The question of the general lexical fund and structure of various Slavic languages has long attracted the attention of philologists. In 1865, the famous linguist A. Schleicher sent an article he wrote, “The All-Slavic Dictionary,” to the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences. In this article, he developed the idea of the need for “a convenient and handy list of the corresponding words of all Slavic dialects.” Such a pan-Slavic dictionary would make it possible to judge the composition and volume of the pan-Slavic lexical fund and the vocabulary peculiarities of individual Slavic languages. “Our dictionary,” wrote A. Schleicher, “should not take the place of separate dictionaries of individual adverbs. However, it seems useful to cite these words of individual adverbs, in which the root (or form of the root) appears in others (for example, Russian. catch a cold, root form shame-, as far as I know, is found only in the Russian dialect). There are not many such words." What is meant here is not an etymological dictionary of Slavic languages, but a treasury of their living lexical inventory. Borrowed words would also be included here, at least those that have come into general use in several Slavic languages. According to A Schleicher, “with the composition of such a book, one might say, a new era of Slavic science would begin.”
Academician A. Schleicher responds to A. Schleicher’s article “All-Slavic Dictionary”. I.I. Sreznevsky with his “Notes on the Dictionary of Slavic Adverbs”. Academician I.I. Sreznevsky subscribes to the opinion that “improved understanding of the mutual relationships of Slavic dialects can be expected... most of all from a dictionary, where all Slavic dialects would be compared evenly and equally correctly, with equal clarity.” In this dictionary, special attention should be paid “to the shades of meaning and to the range of use of words in different dialects and to the variables of their meaning and use at different times” (cf. the beginning of the implementation of this plan in such works as the Polish dictionary of S. Linde or the root book Russian language K. Shimkevich). “Everyone who understands the Slavic dialects even a little and delves even a little into the features of their differences, it should be obvious that a very significant, main part of their composition belongs to them together, and a less significant part to many or several, and that all this appears in each of them in in a special way, in accordance with the special requirements of its sonority" (i.e., its phonetic system). I.I. It seems appropriate to Sreznevsky to take the word of the Old Church Slavonic language as the “leading, head word” in such a pan-Slavic lexicon as the language richest in “common Slavic heritage.” At the same time, I.I. Sreznevsky points to the unfinished "Slovnik vseslovansky s pridatnymi vyznamy nemeckymi" (Prague, 1852) by Joseph Franta Šumavsky. By reviewing the then existing dictionaries of individual Slavic languages, I.I. Sreznevsky comes to the conclusion that “it is too early to begin compiling a general Slavic dictionary.” In the opinion of Sreznevsky, it would be advisable to begin the clarification of the general Slavic fund with the compilation of a dictionary of the Old Slavic dialect, “giving in it a place for instructions on all those Slavic dialects, ancient and new, for which materials can be collected.” “Or, taking a slightly different circle of words, compare in the dictionary relatively only those words that, based on their use in most Slavic dialects, can be called common Slavic.” I.I. Sreznevsky called for “to begin a systematic selection of materials for a common Slavic dictionary.”
The idea of a pan-Slavic dictionary flared up in the 60s and 70s. But only in the mid-80s of the XIX century. (1885) “A short dictionary of six Slavic languages (Russian with Church Slavonic, Bulgarian, Serbian, Czech and Polish), as well as French and German” was published, edited by prof. F. Miklosic (St. Petersburg, M., Vienna, 1885. Compiled by F. Miklosic, V. Nikolsky, St. Novakovich, A. Matzenauer, A. Bruckner). This is a parallel dictionary of only five Slavic languages. His task was practical - to give the Western and Southern Slavs a manual for reading Russian books and at the same time show the similarity of the Russian language in vocabulary terms with other Slavic languages. This dictionary contains about 40 thousand words. Already in this dictionary, which is very imperfect and inaccurate, contains many errors and does not have a strictly scientific character, the breadth and diversity of the common Slavic vocabulary fund (in addition to international vocabulary) clearly appears.
The flourishing of comparative historical linguistics in the last quarter of the 19th century. decisively influenced both the formulation of the problem of the common Slavic vocabulary fund and the methods of solving it. Among the Russian researchers, already A.S. Budilovich, in his study “Primitive Slavs in their language, life and concepts according to lexical data” (1878-1884), tried to establish the main lexical-semantic spheres of the common Slavic language related to beliefs, natural phenomena, occupations, trades, crafts, handicrafts, dishes and drinks, clothing and jewelry, outbuildings and structures, household utensils, dishes and equipment, games and musical instruments, etc.
Research aimed at restoring the common Slavic-Baltic vocabulary fund (cf. R. Trautman's dictionary) and the common Slavic lexical system led to very significant results. The significance of these results and, at the same time, the enormous role of this common Slavic lexical heritage in the history of individual Slavic languages are immediately obvious, at least from the material contained in the “etymological dictionaries” of Slavic languages (F. Miklosic, E. Bernecker, A.G. Preobrazhensky and especially the still unpublished Slavic etymological dictionary by G.A. Ilyinsky). In his last works, Prof. focused on the characteristics of the common Slavic lexical system. A.M. Selishchev (see his "Slavic linguistics", vol. I). Clan and family terminology, names of the totality of members of the clan and tribe, designations of clan, kinship, community meetings and relationships, some expressions of military life (for example, banner), various concepts of social life and designations of social relations between people ( honor, price, peace, revenge etc.), words and phrases related to agricultural life ( plow, sickle, rye, millet, oats, threshing floor, current, grain, flour etc.), with cattle breeding ( ox, cow, bull, sheep, horse, sour cream etc.), with weaving and other folk crafts and crafts ( thread, saw, knife, weave and others similar), many designations of folk musical instruments ( horn, harp, pipe etc.) and much more, covering a complex and diverse range of objects, phenomena and properties - all this is the direct heritage of common Slavic vocabulary. The problem of lexical new formations that arose in the Common Slavic language was of interest to many scientists and especially A. Meie (cf., for example, Common Slavic names of body parts that do not go back to Indo-European antiquity: leg, knee, bone, mouth and etc.). It is clear that with the commonality of living and productive models of word formation based on this common Slavic fund of words and morphemes, completely homogeneous words and word categories arose in the history of individual Slavic languages.
But, naturally, along with such common Slavic series of words and even their entire semantic categories, the history of individual Slavic languages had their own differential vocabulary features that characterize the lexical system of a particular Slavic language. For example, in the Russian language, along with the common Slavic lexical heritage, it is easy to identify words common to the Russian language and the languages of individual Slavic groups - Western or Southern, and even narrower lexical circles that bring the Russian language closer to one of the Slavic languages.
