CC BY
27
RUDN Journal of Language Studies, Semiotics and Semantics Вестник РУДН. Серия: ТЕОРИЯ ЯЗЫКА. СЕМИОТИКА. СЕМАНТИКА
2018 Vol. 9 No 4 896-903
http://journals.rudn.ru/semiotics-semantics
УДК: 811.16'373.45
DOI: 10.22363/2313-2299-2018-9-4-896-903
ASSIMILATION OF BORROWINGS IN SLAVIC LANGUAGES (in the aspect of Russian-Czech-Slovak comparison)
Elena M. Markova
Kosygin state university of Russian
33, p.1, ul. Sadovnicheskaya, Moscow, Russia, 117997
Katolik university in Ruzhomberok
1A, Hrabovska cesta, Ruzomberok, Slovakia, 034 01
Abstract. A rapid increase in borrowings from English is one of the hallmarks of the modern linguistic situation in Slavic languages. Similar diversion processes driven by the active influence of the English language are marked in all Slavic languages, although they take place unevenly, which is shown by a comparative analysis of the Russian language with West Slavic ones, Czech and Slovak. The influence of English is evident not only in the form of direct borrowings, lexical, phraseological and semantic calques from English sources, but also in the penetration of English word-building elements, the impact of the derivational models relevant for the English language, in the import of ways of word-forming reality conceptualization. The article reveals the similarity and specificity of these processes in the Russian, Czech and Slovak languages.
Key words: borrowing processes, word formation, derivational elements derivational models, Slavic languages
INTRODUCTION
The active processes, currently underway in Slavic languages, are understood as various dynamic linguistic phenomena clearly expressed in a short-time interval, which also concern the lexical and word-formative sides of language. Similar diversion processes driven by the active influence of the English language are marked in all Slavic languages, although they take place unevenly, which is shown by a comparative analysis of the Russian language with West Slavic ones, Czech and Slovak. Nowadays, many Russian and Slavic linguists study the problems of the influence of English on the modern Slavic languages at different language levels — V. Berkov, N. Valgina, I. Vepreva, E. Volodarskaia, L. Krysin, E. Marinova, G. Neshchimenko, V. Leichik, L. Ratsi-burskaia, E. Shagalova, L. Shestak, N. Iudina (Russia), K. Buzasyova, P. Dvoracek, J. Gazda, L. Janovec, O. Martincova (Czech Republic), Т. Grigorianova, J. Furdik (Slovakia), M. Kormilitsyna (Poland), M. Radchenko (Croatia), G. Gochev, M. Parzu-lova, L. Tsoneva (Bulgaria), etc. The goal of this article is to describe the individual areas of the influence of the English language on the Russian language against the background of the West Slavic ones, Czech and Slovak. The main research methods include observation method, continuous sampling, component analysis method, comparative, synchronic-and-diachronic, descriptive.
PART 1
In the modern era, characterized by globalization processes, the processes of borrowing the vocabulary of Anglo-American origin have intensified in Slavic Languages. However, by the intensity of these processes, the Russian language is on one of the first
places, the linguistic purism, traditional for Czechs and Slovaks, is holding back the flow of foreign words to some extent. Evidence of this are such examples as the Russian саммит /sammit/ 'встреча в верхах' /vstrecha v verhah/ ("summit") — Slovak stretnutie na najvyssej urovni, Rus. консенсус /konsensus/ 'соглашение' /soglasheni] ("consensus") — Slov. zhoda, Rus. юзер/yuzer/'пользователь' /pol'zovatel'/("user") — Slov. pouzivateV (from pouzivat 'to use'), Rus. электорат /elektorat/ 'избиратели' /izbirateli/ ("electorate") — Slov. volici (from volit 'to elect'), Rus. контракт /kontrakt/ 'договор' /dogovor/ ("contract") — Slov. zmluva (rarely kontrakt), Rus. Презент /prezent/ 'подарок' /podarok/ ("present") — Slov. darcek, Rus. шприц /shpricz/ ("syringe'') — Slov. strekacka, Rus. Клининг /klining/ 'уборка' /uborka/ ("cleaning") — Slov. upratovanie (from upratovat 'to clean'), Rus. стикер /stiker/ 'наклейка' /naklejka/ ("sticker") — Slov. nalepka (from nalepit' 'to stick'), Rus. дайвинг /dajving/ 'подводное плавание' /podvodnoe plavanie/ ("diving") — Slov. potapanie, Rus. пресс-секретарь /press-sekretar/ ("press-secretary") — Slov. hovorca, hovorkyna, Rus. поп-корн/pop-korn/("popcorn") — Slov.pukanec (from pukat' 'to crackle, to pop'), Rus. макияж /makiyazh/ ("make-up") — Slov. licenie (from lice 'face') etc.
