Учебное пособие 1681

(adj.)), холо́дни (cold (adj.)), чи́ста (clean (adj.))]. These words demonstrate the presence of characteristic features of the Ukrainian language in the speech of the respondent.

And finally, examples with the absent final consonant: [будя) (be waking up (v., imper-

́

fect mode)), вы́копая (having dug (v., perfect mode)), дохо́дя (approaching to (v., imperfect

mode)), думая (thinking (v., imperfect mode)), ждэ (waiting (v., imperfect mode)), захва́тя

́

(having caught (v., perfect mode)), засыпа́я (falling asleep (v., imperfect mode)), зна́я (knowing (v., imperfect mode)), идэ́ (going (v., imperfect mode)), мо́жа (may be (v., imperfect mode)), нэсе́(carrying (v., imperfect mode)), о́пытни (experienced (adj.)), пидвизе́(will give someone a lift (v., perfect mode)), пры́дя (having come (v., perfect mode)), прыхо́дя (coming (v., imperfect mode)), рвэ (tore (v., imperfect mode)), ста́нэ (will become (v., perfect mode)), тэче́(flowing (v., imperfect mode)), хо́дя (walking (v., imperfect mode))]. These lexical units prove the fact of their presence in the majority in the south-eastern dialect of Ukraine and the southern Russian dialect, too. It is of interest to analyze the point of view of the Voronezh folk speech researcher M.T. Avdeeva: “Modern speakers of dialects with a Ukrainian linguistic basis can not always relate themselves to one or another people, but their speech, language can be identified by specialists who agree that this speech still retains an expressive Ukrainian language type. This opinion is based on the fact that the mentioned dialects to a large extent use phonetic means and grammatical connections of the Ukrainian language, more precisely, Slobozhansky in most cases, dialects of the south-eastern dialect group”[8, p. 33].

Conclusion

Thus, through the most vivid phonetic, grammatical, and word-formation features of dialect considered in the study, we tried to present a speech portrait of a native speaker of the Progoreloye village. As a result, a peculiar surviving evidence of an entire era has been found out. It covers 90 years, exactly as much as our respondent's age.

A variety of linguistic means demonstrated interesting phenomena of the active dialectbearing dictionary: some models include Old Russian elements (e.g., ending with –ою (oyu) (- ею (yeyu))) and elements of the South Russian dialect (the exaggerating of the sound [ya], loss of a vowel at the beginning of a word, lack of final consonants, replacing [г] ([g]) with [и] ([i]) and others), elements of the Ukrainian language and its dialects (keeping softened [p׳] ([rj]) at the end of a word, [y] ([g]) in place of [в], ([v]), [д] ([d]) in place of [ж], ([g]), use of solid consonants before the vowels of the front raw, absence of stun consonants at the end of words, absence of the final vowels, the predominant use of и (i) at the place of etymological ѣ,

the words with the ending – э (-ə), the spread of soft hissing, etc.).

In our opinion, the relatively closed nature of the life of the dialect-bearer and the features of rural life played a significant role in the formation of a peculiar, unique portrait of her speech and the preservation of its traditional features. It includes complexes of phenomena characteristic of representatives of the older age group of a given locality. Dialect traits here are manifested in a pure form. At the same time, the speech portrait of the respondent is an original linguistic personality embodied in speech, different from other native speakers. A distinctive character is manifested in actively functioning lexemes representing useful material for a linguist. It allows you to determine the "portrait" design of the dialect carrier language and convincingly confirms the existence of a special dialectic picture of the world. It is interesting to note that the representation of information by a person with changes occurring in it in the process of activity and under the influence of time is carried out through reflection in the language. “Over time, some lexical units lose their imagery and freshness and go to the periphery, then others come in their place, more vivid and expressive” [2, p. 101]. However, there is also “conservatism ... of dialects, for many centuries successfully opposing external influences, as well as a tendency towards standardization” [2, p. 101].