Here are some illustrations. Words like fade, faded(cf. fade), blink, sole, soil, fresh, ail, moth, poker and others like them, find their closest matches only in Western Slavic languages. Some words like: spring, mushroom, tar, pine, tail are common in the Russian language not only with the West Slavic languages, but also with the Slovinian language. Many Russian words find parallels and correspondences only in Yugoslavian languages (for example, feast, watch, honeycomb, korowai etc. etc.). True, in many cases it is not always possible to resolve with sufficient accuracy the question of whether we are faced with the original similarity of folk Slavic word formations or the fruit of the influence of Yugoslavic writing (for example, in relation to words army, military, decide, meager and so on.).
The study of various historical interactions of Slavic languages (for example, Russian and Bulgarian, Serbian, Russian and Polish, etc.) will help to identify new layers of lexical community between different Slavic languages and the correspondence between them in the processes of semantic changes and in word formation methods. In this direction, it is of particular interest to observe the course of the complex process of formation of national languages among individual Slavic peoples and the internal semantic support that individual Slavic peoples found in the lexical treasury of the Slavic language (for example, Bulgarians and partly Czechs in the Russian language).
Much has been written and said about the pan-European or international stock of words and expressions, about the commonality of semantic systems of European languages (including Slavic), about “European thinking”. Meanwhile, the question of inter-Slavic or common Slavic vocabulary, terminology and phraseology related to the sphere of basic concepts of culture and civilization (for example, such as personality, law, man and others like that). It was usually pointed out (especially sharply by A. Meye) to the peculiar, isolated position of the Czech national language in the circle of Slavic languages: as if the vocabulary of the Czech literary language largely, if not for the most part, consists of Czech national new formations, alien to both Polish and other Slavic languages languages. But the works of V. Kiparsky. Uber Neologismen in Tschechischen."Slavia", 1931, X, S. 700-717; Uber den tschechischen "Okzidentalismus" - "Slavis", 1933, XII, S. 1-25) greatly shook the assertion of A. Meillet and discovered a close connection between the Czech language and the Polish and Russian languages in the field of abstract and philosophical terminology.
Notes
1. "Opinions on the dictionary of Slavic dialects by A.B. Schleicher and I.I. Sreznevsky." St. Petersburg, 1866 (Collection of articles read in the Department of Russian Language and Literature of the Imperial Academy of Sciences, vol. I, No. 2).
2. Comments by academician I.I. Sreznevsky about the dictionary of Slavic dialects. - In the book: “Opinions about the dictionary...”.
4. R. Trautmann. Baltisch-slavisches Worterbuch. Gottingen, 1923.
5. Compare, for example, the works of prof. B. Tsoneva about Russian-Bulgarian vocabulary parallels, prof. T. Mareticha about Russian and Czech words in the Croatian language, etc.
6. Compare: A. Meillet. Les langues dans l "Europe nouvelle. Paris, 1918, p. 313; cf. also: "Revue des etudes slaves", Paris, 1921, t. I, p. 13.
Main vocabulary fund The lexical base of a language, the most stable layer of its vocabulary, which includes primarily the primitive, most important and necessary, firmly established in the life of the people and commonly used names of objects, phenomena, processes associated with reality. These are the names of objects and natural phenomena characterized by their stability: water, earth, sun, moon, field, forest, mountain, wind, rain, snow, thunder, lightning, thunderstorm, etc.; names associated with the animal world: man, horse, cow, bull, sheep, pig, wolf, fox, hare, bear; rooster, chicken, goose, eurona, cuckoo, sparrow; bream, pike, pike perch; bee, wasp, beetle, etc.; names of body parts: head, arm, leg, shoulder, eyes, ears, etc.; names of plant objects: oak, pine, spruce, birch; flower, grass, rye, oats, barley, flax, hemp, etc.; names of tools: harrow, plow, plow, axe, knife, etc.; names of labor processes: plowing, reaping, mowing, threshing, etc.; names associated with everyday life: house, roof, window, door, floor, etc.; names of food items: bread, meat, butter, salt, honey, beer, etc.; popular terms of kinship; father, mother, brother, sister, son, daughter, etc.; terms related to craft: blacksmith, shepherd, plowman, weaver, etc.; names associated with the settlement; city, village, village, etc.; names of actions and states; walk, lie, sit, sleep, talk, think, build, etc.; names of qualities, properties, signs: white, big, tall, wide, smart, cheerful, etc.; The main vocabulary fund is characterized by significant stability, but over time, along with the development of society, it undergoes some changes: some words fall out of it, and even more words are replenished. The most stable are the names of objects and natural phenomena, representatives of the animal and plant world. More changeable in the main vocabulary is that which is associated with production, everyday life, family relationships ( Wed the fate of such words as plow, all (village), brother-in-law, sister-in-law, etc.). The enrichment of the main vocabulary occurs due to the appearance of words - names of new realities, new forms of production, new social relations, etc. Word production based on words of a given language, as well as foreign language borrowings, play a significant role in this. The main vocabulary of the Russian language, formed in the distant past, consists of native Russian words, to which words of other origins subsequently began to be mixed, which was a natural consequence of the economic, political, and cultural relations of the Russian people with other peoples.
Dictionary-reference book of linguistic terms. Ed. 2nd. - M.: Enlightenment. Rosenthal D. E., Telenkova M. A.. 1976 .
See what the “core vocabulary fund” is in other dictionaries:
MAIN VOCABULARY- (from the French fonds - stock of something). The lexical base of a language, the most stable layer of its vocabulary; includes the primitive, most important and necessary, firmly established in the life of the people and commonly used names of objects, phenomena, processes,... ...
MAIN VOCABULARY- BASIC VOCABULARY. See the main vocabulary... New dictionary of methodological terms and concepts (theory and practice of language teaching)
The same as the main vocabulary fund...
