AT cultural center"Onega" within the framework of the joint project of the site "Theory and Practice" and the Department of Culture of the City of Moscow "City Lecture Hall" a lecture was held by the editor-in-chief of the portal "Gramota.ru", candidate of philological sciences Vladimir Pakhomov. He told how spelling changed in the history of the Russian language, why the use of the words “rings” with the stress in the first syllable and “coffee” in the middle gender is not an indicator of illiteracy, and why it is pointless to ban foreign words. Lenta.ru publishes the main theses of his speech.
How we hear and what we write
In the minds of most people, two different concepts are very often confused: language and spelling (spelling). Therefore, the Russian language is often perceived simply as a set of rules, moreover, someone once invented and randomly systematized in textbooks and reference books. Many sincerely believe that if a person has learned the rules, this means that he knows his native language.
In fact, spelling rules are not the language itself, but its shell. They can be compared to a wrapper in which a chocolate candy is wrapped (it is in this case like a language). And at school, they mainly study the rules of spelling, and not the language. Writing correctly does not mean being fluent in Russian. Doctor of Philology Igor Miloslavsky rightly notes that “the level of proficiency in the native literary language is determined by a person’s ability to accurately and fully understand everything that he reads or hears, as well as his ability to express his own thoughts and feelings absolutely clearly, depending on the conditions and addressee of communication” . I emphasize: language and spelling are completely different things.
In the rules of spelling, there is nothing specially invented by someone. Our spelling is slender and logical. 96 percent of spellings of Russian words are based on a single principle - the main principle of Russian spelling. This is a morphological principle, the essence of which is that each morpheme (prefix, root, suffix, ending) is written the same way, despite the fact that it can be pronounced differently in different words. For example, we say du[p] and du[b]s, but we write this root the same way: oak.
How the sailors changed the Russian alphabet
In the history of the Russian language, there were only two reforms of graphics and spelling. The first was held by Peter I in 1708-1710. To a greater extent, it concerned graphics: the writing of uppercase (large) and lowercase (small) letters was legalized, extra letters were removed from the Russian alphabet and the writing of the rest was simplified. The second occurred in 1917-1918. It was already a reform of both graphics and spelling. During it, the letters Ѣ (yat), Ѳ (fita), I (“And decimal”), a solid sign (b) at the end of words were removed. In addition, some spelling rules have been changed. For example, in the genitive and accusative cases of adjectives and participles, the endings -ago, -yago were replaced by -ogo, -his (for example, old - old), in the nominative and accusative plurals of the feminine and neuter -yya, -ія - by - s, -s (old - old).
By the way, the initiators of this reform were not the Bolsheviks at all. Changes in Russian spelling have been brewing for a long time, preparations began back in late XIX century. The Spelling Commission at the Imperial Academy of Sciences began working in 1904, and the first draft was presented in 1912. Some of the scientists' proposals were very radical: for example, at the end of words it was proposed to remove not only the hard sign (b), but also the soft sign (b). If this proposal were accepted (later linguists refused it), then we would now write not “night”, but “night”.
In May 1917, the reform project was approved by the Provisional Government. It was assumed that the transition to the new spelling would take place gradually, for some time both the old spelling and the new would be considered correct. But the Bolsheviks who seized power approached this issue in their own way. New rules were introduced immediately, and in the printing houses, detachments of revolutionary sailors seized the "cancelled" letters. This led to an incident: the letter solid sign (Ъ) was also selected despite the fact that its spelling as a separating character inside words was preserved. Therefore, compositors had to use an apostrophe ('), so spellings like congresses arose.
The adoption in 1956 of the still officially valid rules of Russian spelling was not a spelling reform: the text contained few changes. For example, now it was necessary to write the words "shell", "barber", "scurvy", "mat" with the letter "and" instead of "s", "apparently", "still" through a hyphen instead of the previously accepted continuous spelling , the spellings “damn”, “go”, “come” were approved - instead of “devil”, “itti”, “come”.