The inclusion of elements of different levels of the Russian and Ukrainian languages made the portrait of Tomasheva M.P. lively, colorful, emotional, rich, expressive, unique. And

24

the situation of easy informal communication made it possible to note down special units, identify their distinctive characteristics and present vivid features. Moreover, “in the language there is a constant process of new words in diverse ways” [9, p. 227].

The dialect material we collected, which formed the basis of this work, shows that the current state of speech of M. Tomasheva - reflection of valuable information about the features of her worldview and world perception, interpenetration and mutual influence of closely related languages. “The pressure of the linguistic system contributed to the development of the surrounding world according to those linguistic models that were relevant for these dialects” [2, p.

105].

Due to the conducted observations we may come to the conclusion that the respondent’s dialect is among the transitional Russian-Ukrainian ones. To a greater extent, the features of eastern Ukrainian dialects are preserved in it. They are quite clearly visible in the fixed spoken language of the dialect carrier.

The noted above ideas, obtained in the analysis of the local language, makes it possible to really assess its current state and make a certain contribution to the study of Russian-Ukrainian dialects in the Central Chernosyom region. Moreover, “through the eyes of a villager, one can see the daily life of the Russian village, the changes taking place in it” [10, p. 36].

Undoubtedly, the dialect “is both a cultural monument and a living basis of national-and- language development” [11, p. 36]. And, naturally, in modern conditions, one should “make changes to linguistic forecasts about the withering away of dialects in the conditions of social integration and industrialization of society” [2, p. 113]. The fixation of folk speech from primary sources in different territories of the country is necessary to get an idea of the current state of dialects and update the data already available in science on the functioning of folk dialects. It opens up great opportunities for its collectors, because, based on specific material, it is possible to solve various problems of a linguistic nature. Moreover, it helps to conduct research in the framework of a major project of a national scale - the Lexical Atlas of Russian dialects.

References

[1]Myznikov S.A. Historical and etymological works of A.S. Gerda (in the context of modern problems of Russian dialectology) // Collection of scientific articles in memory of Professor Alexander Sergeyevich Gerd. St. Petersburg: Nestor-Istoriya, 2016. - P. 79-102.

[2]Vendina T.I. “The lexical atlas of Russian folk dialects” on the dynamics of Russian dialect vocabulary // The lexical atlas of Russian folk dialects (Materials and Research) 2018. St. Petersburg: OR RAS, 2018. - P. 96-113.

[3]Kabuzan V.M. Ukrainians in the world: dynamics of numbers and distribution of the 20s. XVIII century - 1989: the formation of ethnic and political borders of the Ukrainian ethnic group. Inst t. History of the Russian Academy of Sciences. M .: Nauka, 2006.- P. 111-117.

[4]Petropavlovsk district of Voronezh region // URL: https://www.vrnguide.ru ›t-admin / petropavlovskij-district.html (accessed: 04.11.2019).

[5]Prokhorov V.A. All Voronezh land. Voronezh: Central Black Soil Publishing House, 1973. - P. 254-255.

[6]Grinkova N.P. Voronezh dialects // Uch. app. LSPI them. A.L. Herzen. L., 1947, v.

55.- P. 197.

[7]Bromley S.V., Bulatova L.N., 3akharova K.F. and etc.; under the editorship of L.L. Kasatkina. Russian dialectology. M .: Education, 1989 . - P. 59-195.

[8]Avdeeva M.T. The interaction of Russian and Ukrainian languages as an areal phenomenon of frontier // Bulletin of the Voronezh State University. Series Humanities. 2002. No.

2.- P. 32-39.

25

[9]Lesnikov S.V. The construction of the information retrieval code of academic dictionaries of the Russian language (ASRY Code) // Lexical Atlas of Russian folk dialects (Materials and Research) 2018. St. Petersburg: OR RAS, 2018. - P. 226-257.