The entire set of words that make up a language, including its main vocabulary... Dictionary of linguistic terms
LANGUAGE VOCABULARY, VOCABULARY- the entire set of words that make up a language, including its main vocabulary... Professional education. Dictionary
LINGUISTIC FUNDAMENTALS OF THE METHODOLOGY- abbreviation, paragraph, automatic text processing, automatic translation, autonomous speech, speech adaptation, text adaptation, addresser, addressee, alphabet, speech act, active grammar, active vocabulary, active speech, active possession... ... New dictionary of methodological terms and concepts (theory and practice of language teaching)
Training content- active grammar, active vocabulary, active grammatical minimum, active vocabulary, active vocabulary, articulation, aspect of learning, aspects of language, listening, authentic material, database, types of speech activity... ... New dictionary of methodological terms and concepts (theory and practice of language teaching)
Cage, cage. Along with the process of enriching the main vocabulary fund, by the way, and at the expense of folk regional vocabulary, along with the process of formation of new vocabulary groups coming from it, processes of a different nature also take place, consisting in ... ... History of words
Voice, vote. There is no doubt that the word voice entered the main vocabulary of the Russian language back in ancient times. It is found in “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign”: “Voices curl across the sea to Kyiv.” It is characteristic of all three... ... History of words
Vocabulary- (from the Greek λεξικός relating to the word) a set of words of a language, its vocabulary. This term is used both in relation to individual layers of vocabulary (everyday vocabulary, business, poetic, etc.), and to designate all words... ... Linguistic encyclopedic dictionary
Books
- Russian etymological dictionary. Issue 5 (buba I - vakshtaf), Anikin Alexander Evgenievich. The dictionary is a collection of etymologists, covering the main vocabulary of the Russian language. Based on the achievements of modern philological science, it examines the origin and…
Distinguished by direct appeal to reality. It is vocabulary that primarily reflects the changes that occur in the life of society. Language is in constant motion, its evolution is closely connected with the history and culture of the people.
Each new generation brings something new not only to the social structure.
The period of perestroika, the collapse of the USSR, and the change of the state system changed the very conditions for the functioning of the Russian language, its communicative and pragmatic character. The unprecedented popularity of the media has now dramatically changed the emphasis in the spheres of influence on the development of language, especially in its literary form. This opened the boundaries of the literary language to colloquial, colloquial, and slang vocabulary. Freedom of forms of expression has given rise to a tendency towards unprecedented word creativity. Modern authors of texts, oral and written, are not constrained by literary traditions or limited by the careful choice of words. In the sphere of public communication, formality is erased and weakened. Along with this, the process of foreign language borrowing has also intensified. Among the new words there are many direct borrowings, but a significant number of words were created on Russian soil, through the use of foreign language prefixes or root parts of words along with Russian ones.
All this speaks of the openness of the lexical system of the Russian language, its activity and vitality. Words not only enter the language, but are creatively processed and adapted to an environment alien to them, which turns out to be strong enough to subjugate the foreign.
Semantic transformations in vocabulary, along with the nomination of new realities, contribute to the expansion and enrichment of the vocabulary. The acquisition of a new meaning by a word can lead to the birth of a new word, thereby strengthening linguistic homonymy. Among the semantic processes, three main ones stand out: expansion of meaning, narrowing of meaning and rethinking. (the word club was recently associated with cultural institutions for the average Soviet person (rural club, city club, student club, tourist club, etc.); today clubs of a different type have appeared, modernized in accordance with the needs of the time: art club, disco -club, club-association, business club.)
The vocabulary of the language reflects the changes that constantly occur in the social, material, spiritual and other life of society. The active composition is a set of those words that are widely used by the majority of speakers at a given time. Passive compounds are words that are not commonly used in modern Russian or are used for special purposes. There is no hard line between them; under certain conditions, the words of a passive fund can fall into an active one, and vice versa. (pioneer, socialist competition, wall newspaper are becoming passive, summit, broker, voucher have become active since the late 80s).
You can also find the information you are interested in in the scientific search engine Otvety.Online. Use the search form:
More on the topic Question 25 Vocabulary, lexical fund of the language:
- Question 13: Terminological vocabulary of the Russian language. The specificity of the term as an element of the lexical-semantic system of the language. The concept of terminosphere.
- Lexical interference. Lexico-semantic groups in language teaching.
- 1. concept of vocabulary. The place of vocabulary in the language system. Various layers of vocabulary. Features of vocabulary.
- 16. Lexicology. Lexical meaning of the word. Lexical system of the Russian language. Lexical level of speech development of primary schoolchildren. Education at primary school age. Organization of educational activities when teaching students lexicology. The role of the auditory analyzer in the cognitive activity of younger schoolchildren in Russian language lessons.
- Question 2: The basic and minimal units of the lexical-semantic system of a language: the word and the lexical-semantic variant. Basic functions of the word. (on paper)
- 12.Organization and properties of the lexical system. The inclusive principle of vocabulary organization and its manifestation in the structure of lexical paradigms and their types. Reasons for the active development of the theory of semantic fields.
Linguistics
V. S. Efimova (Moscow)
The problem of reconstructing the lexical fund of the Old Church Slavonic language
Dedicated to the memory of Rolya Mikhailovna Tseytlin
Great Thessalonica brothers St. Cyril and Methodius are usually called - not only in scientific literature, but also in the media - “the creators (or ancestors) of Slavic writing.” This formulation requires comment, since the Slavs undoubtedly had writing before the arrival of the saints. Cyril and Methodius to the Slavic lands: according to the famous testimony of the monk Khrabra, dating back to the 9th century, the Slavs wrote both “with lines and cuts” and in Latin and Greek letters “without arrangement.” Nevertheless, the creation of a special Slavic alphabet (according to most scientists by now, in the form of the Glagolitic alphabet), containing letters for specific Slavic sounds, is rightly considered a scientific feat. As is known, this made it possible to streamline Slavic writing, to make not only small notes and inscriptions, but also to write down large texts, and even to introduce spelling norms (the functioning of norms had, of course, its own medieval specifics). However, no less important result of the activities of St. Cyril and Methodius and their students became the creation of the first Slavic literary language.
Despite the continuous debate in paleoslavic studies (the dispute is mainly about terms, and not about the substance of the issue), it can undoubtedly be argued that the Old Slavic language, which was founded by Sts. Cyril and Methodius, was a common literary language for all Slavs and existed in Slavic lands during the Middle Ages in the form of various editions (Central Bulgarian, Russian, Serbian). At the same time, the study of the early period of this language (1X-11th centuries), which is appropriate to call the Old Church Slavonic language and which represented a structural whole 2, is of particular importance for Slavic studies. The Old Church Slavonic language was created in the course of translations into Slavic of Greek texts carried out by St. Ki-
Rill and Methodius and other ancient scribes - their students and followers. There are already quite a few works showing how the process of formation and replenishment of the lexical fund of the literary language that emerged was going on3. However, studying the vocabulary of the Old Church Slavonic language itself is complicated by the fact that in the “classical” Old Church Slavonic manuscripts that have survived to this day, i.e. in the ancient Bulgarian manuscripts of the 10th-11th centuries, the language of which is defined by paleoslavists as Old Church Slavonic4, only a fragment of the lexical system that existed at that time is recorded5. The texts that have come down to us in ancient Bulgarian manuscripts of the 10th-11th centuries represent to us only a small part of what was actually written in the Old Church Slavonic language. The departure of even small manuscripts or parts of manuscripts belonging to the “classical Old Church Slavonic canon” can significantly influence our understanding of the lexical system of the Old Church Slavonic language. It is known, for example, that such an important book of Holy Scripture as the Apostle has reached our days only in later copies6. And the discovery in Sinai in 1975 of a part of the Sinai Euchologia (a manuscript included in the “Old Church Slavonic canon”), containing a very small apostolic text (only 12 pericopes), replenished the fragment of the Old Church Slavonic lexical system known to us with a number of lexemes7. Thus, we have to admit that the lexical fund of the Old Church Slavonic language in its entirety is currently not known, and its reconstruction represents a very serious and urgent task for modern paleoslavic studies.