Hare and parachute
The next major spelling reform in Russian was scheduled for 1964. Many linguists were aware of the incompleteness and some inconsistency of the 1956 rules, which abounded in a huge number of exceptions. The idea was not to simplify Russian spelling, but to make it even slimmer, more systematic and logical, to make it easier to learn at school. This was important both for teachers, who in the 1960s often complained about the low literacy of schoolchildren and the lack of hours for studying the Russian language, and for the state. Why, for example, was it proposed to write "hare"? Look, we write "fighter" - "fighter", "fighter". In the controversial word, the vowel also disappears: “hare”, “hare”, so why not write “hare” by analogy with “fighter”? In other words, it was not about simplifying for the sake of simplifying, but about eliminating unjustified exceptions. Unfortunately, after the removal of Khrushchev, the new leaders of the country, who were "allergic" to the ideas of their predecessor, curtailed the already prepared reform.
Again, the need to streamline the rules of Russian spelling was discussed already in the late 1990s. The country has changed, the time has changed, and many of the rules of 1956 began to look not only outdated, but also frankly ridiculous. For example, in Soviet years, in accordance with ideological guidelines, the army of the USSR was required to be called exclusively the Armed Forces. At the same time, when writing the names of the armies of the socialist countries, only the first word was capitalized - the Armed Forces, and the armies of the capitalist states, NATO countries could only be called the armed forces.
In addition, many new words have appeared, their first parts: media, internet, web, business. Therefore, the Spelling Commission of the Russian Academy of Sciences began work on a new edition of the spelling rules, with examples that are relevant to modern written speech. Linguists discussed changes in the spelling of individual words (many remember the discussion about the words “parachute”, “brochure”, “jury”, which were proposed to be written with “y”, later linguists abandoned this idea). Alas, the work of linguists was not entirely conscientiously covered in the media, journalists talked about the supposedly upcoming "language reform", etc. As a result, the society reacted extremely negatively to the work of the Spelling Commission, therefore the draft of a new edition of the rules of Russian spelling prepared by it was not approved and the code of 1956 remains generally binding to this day.
However, the work of the Spelling Commission was not in vain, its result was the complete academic reference book "Rules of Russian Spelling and Punctuation", published in 2006, as well as the academic "Russian Spelling Dictionary" edited by Doctor of Philology Vladimir Lopatin - the most complete spelling dictionary of the modern Russian language . There are few changes compared to the 1956 rules. For example, the verbal adjective "counted", which used to be an exception and was written with two letters "n", is now summed up under general rule and is written with one "n", while the participle is with two (a few minutes and money read by an accountant, cf .: fried potatoes and fried potatoes).
Calling or calling?
We talked about how often spelling changes. How often does the Russian language change? Constantly, because the Russian language is a living language, and only dead languages do not change. Changes in the language are a normal process that should not be feared and considered as degradation, destruction of the language.
The place of stress in words changes. Let's take the most famous example with the verb "to call", anyway, not a single conversation about the language can do without it. Some native speakers defiantly portray painful suffering when they hear the stress calls (despite the fact that they themselves make similar spelling mistakes without noticing it at all, for example, they say drills instead of the normative drills), and journalists use their favorite stamp “litmus test of illiteracy” in relation to the stress. Meanwhile, linguists are aware of the presence in the language of such a phenomenon as the shift of stress in verbs to -it in personal forms from the ending to the root (this process began in late XVIII century). Some verbs have already gone this way. For example, they once said: loads, cooks, rolls, smokes, pays. Now we are saying: loads, boils, rolls, smokes, pays.
Photo: Alexander Polyakov / RIA Novosti
Knowledge of this trend gave the authors of the “Big Orthoepic Dictionary of the Russian Language” published in 2012 grounds to fix the option include (previously prohibited) as acceptable (with a strict literary norm, include). There is no doubt that this variant, which has already passed the path from the forbidden to the permissible, will continue to move towards the only possible one and sooner or later will supplant the old emphatic turn on, just as the once new variant pays supplanted the old emphasis pays.
The same process occurs with the verb "call". He would also follow this path, but we - native speakers - do not let him go. The educated part of society treats the variant calls very negatively, and that is why it is not yet included in dictionaries as acceptable (although back in the 1970s linguists wrote that the prohibition of stress calls is clearly artificial). Now, in 2015, it only calls normatively. But knowledge of the orthoepic law, which was mentioned above, gives reason to assert that this will not always be the case and the stress calls, most likely, sooner or later will become the only correct one. Not because "linguists will follow the lead of illiterate people", but because such are the laws of language.