[10]Batyreva L.P. “Thoughts expressed and stated in a notebook” (notes by L. G. Molkova, resident of the village of Grezino, Lezhnevsky District, Ivanovo Region) // Lexical Atlas of Russian Folk Dialects (Materials and Research) 2018.SPb .: IL RAS, 2018. - P. 27-36.

[11]Demeshkina T.A., Tubalova I.V. Dialect discourse as a sphere of implementation of national culture: constants and transformations // Tomsk State University Bulletin. Philology. 2017. No. 50. - P. 36-54.

[12]Dictionary of Ukrainian dialects of the Voronezh region: in 2 volumes / M. Avdeeva; VSU. Voronezh: Publishing and Printing Center of Voronezh State University, 2008. – 227 p.

26

UDC 811.111-112

ASSESSING THE POTENTIAL OF TEUTONIC SUBSTRATE IN GERMANIC LANGUAGES IN DIACHRONY

T.A. Kazakova

____________________________________________________________________________

Voronezh Institute of Economics and social management Candidate of philology

Associate Professor of the Department of social and humanitarian disciplines Tatyana Aleksandrovna Kazakova

e-mail: maximtak@mail.ru

____________________________________________________________________________

Problem statement. Lexicographic parameterization of language systems and subsystems is actively developing in modern science, which indicates the relevance of works on computerization of vocabulary. The use of information technologies makes it possible to synthesize theoretical and applied principles in language learning. Etymological dictionaries acquire the status of the actual base of language units in linguistic research.

The purpose of the proposed study is a diachronic correlation potential of the Teutonic roots in the Germanic languages the three periods of existence: ancient, medieval and modern material on the etymological dictionary of J. Pokorny for more in-depth understanding of the processes of word formation in the Germanic languages of the modern world.

Results. The study compared the etymological dictionaries of the Teutonic Fund; an ordered set of pragermanic roots with Russian interpretation was created; languages-respondents of proto-Germanic roots are distributed by periods; the activity of pragermanic roots in each period is estimated; quantitative and qualitative analysis of the root cores of each epoch was carried out and specified dominant Teutonic Fund; proposed and calculated the Index of activity of the Teutonic Fund each period; peak activity of proto-Germanic roots has been recorded in different epochs.

Conclusion. Experience of data analysis of the etymological dictionary of Yu. Pokorny on the basis of objective quantitative characteristics – another step towards overcoming the subjectivism of lexicographic description with the prospect of conducting similar research on other material and (or) in other languages.

Key words: etymological dictionary, Teutonic substrate, correlation, frequency, quantitative analysis, average weight, core, dominant, diachrony.

For citation: Kazakova T.A. Assessing the potential of Teutonic substrate in Germanic languages in diachrony / T.A. Kazakova // Scientific Journal “Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-didactic Researches”. – 2020. - № 1 (28). – P. 27 - 39.

Introduction

The oldest layer of German vocabulary dates back to the era of the Indo-European linguistic community and never ceases to be the subject of consideration and analysis. The latest research develops issues of social stratigraphy of different layers of German vocabulary and their spatial and chronological relation, issues related to the analysis of the formation and functioning of various aspects German vocabulary, figuring out their possible Indo-European sources.

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the activity of pragerman roots in various layers of the common German vocabulary with their chronological correlation, providing material for the explication of the peculiarities of word-making in Germanic languages. To achieve this goal, the following goals need to be met: 1) to review the theoretical foundations of the chosen direction; 2) establish a lexicographical source that reflects the chronology of the entry of Pragerman roots into Germanic languages; 3) order a lot of Pragerman roots; 4) to distribute the language-respondents of the Pragerman roots by the periods of consideration;

____________________

© Kazakova T.A., 2020

27

5) to assess the activity of The Pragerman roots in each period; 6) to conduct a quantitative and qualitative analysis of the cores of the roots of each era, indicating the dominant; 7) to record the peak activity of roots in different eras; 8) calculate the activity of the Pragerman roots of each period.