The fact that some Slavonic derivation models still do not lose productivity in the Czech and Slovak languages, for example, the formation of verbal nouns with the formant *-dlo (rus. -ло /-lo/) is the proof that the "purist visor" is still holding back the flow of borrowings in these languages, is In the Russian language, this model has long been unproductive, according to our estimates, contemporary Russian language counts about 50 words, both surviving from antiquity (шило /shilo/ ("awl"), мыло /my^lo/("soap"), рубило /rubilo/ ("ax"), сверло /sverlo/("drill"), зеркало /zerkalo/ ("mirror"), покрывало/pokry\alo/("covers") and others) and the newly formed ones, but having a phonetically altered formant and different semantics — to designate a person (бомбила /bombila/ ("gypsy cab driver"), мазила /mazila/ ("muff"), кутила /kutila/ ("reveller"), etc.). The Czech language counts more than 200 of them (about the same number that the Slavonic language had), and the Slovak — about 100, e.g.: the Czech, Slov. cedidlo ("colander")', cerpadlo ("pumps"), drzadlo ("handle"), platidlo ("means ofpayment"), sladidlo ("artificial sweetener"), tuzidlo ("hair styling mousse"), sedadlo ("seat"), operadlo ("chair back") and others.
However, it should be noted that the Czech and Slovak languages (the latter even to a bigger extent, for historical reasons) see faster adaptation and assimilation of borrowings to the systems of the adopting languages and their more frequent colloquial use in the lower language register, e.g., the Slov. kzicht from German Gezicht ("face") is well known within the meaning of 'snout, mug', zumpa ("dump"), kseft from German Gescheft ("business") refers to 'a dishonest business, speculation', which formed the verb kseftovat' ("to speculate"); the words coming from English (colloquial) — pusa 'kiss', trema 'excitement', gumicka 'chewing gum', guVa 'ball, core', which formed the verb gul'at' 'to roll, to fool'. The Slovak has actively functioning words with English roots — reprezentant 'representative', gratulovat' 'to congratulate'; the verbs akcepto-vat' 'to accept', eliminovat' 'to withdraw', redukovat' 'to reduce', absentovat' 'to be
present', disponovat' 'to dispose, to control', preferovat' 'to prefer' are commonly used in contrast to their Russian equivalents used only in the scientific style of speech.
By analogy with the word alcoholic, трудоголик /trudogolik/ ("workaholic"), шопоголик/shopogolik/("shopaholic") were created in the Russian language, in Czech, not only workoholik 'workaholic' and sopoholik 'shopaholic' were formed, but also about another 70 derivatives with this affixoid were found in the National body of the Czech language (cajeholik, polevkoholik, pornoholik, etc.).
The influence of English is evident not only in the form of numerous lexical borrowing, both direct and calqued, but as phraseological borrowings, which are also often calqued: Rus. крестный отец Aryostnyj otecz// Slov. krstny otec, 'mafia boss' (from English godfather), Rus. мыльная опера /myTnaya opera// Czech, Slav. mydlova opera (from English soap opera), Rus. отмывать деньги /otmy\at' den'gi/ / Czech prat spinavepenize (from English to launder money), делать деньги /delat' den'gi// delat penize (from English to make money), etc. Frequent are also semantic calques (secondary borrowing from English words and expressions.): Rus. теневой /tenevoj/ (теневой бизнес /tenevoj biznes/, теневая экономика /tenevaya ekonomika/) / Czech stinova ekonomika, seda ekonomika — from English. shadow economy, shadow business; продвинутый /prodvinutyj/ ('a modern person, familiar with the latest achievements') / Czech, Slov. pokrocily (pouzivatel' internetu) — from English advanced in the secondary meaning.