In the process of language evolution, the lexical meanings of some words often change. Korney Chukovsky in his book "Alive as Life" gives an interesting example. The famous Russian lawyer A.F. horses in last years life (and he died already under Soviet rule in 1927) was very outraged when those around him used the word “necessarily” in the new meaning of “certainly”, although before the revolution it meant only “kindly”, “helpfully”.
Why are languages being simplified?
The language changes at the grammatical level. It is known that in the Old Russian language there were six types of declension of nouns, and in modern Russian there are three. There were three numbers (singular, dual and plural), only two remain (singular and plural).
And here it is worth mentioning another interesting pattern. We know that evolution is a path from simple to complex. But in language it's the other way around. The evolution of a language is a path from complex forms to simpler ones. The grammar of modern Russian is simpler than that of Old Russian; modern English is simpler than Old English; Modern Greek is easier than Ancient Greek. Why is this happening?
I have already said that in the Old Russian language there were three numbers: singular, dual (when it was only about two objects) and plural, that is, in the minds of our ancestors there could be one, two or many objects. Now in Russian there is only the singular or plural, that is, there can be one object or several. This is a higher level of abstraction. On the one hand, there are fewer grammatical forms and there has been some simplification. On the other hand, the category of number with the advent of the distinction "one - many" has become more harmonious, logical and clear. Therefore, these processes are not only not a sign of the degradation of the language, but, on the contrary, testify to its improvement and development.
From masculine to neuter
Many people misunderstand the work of linguists. Some believe that they invent the rules of the Russian language and force society to live by them. For example, everyone says “to kill a spider with a slipper”, and the linguist claims that it is impossible to say this, because the word “slipper” is feminine (it would be correct: “kill a spider with a slipper”). Some believe that linguists simplify the norm for the sake of poorly educated people and include illiterate variants like coffee in the neuter gender in dictionaries.
In fact, linguists do not invent language norms, they fix them. They observe the language and record the conclusions in dictionaries and encyclopedias. Scientists should do this regardless of whether they like this or that option or not. But at the same time, they look to see if the variant meets the laws of the language. Depending on this, the option is marked as prohibited or allowed.
Why is the word "coffee" often used in the neuter gender? Is it just illiteracy? Not at all. The fact is that the language system itself resists the masculine gender of the word “coffee”. This word is borrowed, inanimate, common noun, indeclinable and ending in a vowel. The overwhelming majority of such words in Russian belong to the middle gender. “Coffee” was included in the exceptions, because there were once in the language the forms “coffee”, “coffee” - masculine, they declined like “tea”: drink tea, drink coffee. And now the masculine gender of the word "coffee" is a monument to long-dead forms, while the laws of the living language draw it into the neuter gender.
And these laws are very strong. Even the words that resist them still give up over time. For example, when the metro was opened in Moscow in 1935, the media wrote: the metro is very convenient for passengers. The Soviet Metro newspaper was published, and Utyosov sang: “But the metro flashed with oak railings, it immediately bewitched all riders.” The word "metro" was masculine (because "metropolitan" is masculine), but gradually "gone" into the neuter gender. Therefore, the fact that “coffee” becomes a neuter word does not come from the illiteracy of people, but because such are the laws of language development.
Who gets in the way of foreign words?
Also, any conversation about the Russian language is not complete without discussing the borrowing of words. One often hears that the Russian language is littered with foreign words and it is urgent to get rid of borrowings, that if measures are not taken and the flow of borrowings is not stopped, we will all soon speak a mixture of English and Nizhny Novgorod. And these myths are passed down from generation to generation.
Photo: Mary Evans Picture Library / Global Look
The fact that the Russian language is inconceivable without borrowed words is very easy to prove. It is enough to give examples of words that seem to us to be primordially Russian, but in fact they are not. So, the words “shark”, “whip”, “herring”, “sneak” came to the Old Russian language from the Scandinavian languages, from the Turkic - “money”, “pencil”, “robe”, from the Greek - “letter”, “ bed", "sail", "notebook". Even the word "bread" is very likely a borrowing: scholars suggest that its source is the Gothic language.
