undergoes partial transsyntactization of verb government (SIA1). A
contact-lexeme (възпрепятствувам)
whose pattern differs from the pattern of the model undergoes free transsyntactization of the verb government (SIA2). We have
not identified any cases of zero-transsyntactization
(автоматизирам).
At the end of the first section of
each dictionary article, we provide information about the source and the type
of overall adaptation of the contact-lexeme. The type of overall
adaptation is determined according to the highest level of individual
adaptations. A contact-lexeme (плавник)
that is adapted through partial adaptation at one level at least undergoes
overall partial adaptation (A1). A contact-lexeme (вкусовщина)
that is adapted through free adaptation at one level at least undergoes overall
free adaptation (A2).
SECTION 2. The Russian model is
written in italics and its stress is not marked (§ 5). The number in the fourth
section of the dictionary article points to the place of stress. Abbreviations
referring to derivational pattern, part of speech, gender, number, (§ 6)
aspect, and transitivity/intransitivity are given after the entry word. Underived models are marked by the Roman numeral I ( §7). Variants are given after the basic entry ( §8).
(§ 5) непрерывно S, adv
(СРЯАН) [28]
(§ 6) прессовать S, v-ipm-tr
(СРЯАН)
(§ 7) ситуация I, n-f
(СИС) [29]
(§ 8) автокар Comp, n-m
(СРЯAН)
автокара
(ОСРЯ) [30]
SECTION 3. The abbreviation var.
is followed by phonological, morphological, and derivational variants of
the lexeme (§9).
(§ 9) АНГОБ
var: ангоба
(ГРЧД) [31]
SECTION 4. The abbreviation оi: (other information) is followed by
the information concerning the origin, morphology, formation, stress, the
number of meanings, syntactic features, and lexical-stylistic aspects of the
model and of the contact-lexeme according to cited sources. Information about
the model is given in parentheses ( ), whereas our interventions are given in
angle brackets < >. Information about stress and number of meanings of
the contact-lexeme and the model are given in square brackets [ ]. The symbol
< refers to the direction of interlingual
influence.
SECTION 5. The meanings of the
contact-lexeme and dictionary sources are cited at the end of each dictionary
article. The label © is followed by a description of semantic changes. The hash
mark (#) refers to narrowed meanings of the contact-lexeme, whereas the asterisk
(*) refers to widened meanings. Three dots (<...>) mean that some parts
of the text are omitted. The meaning and description of semantic changes can be
cited from two or more sources preceded by ¤.
(§ 10)
АВТОБИОГРАФИЧЕСКИ
е,
F3/4, D0, adj, М1, S1N2м, LSА1,
А2 (АРЧД) [32]; S1Fм
(СРЯАН)
автобиографический
S, adj (НСРЯ)[33]
var: автобиографичен
(АРЧД)
оi: rus.
(АРЧД; ГРЧД); <-ический » -ически>;
[vowel
under stress: Rus:6/Bul:6; number of meanings: Rus:2;1/Bul:1]
който се
отнася до автобиография
(АРЧД). © #2: свойственный
автобиографии,
характерный
для нее
(НСРЯ). © # связанный
с жизнью автора; являющийся
автобиографией
(СРЯАН).
Some of the future volumes of the Contactological Dictionary of Slavic Languages
will be devoted to the adaptation of contact-phrasemes.
And when the Russian influence is analyzed, we can switch to describing
contact-lexemes and contact-phrasemes created under
Turkish, English, French, German, or any other influence. We can than describe
the processes of adaptation in all other contact situations and compile a
complete computer database. We would be happy if the International Committee of
Slavists started a long-term contactology
project that gathered teams from different countries.
REFERENCES
[1] П.
Филкова,
Староболгаризмы
и
церковнославянизмы
в лексике
русского
литературного
языка. Т. 1-3,
София, 1987.
[2] Р.
Павлова,
Болгарско-русские
и русско-болгарские
языковые
связи,
Народна
просвета, София,
1979, 223 с.
[3] Б.
Цонев,
Руско-български
паралели,
Славянски
глас, І, 1902;
Руско-български
паралели,
Периодическо
списание на
Българското
книжовно
дружество 3-4, 1903,
София, 249-259;
Езикови
взаимности
между българи
и руси. Сб.
Памяти проф.
А.К.
Медведева, София,
1922.
[4] Л. Андрейчин,
Из историята
на нашето
езиково строителство.
София,
Народна
просвета, 1986. 225 с.
[5] К.
Бабов,
Руско-българските
езикови
контакти и
въпросът за
типологията
на русизмите в
българския
език.
Славянска
филология, т. 15, София,
1978; „Международна
лексика от
гръцки и
латински
произход, възприета
в българския
книжовен
език чрез руски
език“.
Славистични
изследвания,
кн. ІІІ, София,
1973; „Лексикални
калки в
българския
книжовен език,
възприети от
руския език“,
Съпоставително
езикознание
4, София, 1978; „За
руските думи
и русизмите в
академическия
Речник на
чуждите думи
в българския
език“,
Съпоставително
езикознание
1, София, 1987: 39-51.
[6] Р.
Павлова,
Болгарско-русские
и русско-болгарские
языковые
связи,
Народна
просвета, София,
1979, 223 с.
[7] К. Бабов,
„Международна
лексика от
гръцки и латински
произход,
възприета в
българския
книжовен
език чрез
руски език“.
