Учебное пособие 1715

ry; a musical work of light, cheerful and humorous character), formed by analogy with "die Burleske", can belong both to the all-Romanian strata (macaronisms) and to the Gallicisms, because 85% units of the French adstrata were borrowed on the Latin (all-Romanian) basis. In such cases, the unit related to the language that was the donor of the borrowed material.

The criteria for extracting pseudo borrowings from etymologically related adstrata are: 1) the fact of formation of a unit in the system of German literary language on the basis of previously borrowed morphological / lexical material; 2) its unknown to native speakers of donor / interlanguage in the actual vocabulary meaning. The second criterion has diachronic limitations and can often only be unconditionally applied to a single synchronous segment. This is due to the fact that pseudo borrowings – assuming their usage, compactness and expressiveness – can be borrowed in other languages (and even in donor languages; this phenomenon is known as reverse borrowing): thus, the unit "der Rocker" appeared in the era of perestroika in Russian, and "das Handy" became a popular designation for cell phones in the U.S. [2**]. Notable is a single case of former pseudo-Gallization in the German literary language: pseudo-borrowing «die Parfümerie» came into in the late 18th century by adding an French ending to the word «das Parfüm», but at the beginning of the XIXth century the French language has formed its own word "parfumerie", and pseudo-Gallicism turned into the borrowed Gallicism and former pseudo-Gallicism [3**]. The second criterion can be applied to certain lexical units only in synchronous perspective exactly in virtue of the mentioned precedents connected with the loss by pseudo borrowings of their status and/or moving to the category of internationalisms. Proper names are not included in the research corpus due to the fact that onyms units form their own vocabulary (onomastic) class which deservs a special study that could be the third selection criterion. Pseudolatinisms, obtained after the death of Latin in the systems of European languages and having an international character (Rossica, Fumifugium), are also left outside the framework of the corpus studied; these exceptions include nomenclature phytononyms of the C. Linnaeus system, which contain elements of the vocabulary of the discoverer's language or his surname (Scutellaria baicalensis Georgi, Dactylorhiza fuchsii (Druce) Soó). There is not rarely a case when pseudo borrowed is only a part of the meaning, so unit «die Box» (stereo equipment) is given by DUW in the corresponding lemma only as a 4 item of the meaning «die Lautsprecherbox», cf.:

Box, die; -, -en [engl. box < vlat. buxis, Büchse]: 1. Stand (2 a), in dem das Pferd sich frei bewegen kann. 2. a) abgeteilter Einstellplatz für Wagen in einer Großgarage; b) abgegrenzter Montageplatz für Rennwagen an einer Rennstrecke. 3. a) einfache Rollfilmkamera in Kastenform; b) kastenförmiger Behälter. 4. kurz für Lautsprecherbox [4**, p. 310].

For onomatological analysis labels, not words, were counted as the same lexical unit may belong to several thematic groups, which makes the results of quantitative approach inenarrable. In general, it can be stated that the hyperonym for all pseudo borrowings will be "trend", because the very fact that a new unit was formed from a prestigious standard language already indicates that the elements of a foreign language reality mediated through language contact affect the "time nerve" and thus are inseparable from the specific historical and cultural, and therefore linguistic, situation. Thus, the onomasiological group "trend" in pseudo borrowings is a subject-thematic area of the uppermost order, as it causes manipulation with the borrowed material. Due to the historical heterogeneity of cultural and linguistic environments, in anisotropy of which the prerequisites for borrowing were formed, onomasiological groups differ from heterogeneous segments of pseudo borrowings. In the pseudo-Gallic segment prevail (in descending order) the denominations of clothes and fabrics (8), technological device (8), financial terms (6), gastronomy (5) and arts (5). In the English segment the priority also belongs to the clothing (9) designations; second place share terms from areas sports and engineering (8); next in descending order follow the groups of «show business» (7); «television» (5), «healthy lifestyle» (4), «music» (3) and «finance» (3). It is interesting to note that onomasiology palette of pseudo-Anglicisms was completed by such groups as «service» (2), «cosmetics» (2) and «com-

14

puter» (1). Among the pseudo-Helmetisms is to find the exotic onomasiology label «circus» (1), one of a kind, in the pseudoslavisms segment prevails «etiquette» (2). The subject content of the other segments does not exceed the quantitative mark of 2 and varies in the overall range of topics «politics», «education», «medicine», «gastronomy» and «social services».

