Search results

Filters

  • Journals
  • Authors
  • Keywords
  • Date
  • Type

Search results

Number of results: 6
items per page: 25 50 75
Sort by:
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

This article examines substandard vocabulary in Russian proverbs attested in collections going back to the period from the end of the 17th century. Our analysis of collections published in the 18th through to 20th century shows that their authors’ excessive prudery and moral purism along with state‑imposed censorship severely affected both the nature of folklore as a genre and the history of the Russian language. In later reprints one often detects an intentional corruption of the text possibly caused by either censorial demands or by the well‑intentioned self‑censorship of the editors who redacted the proverbs and replaced “lowly” lexical items with socially acceptable ones based on their idea of contemporary moral norms. Any investigation of Russian phraseology of the 17th‑18th centuries must therefore be based on primary sources such as manuscripts or early printed books.
Go to article

Bibliography

Birgegård U., Glossariy russkogo razgovornogo yazyka kontsa 17‑go veka, “Russian Linguistics” 1975, vol. 2, issue 3‑4.

Dalʹ V.I., Poslovitsy russkogo naroda, Moskva 1984, t. 1.

Dalʹ V.I., Tolkovyy slovarʹ zhivogo velikorusskogo yazyka, Moskva 1978‑1980, t. 1‑4.

Drevniye russkiye poslovitsy. (Po sborniku nachala XVIII st. E.R. Romanova), «Zapiski Severo‑Zapadnogo otdela Imperatorskogo Russkogo geograficheskogo obshchestva» 1912, kn. 3.

Gasparov M.L., Zapisi i vypiski, Moskva 2000. Likhachev D.S., Zapiski i nablyudeniya: Iz zapisnykh knizhek raznykh let, Leningrad 1989.

Lomonosov M.V., Polnoye sobraniye sochineniy, Moskva, Leningrad 1955‑1959, t. 8‑9.

Poslovitsy, pogovorki, zagadki v rukopisnykh sbornikakh XVIII‑XX vekov, Moskva, Leningrad 1961.

Russko‑frantsuzskiy slovarʹ Antiokha Kantemira, vstup. st. i publikatsiya E. Babayevoy, Moskva 2004, t. 2.

Simoni P.K., Starinnyye sborniki russkikh poslovits, pogovorok, zagadok i proch. XVII‑XIX stoletiy, Sankt‑Peterburg 1899, vyp. 1.

Toporkov A.L., Erotika v russkom folʹklore, [v:] Russkiy eroticheskiy folʹklor. Pesnya. Obryady iobryadovyy folʹklor. Narodnyy teatr. Zagovory. Zagadki. Chastushki, Moskva 1995.

Veysmann E., Nemetsko‑latinskiy i russkiy leksikon kupno s pervymi nachalami russkogo yazyka kobshchey polʹze pri imp. Akademii nauk pechatiyu izdan, Sankt‑Peterburg 1731.

«Zhivopisets» 1772, ch. 2.
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Елена Николаева
1
ORCID: ORCID
Сергей Николаев
2
ORCID: ORCID

  1. Санкт‑Петербург, Российский государственный гидрометеорологический
  2. Санкт‑Петербург, Институт русской литературы (Пушкинский Дом) РАН
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

The article examines the specificity of the manifestation of active verbal aggression in Ukrainian phraseology through the use of the phraseoideographic paradigm. The typology of aggressive behavior of A. Buss and the postulate of the theory of argumentation and verbal aggressiveness of D. Infante are the basis of the research methodology. Analyzed are the classification parameters of active verbal aggression in the various communicative theories and practices. Specifics of manifestation of active verbal aggression (shout, accusation, demand, ridicule, criticism, insult, comment, gossip, slander, complaint, teasing, curse, blasphemy, indignation, destructive wish, threat, curse) in the Ukrainian phraseology is defined. The theoretical material is illustrated by a large number of examples. The context of using of a phraseological unit is considered as a conflict episode – a situation of communicative interaction of participants, during which contradictions are expressed. The study of the semantics, pragmatics and functioning of the phraseological units of active verbal aggression in the Ukrainian language shows that active verbal aggression is a complex system of interdependent mental reactions. These phraseology do not contradict modern knowledge of psychology and communicative linguistics about the studied subject, but at the same time the phraseological units form an independent system with the following signs: a) the state of the speaker’s dissatisfaction; b) a combination of verbal and non‑verbal components; c) intensifica-tion of manifestations; d) the correlation of the varieties of verbal aggression.
Go to article