The question of creating a methodology for reconstructing Old Church Slavonic vocabulary not recorded in the manuscripts of the “classical Old Church Slavonic canon” was raised by R.M. Tseitlin back in the 70s. However, the desire in the research of those years to remain within the framework of pure synchrony (and in this case, the concept of a “synchronous section” obligated to use the material of manuscripts only from the 10th-11th centuries and only of ancient non-Bulgarian origin) significantly narrowed the horizon of the researcher’s searches. “The possibility of their (reconstructed lexemes. - V. E.) use in the SL (Old Church Slavonic language. - V. E.), - wrote R. M. Tseitlin, - is proven by the materials of the SP (Old Church Slavonic monuments. - V. E.) - the presence of cognate words with a common semantic denominator, on the one hand, and a given model of word formation, on the other” 8. Thus, R. M. Tseitlin proposed a technique based on the analysis from a synchronic point of view of the so-called “word-forming pairs.” And although in her later article R. M. Tseitlin noted that the data from “indirect sources” (i.e. various kinds of linguistic and cultural-historical
data) in many cases increase the reliability of the reconstruction, yet the methodology itself did not go beyond the analysis of the lexical material of ancient Bulgarian manuscripts of the 10th-11th centuries. According to R. M. Tseitlin, the reconstruction of the lexeme as Old Slavonic requires that it be present in the vocabulary corpus of these manuscripts in a “connected” form in the “left” row in word-formation pairs “motivating - motivated”, while the “right” row of such steam cannot give sufficiently reliable results 9.
In the early 80s. Bulgarian researcher R. Pavlova tried to apply the methodology of R. M. Tseitlin to use Old Russian lists of the 11th century. from lost ancient Bulgarian originals in order to study the vocabulary and word formation of the Old Church Slavonic (=ancient non-Bulgarian literary) language10. The most valuable thing proposed by R. Pavlova, in our opinion, is the idea of the need for comparative research - purely linguistic and textual-linguistic - using as sources manuscripts that are not included in the circle of the ancient Bulgarian manuscripts of the 10th-11th centuries.
The widespread use of these indirect sources for the study of the lexical fund of the Old Church Slavonic language is currently felt in paleoslavic studies as an urgent need. It is impossible not to take into account that not only the translation of the Apostle and most of the Old Testament, but also the bulk of the works of the ancient Bulgarian scribes (including the works of the greatest writer John the Exarch of Bulgaria), originally written in the Old Church Slavonic (= ancient Bulgarian literary) language, came to us in later lists. “The time has come, and all these things are being lost,” writes D. Ivanova-Micheva, “for this reason, paleo-Slavic studies have already been removed from the one artificially created barrier, this place has been imposed - it’s disgusting for the logicata - but not all of them will crawl out of the monuments because of the precise populvaneto na sistemata na Old Bulgarian ezik” and.
At the same time, it is obvious that vocabulary extracted from later lists (Middle Bulgarian, Serbian or Russian editions) of works originally written in the Old Church Slavonic language cannot be automatically included in the lexical fund of the Old Church Slavonic language (as is sometimes done when studying the “language” of individual ancient scribes12). But, on the other hand, following only the reconstruction method proposed at one time by R. M. Tseitlin removes from the researcher’s field of view a huge and most important part of the vocabulary that actually existed in the Old Church Slavonic language: “losses” in this case can be judged by at least comparing dictionary of the famous “Old Church Slavonic Dictionary” 199413 (one of the authors and editors of which was R. M. Tseitlin), based on
the material of the manuscripts of the “classical Old Slavonic canon”, and the indices to the “Six Days” and “Theology” of John the Exarch of Bulgaria published by R. Aitzetmüller and L. Sadnik14.
Apparently, understanding the need to develop and improve the methodology proposed by R. M. Tseitlin, we must accept the position that the reconstruction of certain parts of the lexical system of the Old Church Slavonic language can in principle only be carried out with a greater or lesser degree of probability. By the way, the technique proposed by R. M. Tseitlin, based on the restoration of word-formation pairs within the framework of synchrony, at first glance very strict and seemingly ensuring the reliability of the conclusions, “works” only with this assumption. Thus, the examples given by R.M. Tseitlin of the reconstruction of the adjectives nrdvnt" or ts"knnj as Old Slavonic lexemes based on the fact of the use of the lexemes nrakt*, ztlonrlkynt, podoBONrlkyg and the lexemes ts"knd and llnogo-ts" in ancient Bulgarian manuscripts of the 10th-11th centuries knnt"15, in fact, contains a similar assumption, since such lexemes as зт>лнрдвннт, поpodokonrdвьнт" and лгнгоц"ьнннт» could be formed not by pure addition, but by addition with suffixation (i.e. for the formation of words зт "lonrdv'ng', podoBonrd'vyg', m'nogo-ts-b'nnt" it is not necessary to use the adjectives nrdv.n'b or ts'b'nnt, the presence of the nouns nrdv' and c'kna in the lexical system is sufficient.
In our opinion, the principles of reconstruction of Old Church Slavonic lexemes indicated by R. M. Tseitlin should be combined with a targeted analysis of the vocabulary of manuscripts, which she classifies as so-called indirect sources. At the same time, one cannot deny the importance of the procedures proposed by R. Pavlova for the analysis of the vocabulary of Old Russian manuscripts - the selection of words according to the criterion of having the same root in them as in the words recorded in Old Bulgarian manuscripts of the 10th-11th centuries, with a “common semantic denominator”, and the selection of words according to the criterion of their belonging to word-formation models known in the Old Church Slavonic language16. However, these procedures are a) insufficient and b) do not solve the problem as a whole. The range of presumably Old Church Slavonic vocabulary, apparently, should be identified through comparative studies of lexical material from the widest possible range of lists, dating back to the originals written in Old Church Slavonic, but not preserved to this day in the Old Bulgarian lists of the 10th-11th centuries. Evidence that increases the degree of reliability of the reconstruction of lexemes as not recorded in ancient Bulgarian manuscripts of the X-XI centuries. links of the lexical system of the Old Church Slavonic language can be obtained as a result
tate comparative textual and lexicological study of a huge and almost unexplored manuscript heritage. The presence of the lexeme in different places in later lists of different works and, especially, lists of different (Russian, Serbian, Middle Bulgarian) editions reduces the possibility of considering it as introduced during the movement of the text through the lists and indicates a high probability of its belonging to the lexical fund of the Old Church Slavonic language .