Славистични
изследвания,
кн. ІІІ, София,
1973.
[8] Л.
Андрейчин,
„Роля на
старобългарската
и черковнославянската
писмена
традиция“. Из историята
на нашето
езиково
строителство.
София, Народна
просвета, 1986. 225 с.
[9] Р.
Павлова,
Болгарско-русские
и русско-болгарские
языковые
связи,
Народна
просвета, София,
1979, 223 с.
[10] Б.
Цонев,
Руско-български
паралели,
Славянски
глас, І, 1902.
[11] Ив. Леков,
Характеристика на
общите черти в български
и източнославянски.
Сб. БАН, 37, 1942,
1-104.
[12] Български
тълковен
речник.
София, 1976.
[13]
Речник на
съвременния
български
книжовен
език, Т. І, 1955, т. ІІ
1957, т. ІІІ 1959.
[14]
Речник на
чуждите думи
в български
език, 4
преработено
и допълнени
издание,
София, 1978.
[15] Р.
Павлова,
Болгарско-русские
и русско-болгарские
языковые
связи,
Народна
просвета, София,
1979, 223 с.
[16] R. Filipović,
Teorija jezika u kontaktu: uvod u lingvistiku jezičkih dodira, JAZU, Školska knjiga, Zagreb, 1986; Anglicizmi
u hrvatskom ili
srpskom jeziku: porijeklo-razvoj-značenje. JAZU, Školska knjiga, Zagreb, 1990.
[17] Ј. Ајдуковић,
Русизми
у српскохрватским
речницима.
Принципи адаптације.
Речник. Фото Футура, Београд, 1997; Увод у лексичку
контактологију.
Теорија адаптације
русизама.
Фото Футура,
Београд,
2004; Контактолошки
речник адаптације
русизама
у осам словенских
језика. Фото Футура,
Београд,
2004.
[18] В.:
Селективна
библиографија
у књ.: Ј.
Ајдуковић, Увод у лексичку контактологију.
Теорија адаптације
русизама.
Фото Футура,
Београд,
2004.
[19] R. Filipović,
Teorija jezika u kontaktu: uvod u lingvistiku jezičkih dodira, JAZU, Školska knjiga, Zagreb, 1986.
[20] Ј. Ајдуковић,
Русизми
у српскохрватским
речницима.
Принципи адаптације.
Речник. Фото Футура, Београд, 1997.
[21] Ibid.
[22] Ј.
Ајдуковић, Увод у лексичку контактологију.
Теорија адаптације
русизама.
Фото Футура,
Београд,
2004.
[23] Ibid.
[24] Ј.
Ајдуковић, „О
контактолошком
речнику контактофразема“.
Riječ, Rijeka, 2009, god. 15, sv. 2, str.
19-28.
[25] Ј.
Ајдуковић, Контактолошки речник
адаптације
русизама
у осам словенских
језика. Фото Футура,
Београд,
2004.
[26] See Recensions/Reviews
by P. Piper, B. Stankovich, M. Nikolich,
S. Ristich, P. Filkova, K. Petrova, Z. Fink, R. Dragicevich, G. G. Tjapko, W. Pianka, B. Terzich, A. Zoltan,
B. Stebich, M. Moser.
Published In: Suvremena lingvistika, 57-58, Zagreb, 2004: 149-150; Studia z Filologii Polskiej i Słowiańskiej,
40, SOW, Warszawa 2005: 517-521; Studia Russica XXII, Budapest, 2005: 309-311; „Српски
у нормативном
огледалу“, Београдска
књига, Београд,
2006: 423-434; „Научный
Вестник
Воронежского
государственного
архитектурно-строительного
университета,
Серия
«Современные
лингвистические
и методико-дидактические
исследования“,
Вып. № 1 (9), 2008: 182-183; Wiener Slavistisches
Jahrbuch, Band 54, 2008: 267-268; Ј.
Ајдуковић,
Биобиблиографија
са прилозима.
Фото Футура,
Београд, 2008.
[27] Й.
Айдукович, „О
понятии ‘трансконцептуализация’“, Cognitive Modeling in
Linguistics – 2008, Proceedings
of the X-th International Conference, Bechichi, Montenegro, September 06 – 13, 2008, Vol. 1,
Kazan State University Press, 2008: 21-30.
[28]
СРЯАН – Словарь
русского
языка, Академия
наук СССР, Институт
русского
языка, Т. 1-4, 2-е изд.,
испр. и доп.,
Русский
язык, Москва
1981-1984.
[29] СИС – Словарь
иностранных
слов. 17-е
изд., испр. Русский
язык, Москва,
1988.
[30] ОСРЯ – Обратный
словарь русского
языка, Советская
энциклопедия,
Москва, 1974.
[31] ГРЧД – И. Габеров,
Речник на чуждите
думи в български
с приложения,
трето издание,
Gaberoff, 1998.
[32] Acc0 – the type of transaccentuation;
[33] АРЧД – Речник
на чуждите
думи, Българска
академия на
науките, Институт
за български
език, София, 1982.
[34] НСРЯ – Т.Ф.
Ефремова,
Новый
словарь
русского
языка.
Толково-словообразовательный.
Москва: Русский
язык, 2000.
Электронная
версия,
„Грамота.ру“, 2001–2002.
[*] I would like to thank my colleagues Nenad Tomovich (Serbia) and
Motoki Nomachi (Japan) that helped with the
translation.