Bibliography

Arh U.V., Pintarić A.P., Somatismen als Kodierungsmittel in Konfliktdialogen, „Slavia Centralis” 2020, vol. 13, № 1.
Beatty M.J., McCroskey J.C., It’s in Our Nature: Verbal Aggressiveness as Temperamental Expression, „Communication Quarterly” 1997, № 45.
Buss A., Aggression Pays, [in:] The Control of Aggression and Violence, ed. by J.L. Singer, NY, London 1971.
Buss A., Instrumentality of Aggression, Feedback and Frustration as Determinates of Physical Aggression, „Journal of Personality and Social Psychology” 1967, № 3.
Ihnatenko D.Ye., Frazeolohichni odynytsi na poznachennya intensyvnosti diyi ta stanu v anhliysʹkiy, nimetsʹkiy, rosiysʹkiy ta ukrayinsʹkiy movakh: dys. na zdobuttya … k. filol. n., Vinnytsya 2018.
Infante D.A., Aggressiveness, [in:] Personality and Interpersonal Communication, ed. by J.C. McCroskey, J.A. Daly, Newbury Park, CA 1987.
Infante D.A., Wigley C.J., Verbal Aggressiveness: An interpersonal Model and Measure, „Communication Monographs” 1986, № 53. Issers O.S., Kommunikativnyye strategii i taktiki russkoy rechi, Omsk 1999.
Kachmar O.V., Ahresiya yak sotsialʹnyy fenomen, „Nova paradyhma” 2014, № 125.
Klyus Ju., Inwektywy związane z nazwami części ciała we frazeologii polskiej i rosyjskiej. Analiza leksykalno‑semantyczna, „Językoznawstwo” 2018, № 1 (12).
Novikova T.F., Smirnova P.Yu., Priyemy neytralizatsii verbalʹnoy agressii v sostave sredstv rechevogo vozdeystviya, „Nauchnyye vedomosti Belgorodskogo gosudarstvennogo uni- versiteta. Seriya: Gumanitarnyye nauki” 2018, № 37.
Pradid Yu.F., Frazeolohichna ideohrafiya (problematyka doslidzhenʹ), Kyyiv, Simferopolʹ 1997.
Sappa N.N., Verbalʹnaya agressiya kak obʺyekt psikhologo‑pravovogo analiza, „Vestnik po pedagogike i psikhologii Yuzhnoy Sibiri” 2016, № 4, [v:] https://bulletinpp.esrae.ru/217‑1101
Shcherbinina Yu.V., Verbalʹnaya agressiya, Moskva 2006.
Sidorova E.Yu., Verbalʹnaya agressiya kak kommunikativno‑pragmaticheskoye yavleniye, „Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta” 2009, № 319.
Slovnyk frazeolohizmiv ukrayinsʹkoyi movy, Kyyiv 2003.
Szerszunowicz J., Obraz człowieka w polskich, angielskiсh i włoskich leksykalnych i frazeologicznych jednostkach faunicznych, Białystok 2011.
Yakimova N.S., Verbalʹnaya agressiya kak aktualʹnyy fenomen sovremennogo obshchestva, „Vestnik Kemerovskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta” 2011, № 45.
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Жанна Краснобаєва‑Чорна
1
ORCID: ORCID

  1. Донецький національний університет імені Василя Стуса
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