Methodology of the research

I.I. Sreznevsky believed that understanding the history of a language is possible only by comparing it with related languages. In this case, the ancient states of several languages should be compared, and then these languages should be compared at a modern level. The reasons for language changes can be both external and internal. The former include relations between peoples, language contacts, and the latter include changes in the language itself. So, I. I. Sreznevskij pointed to the processes that occur directly in the language, as a whole, subject to external and internal influences [1, p. 16].

In this work, we adhere to the idea of a systematic organization of the language: «... In order to get away from the position of replacing systemicity with structurality, it is necessary not only to go on to analyze the dynamics of the structure, but also to find out the nature (substance) of the elements of this system that are part of the observed structural relations, to find out their special functions within the framework of the lexical whole, and on this basis the integral function of the lexical subsystem of the language within the framework of its common system» [2, p. 184].

The need for research on vocabulary as a system is indicated by A.A. Kretov: «By comparing the systemic organization of nuclear vocabulary at different stages of the development of the same language, we get the opportunity to create historical lexicology of this language» [3, p. 93].

This study takes into account the point of view of I.A. Boduen de Kurtene, who wrote that «the results of various periods, noticeable in a given state of a known object, are called layers in the natural sciences: applying this name to a language, we can talk about layers of the language, the allocation of which is one of the main tasks of linguistics» [4, from. 67].

Lexicographic research acts as a base for the explication of linguistic phenomena, inaccessible to their elementary consideration. In lexicography, as in many fields of science, the accumulated data is being reorganized in the direction of compactness, however, the construction of theories in diachrony lags somewhat behind the formation of linguistic concepts in synchrony.

In this connection, the opinion of V. A. Zvegincev should be noted: «On the one hand, providing valuable material for general linguistics, and on the other, enriching history ..., a comparative study resolutely rejects the barren and false method of studying isolated facts. A comparative study reveals the main trends in the development of a particular language and makes it possible to use with great success the principle of chronology, more reliable than indirect chronological descriptions of individual monuments» [5, p. 70-71].

To penetrate the language mechanism through the history that the language passes, it is necessary to compare the structures of different languages, which is made possible by the existence of comparative-historical dictionaries that allow the selection and systematization of genetically common elements of the language. «A historical dictionary describes the witnessed history of words in a particular language. The etymological dictionary describes the same specific language, but involving the facts of its unverifiedancient history. The comparative historical dictionary describes the unapproved ancient state of the language, involving the facts of the witnessed history of specific languages» [6, p. 4].

When selecting a comparative historical source dictionary, the work was taken into account, the presentation of the material corresponding to the tasks set in the study, namely: the size of the Pragerman list and the number of words in the respondent languages; maximum compression of dictionary entries, reduced to a non-derivative, root basis as a title form and a

28

dictionary entry consisting of examples in child languages. An equally important condition was that the dictionary had several so-called inputs: the ability to extract information, starting from the conditional alphabet of pragerman roots, from the alphabetical list of words of the respondent languages, from the index dictionary of the respondent languages in the dictionary.

Below we present a review of the content of the etymological dictionaries of J. Pokorny, S. Mann, A. Orel and G. Kroonen in accordance with the chronology of their publication in order to select the most suitable source for the planned analysis.

The etymological dictionary of J. Pokorny includes 1990 vocabulary articles focused on pragermanic roots, with their representation in 21 languages of the three periods of the existence of Germanic languages, the dictionary is also equipped with an alphabetical list of words of the respondent languages and an index dictionary of the respondent languages [1*]. In addition, the Indo-German database of this dictionary is included in the project of the «Tower of Babel» by Starostin-Nikolaev and is available on a network resource in electronic form [2*].

Orel's dictionary [1 **], which includes 23 respondent languages, can rightfully be included in the list of important modern lexicographic developments, taking into account the author’s desire to prepare the basis for a future revision of etymologies. The dictionary deals only with full lexical parallels in the German language, and the resulting reconstructions are words (sometimes with their morphological variants), and not morphemes. Our study requires a different approach to the presentation of the material. Более того, предварительный подсчет показал, что современные английский и немецкий языки представлены 37 и 39 словами соответственно, что значительно уменьшает ценность источника в рамках нашей работы.