AT different eras in Russian, borrowings from one language usually prevailed. When, during the time of Peter I, Russia was building a fleet in order to “cut a window to Europe”, a lot of words related to maritime affairs came to us, most of them from the Dutch language (shipyard, harbor, compass, cruiser, sailor), because it was the Dutch at that time were considered the best shipbuilders and many of them worked at Russian shipyards. AT XVIII-XIX centuries the Russian language was enriched with the names of dishes, clothes, jewelry, furnishings that came from the French language: soup, broth, champignon, cutlet, marmalade, vest, coat, wardrobe, bracelet, brooch. In recent decades, words in Russian come mainly from English and are associated with modern technical devices and information technologies (computer, laptop, smartphone, online, website).
The foregoing does not mean that the Russian language is so poor or greedy: it only accepts and gives nothing away. Not at all. Russian also shares its words with other languages, but more often exports go not to the West, but to the East. If we compare Russian and Kazakh, for example, we will see that in Kazakh language a lot of borrowings from Russian. In addition, the Russian language is an intermediary for many words that go from West to East and from East to West. The same role was played in the 17th-19th centuries by the Polish language, through which a lot of words came to Russian (thanks to the Poles, we say “Paris”, and not “Paris”, “revolution”, not “revolution”).
If we ban foreign words, then we will simply stop the development of the language. And then there is a threat that we will start speaking in another language (for example, in the same English), because the Russian language in this case will not allow us to express our thoughts fully and in detail. In other words, the ban on the use of foreign words leads not to the preservation, but to the destruction of the language.
Lecture No. 17
I. Basic patterns of language development.
II. Historical changes in the grammatical structure of the language.
III. Questions of historical lexicology.
I. Being a means of communication, language arises and develops in society. It cannot exist outside of society, since it is socially conditioned both by origin and by purpose. As a phenomenon, social language depends on the level of development of society, the conditions of its existence.
The public, social nature of a language is found not only in the external conditions of its existence, but also in the very system of the language, in its phonetics, vocabulary, morphology, stylistic and syntactic constructions.
Adapting language to changing forms public life occurs at all language levels. The social nature of the language, according to the famous French scientist Antoine Meillet, is especially clearly manifested in the semantic changes of words. In the article “How Words Change Meanings”, he, in addition to the actual linguistic reasons for changing the meanings of words, highlights external, social causes and gives as an example the development of the meanings of words "father" and "mother". Initially, in the Indo-European proto-language, these words expressed not kinship, but social relations: the word * pater denoted the social function of a person, they could be called the highest deity or the highest of all heads of families, with the restructuring of the social structure primitive society, with the disappearance of patriarchy, this word began to be used to express kinship relations.
The history of a language testifies that many of its phenomena develop within the language itself and are conditioned by the internal laws of its development. These laws say that each new phenomenon in the language grows out of the old, already existing one, being created from the “material” of the language and according to its “rules”.
To laws governing the internal development of the elements of the linguistic structure, include the following:
1) the law of elimination of "strain areas" , this law in Russian, German and English the processes of dissimilarity and assimilation of consonants to each other, as well as the simplification of groups of consonants are subordinated;
2) law of positional variation of sounds , for example, the behavior of noisy consonants in the position of the end of a word or at the junction of its morphemes;
3) law of analogy , explaining the deviation from the operation of phonetic laws, as a result of which some structural elements are likened to others (for example, in the Russian language, the loss of alternations -c/-c in the declension of nouns with stem on -a type rouka - routsѣ under the influence of the action of morphological analogy);
4) law of compensatory development , according to which the loss of some forms or relations in the language is compensated by the development of others (for example, in the Old Russian language, the simplification of the vowel system caused by the fall, that is, the loss of the reduced ones, led to the complication of the consonant system);
5) law of abstraction elements of the linguistic structure, according to which the development of abstract elements of the language occurs on the basis of specific ones (for example, in the vocabulary of a specific lexical meaning words often become the basis for the development of the abstract - sea"part of the ocean" and figurative meaning"a large amount of something");
6) law of economy language means, in accordance with this law, the language has a tendency to implement optimal sufficiency, i.e. an adequate form of expression is selected for each linguistic meaning, (for example, blackberry ® blueberry, the descriptive construction is folded into one language unit);
7) law of differentiation and separation of structure elements , according to which the development of the language follows the path of highlighting and specializing its elements to express the actual linguistic meanings (for example, the union like in the Old Russian language of the XI-XII centuries. used in subordinate clauses cause, effect, comparative, indicative; later, this union was assigned a comparative value).