The aim of the article is to reproduce and compare the peculiarities of the ethnocultural image of a vain person, as verbalized in Ukrainian and Polish phraseology. The subject of analysis is the structural‐semantic and functional peculiarities of Ukrainian and Polish phraseological units, in which vanity is conceptualized as an emotional state of superiority, arrogance, pride, and which have a pronounced negative connotation. The study found that in the common Ukrainian‐Polish perception, a vain person is a person who considers himself/herself superior to others, and, accordingly, others negatively evaluate this position. Most often, vanity in Polish and Ukrainian phraseology is conceptualized through the image of a person with their head raised high, puffed up, with protruding lips, whose appearance and habits resemble the behaviour of a beautiful pompous bird: a peacock or a rooster (in Ukrainian and Polish ethnoculture), a crane or a turkey (only in Polish), goldeneye or a screech‐owl (only in Ukrainian). Also common is the idea of a vain person who thinks he/she is the smartest, while others think that something is wrong with him/her. Comparing the analyzed phraseological units in the selected languages allows us to better understand the peculiarities of the image, which became the impetus for the creation of the phraseological nomination, to establish the regularities and mechanisms of the verbal explication of vanity in Ukrainian and Polish linguistic cultures.
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Оксана Лозинська
1
ORCID: ORCID

  1. Львів, Львівський національний університет імені Івана Франка
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

The aim of this article is to analyze the role of phraseological units (PhUs) in discourse and to investigate their co(n)textual dependency. The paper presents a typology of the lexical and phraseological units, labelled as co(n)textual supports and developed by Olza y Losada (2011): expressions that paraphrase the initial phraseological meaning; expressions that highlight a specific component of this meaning; lexical and phraseological units that are synonymous with the ‘central’ phraseological expression they co-occur with; and lexical and phraseological units that are antonymous with the ‘central’ expression. These units orient and specify the use and interpretation of PhUs. The analysis also focuses on the so-called markers of phraseological units that function as (quasi) PhUs that serve to introduce phraseology within discourse in a (more or less) explicit way and have pragmatic discursive value (cfr. Olza 2013). The last part of the article examines some PhUs whose implicatures can be affected by contextual circumstances and characterized by greater dependence on the general context of the statement despite showing some degree of conventionalization.

Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Agnieszka Gwiazdowska
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

The article analyses phraseological and paremiological borrowings in the Russian language of the era of Peter the Great. The end of the 18th – the first half of the 19th centuries was a time of intensive political, economic and linguistic transformations in Russia. From the “window to Europe”, which was opened at that time, a powerful stream of innovations, primarily lexical ones, poured into Russian life and the Russian language. This borrowed vocabulary has been fundamentally studied by both domestic and foreign linguists, and has become an object of lexicographic description. The process of borrowing phraseological units and proverbs of the Petrine era has been studied much less than borrowed vocabulary. The reason for this is the different way of borrowing such linguistic units: if the borrowed vocabulary is easily recognized by a foreign language root words, then phraseological units and proverbs perceive European innovations mainly by the literal translation of components, i.e. tracing, which makes them “their own” in the composition of lexical components. The article analyses the phraseological units and proverbs that were mastered in the time of Peter the Great in the form of half calks and calks, characterizes the common and different features in the adaptation of these types of units to the Russian language, emphasizes the methodological difficulties in their identification as Europeanisms. Special attention is paid to phraseological and paremiological borrowings from the Dutch and German languages, something typical for the era of Peter the Great.
Go to article

Bibliography


Berkov V.P., Mokiyenko V.M., Shulezhkova S.G., Bolʹshoy slovarʹ krylatykh slov russkogo yazyka, Moskva 2000.

Bierich A., Russische Phraseologie des 18. Jahrhunderts. Entstehung, Semantik, Entwicklung. (= Heidelberger Publikationen zur Slavistik. A. Linguistische Reihe. Band 16. Hsg.: Baldur Panzer), Frankfurt am Main – Berlin – Bern – Bruxelles – New York – Oxford – Wien 2005.