Let us explain this situation with specific examples. In the Old Church Slavonic language, a model for forming adverbs from adjectives using the suffix -tk was known. Within the framework of the Preslav school of writing (perhaps under the influence of the “model” of the language of John Exarch of Bulgaria), the word-formation activity of this model of adverb formation was initiated17. Currently, the lexical fund of the Old Church Slavonic language includes only those adverbs starting with -ть that are recorded in the manuscripts of the “classical Old Slavonic canon”, which is reflected in the dictionary of the Old Church Slavonic Dictionary of 199418 (thus, this dictionary includes adverbs starting with -ть from complex and affixal adjectives, extracted mainly from the Suprasl manuscript). However, the presence of a number of other adverbs of this type in the language of works written in the era of the Old Church Slavonic language and, in particular, in the original language of the works of John Exarch of Bulgaria (and, therefore, their belonging to the lexical fund of the Old Church Slavonic language) can be proven by searching in the language of later lists of various works belonging to different editions, but going back to the protographs, whose language was originally Old Church Slavonic. Thus, in the vocabulary of the said Dictionary of 1994, only one composite adverb is noted on with the first component of the addition dokro- - dokrorlzoul\ivtb, extracted from the Suprasl manuscript (Supr 376.21, used in accordance with the Greek ei-ry-(lousod) However, in the oldest Serbian list of 1263 “Shestodnev” by John the Exarch19 we find the adverb dokrochst’n “b: dokromstik zhnvzhtzhimt” - 259a 26-27 - in accordance with the Greek eoaf^S tsoHneuo - The same adverb in the same place in the text of “Shestodnev” we also find in the lists of the early Russian edition, dating back to the ancient Bulgarian protographer, but not related to the Serbian list of 1263, as can be seen from the edition prepared by G. S. Barankova: in a manuscript of the 15th century (RSL, collection of the Moscow Theological Academy , 145), which forms the basis of the publication, this place is located on sheet 2666 10-1120 (G.S. Barankova does not indicate discrepancies in this place and in the other six manuscripts involved in her linguo-textological ana-|
Liz). We find the same adverb in another work of John Exarch, his “Theology” (“Heaven”) - in the oldest list of the 12th/13th centuries. Russian translation 21: dokroch.etn"k (i)ispov"idAggi - 43a - in accordance with the Greek. eistfsos ¿[hoHou^heou. Already these facts, it seems, are enough to classify the adverb dokrochstygb to the lexical fund of the Old Church Slavonic language, although it is not included in the vocabulary of the Dictionary of 1994. In the Serbian list of “Shestodnev” of 1263 we find another adverb in -"k with the first component dokro - - dokrookrlli"k: according to sv"b-tou hodAfemt" dokrookrlz,ntb - 34(128-35a 1 - in accordance with the Greek carguo[x£rss eoa%G|[houy<;. В списке ранней русской редакции, изданном Г. С. Баранковой, также находим это наречие - на л. 376 1. (И для этого наречия Г. С. Баранкова не.указывает разночтений.) В других произведениях Иоанна Экзарха наречие докрооЕ-рлзыгк нам пока не встретилось (это, впрочем, и не обязательно для наших доказательств), но зато мы нашли его в Изборнике 1073 г. (54б 24) 22 (древнеболгарский протограф которого относится, видимо, к началу X в.), что с высокой степенью вероятности свидетельствует о том, что наречие докроокрлзьн"Ь тоже входило в лексический фонд старославянского языка, хотя и не включено в словник Словаря 1994 г.
At present, the adverb szhirotikn"b is also not included in the lexical fund of the Old Church Slavonic language. At the same time, it is found in the lists of works of John the Exarch - both in the “Sext Day” and in “Theology”, where it characterizes verbs of speech: and packs opposite speech - Shestodnev 128a 10 in Serbian sp. 1263, 116a 23 in Russian sp.23 (Greek no); slprotikn"b tol\o^ in"bfd river! - Shestodnev 62a 13 in Serbian sp. 1263, in Russian sp. omitted (Greek no); ponezhe etheri souproggikynt glt - Theology 204b, where so-opprotivn "b verb, translates the Greek verb osu-aHeuoisl. (Sl. plural). In addition, judging by the published index, the adverb conc. protikyn"b appears four times in the Izbornik 1073 (58a 9; 129v 19; 146gZ-4; 120g6)24. Considering that the adjective szhprotik'n "nasty, opposite" is used seven times in the Suprasl manuscript - both in the main meaning and as a noun, one can almost confidently assert that the adverb szhprotik'n'b was included in the lexical fund of the Old Church Slavonic language.
From the above it is obvious that with an increase in the number of manuscripts involved in this kind of analysis of their language, our idea of the true lexical fund will be increasingly refined
of the Old Church Slavonic language and the evidence for “candidates” for reconstructed Old Church Slavonic lexemes will become increasingly reliable for the likelihood of their belonging to this lexical fund. The accumulation by now of a large number of good editions of monuments of ancient Slavic writing and indices to them, which can assist the researcher, gives hope for the success of this enormous but very necessary work.
Notes
1 See, for example: Bernstein S. B. Constantine the Philosopher and Methodius. M., 1984. P. 3.
2 As is known, the term “Old Church Slavonic” is the subject of scientific debate, which sometimes flared up with extreme severity. The position expressed at one time regarding this term by Acad. N.I. Tolstoy, seems to us to be very balanced and does not essentially contradict the views of R.M. Tseitlin - see: Tolstoy N.I. History and structure of Slavic literary languages. M., 1988. P. 34-52, especially p. 47.
3 Here we point first of all to the works of E.M. Vereshchagin, especially to his latest books - Vereshchagin E.M. The history of the emergence of the ancient common Slavic literary language. M., 1997; It's him. Church Slavonic book literature in Rus': Linguistic and textual research. M., 2001. In some of our works we tried to show the processes of formation and development in the Old Church Slavonic language of such a layer of its lexical fund as adjectives and adverbs of a bookish nature - see Efimova V.S. About some trends in the development of the first literary language of the Slavs in the works of Old Bulgarian writers (based on adjectival adverbs) // Problems of Slavic diachronic sociolinguistics: dynamics of literary and linguistic norms. M„ 1999; It's her. On the characteristics of book vocabulary in the first literary language of the Slavs (the role of the translation of the Apostle) // The role of Bible translations in the formation and development of literary Slavic languages (in print).