The internationalization of Slavic languages lexicons is also expressed in the transformation of foreign words and root morphemes into particular word-forming elements — affixoids. In light of the analysis of trends, numerous compoundings, established in accordance with the model of "immutable determinant + determined noun", which is productive in Endlish, draw attention, although the productivity of this model differs in various Slavic languages; calques are actively functioning in the Czech and Slovak languages, along with analytical nominations, e.g.: Rus. бизнес-образование /biznes-obrazovanie/ ("business education"), бизнес-школа /biznes-shkola/ ("business school"), бизнес-семинар /biznes-seminar/ ("business seminar"), бизнес-аналитик /biznes-analitik/ ("business analyst"), бизнес-портал /biznes-portal/ ("business portal"), бизнес-форум /biznes-forum/ ("business forum"), бизнесвумен /biznes-vumen/ ("business-woman "), etc. / Czech business tnda 'business-class', business-class, byznys-plan, byznyscentrum, but: byznysmenka 'businesswoman', along withpodnikatelska vefejnost 'business community',podnikatelsky zamer 'business concept'. In contrast to the Russian prefixoid Internet, a declinable adjective internetovy was created in the Czech language: internetova kavarna 'internet cafe', internetove podnikani 'internet business', internetova stranka 'web page', etc., but there are also calques in accordance with the Czech tradition: obchodovanina internet 'Internet trading'.
PART 2
It's not only lexical units, phrasemes, whole word-forming nests, but also affixal morphemes of foreign origin that are formed. High productivity is demonstrated by such prefixes as супер-, мега-, экс- /super-/, /mega-/, /eks-/: экс-губернатор /eks-guernator/ ("ex-governor"), экс-премьер /eks-prem'er/ ("ex-premier"), экс-мэр
/eks-твУ/ ("ex-mayor"), экс-музыкант /eks-musy^kant/ ("ex-musician"), экс-милиционер /eks-milicioner/ ("ex-militiaman "), экс-сотрудник /eks-sotrudnik/ ("ex-employee"), экс-солист /eks-solist/ ("ex-soloist"), экс-супруг /eks-suprug/ ("ex-husband"), etc. / Czech exministr 'ex-minister', expremier 'ex-premier', exposlanec 'ex-deputy', exkomunista 'ex-communist' etc. However, it is the -инг /-ing/ suffix that beats all records by the number of borrowed language units containing it and by its own word-forming activity in the adopting language: Rus. банкинг /banking/ ("banking"); заппинг/zapping/, which recorded a modern "disease" of TV viewers — 'quick switching from one TV program to another, in order not to watch ads' (from the English zapping 'inclusion'); каршеринг /karshering/ ('car lease for a short time to get there somewhere in the city') and others.
The influence of English language is also manifested in the impact of its typical word-formation models. While more three decades ago, one could state with confidence that the Slavic languages differ in the frequency of use of various derivation methods, it is now impossible to speak confidently about the derivation priorities. Currently, one can argue that, in addition to the suffixes, traditionally characteristic of Slavic wordformation, analytical design and semantic derivation, univerbation expressed in different kinds of contractions, abbreviations, apocopes, is becoming a productive derivational way of word formation in Slavic languages, e.g., Rus. инфа /infa/ from информация /informaciya/ ("information"); Czechpoc frompocitac 'computer'; Rus. мерс /mers/, Czech mergl instead of мерседес /mersedes/ ("Mercedes "), Rus. макдак /makdak/ and Czech. mekac — from Макдональдс /Makdonal'ds/ ("McDonald's"), etc. Derivation with zero affixation, especially correlated with verbs, belongs to universals of the Slavic word formation, but now there is a steady trend towards the intensification of this process, for example, прокол /prokol/ from the verb проколоться /prokolot'sya/ in the meaning 'to make a mistake, to commit an act that reveals the true intentions of smb.', Czech, Slovak. kiks (from kiksnout — 'to lay an egg') etc.
Univerbation may be accompanied by suffixation: наличка /nalichka/ (from наличные деньги /nalichnyxe den'gi) "cash", Rus. тусовка /tusovka/ "get-together" (along with the even shorter туса /tusa/ from тусоваться /tusovat'sya/ "to hang out"), порнуха /pornuha/ "porn", чернуха /chernuha/ "black humor", висяк /visyak/ "cold case", бесполезняк /bespoleznyak/ "no good", голяк /golyak/ "nada" (from голый /golyj/ ('zero') result), ездун /ezdun/ "rider", летун /letun/ "job hopper", замкадье /zamkadje/ ('area, located outside Moscow — outside the Moscow ring road, MKAD', as well as 'people living in that territory'), Slov. bakalarka 'Bachelor work', mobilka 'mobile phone', bezky (from behaf) 'skis, used for running' (as opposed to those for going downhill — zjazdove lyze), etc...