Birikh A.K., Mokiyenko V.M., Stepanova L.I., Slovarʹ russkoy frazeologii. Istoriko-etimologicheskiy spravochnik, red. prof. V.M. Mokiyenko, 4 e izd., stereotipn., Moskva 2007.

Birzhakova Ye.E., Voynova L.A., Kutina L.L., Ocherki po istoricheskoy leksikologii russkogo yazyka 18 veka, Leningrad 1972.

Dalʹ V.I., Tolkovyy slovarʹ zhivogo russkogo yazyka, 3-e izd., t. 1-4, Moskva 1955.

Flajšhans V., Česká přísloví. Sbírka přísloví, přípovídek a pořekadel lidu Českého v Cechách, na Moravě a v Slezsku, Díl I. Přísloví staročeská. Díl I (A-N), díl II (O-Ru)., Praha, 1911-1913. 2-é, rozšířené vydání. Předmluva V. Mokienko, komentáře V. Mokienko, L. Stěpanova, ed. Valerij Mokienko, Ludmila Stěpanova, Olomouc 2013.

Hüttl-Worth (Hüttl-Folter) G., Foreign Words in Russian. A Historical Scetch, 15501800. Mit einem Vorwort von D. Tschižewski. (University of California, Publications in Linguistics, 28), Berkley – Los Angeles 1963.

Hüttl-Worth (Hüttl-Folter) G., Die Bezeichnung des russischen Wortschatzes im 18. Jahrhundert, Wien 1956.

Kiparsky V., Die gemeinslavischen Lehnwöhrter aus dem Germanischen, Helsinki 1934.

Kiparsky V., Russische historische Grammatik. Bd. III. Entwicklung des Wortschatzes, Heidelberg: Carl Winter-Universitätsverlag 1975.

Knyazʹkova G.P., Russkoye prostorechiye vtoroy poloviny XVIII v., Leningad 1974.

Kolesov V.V., Russkaya rechʹ. Vchera. Segodnya. Zavtra, Sankt-Peterburg 1998.

Kruglov V.M., Russkiy yazyk v nachale XVIII veka: uzus petrovskikh perevodchikov, Sankt-Peterburg 2004.

Literaturnyy yazyk XVIII veka. Problemy stilistiki, otv. red. Yu.S. Sorokin, Leninrad 1982.

Małek E., «Sobraniye 4291 drevnikh rossiyskikh poslovits» i «Apofegmaty» Benyasha Budnogo. (Iz istorii russkoy paremiologii), Warszawa 2016.

Materialy i issledovaniya po leksike russkogo yazyka XVIII veka, otv. red. Yu.S. Sorokin, Moskva – Leninrad 1965.

Mikhelʹson M.I., Russkaya myslʹ i rechʹ. Svoyë i chuzhoye. Opyt russkoy frazeologii. Sbornik obraznykh slov i inoskazaniy, Sankt-Peterburg, t. 1, 1903; t. 2, 1905.

Mokiyenko V.M., Sidorenko K.P., Slovarʹ krylatykh vyrazheniy Pushkina, Sankt-Peterburg 1999.

Nikolayeva Ye.K., K probleme slavyanskogo yazykovogo vzaimodeystviya, [v:] Obraz světa v jazyce a frazeologii II. Picture of World in a Language and Phraseology, ed. Ladislav Janovec, Praga 2020.

Nowa księga przysłów i wyrażeń przysłowiowych polskich, red. akad. Ju. Krzyżanowski, t. 1-4, Warszawa 1969-1978.

Otten F., 2002, Kompʹyuternyye materialy, prislannyye avtoru nastoyashchey statʹi prof. F. Ottenom v 2002.

Otten F., Untersuchungen zu den Fremd und Lehnwörtern bei Peter dem Großen. (= Slavistische Forschungen. Bd. 50), Köln – Wien 1985.