4 The criteria for selecting “classical Old Slavonic manuscripts” were indicated by R. M. Tseitlin in the book: Tseitlin R. M. Lexis of the Old Church Slavonic language. Experience in the analysis of motivated words based on ancient Bulgarian manuscripts of the 10th-11th centuries. M., 1977. R. M. Tseitlin believes that the following manuscripts should be included in it: the Gospels of Zograf, Mariinsky, Assemanievo, Book of Savvina, Ohrid, Zografsky palimpsest, Boyana palimpsest, Sinai psalter, Klotsov collection, Sinai Euchologium, Sinai service book, Rylsky sheets, Suprasl manuscript, Zografsky sheets, Khilandar sheets, Undolsky sheets, Eninsky Apostle. Circle of selected R. M. Tseitlin manuscripts
This almost coincides with the circle of manuscripts that served as a source of material for the creators of the famous dictionary: Sadnik L., Aitzetmüller R. Handwörterbuch zu den altkirchenslavischen Texten. Heidelberg, 1955.
5 Compare, for example, the statement of R. M. Tseitlin: “In the SY (Old Church Slavonic language. - V. £.) there were many times more words than they were recorded in the SP (Old Church Slavonic monuments. - V. E.)” - Tseitlin R.M. Vocabulary of the Old Church Slavonic language. Experience in the analysis of motivated words based on ancient Bulgarian manuscripts of the 10th-11th centuries. M., 1977. P. 31.
6 The entry into the “Old Church Slavonic canon” of the Enin Apostle, a manuscript from the early 12th century rather than the 11th century, which preserved the apostolic text in small fragments, is quite controversial. Let us indicate the most ancient and famous of the lists of the Apostle: Ohrid Apostle XI Lb. Bulgarian version, Slepchen Apostle of the 12th century. Bulgarian version, Apostle of Christinople, XII century. Russian edition, Explanatory Apostle of 1220 Russian edition, Cercolese Apostle of the 13th century. Bulgarian version, Matichin the Apostle of the 13th century. Serbian version, Strumica Apostle of the 13th century. Bulgarian version, Shishatovac Apostle 1324 Serbian version.
7 We have already had to point out the importance in this regard for the study of Old Church Slavonic morphemics and word formation of the 1975 find in Sinai - see Efimova V.S. On some problems of morphemic division in the Old Church Slavonic language // Slavic Studies. 1999. No. 2. P. 69.
8 Tseytlin R. M. Vocabulary of the Old Church Slavonic language... M., 1977. P. 21.
9 Tseitlin R.M. Vazstanovyavane na nedosvetelstvuvani Old Bulgarian Dumi (methods and methods) // Bulgarian Ezik. 1986. No. 2. P. 114.
10 Pavlova R. Some problems of studying linguistic interactions between Bulgarians and Russians (X-XIV centuries) // Slavic Philology. Sofia, 1983. T. 17. P. 38.
11 Ivanova-Mirceva D. Syntactic archaisms in Germanovia collection in > Svetlina on philological study on the monument // Bulgarian Ezik. 1989. No. 4. P. 318. It should be noted, however, that the idea of the need to use data from later copies to study the Old Church Slavonic language was already expressed by N. N. Durnovo: Durnovo N. Russian manuscripts of the 11th and 12th centuries. as monuments of the Old Church Slavonic language // ^Slovenian philologist, time to write to Slovenian philologist and linguistics. Beograd, 1924. Book. IV; 1925-1926. Book V; 1926-1927. Book VI.
12 See, for example, Davidov A. Verb synonymy in “Conversation against Bogomilite” from Prezviter Kozma // Slavic Philology. Sofia, 1978. T. 15. P. 329-338; It's him. Rechnikat on “Conversations against Bogomilite” from Prezviter Kozma and Supraslskiyat collection // Prouchvaniya vurhu Supraslskiy collection. Sofia, 1980. pp. 137-145; It's him. Shestodnevit na Ioan Ekzarh and Old Bulgarian-skata vocabulary // Slavic philology. Sofia, 1988. T. 19. P.90-98; It's him. Komcharakterata na complásico dumi in “Shestodnev” na Ioan Ekzarch // Filologia e letteratura nei paesi slavi. Roma, 1990. R. 3-8, etc.
13 Old Church Slavonic Dictionary (based on manuscripts of the 10th-11th centuries) / Ed. R. M. Tseitlin, R. Vecherki and E. Blagovoy. M., 1994.
14 Aitzetmüller II. Das Hexaemeron des Exarchen Joannes // Editiones monu-mentorum slavicorum veteris dialecti. Graz, 1975. T. VII; Sadnik L. Des Hl. Johannes von Damaskus "ExGeatç àxptpTjç TÎjç ôpGoSoÇou túgtecoç in der Ubersetzung des Exarchen Johannes // Monumenta linguae slavicae. Freiburg, 1983. T. XVII.
15 Tseitlin R.M. Reinstatement of the old Bulgarian thoughts (methods and methods) without evidence... P. 116.
16 Pavlova R. Some problems of studying linguistic interactions between Bulgarians and Russians (X-XIV centuries) // Slavic Philology. Sofia, 1983. T. 17. P. 38.
17 Efimova B.S. Old Slavic adjective adverbs with the suffix - "fe // Soviet Slavic Studies. 1991. No. 3; Same. On some trends in the development of the literary language in the works of John Exarch of Bulgaria // Tradition and new trends in the development of Slavic literary languages: the problem of the dynamics of the norm. Abstracts of reports international scientific conference. Moscow, May 24-26, 1994. M., 1994; Same. On some trends in the development of the first literary language of the Slavs in the works of ancient Bulgarian writers (based on the material of adjective adverbs) // Problems of Slavic diachronic sociolinguistics: literary dynamics -language norms. M., 1999. pp. 45-55.
18 See Old Church Slavonic Dictionary (based on manuscripts of the 10th-11th centuries) / Ed. R. M. Tseitlin, R. Vecherki and E. Blagovoy. M., 1994.
19 We use the famous edition: Aitzetmüller R. Das Hexaemeron des Exarchen Joannes // Editiones monumentorum slavicorum veteris dialecti. In 7 volumes. Graz, 1958-1975.
20 Sixth Day of John Exarch of Bulgaria. Early Russian edition / Edition prepared by G. S. Barankova. M., 1998. P. 589.
21 To analyze the language of this list, we used the publications: Sadnik L. Des Hl. Johannes von Damaskus "Extteaiç axpiß-fy; Tf\q ôpOoSoÇou tiatEy; in der Übersetzung des Exarchen Johannes // Monumenta linguae slavicae. Wiesbaden, 1967. T. V; Freiburg, 1981. T. XIV; Freiburg, 1983. T. XVI ; Bo-dyansky O. M. Theology of John, Exarch of Bulgaria // Readings in the Society of Russian History and Antiquities. M., 1877. Book 4.