The largest segments of pseudo borrowings within the modern German literary language are Gallic (51.81%) and English (30.81%). This is due not only to the duration and scale of the Gallic and English in the history of the German language, but also to the aggregate possibilities of the Gallic and English vocabulary, which forms a successful and, in many respects, homological superstructure of the Latin adstratum. The other segments in their totality are quantitatively inferior even to Anglicisms (18.37%) and to a large extent are functionally determined, i.e. used to create local color or even as individual-author entities. The differentiation of the main segments from the peripheral ones is caused, firstly, by the invasive nature of the borrowings from French and English in the history of the German language. Secondly, it corresponds with the above mentioned consideration about stratification of Latin, Gallic and English adstrata, which provided the German literary language system with new for word-formation: Latin adstratum was the basis for Gallic, while Gallic converged with English. Actually, pseudolatinisms form only a minor part of the pseudo borrowings class. (7,56%) because the periods of Romanization were in the valleterate period of German language history (I–III centuries) and many Latinisms are either built-in to Gallic vocabulary or borrowed through French or are known as units of Romanic adstrata (Macaronisms).

In the class of pseudo borrowings as part of modern literary German language (modernity is understood as a period of synchrony lasting 20 years, in this case from 2000 to 2020) there were totally registered 185 lexical units among which the largest part are nouns (145; 78.37%). The number of both verbs and adjectives including indeclinable is 19 (10.27%); the corpus includes also interjections, but their number is the least one, registered in the segment of pseudoslavisms – 2 (1.08%). Prevalence of nouns in borrowed and pseudo-borrowed adstrata except for pseudo-Italian and pseudo-Slavic segments, where predominate the adjectives and the interjections, accordingly, is a sustainable feature of exoglossic language situations. Among the researched class the largest part take the masculina nouns (68; 37,36%); feminine nouns count 53 units (28.64%), neuter – 20 (10.81%). 1 Pseudo-Gallicism (der / das Abee) and 1 pseudoItalianism (der / das Sakko) show the variability of the gender on a local basis «High German / Austrian». Segments of pseudo-Italianisms and pseudo-Latinisms contain 1 singularia tantum (Vatileaks) and 2 pluralia tantum (Ponyoli, Älplermagronen) (+n). In the table 1 are represented the data of the part-of-speech analysis of lexical units of pseudo-borrowings detailed according to the segments.

Table 1. Class of pseudo-borrowingsin the modern German literature language: parts of speech

1. Pseudo-Gallicisms (94).

Pseudo-Gallicisms form the most developed and multifaceted segment both from the point of view of system and functional features. Gallicization (as well as pseudo-gallicization) is a productive mechanism that has yet to be fully interpreted in Germanic Linguistic studies, and is seen as a result of aposterior derivation based on the earlier borrowed Gallic words («Bankrotteur» instead of former «Bankrottierer») or based on the own material of literary German language (Stiefel + suffix -ette = Stiefelette). Despite the fact that the borrowing of Gallic vocabulary ended in the XX century, the Gallization of its resources continues and proceeds on such a large scale that it inevitably raises the question if there is an insurmountable borders between Gallicism and pseudo-Gallicism. There are four types of borderline phenomena that are doubtful and cannot be classified as either unit of Gallic stratum: 1) acronyms, which are widespread in modern everyday German language obtained using the German productive word-formative mechanism of contracting (truncation) of the initial stem and adding the suffix -i as well as it’s variants -ie / -y (der Chauv[inismus] + i = Chauvi ['ʃɔvɪ]); 2) cases of false etymologization (deand re etymologization), cf. unit «der Waggon», borrowed from the Dutch through English but readable in the french way; 3) converse terms of nouns derived primarily from borrowed Gallic adjective names, eg.: «beige» (beige) and «das Beige» (beige paint), «remis» (in a draw) and «das Remis» (drawn game); 4) the cases when Latinisms are read french-wise (das Signet [zi'gnɛt and zin'je:]) and wrote according to the French spelling rules which automatically change the part of speech of the German word (das Sigel → die Sigle [zi:gl and 'sigle]) [8, p. 89].