The laws of abstraction and differentiation of the elements of the linguistic structure are opposite to each other. But this internal contradiction creates a dynamic balance in the language and is the source of its development.
II. The grammatical structure of the language is very stable and rarely changes under the influence of foreign languages.
Changes in the history of a language can occur in the structure of words. In the course of linguistic evolution, the sound and semantic relationships between words often change, which can lead to a change in the morphemic division of the word: changes in the boundaries between morphemes, merging of morphemes, the transition of words from derivatives to non-derivatives.
Among the numerous types of morphemic transformations, two main processes stand out: re-decomposition or simplification.
Redecomposition- a change in the morphemic structure of the word, associated with the movement of the boundaries of the morphemes that make up its composition. The word remains derivative, that is, it retains morphemic articulation, but is divided differently than before (for example, in modern Russian the noun living creatures articulates like liveliness because the adjective has fallen out of use living, from the basis of which it was formed, although in the XVIII century. this word was articulated livestock; adjective tiny, created on the basis of the producing crumb, after its obsolescence began to correlate with crumb(s) as with producing, therefore, in modern Russian, this word is divided into morphemes in the following way: tiny).
As a result of the process of re-decomposition, new affixes appear in the language (for example, the affix –rel-, resulting from the merging of suffixes -from- and –n- in one formant; suffix -ink-, which arose from the combination of the singularity suffix -in- with diminutive suffix -to- etc.).
Sometimes a previously inarticulate stem turns into an articulated one, that is, root and affix morphemes begin to stand out in it, which usually happens when a word is borrowed (for example, Dutch zondek from zone"sun" and dek"Tire" when borrowing it into Russian and lo phonetic adaptation and lost its articulation into root morphemes, but soon the end of the word began to be perceived as a diminutive suffix -ik- - umbrella-uk, and the rest of the word not only became a new root, but also turned into an independent word umbrella). A change in the morphemic structure of a word, in which a non-derivative stem turns into a derivative, is called complication.
Sometimes re-expansion can occur not only at the boundaries of morphemes, but also at the boundaries of words (for example, in the Old Russian language, some prepositions had a sound at the end n: kn, son, which usually disappeared before the consonant - to mnѣ , but kept before the vowel - knyum . After the fall of the reduced ones, when the word boundary moved, this consonant went to the next word - to him).
Refutation- such a change in the morphemic structure of the word, as a result of which the stem loses the ability to divide into morphemes and turns from a derivative into a non-derivative, equal to the root, that is, the root and affix or root and root merge into one morpheme (for example, Russian word shame previously articulated shame, as it correlated with the verb get cold, however, in the process of development, there was a break in motivational relations between these words, as a result, the basis ceased to allocate the suffix -d- and turned into indivisible; Russian Thanks was formed by combining words save and God, which is not realized by the speakers now, therefore this word is perceived as a single basis; English woman"woman" from wife+man, forehead"forehead" from fore+head).
Reasons for simplification:
1) loss of a generating word or stem (for example, in a word ring production base lost count circle, formerly ring);
2) loss of semantic connection with the motivating basis (for example, the word turtle lost its semantic connection with the word scull-, previously turtle);
3) loss of productivity by a word-forming affix (for example, in words sew-o, soap-o there was a simplification due to the loss of productivity by the suffix -l-< awl from sh-t, we-l-o from wash);
4) a phonetic change in the structure of the word (for example, in the word region- due to phonetic changes associated with the fall of reduced vowels in the Old Russian language and the simplification of the group of labial consonants: about lv last ® area).
In grammatical changes, a special place is occupied by changes "by analogy".
Analogy(linguistic) - the likening of some elements of the language to other elements of the same level, more common and productive, or the convergence of such elements (for example, the word counselor had a suffix -atay- from vozh-ati“lead” and was included in a number of formations of the same structure with it: shame"viewer", tell me"guide", etc., inflected as a noun of the type edge; but under the influence of adjectives on –at(th) type horned, humpbacked and as a result of their release, the use of the generating verb became inflected as an adjective).
Analogy is one of the reasons for non-phonetic changes in the sound shell of a word. Violating the sequence of action of certain phonetic laws, analogy contributes to a certain orderliness of inflectional and word-formation paradigms, which, due to the action of various phonetic processes, turned out to be disconnected, i.e. similar alignment occurs.
analog equalization- the disappearance of unproductive elements of the language as a result of assimilation of their more frequent and productive elements.