22 See: Simeonov’s collection (according to Svetoslavov’s prescription from 1073) / Ed. P. Dinekova. T. 2. Riverman-index. Sofia, 1993. P. 49.
23 In the version opposite to "k. G. S. Barankova also indicates here for the early Russian edition the variants of opposite to and opposite to - see Six Days of John the Exarch... P. 228.
24 Simeonov’s collection (according to Svetoslavov’s prescription from 1073)... P. 175.
Municipal state educational institutionYasenkovskaya secondary school
Abstract research work:
"Historical-etymological
vocabulary analysis
in English"
Completed by a 10th grade student
Katyshevskaya Kristina
Head English teacher
Yanshina Alexandra Anatolevna
Introduction. 3
Chapter 1. Theoretical foundations of the study. 4
Definition of the concept “etymology”. 4
Definition of the concepts “core vocabulary” and
Chapter 2. Practical foundations of the study. 6
2.1 The main vocabulary of the English language. 6
2.2 Borrowings that came into English from other languages. 9
Conclusion. 13
Bibliography. 14
Application. 15
2
Introduction.
This work is devoted to the etymological study of the historical and linguistic picture of the vocabulary of the English language.
The relevance of the work is determined by the growing interest of modern linguists in etymology, studying the lexical composition of the language and the peculiarities of the mentality of native speakers of the country of the language being studied.
The main goal of the work is to study the sources and process of formation of the vocabulary of the English language, as well as to reveal the origin of individual lexemes.
The purpose of the study determined the formulation of tasks:
To study the historical conditions for the formation of the vocabulary of the English language.
Determine the percentage of borrowings from other languages.
Show the relationship between historical events and the influx of borrowings into the English language.
The sample corpus consisted of 250 lexemes extracted from etymological, explanatory dictionaries and the Internet database.
The theoretical significance of the work is that its results will allow us to better understand the interpenetration and mutual influence of different cultures and see a holistic picture of the world.
The practical significance of the work lies in the possibility of using its findings in the practice of teaching English, as well as in the study of the elective course “Lexicology”.
The introduction substantiates the relevance of the study, defines its goals, objectives and methods.
The theoretical part defines such concepts as “etymology”, “main vocabulary” and “borrowing”.
The practical part examines the features of the main vocabulary of the English language, borrowings from other languages and their relationship with historical phenomena that took place during a specified period of time.
3
Theoretical part of the work
Etymology
It can also be defined as a set of research methods aimed at revealing the origin of a word, as well as the very result of this disclosure.
Sometimes the very origin of the word is also called: for example, “the word notebook Greek etymology”, “propose a new etymology”, that is, a version of the origin.
The term originated among the ancient Greek Stoics, attributed to Chrysippus (281/278 BC - 208/205 BC). The ancient Roman grammarian Varro (116 - 27 BC) defined etymology as a science that establishes “why and wherefore words appeared.”
Before the advent of the comparative historical method, most etymologies were completely fantastic in nature. The Russian poet and philologist of the 18th century V.K. Trediakovsky (1703-1769) believed that the name of the country Norway is a distorted form of the word “on top”, since this country is located at the top of the geographical map, and the name Italy goes back to the word “prowess”, because that this country is many miles away from Russia. Such “studies” forced Voltaire (1694-1778) to say that “etymology is a science in which vowels mean nothing and consonants mean almost nothing.” The tools of etymology were provided by the comparative historical method - a set of techniques that make it possible to prove the kinship of languages and reveal the facts of their ancient history (J. Grimm, F. Bopp, R. Rask, A. Kh. Vostokov, etc.).
The subject of etymology as a branch of linguistics is the study of the sources and process of formation of the vocabulary of a language, as well as the reconstruction of the vocabulary of the language of the most ancient period.
4
Basic vocabulary and borrowings.
Despite some contamination of the English vocabulary with words borrowed from other languages, the English language as a whole has not suffered from a large influx of foreign language elements. On the contrary, his vocabulary has undoubtedly been enriched. This became possible due to the fact that he mastered foreign language elements, absorbing everything valuable and necessary, discarding everything random in the course of further development.
Main vocabulary fund- this is the lexical base of the language, the most stable layer of its vocabulary, which includes, first of all, the primitive, most important and necessary, firmly established in the life of the people and commonly used names of objects, phenomena, processes associated with reality.
Borrowing is a process as a result of which a certain foreign language element (primarily a word or a full-valued morpheme) appears and becomes fixed in a language; also such a foreign language element itself. Borrowing is an integral component of the process of functioning and historical change of a language, one of the main sources of vocabulary replenishment.
5
Practical fundamentals of research
The main vocabulary of the English language.
The boundaries of the vocabulary are quite fluid: new ones appear periodically, and some fall out of use.
As a result of studying dictionaries, fiction and Internet sources, it was revealed that in the English language there is a certain stable level of words that, basically, remain unchanged.
The main subgroups of the unchanged vocabulary fund are as follows:
Names of objects and natural phenomena:
Snow - snow
Names denoting people, their relatives, body parts:
Father - father
Names of the main processes of human activity:
Sleep - sleep
Go- walk, go, go
Words denoting the simplest tools:
Harmer - hammer
Ax – ax
Names of the color spectrum, abstract adjectives:
Bad - bad
Structural elements of language (prepositions, conjunctions)
In English literature, the term "native" is used to refer to words of Anglo-Saxon origin, brought to the British Isles from other continents in the 5th century by the Germanic tribes: the Angles, Saxons and Jutes.
6
The term “borrowings” is used to refer to words taken from other languages and modified in phonemic, pronunciation and component meaning according to the standards and norms of the English language.
The analysis showed that native words make up 30% of the English dictionary. Modern linguists divide them into European and Germanic groups of words. Words from native European languages form the oldest layer of English vocabulary. They are divided into various semantic groups:
Words for family members and immediate relatives
Mother - mother
Words naming objects and natural phenomena:
Moon - moon
Rain - rain
Water - water
Words denoting parts of the human body:
Arm - hand
Leg – leg
Foot - foot
Names of animals and birds:
Goose - goose
Wolf - wolf
Some quality adjectives:
Young - young
Slow - slow
Hot - hot
Words that name action verbs:
To go - walk
To see - to see
Most numerals belong here.
Summer - summer
Ground - earth
House - house
Storm - storm
Cold - cold
Iron - iron
Hope - hope
Rest - rest
7
Life - life
To buy - buy
To keep - keep
To learn – to teach, to recognize
Deaf - deaf
Dead - dead
The same layer of vocabulary includes many adverbs and pronouns.