In the segment of pseudo-gallicisms which were selected according to the abovementioned criteria prevail the lexical ways of word formation which implies the extension transformation among which suffixation that fully satisfies the first selection criterion should be unconditionally recognized as the leading one. Pseudo borrowings are formed here either by Gallic derivatives (Fr. friser → Ger. der Friseur) or by Gallic productive suffixes (Fr. -age → Ger. die Schmierage).

Productive suffixes for the masculine nouns (25) are: -eur (der Spediteur), -ier (der Suitier); for feminine nouns (38): -age (die Stellage), -ade (die Poussade), -esse (die Raffinesse), - euse (die Balletteuse), -eette (die Chanson(n)ette); for neuters: -ee (das Frottee), -lett (das Dramolett). The adjectives (11) are composed by suffixes -abel (rentabel), -är (totalitär), -ell (nominell), -ös (spektakulös). The only Gallicism which is used for pseudo-gallic verb formation (9) is -ier- (rentieren).

Pseudo-gallicisms in the function of ergonyms are used to denote low-prestige, but demanded professions and occupations, as well as civil states with a shade of euphemization., cf.: der Magazineur (store-keeper, storeroom man), der Akquisiteur (canvasser), der Bankrotteur

(bankrupt); feminine suffix -euse is to find as a rule in deverbal pseudo-gallicisms, cf.: die Kontrolleuse (feminine ticket inspector) [8, p. 129].

The only example of juxtaposition (Zusammenrückung) related to mixed methods of word formation (presence of a syntagma unit in the structure) is die Crème de la crème ['krɛ:m də la 'krɛ:m] (elevated, ironic. «crème of society» representative).

Pseudo-Gallic units operate within the limits of the literary norm of the contemporary German language, mainly with a stylistic nuance of «elevated» (5) and «colloquial» (5). In the segment predominate the items of vocabulary having functionally and stylistic qualification: archaisms (10), pejorative units (7) and expressive means of irony (5).

2. Pseudo-Anglicisms (57).

In comparison with the early Anglicisms, maximally adapted to the German literary language system (cf.: dock, loetsman → Lotse), contemporary prior and posterior units of AngloAmerican adstratum are totally embrace of the donor language graphically (and even keeping the lowercase spelling of nouns and substantivated words, cf.: businnes as usual) as well as phonetically. Formation of the pseudo-borrowings can be regarded as an evidence of wholesale

16

Scientific Journal “Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-Didactic Researches” Issue 2 (29), 2020 ISSN 2587-8093

Americanization in Germany that began since 1945 and was quite atypical for earlier periods of Anglo-German language contact. D.Herberg writes that the corpus of English-American vocabulary of the 90s in German literary language he had collected contains about 20% of composites with neologisms derived from English [9, p. 196]. And although pseudo borrowings and hybrid units like «die Eventkultur» are not separated in this indicator, proportion of the posterior units from the total number of borrowed vocabulary in the 90s in Germany (about 800 lexical units) is impressive - 1/5 (160).

Due to the homology of contact idioms, the ways in which a posteriori derivatives have been formed since the end of World War II are very diverse and include two massive groups: a) lexical (extension transformation is intended) and b) semantic (intension transformation is intended):

А. The lexical are 1) composition (word-formation), 2) conversion, 3) contraction and

4)paronomasia.

1.Composition is the most typical way of word formation in German that functions according to the rules of syntactic adjunctions of the English language (werde vom Yesbutter zum Whynotter!), as well as according to the German patterns of formation of determinative composites (der Neckholder, die Wellfit-Bar, das Fotoshooting).

2.Converted words are represented by denominative verbs (wellnessen from Wellness), or deverbal Nomina actionis, that express what happens as a result of the action and are also products of desemantization (Flirt from flirten).

3.Units that were formed by means of contraction like Pulli, Profi are not regarded in the framework of the corpus under study because they are not a traditional reversible contraction (Doc ↔ Doctor), but rather an adaptive one, which nevertheless has all the features of a posteriori derivation/

4.The cases of paronomasia are extremely rare and are related to the creation of the Eng- lish-language lexeme according to the phonetic appearance of German words, but used in the donor language in another meaning., сf.: der Slip (influenced by German «Schlüpfer» – lady’s tights; Engl. combination garment).