The significance of the G. Kroonen dictionary [2 **] with the representation of 30 responding languages and due to the inclusion of a large number of dialect groups is undeniable, in addition, it gives the maximum number of forms from modern Germanic languages, such as English, German, Faroese, Dutch and from Elvdal dialect. A preliminary calculation showed that English and German are represented by lists of 1029 and 1569 words, which is 117 and 318 words more than in the dictionary of J. Pokorny [1*]. Nevertheless, the dictionary is not an exhaustive overview of the reflexes of a particular Pragerman word in Germanic languages, but an attempt to establish the most important evidence on which the quoted Pragerman reconstruction is based. In addition, the vocabulary entries of G. Kroonen, like the vocabulary entries of A.Orel, are entitled by parts of speech, i.e. tokens, not morphemes.

According to A. A. Kretov, the dictionary of S.E. Mann [3**] surpasses the above dictionaries in completeness and richness of information. But its introduction into scientific circulation is fraught with several obstacles: the presence of a single input from the Proto-Indo- European language, the lack of an alphabetical list of incoming words by language, the lack of unification of the name of languages, unjustified expansion and splitting of various dictionary entries, the use of S.E. Mann as a dictionary a source on the Germanic languages of the dictionary A. Walde-Y. Pokorny [4**], a wide, but inconsistent presentation of these Germanic languages» [7, p. 43-44].

In general, in all the dictionaries examined, several diachronic layers are presented adjusted for the individual theories of the authors. Let us take into account that today's forms of reconstruction are also not final. It is worth considering that «... dictionaries reflect the realities of the lexical-semantic system by at least 2/3, the rest of the dictionaries about the lexicalsemantic system of the language depends on the subjective factor» [8, p.164].

A generalization of the information obtained leads to the choice of the research dictionary of J. Pokorny [1*] as the material of the study, which best meets the requirements of the work and is available in electronic form in the project of the «Tower of Babel» [2*]. It is not surprising that databases of this format are becoming more and more popular in the information market, as these are accessible storages for a large amount of systematized data with which you can perform certain actions: add, delete, modify, copy, organize.

29

It is necessary to touch on the terms used in the work. Due to the fact that philologists distinguish periods: Proto-Germanic (from the era of the collapse of the Indo-European linguistic community to the stabilization of the Pragerman language) and the common Germanic (from the Germanic language to the emergence of bundles of isogloss constituting dialect groups), the term «pragermanian» should be used to denote all linguistic phenomena that preceded the ancient period of the existence of Germanic languages. Speaking about common lexemes in different languages, we mean common roots, ignoring inflectional and derivational suffixes. We consider words related, which, taking into account regular phonetic changes in these languages, come down to the same root. The respondent languages include all Germanic languages represented in the etymological dictionary. Pragerman substrate should be understood as a fund of pragerman roots, presented in the source etymological dictionary.

In the latest studies of the languages of Germanic peoples of the old and new worlds, there are many works examining the system of the Germanic language fund. We adhere to the genetic point of view set forth by A.A. Kretov: «In the space of a language, a word is not a point, but a trajectory, and therefore cannot be attributed to any one moment in the history of the language. The reason for this lies at least in the fact that the roots, suffixes, prefixes and inflections belong to different «chronological layers» (in modern terminology, to chronologically different systems)» [9, p. 57]. In view of the foregoing, this paper proposes a comparison of different chronological layers, the focus of which will be on pragerman roots. Consideration of root activity is proposed to be carried out in three stages in accordance with their «demand» in different periods of history. Comparison of the obtained data on the periods of language development acquires the status of diachronic. The use of quantitative methods in combination with a qualitative consideration has long established itself as an objective assessment of linguistic reality, reflected in dictionaries, as, for example, in the works of V.T. Titov on the description of lexical-semantic systems of Romance languages [10]. The proposed study provides a synthesis of qualitative and quantitative analyzes.