The internal mechanism of action of the analogy is to establish a certain pattern that should be imitated when reproducing ready-made forms and creating new ones (for example, in children's speech tights instead of tights- by analogy with mountains - mountains, or in modern Russian in the genitive plural, by analogy, the ending is used -ov instead of -her: knives, doctors, huts).
Therefore, analogy is considered as an important factor in the development and functioning of the language, since following a certain model helps the speaker easily create new forms.
Grammatical analogy is dual in nature: on the one hand, it acts as an organizing and ordering principle, a means of implementing the systemic units of various language levels, a way of preserving language paradigms; on the other hand, contributing to the transformation of forms deviating from this model, it can act as an innovative principle that forms new series of forms.
Education by analogy is carried out in the speech of a particular individual, and only an insignificant part of these formations becomes a fact of language. Similar formations are a means of preserving individual elements of the language without changes for a long time.
III. Being connected with the history of the people, the vocabulary of the language reflects the diversity of its life: changes in the socio-political structure, the development of production, science, technology, culture. The main process affecting the development of the vocabulary of the language, its enrichment and improvement, is the process of constant growth of vocabulary due to the emergence of new words or neologisms. Neologisms(gr. neos"new" and logos“word”) are words or phrases denoting a new reality (object or concept) that has recently appeared in the language (for example, roaming, hacker etc.). The main way of enriching the vocabulary of a language throughout the history of its development is the formation of new words according to the word-formation models existing in the language, on the basis of the building material available in the language (for example, computer scientist, computer addict etc.).
It is word formation, its lexical-semantic method (changing the semantic volume of words) that ensures the continuity of the replenishment of the lexical composition of the language. The following types of changes are possible in the lexico-semantic structure of polysemantic words:
1) polysemantic words can become single-valued (for example, the word lad in the Old Russian language had such meanings as “child”, “teenager”, “young man”, “princely youth”, “combatant”, “warrior”, “servant”, “slave”, “worker”, “servant”; in modern Russian, the word is outdated and has only one meaning "teenage boy");
2) the composition of the meanings of a polysemantic word changes (for example, the word truth in the Old Russian language it meant “set of rules”, “laws”, “contract”, “right”, “court”, “confirmation, proof”, “good name”, “oath”, “command”, “commandment”; in the modern literary language, of all meanings, the meanings of “truth, justice” are preserved);
3) the main meaning of the word becomes secondary, and the secondary main (for example, the main meaning of the word city in the Old Russian language there was “fence, fence”, then “fenced place” - “fortress” - “settlement”; at present, the main meaning is "settlement");
4) the old main meaning is completely out of use, and the secondary meaning becomes the main one (for example, the main meaning of the word powder in the Old Russian language there was “small particles of matter, dust”, with the advent of firearms this word takes on a new meaning "explosive"; in modern Russian, this word is used only in the second sense);
5) the meaning of the word changes to the opposite under the influence of emotional and evaluative moments (for example, the word charm in written monuments XVII-XVIII centuries used in the meaning of "deception, delusion, deceit", and in the writings of A.S. Pushkin - in the meaning of "something beautiful, attractive"; the latter meaning is enshrined in modern Russian).
Another source of replenishment of the vocabulary of the language are borrowing. in different historical eras the nature of borrowings, their thematic affiliation, the intensity of penetration into the lexical fund of a particular language were not the same (for example, borrowings in Russian in ancient era XII-XIV centuries - mainly Turkisms related to everyday life and horse breeding: money, treasury, pocket, chest, horse and others, in the 18th century. - from French, domestic character: coat, coat, socio-political, military terms: battalion, attack, arts and sciences: waltz, ballet, dash, romance, nuance, in modern Russian - Anglicisms and Americanisms from the sphere of economics and politics: dealer, marketing, broker).
Not only words can be borrowed, but also the word-formation structure of the word, as a result of which tracing paper- words made up of material mother tongue, but built according to a foreign word-formation model (for example, a morphemic translation of Latin in-sec-t-um"insect").