B. Semantic ways of pseudo-Anglicisms in the contemporary literary German language are represented by: 1) exemia, 2) ensemia and 3) antonymy.

1.Exemia assumes the expansion of intensional meaning of the prototypical units in the donor language, eg: der Spleen [ʃpli:n and less commonly sp-] (pseudo-Engl. folly, crazy idea; Engl. blues, distemper); der Kicker (pseudo-Engl. any football player (cf.: die KickerKathedrale – jocular stadium); Engl. goal-scorer, shooter).

2.Ensemia (narrowing of intentional meaning) can be detected in pseudo borrowings in the English segment, which received a hyponymic development of meaning (detail, specification), eg: der Dress (pseudo-Engl. special-purpose clothing, unitard; Engl. dress).

3.Antonymy is connected with the formation of the composites that typically contain a contrary, contradictory or situational antonym of morpheme as a component of the prototype word, cf.: der Pullunder (patterned after der Pullover: over ↔ under), der Longseller (patterned after der Bestseller: best ↔ long).

As in the case with Gallizisation you can hardly exactly determine the pseudo-Anglicisms because of the number of hybrid units having elements of both languages (Hobbymusiker, Hitzestress) and forms of the verbs (geoutssourced, upgedatet), within the English adstratum of the contemporary literary German language.

Units of the English adstratum are used in the synchronous literary German language mainly to fulfil two functions: segregative (Abgrenzungsfunktion) and valorative (Aufwertungsfunktion) in order to raise the status of the speaker and his or her separation from "provincial" users of the German language through identification with high society (high society / high snobiety) or opportunity society (Chancengesellschaft).

17

In terms of functionality, pseudoanglycisms are significantly inferior to the stylistic palette of the Gallic adstratum as part of the modern German literary language and belong mainly to expressive-neutral means (51). Units with colloquial-everyday stylistic nuance (6) make up about 10% of the segment’s total vocabulary

3. Pseudo-Helvetisms (4).

The small pseudoHelvetic segment expands our understanding of the nature of pseudo borrowings in terms of the interaction of closely related forms of language and/or variants of the national language. Since Swiss German, which should not be confused with the Swiss version of High German, is a collective designation of the Alemanian dialects spread over a wide area from Alsace to Vallis, the leading principle of the formation of pseudo-Helivetisms can be considered an imitation of the Alemanian word formation with the dominant suffix -li (das Leckerli – treat). Meanwhile, it is worth noting the use of archaisms (der Großoheim – granduncle), dialectisms (die Freud – joy) and Alemanian consonantism unaffected by the second movement ( interruption) of consonants, cf.: Älplermagronen, Pl. (Ger. Älplermakkaronen – Macaroni and cheese).

In terms of functionality, pseudohelivetisms are limited to the framework of everyday colloquial style (75%) and are used exclusively to create local (Swiss) color.

4. Pseudo-Italianisms (9).

In his notorious article "Spaghettisiert euch!" (Get spaghettied!) in the "Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung" from 28.09.2002 D. Schümer writes the following: « While the world is complaining about Americanization, the global leitmotif culture comes from Italy» [1*]. In

Germany, keynote culture (Leitkultur) traditionally refers to the influence of certain countries and/or alliances on the interstate agenda. From the linguistic point of view, the keynote culture is identical to the influence of the standard languages, primarily on the word-formation mechanisms of the German literary language. Italian adstratum is strongly associated with trends in the areas of gastronomy, clothing and etiquette, which is also confirmed in the segment of pseudo-Italianisms.

Researchers unanimously noted the participation of Italian and pseudo-Italian auxiliary morphemes in the formation of German pragmatonims, not included in the corps on the above considerations. Thus L.A. Mitrofanova singles out suffixes -ella and -mat in the denominations of products, сf.: Sanella, Lavamat, Senkomat, [2*, p. 99–102]; P.C. Kurras classifies pseudoItalian suffixes -ol, -il, -an, -in as markers of the trade words of art [3*, p. 183]. In order to attract customers' attention, modern German literary language often uses "sandwich words" as products of phonetic contamination, сf.: Mochaccino (Mocca + Cappuccino), Chococcino

(Choco + Cappuccino), Salamini (Salami + mini), Aldidente (Aldi + dente), Brölio (Brökelmann + olio), Triolade (Trio + Schokolade) [2*, p. 100–101; 4*, p. 958–959].