In line with the expansion of word formation by univerbation, combined with ekspressivization and axiologisation of meaning is the increase in formation of semanti-cally compact denominative verbs formed on the basis of phrases — Rus. романить /romanit'/ (from иметь роман /imet' roman/ "to have an affair") with the meaning 'to have a loving relationship, to date smb.' Rus. мейлить /mejlit'/, Czech, Slov. mailovat — from to exchange mail, Rus. тусоваться /tusovat'sya/, тусить /tusit'/, Czech mejdanovat 'to hang out' from mejdan 'get-together, usually in the apartment
of one of its members', Slov. zurovat' 'to hang out' from zur 'get-together'. Along with the form compression, the hallmark of any univerbation, including verbal, is the condensation of semantics in a more compact, contracted form, in which the semantics of the entire phrase can be expressed implicitly.
The research of uncodified speech gives many examples of the formation of verbs from English sources. Thus, the youth slang marks such units (comp.) as дефейсить /defeisit'/ 'to change the look' from the English deface, лукать /lukat'/ from the English look, токать /tokat'/ from the English talk, сфрендиться /sfrenditsya/ — from the English friend — the aspective pair for френдить /frendit'/ 'to be friends with smb.' Slovak neological verbs related to communication on the Internet, have not yet fully adapted, as evidenced by the variant graphic forms: facebookovat', fejsbukova' 'chat on Facebook', googlovat', guglovat' 'to google', gamifikovat', gejmifikovat' 'to game', skypovat', skejpovat' 'to skype', likovat', lajkovat' 'to like', aploadovat', uploadovat' 'to download' and others.
In Slovak, word creation as part of verbal derivation led to the creation of such words as dovolenkovat' 'to be on vacation' from dovolenka 'vacation',prazdninovat' 'to be on vacation' fromprazdniny 'vacation', letovat' 'to spend the summer', vidlicko-vat' 'to whisk with a fork' from vidlicka 'fork', zaskatulovat' 'to break it all down, to organize' (from skatule 'box'),premierovat' 'to conduct a performance, film premiere', hranit' sa ('scratch the back of the door frame' from posuchat sa o hrani), gumovat' 'to erase' (from guma 'eraser'), bodovat' 'to score points' (from body 'points'), etc. A lot of verbal innovations are found in the advertising slogans, e.g.: S kym bankujete? (Literally, 'Who are you banking with?', i.e., 'Which bank will you be working with?').
Parallel word formation in Slavic languages becomes a source of new facts of interlingual homonyms, for example, in the case with the Czech bankovat' (s niekym) 'to enter into a relationship with a bank', and Rus. банковать /bankovat'/ 'to put money on the line'; the Czech. mejdanovat 'to hang out' from mejdan 'get-together' and Rus. майданить /majdanit'/ 'to protest against the government, to hold a meeting'; the Slov. gul'at' 'to roll, fool' and Rus. гулять /gulyat'/ 'to wander, stroll aimlessly' (and more recently in the expression гулять по интернету /gulyat'po internetu/ 'to surf the Internet').
Verbs from the nouns with a borrowed productive suffix -инг /-ing/, which is an indication of their further development in the Russian language, are actively formed on the Russian soil: шопинговать /shopingovat'/ 'to do shopping', прессинговать 'pressingovat'/ 'to put pressure', демпинговать /dempingovat'/ 'to dump, drastically reduce prices', рейтинговать /reitingovat'/ 'to rate', тюнинговать /tyuningovat'/ (from тюнинг /tyuning/) 'to alter, decorate the exterior of a car, as well as (fig.) the appearance of the person'. The suffixes -ирова, -ова, -и /-irova, -ova, -i/are also utilized in the formation of denominative verbs — брендировать /brendirovat'/ (to present as a brand), продюсировать /produsirovat'/ (to act as a producer), офшорить /ofshorit'/ (to provide the territorial right to be an offshore zone), мониторить /monitorit'/ (to exercise monitoring, control, inspection).
This trend is also observed in the Slovak language, but the verb forms are formed from nouns with the -ing suffix on the Slovak word-formation models without this suffix: dabing 'dubbing' — dabovat', lobing 'lobbying' — lobovat', koucing 'coaching' — koucovat', forceking 'forcheking' — forcekovat', doping' 'doping' — dopovat', kemp-ing 'camping' — kempovat', dribling 'dribbling' — driblovat', monitoring 'monitoring' — monitorovat', karavaning 'caravanning' — karavanovat', banking 'banking' — the form bankovat appeared thanks to advertising. Many -ing borrowings have not yet acquired the appropriate verb forms, but their successful adaptation in the lexical system of the Slovak language is indicated by the appearance of adjectival forms — modeling — modelingovy, kliring — klmngovy, brifing — brifingovy, dzoging — dzog-ingovy and others.