Once in the language, a foreign word undergoes a process of phonetic and grammatical adaptation. In accordance with the phonetic norms of the receiving language, unusual phonetic contrasts are eliminated (for example, in Russian, double-vowel combinations in Latin borrowings are changed by iot epentheses: line learned as a line th a], status- like a statue th a]). Sometimes a borrowed word may retain its phonetic features (for example, the pronunciation of a solid consonant before e in words phoneme, timbre, although the orthoepic norm of the Russian language requires the pronunciation of a soft consonant here). In addition to phonetic, a grammatical adaptation of a borrowed word also occurs, that is, it acquires regular forms of inflection characteristic of the host language (for example, words borrowed from Latin dictatorship, arena, angina etc. are inclined in Russian with features of feminine nouns on -a). There are also exceptions when a foreign word is outside the inflection system (for example, coat, subway, jury). Subject to borrowing and semantic adaptation. The number and types of meanings of a foreign word, as a rule, do not coincide with the same characteristics given word in the borrowing language even at the first stage of its assimilation. During the long existence of a borrowed word in a foreign language environment, its contextual uses are streamlined and changed, new meanings appear and old ones are lost, the word acquires one or another stylistic coloring due to the transition of a word with a changed meaning to other functional areas, etc. (for example, latin word bacillum"stick, lictor rod" in Russian refers to one of the types of bacteria in the form of a stick - bacillus, a new meaning appeared as a result of metaphorization by the similarity of form; lat. caeremonia“holiness, veneration, cult, sacred rites” has lost its connection with the religious sphere in Russian and means “an established solemn procedure for doing something; external conventions, coercion in behavior”; the Latin chartularium"the list of the dead, read by the priest at the feast of the remembrance of the dead", in Russian the word hack was used to refer to “a monetary reward for a custom (especially memorial) service”, and then to refer to “side and easy earnings; negligent and dishonest work; the product of such work”, etc.).
In the development of the vocabulary of the language, two main trends stand out: one is associated with the growth of national elements of the language, the other with the growth of international ones.
Replenishment of the vocabulary of the language can also occur due to the involvement of colloquial and colloquial elements, dialectisms. Dialectisms- these are the words that make up the belonging of the dialects of a particular language. Sometimes such words pass into a nationwide lexical system (for example, earflap, comb, boring- former dialectisms).
The loss of stylistic coloring of the word also contributes to the expansion of the lexical fund of the language (for example, vernacular in the 1920s - guys, in vain, study, lack and others).
Along with the processes leading to the enrichment of the vocabulary, the opposite processes also take place in the language, associated with the transition of a number of words from the active vocabulary to the passive one. The obsolescence of words is associated with the exit from everyday life of realities (objects or phenomena of the surrounding reality), these words denoted. Such words are called historicisms ( for example, boyar, altyn and etc. ) . Some words naming existing realities are displaced from the active stock by synonymous lexical units. They are called archaisms ( Greek archaios"ancient" ), for example, vyya- modern neck, this - modern this, banner - modern banner etc.
The study of the dynamics of the vocabulary of the language is engaged in historical lexicology. The subject of her research is the history of words in connection with the history of the realities they denote.
Historical lexicology traces the ways of changing meanings, explores the processes that led to the changes, that is, studies the vocabulary of the language in its historical development(for example, the words save and fear in the past were associated with the verb graze in the meaning of "protect").
Associated with historical lexicology etymology(gr. etymon"true value" and logos“learning”) is a science that studies the origin of words. The task of etymology is to reconstruct the vocabulary of the language of the ancient period. Etymology reconstructs the primary forms and meanings of words, establishes the connection between their form and content.
educational:
1. Kodukhov V.I. Introduction to linguistics. M.: Enlightenment, 1979. -
With. 143 - 145, 217 - 224, 300 - 303.
2. Maslov Yu.S. Introduction to linguistics. M.: Graduate School, 1987. - p. 195-
3. Reformatsky A.A. Introduction to linguistics. M.: Aspect Press, 2001. - p.
additional:
1. Research on word formation and lexicology of the Old Russian language.
Moscow: Nauka, 1969.
2. Research on the historical morphology of the Russian language. M.: Nauka,
See: Vendina T.I. Introduction to linguistics. M .: Higher School, 2002. - C.40,41.
These concepts were first introduced by V.A. Bogoroditsky. See: Bogoroditsky V.A. General course of Russian linguistics. M.-L., 1935.