The pseudo-Italian segment is the most vivid evidence of language manipulation in the class of units under study, which is also confirmed in his conclusions by T. Gruber, who discusses forms of macaronic polylingualism [5*, p. 177]. Along with contamination (Vaticano + WikiLeaks = Vatileaks (the scandal of the theft of the secret Vatican documents by Pope's Benedict XVI valet P. Gabriele to be handed over to journalist J. Nuzzi); Pony + Ravioli = Ponyoli (jocular ravioli with horse meat)), to which even the verbs are exposed (Vespa (bike name) + spazieren = vespazieren), pseudo-Italian appellative vocabulary contains suffixes -issimo (elegantissimo), -issima (primissima) and -ikato (futschikato) which serve as elatives.

Functional-stylistic and semantic-expressive value of the pseudo-Italian segment units are equally distrubuted between everyday (3), jocular (3) and expressive (3) stylistic nuances, that justifies the Humboldtian thesis of the "spirit of the nation" that exists in the language.

5. Pseudo-Latinisms (11).

Latin, as one of the most ancient layers within the German language, forms the basis of the so-called all-Romanian substrate. For example, the Gallic layer consists of more than 85% Romanian borrowings. [8, p. 142]. The homogeneity of Romance languages, aggravated by

18

their different roles in the process of borrowing their own or lexical units of other languages, encourages the editorial staff of Duden to use for cases with pseudo-Latinisms and other substratum phenomena labels «romanisierende / latinisierende Bildung» (Romanizing / Latinizing unit), «mit romanisierender / latinisierender Endung» (Romanizing / Latinizing ending) [cf. 3**, p. 1019]. Thus as pseudo-Latinisms may serve macaronisms and gallicisms ambiguous etymology.

Pseudo-Latinization is traditionally associated with the typical suffixation of derived stems; as central suffix is regarded -us (35.71%) in the cluster of pseudo-Latin cognomens obtained by the mixed way «suffixation + antonomasia »: der Muffianus – grumpy melancholiac; der Stolprianus – lump, muff, lubber; der Luftikus – weathercock). It should be noted that the above mentioned cognomens (intermediate names in the Latin denomination) still do not have the declination paradigm in both tantums in German, as well as in Latinisms der Kasus, das Genus. It is interesting that pseudo-Latinnian cognomens ending up in -ianus are often mixed with Lower German everyday truncation of the proper name Johannes.

Romanian suffixes of pseudo-Gallicisms, involved in the formation of a posteriori hybrids could be simultaneously used as for the pseudo-Gallicization (cf. nomen collectivum der Grobianismus (derogatory rudeness; boorishness) with the Gallic suffix –ismus; spendabel (colloqial generous, prompt, shrewd); die Lappalie (student, jargon a small matter, trifle); spintisieren (derogatory – blow smoke; as in the case with the verb «spinnen»)), also for formation of pseudo-Italianisms, cf. der Apparillo (colloquial., jocular cart, device, «coffin») As the only example of the stem-composition can serve pseudo-Latinism der Universitätspräsident (edu.

The University’s persident), which appeared in the language of West Germany in the latter half of the 20th century [5**].

In the pseudo-Latin segment the largest part take the units of contemporary literary German language stylistically qualified as: colloquialisms (7) and archaisms (4). Functional amplitude is formed by semantic and expressive nuances «jocular» (2), «colloquial» (6) и «pejorative term» (3).

There is no univocal evaluation for the group of intermediate cohgnomen (6) from nomina qualitatis, for instance: der Schlotterjan (scruffy, draggle-tailed person), der Schmierian (slouch, slacker), der Polterjan (smb who crashs around). H. Baeskow classifies them as the pseudo-Latin vocabulary [6*, p. 655–656], G. Kalivoda is also speaks for pseudo-Greek: «Die Personenbezeichnungen auf -ian, die auf Heiligennamen wie Cyprian anspielen, sind also Gräcismen» («Proper names which have the ending –ян (-jan), composed as in the case with theonym Kuprijan, – Greekisms». – translated by us) [7*, p. 1192].