RESEARCH RESULTS
Active derivational processes in modern Slavic languages, having the same type in their essence, are a testament to their convergence (symmetry), both in the explicit expression that leads to the formation of new interlanguage homonyms, and in the implicit context, in the aspect of internal development trends. The leading role is played by the English language, which is manifested in the form of direct borrowing from it, lexical, phraseological and semantic calques from English sources, in the assimilation and adaptation of English word-building elements and derivational models, in the import of formative ways of reality conceptualization.
© Markova E.
Дата поступления: 15.11.2017
Дата приема в печать: 10.06.2018
REFERENCES
1. Berkov, V. (2003). From the observations of changes in contemporary Slavic languages. In Modern linguistic processes. Intercollege. coll. of scien. tr. St. Petersburg, pp. 3—22. (In Russ.)
2. Valgina, N. (2001). Active processes in the modern Russian language. Moscow: Logos. (In Russ.)
3. Vepreva, I. & Kupina, N. (2014). On the creative potential of the Russian language, foreign language vocabulary and evaluation with regard to the "alien" word. In Studia Russico-Slovaca: VERBUM. Ruzomberok. рр. 25—34. (In Russ.)
4. Volodarskaia, E. (2002). Borrowing as a reflection of Russian-English contacts. Questions of linguistics, 4, 96—118. (In Russ.)
5. Gochev, G. (2007). On the question of neological processes in modern Russian vocabulary. In Materials of the 11th MAPRYAL Congress, Varna, 17—23 Sep., Vol. 3. рр. 59—64. (In Russ.)
6. Leichik, V. (2003). Intellectualization and democratization — opposite tendencies in the development of the modern Russian language. In Russian language at the turn of the century: active processes. Moscow. (In Russ.)
7. Markova, E. & Grigorianova, T. (2016). Dynamic aspects of vocabulary of modern Slavic languages. Brno: TRIBUN EU. (In Russ.)
8. Markova, E. (2012). Key Trends in the vocabulary of modern Slavic languages. Proceedings of the 5 th Internat. Scien. Conf. "Russian language in the linguistic and cultural space of Europe and the world: Man. Conscience. Communication. Internet" 9—13 May, 2012. Warsaw. рр. 899—904. (In Russ.)
9. Neshchimenko, G. (2009). Borrowings vs internationalism in the modern verbal communication. In Prejawy internacjonalizacji w jfzykach slowianskich. Siedlce. pp. 29—41. (In Russ.)
10. Remchukova, E. (2010). Creative potential of Russian grammar. Moscow: URSS. (In Russ.)
11. Buzásyová, K. (2003). K dimenziám internacionalizácie slovnej zásoby. Internacionalizmy v nové slovní zásobé. Praha: Ústav pro jazyk cesky Akademie ved Ceské republiky. pp. 5—16.
12. Dvorácek, P. (2005). Cesko-rusky slovník novych a problémovych vyrazú. 2. doplnené a prepracované vydání. Praha/
13. Janovec, L. (2013). Neologie. Studie k moderní mluvnici cestiny, 4. Dynamika ceského lexika a lexikologie. Olomouc: Univerzita Palackého v Olomoucipp. pp. 105—130.
14. Furdík, J. (2005). Integracné procesy pri lexikálnych prevzatiach. Zivot so slovotvorbou a lexikológiou. Kosice: Vydavatel'stvo LG. pp. 373—380.
15. Martincová, O. (2005). Nová slovesná pojmenování. In Neologizmy v dnesní cestiné. Praha: ÚJC AV CR. pp. 119—133.
УДК: 811.16'373.45
DOI: 10.22363/2313-2299-2018-9-4-896-903
УСВОЕНИЕ ЗАИМСТВОВАНИЙ В СЛАВЯНСКИХ ЯЗЫКАХ (в аспекте российско-чешско-словацкого сравнения)
Е.М. Маркова
Российский государственный университет им. А.Н. Косыгина 117997, Россия, г. Москва, ул. Садовническая, д. 33, стр. 1
Католический университет в Ружомберке (Словакия) 1A, Hrabovská cesta, Ruzomberok, Slovakia, 034 01
Быстрый рост заимствований из английского языка является одной из отличительных черт современной языковой ситуации в славянских языках. Аналогичные диверсионные процессы, обусловленные активным влиянием английского языка, отмечаются во всех славянских языках, хотя и протекают неравномерно, о чем свидетельствует сравнительный анализ русского языка с западнославянским, чешским и словацким. Влияние английского языка проявляется не только в виде прямых заимствований, лексических, фразеологических и семантических калек из английских источников, но и в проникновении в английский язык словообразовательных элементов, влиянии релевантных для английского языка словообразовательных моделей, в импорте способов концептуализации словообразовательной реальности. Статья раскрывает сходство и специфику этих процессов в русском, чешском и словацком языках.