Words of Germanic origin are very important because of their stability, high frequency, and great word-forming ability. They are often monosyllabic and have some graphical abilities: -tf, ng (aw), tw, wh.
8
Borrowings that came into English from other languages.
The huge influx of borrowings from these sources can be explained by a number of important historical events, such as the Roman invasion, the introduction of Christianity, the Norman Conquest and the rise of the Renaissance.
The fact that about 70% of the entire English vocabulary consists of borrowings proves the specific conditions for the development of the English language.
Borrowings entered the language in two ways: through oral and written speech.
Oral borrowings took place mainly in the early periods of history. Such words are monosyllabic and undergo significant changes, while written borrowings retain their spelling and pronunciation. Their assimilation is a rather long process.
Latin borrowings of the early period of time.
In the first century, barbarian tribes lived in northern Europe and had contact with the Romans. The first borrowings were words denoting various plants and food products:
Wine - wine
Pepper - pepper
Peach – peach
Pear - pear
Dish - dish
Animals: Ass – donkey
Words denoting measure:
Pound - pound
Inch - inch
Words denoting some kind of structure:
Port – port
Camp (campus) - campus
Street (via strata) – street
9
Latin words formed the first layer of borrowings and enriched the language of the Anglo-Saxon tribes. Later, this layer of vocabulary became the basis of the future English language.
Celtic borrowings.
In the 5th century AD, several Germanic tribes crossed the English Channel and occupied the British Isles.
Their indigenous inhabitants, the Celts, fought desperately for their territories, but they were forced to retreat north and southwest, towards Wales. Through contact with the Celts, the invaders acquired a large number of Celtic words:
Down – hill
Druid - druid
Dome - dome
Place names: London, Shier
Second period of Latin borrowings.
7th century AD - the period of the introduction of Christianity by Roman priests. This was the new (second) period of Latin borrowings. Among them were the words
associated with the church.
Priest - priest
Angel - angel
school-related: magister - master's degree
associated with animals: lion - lion
related to plants: palm -tree – palm tree
minerals: marble
tools: spade - shovel
From the late 8th century to the mid-11th century, the English language was influenced by several Scandinavian invasions.
10
Among the borrowings of this period:
- sky, skin, scull, rude, anger
Husband, to die, to hit, to want
Ill, ugly, happy
She, them, same
French borrowings.
In the 9th century, the Normans came to the northern sea coast of France and were partially influenced by the French language.
In the 11th century, the greatest event in the history of England took place - under the leadership of William the Conqueror, the Norman era began.
French was the language of people of high society - a system of developed feudalism. In Britain, French borrowings seeped into all areas of social life.
Administrate (administrative) – state, county, government, parliament, people, nation
Legal terms – crime, judge
Military terms – army, battle, peace, victory, officer
Education – lesson, library, pupils
Art – color, to paint, arch
Life – dinner, supper, to boil, to fry, to dress, money, jewels.
Renaissance era (16th-17th centuries)
This period was marked by significant development of science, a revival of interest in the ancient languages - Greek and Latin.
During this period, Latin borrowings were not concrete, on the contrary, abstract:
Knowledge - knowledge, aura - aura, technology - technology
Minimum
To elect
11
The English language has borrowed many scientific terms from Greek:
analysis, cycle, character, chemistry, phonetics.
During the Renaissance, there was intense cultural mixing with the main European countries - Spain and Portugal:
Comrade, Negro, cigar, mosquito, Madera
The discovery of America brought a number of words from the Native American Indians: potato, chocolate, tobacco.
Contacts with France were marked with words with a Parisian accent and emphasis:
Machine - machine
Police - police
Garage - garage
Technique - technology
Borrowings related to the Italian language came from
music:
Opera - opera
Piano - piano
Solo - solo
Soprano - soprano
Tempo - tempo
military terms: colony, infantry
everyday life: macaroni, incognito
Zink - zinc
Quartz – quartz
Cobalt
Iceberg - iceberg
Zigzag- zigzag
From Arabic and Persian:
Algebra - algebra
Coffee - coffee
Magazine - magazine
Tulip - tulip
Paradise - paradise
From Russian:
Beluga - beluga
Sterlad - sterlet
Versta - mile
Ruble - ruble
Tzar – king
Duma - thought
Samovar - samovar
Shuba - fur coat
12
Conclusion.
The vocabulary of any language is constantly changing. Many words disappear from the language because what those words meant ceases to exist. At the same time, new words constantly appear in the language, because new realities arise that require designation.
The purpose of this study was to study changes in the vocabulary of the English language in the period from the beginning of written sources to the 17th century.
Statistical analysis revealed the fact that the vocabulary of the English language contains native words (approximately 30%) and borrowed words that came from other languages (70%).
The origin of a word, its path in language, historical changes in its composition are recorded in historical and etymological dictionaries.
So, we selected and studied 250 borrowed words extracted from etymological and historical dictionaries and the Internet database.
An etymological analysis of these lexemes showed that the majority of borrowings in the English language are words of French, Latin, Greek (about 40%) and Scandinavian origin (about 15%). Borrowings from other languages – approximately 15%.
In our opinion, we were able to study the problem of borrowings in the English language. We analyzed possible ways of their penetration and examined various types of borrowing. The results of historical analysis prove that the characteristics of the influence of a particular language are determined by the nature of economic, social and cultural relations with speakers of these languages in a specific historical period of time.
Thus, the study made it possible to delve deeper into the essence of such a concept as the etymological analysis of a word and establish that the unique richness of the vocabulary of the English language is a reflection of the diverse and complex relationships with other countries of the world in the history of England since 450. and to the 17th century.
Further study of a significant number of borrowings in the period from the 17th century to the present day will allow us to more fully describe the vocabulary of modern English.
13
Bibliography.
Amosova N.N. Etymological foundations of the vocabulary of modern English. – M.: Publishing house of literature in foreign languages, 1956.
Arakin V.D. History of the English language. – M.: Higher School, 1968.
Arakin V.D. Essays on the history of the English language. – M.: Education, 1955.
Borisova L.M. From the history of English words. A book for high school students. – M.: Education, 1994.
Makovsky M.M. Historical and etymological dictionary of modern English. ISBN: 5-93883-013-5. Year: 2000. Format: PDF.
Smirnitsky A.I. Lexicology of the English language. – M.: Education, 2000.
Haugen E. The process of borrowing // New in linguistics. – M.: Progress, 1985.
Oxford Concise Dictionary of English Etymology. T.F. Hoad. – Oxford Paperback Reference, 2000.