6. Pseudo-Greekisms (2).

Totally international segment of pseudo-Greekisms which contains 50% common nouns and 50% of the nomenclature onyms (Ionidros, Uro-hygienal), which were not analyzed in the framework of this paper, assumes that a posteriori derivation based on the borrowed layer is more likely the older the layer itself. This fact is unequivocally confirmed by the example of pseudo-Gallic and pseudo-Latin (pseudo-Roman) segments. The ways of word formation of pseudo-Greekisms are represented by single cases of the stem-composition (die Chaostheorie – chaos theory) and prefixation method (affixation) (die Antisyphilis – med. anti-syphilis), according to the model of which other units of this segment with functionally unexpressed parameters can also be formed.

7. Pseudo-Slavisms (5).

Despite the existence of more than stable areas of language contact, as well as the historically conditioned influence of the Slavic periphery on the German dialect continuum with the confirmed data of Slavic toponymy on the German linguist atlas (Berlin, Dresden, Rostock and many others), there have been no invasive waves of borrowing in the history of GermanicSlavic language contacts, which was occasional and dispersed. Apparently, the mentioned phe-

19

nomenon is connected with heterogeneity of the structure of Slavic and Germanic languages (centum-satem break), which are distant relatives - the Nostratic language descendants.

The units of the rare pseudo-Slavic segment are formed by means of lexical and semantic (mixed) type of word composition «antonomasia + suffixation» going back to onomasiological onimization option (formation nomen proprium from nomen appellativum). The obtained onyms keep the spelling according to their part of speech, cf. noun der Besoffski (drunk), derived from past participle besoffen (blind drunk); adjective kaputtski (from Ger. kaputt providing for nominalisation: tot wie Kaputtski) and interjections bis baldinowski / bis baldinski (see you), tschüssikowski (bye). Pseudo-Slavism «der Püttek» (mineworker in the Rur region ) is derived by adding the West Slavonic suffix -ek as the frequent ending of the Polish, Czech and Slovak miners' names to the dialectism «der Pütt» (pit, mine), widespread in the region of

Rhine-Westphalia.

Functional fixation of the pseudo-Slavic segment units by the colloquial (3) and familiar

(2) strata of semantic-expressive nuance tending to derogation can be explained by the negative attitude towards the East Germany in today's West Germany and in the European Union as a whole, as the Western cold-war verb «anosten» (to adjust, to customize to the East) illustrates very eloquently. Appeared in 1989 it was patterned after the verb «rosten / anrosten» (get rusty) [8*, p. 5].

Table 2. Ways of pseudo-borrowings formation in the modern literary German language

Table 2 illustrates that in the class of pseudo borrowings lexical ways of word formation prevail (91.89%). This fact speaks for the mainly formal nature of the analyzed phenomenon genesis in the system of the contemporary German literary language, so quantification of vocabulary growth and neologization. Different indicators of semantic (2,7%) and twice as much as in mixed (5,4%) ways of word-formation together indicate a rather weak degree (8.1%) of semantization and internal combinability of units of the class under study (synthetic recessiveness). Morphological combinatorial and analytical linearity are preferred. The leading way of pseudo-borrowings formation is the suffixation both in pure form (129; 69.72 %) and in mixed ways (9; 4.86%) apparently claiming to be a language universal in matters of a posteriori derivation.

Conclusion.

1. Pseudo-borrowings as a phenomenon in the contemporary German literary language fits perfectly into the context of hybridization (mixing) of languages in spite of existing disa-

20

greements on this issue among the Russian and German language researchers. Units of the research corps, as well as onim segments left behind (anthroponyms, ergonyms, pragmatonyms, artionymes, phytonymes) and related phenomena fully justify the status of hybrid units (a posteriori formations), as evidenced by the free combination of pseudo borrowed noun names (as opposed to, for example, a number of poorly assimilated Gallicisms), сf.: der Damenfriseur, der Berufs-Besoffski, der Bandrocker.