Otten F., Zu einigen russischen Phraseologismen des 17./18. Jahrhunderts (I+II), „Zeitschrift für Slawistik” 2001, № 3 (46), s. 281-307; № 4, s. 418-442.

Palevskaya M.F., Materialy dlya frazeologicheskogo slovarya russkogo yazyka XVIII veka, Kishinov 1980.

Palevskaya M.F., Osnovnyye modeli frazeologicheskikh yedinits so strukturoy slovosochetaniya v russkom yazyke XVIII v., Kishinov 1972.

Poslovitsy, pogovorki, zagadki v rukopisnykh sbornikakh XVIII-XX vekov, izdaniye podgotovili M.Ya. Melʹts, V.V. Mitrofanova, G.G. Shapovalova, Moskva – Leningrad 1961.

Radzik A., Ze studiów nad frazeologią historyczną języka rosyjskiego. Frazeologizmy w niemiecko-łacińsko-rosyjskim Leksykonie peterburskim z 1731 roku, Kraków 2000.

Shanskiy N.M., Zimin V.I., Filippov A.V., Opyt etimologicheskogo slovarya russkoy frazeologii, Moskva 1987.

Shanskiy N.M., Zimin V.I., Filippov A.V., Kratkiy etimologicheskiy slovarʹ russkoy frazeologii: (Dopolneniye), „Russkiy yazyk v shkole” 1981, № 4, s. 61-72.

Slovarʹ russkogo yazyka XVIII v. Vyp. 1-23, Leningrad (Sankt-Peterburg) 1984-2019, (izdaniye prodolzhayetsya).

Snegirev I.M., Russkiye narodnyye poslovitsy i pritchi, izdannyye I.M. Snegirevym s predisloviyem i dopolneniyami, Moskva 1848.

Veysman E., Nemetsko-latinskiy i russkiy leksikon kupno s pervymi nachalami russkogo yazyka k obshchey polʹze pri Imperatorskoy Akademii nauk pechatiyu izdan, Sankt-Peterburg 1731.

Vinogradov V.V., Iz istorii russkikh slov i vyrazheniy, „Voprosy stilistiki”, Moskva 1966.

Vinogradov V.V., Ocherki po istorii russkogo literaturnogo yazyka XVII-XIX vv., Moskva 1934.
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Валерий Мокиенко
1
ORCID: ORCID

  1. Санкт‑Петербург, Санкт‑Петербургский государственный университет
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

The article is devoted to the problem of language interaction in Polish and East Slavic languages phraseology. Polish had a signifi cant impact on the formation of the phraseology of the East Slavic languages of the late XVI – early XIX century, which led to the emergence of similar Polish-Ukrainian-Belarusian-Russian phraseological units. It is often very difficult to determine the donor language. In some cases, the idiom (or proverb) could migrate from one language to another, enriching itself with new elements (in terms of vocabulary or semantics) and returning to the donor language in a new capacity. In the search for the source of phraseology in the article the authors propose to consider the date of the earliest fixation of the unit, the extended context of its use, which may contain linguistic or ethnographic details that help to identify the donor language. The article investigates the origin of one of the most obscure and recalcitrant items in Slavic phraseology: Polish zbić z pantałyku, Belorussian збіць з панталыку, Ukrainian збити з пантелику and Russian сбить с панталыку. In all four languages the meaning is ‘to confuse, befuddle, baffle’. This phraseological expression is shown to be first attested in Ukrainian at the end of the 18th cent.; from Ukrainian it was borrowed into Russian and then migrated into Polish. It is proposed that the expression originated in Ukrainian vernacular on the basis of Polish loanword pontalik ‘ornament, jewel’ adopted in Ukrainian as пантелик.

Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Елена Николаева
ORCID: ORCID
Сергей Николаев
ORCID: ORCID

This page uses 'cookies'. Learn more