Ключевые слова: процессы заимствования, словообразование, словообразовательные элементы, словообразовательные модели, славянские языки
БИБЛИОГРАФИЧЕСКИЙ СПИСОК
1. Берков В.П. Из наблюдений над изменениями в современных славянских языках // Современные языковые процессы. Межвуз. сб. научн. тр. СПб., 2003. С. 3—22.
2. Валгина Н.С. Активные процессы в современном русском языке. М.: Логос, 2001.
3. Вепрева И.Т., Купина Н.А. О творческом потенциале русского языка, иноязычной лексике и оценочном отношении к «чужому» слову // Studia Russico-Slovaca: VERBUM. Ruzomberok, 2014. С. 25—34.
4. Володарская Э.Ф. Заимствование как отражение русско-английских контактов // Вопросы языкознания. 2002. № 4. С. 96—118.
5. Гочев Г.Н. К вопросу о неологических процессах в современной русской лексике // Мат-лы XI Конгресса МАПРЯЛ, Варна, 17—23 сент., Т. 3. 2007. С. 59—64.
6. Лейчик В.М. Интеллектуализация и демократизация — противоположные тенденции в развитии современного русского языка // Русский язык на рубеже веков: активные процессы. М., 2003.
7. Маркова Е., Григорянова Т. Динамические аспекты лексики современных славянских языков. Brno: TRIBUN EU, 2016.
8. Маркова Е.М. Основные тенденции в лексике современных славянских языков // Материалы V Междун. научн. конф. «Русский язык в языковом и культурном пространстве Европы и мира: Человек. Сознание. Коммуникация. Интернет» 9—13 мая 2012 г. Варшава, 2012. С. 899—904.
9. Нещименко Г.П. Заимствования vs. интернационализмы в современной вербальной коммуникации // Prejawy internacjonalizacji w j^zykach slowianskich. Siedlce, 2009. C. 29—41.
10. Ремчукова Е.Н. Креативный потенциал русской грамматики. М.: URSS, 2010.
11. Buzásyová K. K dimenziám internacionalizácie slovnej zásoby // Internacionalizmy v nové slovní zásobe. Praha: Ústav pro jazyk cesky Akademie ved Ceské republiky 2003. С. 5—16.
12. Dvorácek P. Cesko-rusky slovník novych a problémovych vyrazu. 2. doplnené a prepracované vydání. Praha, 2005. 383 s.
13. Janovec L. Neologie // Studie k moderní mluvnici cestiny, 4. Dynamika ceského lexika a lexikologie. Olomouc: Univerzita Palackého v Olomouci, 2013. C. 105—130.
14. Furdík J. Integracné procesy pri lexikálnych prevzatiach // Zivot so slovotvorbou a lexikológiou. Kosice: Vydavatel'stvo LG. 2005. C. 373—380.
15. Martincová O. Nová slovesná pojmenování // Neologizmy v dnesní cestine. Praha: ÚJC AV CR, 2005. С. 119—133.
Для цитирования:
Маркова Е.М. Усвоение заимствований в славянских языках (в аспекте российско-чешско-словацкого сравнения) // Вестник Российского университета дружбы народов. Серия: Теория языка. Семиотика. Семантика, 2018. Т. 9. № 4. С. 896—903. doi: 10.22363/2313-2299-2018-94-896-903.
For citation:
Markova, E.M. (2018). Assimilation of borrowings in slavic languages (in the aspect of russian-czech-slovak comparison). RUDN Journal of Language Studies, Semiotics and Semantics, 9(4), 896—903. doi: 10.22363/2313-2299-2018-9-4-896-903.
Сведения об авторе:
Елена Михайловна Маркова, доктор филологических наук, профессор кафедры славянской филологии, Католический университет в Ружомберке (Словакия), Российский государственный университет им. А.Н. Косыгина; e-mail: [email protected]
Information about the author:
Elena M. Markova, Doctor of Philology, Professor of the Department of Russian Studies, Katolik university (Ruzomberok), Kosygin state university of Russian; е-mail: [email protected]