2.Despite the significant progress of linguists in the study of the nature of pseudo borrowings and the validity of the substitution term "a posteriori derivation" proposed by us earlier, there is still room for "pseudo borrowings" definition clarification; in particular, open remain questions related to the status of connected phenomena in contemporary literary German language, eg.: reading in the German manner of the borrowed lexemes which brakes a reversibility principle (cf. Anglicism «das Puzzle» read as [pʊzl]), or conversion (transmutation) of Gallic borrowings that changes the part of speech and the meaning of the lexeme (cf. Gallicism

«beige» (beige) and substantivated conversive word «das Beige» (beige paint)). It is also not clear whether to interpret the differences in the formation of the Latin plural "bonus" in German (Boni) and Russian (bonuses) literary languages in terms of assimilation or hybridization taking into account the presence in the German vocabulary the cases of Germanization of the Latin ending -us in the plural forms of masculine nouns, сf.: der Kursus – Pl. Kurse, der Zirkus – Pl. Zirkusse, der Rhythmus – Pl. Rhythmen; Assimilation and partly hybridization are also related to the deethymologization of prototype words, which appears to be one of the sources of a posteriori derivation, сf.:Late Middle High German verb «trampeln» having iterative semantics (stump, tapping, ram down), stemming from a Middle Lower German verb «trampen» (to insolent, to tramp), from which derived Anglicism «tramp» (homeless, also in German «der Tramp») and later pseudo-Anglicism «trampen» [-ɛ- and -a-] (hitchhiking).

3.Pseudo borrowing is only possible if there are stable (intensive) language contacts and/or contact areas in anisotropy of which there are conditions for manipulation of borrowed foreign language material typical for exogloss language situations; the absence in the vocabulary of contemporary German literary language for instance of pseudo-Sinisms and pseudoArabisms is caused by the fact that Sinisms and Arabisms, which could serve as a basis for the formation of hybrid units, were borrowed through the other languages, French or English for instance (in the absence of German-Chinese and German-Arabic contact areas to the present time) and do not form independent adstrata (layers) in the system of the mentioned language.

4.The formal nature of pseudo borrowings composition is determined by tendencies towards being embrace of the donor language (its citations) and towards imitation of standard languages (in the case of pseudo-Gallicisms and pseudo-Anglicisms); the hyperforeignism (Fremdgierigkeit), noted already by J.G. Schottel, is one of the distinctive features of German literary speech, for which the language system produces heterogeneous sets capable of maintaining the expressive potential of the German speech repertoire through vocabulary combinations and ensuring the multifaceted nature of communication of native speakers of the language, due to the specifics of its historical and cultural environment.

References

[1]Kobenko Yu.V. Yazykovaya situatsiya v FRG: amerikanizatsiya i ekzoglossnyye tendentsii [The language situation in Germany: Americanization and exoglossic tendencies]. Tomsk, Tomsk Polytechnic University Press, 2014. 360 p. (in Russian)

[2]Müller R. Hochund Kultursprache: Konstituierung eines Systems begrifflicher Merkmale und seine sprachliche Konkretion am Beispiel des neuhochdeutschen [Standard and cultural language: Constitution of a system of conceptual characteristics and its linguistic concreteness using the example of the New High German] // K. Ezawa, W. Kürschner, K.H.

21

Rensch, M. Ringmacher (Ed.) Linguistics beyond structuralism. Acts of the 2nd East-West Colloquium in Berlin 1998. Tübingen, Gunter Narr, 2002, pp. 425–435. (in German)

[3]Gukhman M.M., Semenyuk N.N. Istoriya nemetskogo literaturnogo yazyka IX–XV vv. [History of the German literary language of the 9th–15th centuries]. Moscow, Nauka, 1983. 200 p. (in Russian)

[4]Vasil'yeva N.V. Mezhdunarodnaya konferentsiya «Imena sobstvennyye i pravo v Yevrope» [International Conference “Proper Names and Law in Europe”] // Problems of Onomastics, 2015, Vol. 2 (19), pp. 178–181. (in Russian)

[5]Kobenko Yu.V., Meremkulova T.I. Gall'skiye zaimstvovaniya v sovremennom nemetskom yazyke: strukturno-sistemnyye i funktsional'no-dinamicheskiye osobennosti [Gallic borrowings in modern German: structural-systemic and functional-dynamic features]. Tomsk, Publishing House of Tomsk State University, 2018. 211 p. (in Russian)

[6]Kobenko Yu.V. Ekstralingvisticheskiy determinizm prirody psevdozaimstvovaniya [The extralinguistic determinism of the nature of pseudoborrowing] // Tomsk Journal of Linguistics and Anthropology, 2006, Vol. 1 (11), pp. 29–35. (in Russian)