Results of the research

To achieve this goal, let’s consider the data from the dictionary of J. Pokorny [1*], reflected in the «Tower of Babel» by Starostin-Nikolaev [2*]. The electronic database is represented by a table of 24 columns containing information on the Pragerman root, interpretation in English, and the representation of German tokens in 21 responding languages. Column 24 contains comments. The table is presented in 1990 rows according to the number of pragerman roots in the dictionary. The expansion of the table by a column with a translation of the English interpretation of the pragerman root in Russian leads to an increase in its information content and to facilitate perception.

The logic of the study dictates initially an assessment of the participation of pragerman roots in the languages represented by the dictionary of J. Pokorny [1*]. We will distribute them into three conditional eras, carefully checking the manuals on the history of Germanic languages [11, 12, 13, 14].

30

Scientific Journal “Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-Didactic Researches” Issue 1 (28), 2020 ISSN 2587-8093

Table 1

Distribution of pragerman roots in Germanic languages by eras

Period

The data given in the table show that in the ancient period, the largest number of pragerman roots was used in the Old English language - 1430, the Old Frankish language has the least roots - 263. In the Middle Ages, the Middle High German language is leading, with 1375 roots, and the lower position is occupied by the Middle English language, represented by 117 roots. In the modern world, the number of pragerman roots prevails in the German language - 1251. The pragerman roots in the Danish language are least demanded, their number is 856.

The following is an assessment of the frequency of the Pragerman root in three conditional epochs of the existence of Germanic languages. The result of accounting for the entry of roots into languages becomes a summary table of the frequency of pragermanic roots.

Table 2 The frequency of pragerman roots functioning in the era of Antiquity, the Middle Ages and modernity

31

Scientific Journal “Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-Didactic Researches” Issue 1 (28), 2020 ISSN 2587-8093

Let us explain that line 1 informs the reader that in ancient times 34 pragermanic roots were used in 9 out of 9 languages, in the next line you can see that 83 roots were used in 8 out of 9 languages and so on. Considering the list of each period in decreasing frequency, we observe a peculiar core of each era, at the top of which you can observe the most demanded roots, at the base - the so-called «unemployed» roots.

Table 2 shows that 34 roots have the maximum frequency in the ancient period, 9 roots in the Middle Ages, and 448 roots in modern times. This phenomenon is proposed to be called «peak activity» of the roots. In contrast to this value, in line 10 one can see the «zero activity» of roots, characteristic of 101 roots in the ancient world, 433 roots in the Middle Ages, and 274 roots in our time. Such an observation leads to the conclusion that root activity should be considered from a closer distance, i.e. conduct a qualitative analysis.

Table 3 shows the 34 most active pragerman roots of the ancient period.

Table 3 The top of the core of the pragermanic roots of the ancient world

32

The activity of 34 roots presented in the table in all nine languages testifies to the importance of these concepts in the national Germanic picture of the world in ancient centuries. Based on the Russian equivalent of pragerman roots, we can conclude that the top of the root core reflects realities and concepts that were important for native speakers of Germanic languages in the ancient world: personal and behavioral characteristics, desire for material wellbeing and for conquest; craving for change; mental activity; objects of the world; emotional states; physical activity.

Let's move on to the top of the Middle Ages, represented by 9 roots.

Table 4 The top of the core of pragerman roots of the Middle Ages with a frequency of 6

As shown in table 4, at the top of the core of the Middle Ages are the roots used in 6 of 6 languages. Probably, not only the concepts of labor activity, illness and sewage formed the basis of the life of the Germans of that time. Expanding the size of the vertex to the root frequency with an indicator of 5 does not supplement, but completely changes the picture. There are 34 such roots.

Consider the results in table 5.

Table 5 The top of the core of the pragerman roots of the Middle Ages with a frequency of 5

33