[7]Kabakchi V.V., Yegorova K.A. Leksikografiya slovarya ksenonimov [Lexicography of the dictionary of xenonyms] // Language and culture in the era of globalization: a collection of scientific papers based on the materials of the second international scientific conference. St. Petersburg, March 26, 2015. In 2 parts: Part 1. St. Petersburg, Publishing House of St. Petersburg State University of Economics, 2015, pp. 56–63 (in Russian)

[8]Shmelova T.V. Onomastika: uchebnoye posobiye [Onomastics: a training manual]. Slavyansk-on-Kuban, Publishing center of the branch of Kuban State University in the city of Slavyansk-on-Kuban, 2013. 161 p. (in Russian)

[9]Herberg D. Neologismen in der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Probleme ihrer Erfassung und Beschreibung [Neologisms in the German contemporary language. Problems of their registration and description] // German as a Foreign Language, 2002, Vol. 4, pp. 195–201. (in German)

Analyzed sources

[1*] Schümer D. Spaghettisiert euch! Alle Welt beklagt den amerikanischen Einfluss, doch die globale Leitkultur kommt aus Italien [Spaghettize! Everybody complains of American influence, but the global lead culture comes from Italy] // Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 28.09. 2002, No. 226. (in German)

[2*] Mitrofanova L.A. Kontaminatsionnyye proizvodnyye v sovremennom nemetskom yazyke s elementami-ital'yanizmami [Contamination derivatives in modern German with Italian elements] // Bulletin of Samara State University, 2013, Vol. 8/1 (109), pp. 98–103. (in Russian)

[3*] Kurras P.C. Die Entwicklung der hybriden Wortschöpfungen bei den italienischen

Markennamen [The development of hybrid word creations for Italian brand names] // Names in commerce and industry: past and present. Berlin, Logos-Verlag, 2006, pp. 167–185. (in German)

[4*] Mitrofanova L.A. Ital'yanizmy i psevdoital'yanizmy tematicheskoy gruppy «natsional'naya kukhnya» v sovremennom nemetskom literaturnom yazyke [Italianisms and pseudo-

Italianisms of the thematic group “national cuisine” in modern German literary language] //

Bulletin of the Samara Scientific Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2014, Vol. 16, No 2 (4), pp. 956–959. (in Russian)

[5*] Gruber T. Mehrsprachigkeit und Sprachreflexion in der Frühen Neuzeit: Das Spanische im Königreich Neapel [Multilingualism and language reflection in the early Modern Period: Spanish in the Kingdom of Naples]. Tübingen, Gunter Narr, 2014. 329 p. (in German)

22

[6*] Baeskow H. Abgeleitete Personenbezeichnungen im Deutschen und Englischen [Deriving personal names in German and English]. NY, Berlin, Walter de Gruyter, 2011. 770 p. (in German)

[7*] Kalivoda G. et al. Historisches Wörterbuch der Rhetorik [Historical dictionary of rhetoric] / Ed. by G. Ueding. Vol. 3: Eup–Hör. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1996. 1610 p.

(in German)

[8*] Katelhön P. Auf den Spuren des Hühnergotts. Der deutsch-deutsche Sprachwandel als Thema in einem interkulturellen Deutsch – als – Fremdspracheunterricht [On the trail of the chicken god. The German-German language change as a topic in an intercultural German – as – foreign language teaching] // Mondial: SIETAR journal for intercultural perspectives, 2009, Vol. 1, pp. 3–7. (in German)

Dictionaries used

[1**] Zherebilo T.V. Slovar' lingvisticheskikh terminov [The dictionary of linguistic terms]. 5th ed. Nazran', Piligrim, 2010. 486 p. (in Russian)

[2**] Urban Dictionary, URL: https://www.urbandictionary.com (accessed – 05.04.2020).

[3**] Le Grand Robert de la Langue Française, URL: http://gr.bvdep.com (accessed – 03.04.2020).

[4**] Duden Universal Dictionary. 4th ed. Mannheim, Leipzig, Vienna, Zurich, Dudenverlag, 2001. 1892 p. (in German)

[5**] DWDS – Digital dictionary of the German language, URL: https://www.dwds.de/ (accessed – 04.04.2020).

23