Abstract:
The article examines the problem of the nomination of regional vocabulary, to a certain extent reflecting the peculiarities of the life of the inhabitants of a particular region. The relevance of the work is due to the heightened interest in the study of territorially marked linguistic units operating in cities in recent decades. Their study is extremely important not only for linguistic regional studies, but also for determining the peculiarities of the development of a literary language that actively interacts with regions. In this regard, the problem of designating the linguistic units of the regiolect arises, which has not yet been fully solved. The heterogeneous nature of the regiolects (dialects, geographically marked vernaculars, literary linguistic units, local borrowings), contradictory interpretation of the linguistic norm, ignorance of the systemic nature of terminology complicate the aforementioned problem.
The purpose of the article is to determine the most appropriate term to denote territorially marked vocabulary. To achieve this goal, the following research methods were used:
- theoretical - analysis and synthesis of linguistic literature on the research problem;
- comparative-comparative - comparison of terms used to denote regional vocabulary, identifying the degree of their consistency and adequacy to the nominated object.
In the course of the work done, the following results were obtained.
An extraordinary inconsistency in the terminological naming of territorially marked vocabulary is revealed. The advantages and disadvantages of each term are established, taking into account the accuracy of the designated object and the systemic nature of the terminology. The term is defined that most adequately reflects the essence of the designated object and is organically included in the system of linguistic terminology. The relation of regionalisms to general literary vocabulary is revealed and their non-standardization is proved. The inconsistency of identifying the regional linguistic norm and the regional variant of the literary language has been substantiated.
Keywords: words: regiolect, dialect, regionalism, dialectism, localism, provincialism, semi-dialect, linguistic regionalism
For citation: Kunavin B.V. On the problem of the nomination of regionally marked vocabulary. Current Issues in Philology and Pedagogical Linguistics. 2020, no 4, рр. 93–103 (In Eng.)
Bionote:
Boris V. Kunavin
North Ossetian State University
(Russian Federation, Vladikavkaz)
ORCID ID: 0000-0002-3951-0775;
e-mail: vladraikun@mail.ru
References:
1. Gerd AS. Introduction to ethnolinguistics: a course of lectures and a reader. SPb.: Publishing house of SPbSU; 2001.
2. Yaguello M. Le Grand Livre de la langue française. P.: Éditions du Seuil, 2003.
3. Martin J-B. Dictionnaire du français régional du Pilat. P.: Bonneton, 1989.
4. Doppagne A. Les régionalismes du français. P.- Gembloux: Duculot, 1978.
5. Khorosheva NV. Regiolect as an intermediate idiom in French and Russian. Bulletin of Perm University. Russian and foreign philology. 2011;3(15):32-36.
6. Trubinsky VI. Modern Russian dialects: signs of formation. Pskov dialects and their environment. Pskov: Publishing house of the Pskov state. ped. in-that; 1991:156-162.
7. Chronaki G., Hadwin JA., Garner M., Maurage P., Sonuga-Barke EJS. The development of emotionrecognition from facial expressions and non-linguistic vocalizations during childhood. British Journal of Developmental Psychology. 2015;33:218-236. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/bjdp.12075. Accessed Nov. 10, 2020.
8. Camras LA., Castro VL., Halberstadt AG., Shuster MM. Facial expressions in children are rarelyprototypical. The psychology of facial expressions / J.A. Russell & J.M. Fernandez-Dols (Eds.). 2nd ed. NewYork: Cambridge University Press, 2017:279-296.
9. Bulot T. “Que parle-t-on en Pays de Caux?” Émergence et / ou continuité d’une communauté sociolinguistique régionale. Marges linguistiques. novembre 2005; 10. M.L.M.S. éditeur. Available at: http://marges-linguistiques.com. Accessed Oct. 17, 2020.
10. Kadolo TA. Regional vocabulary as a manifestation of multiculturalism. Language and culture. 2011;2(14):22-28.
11. Walter H. Le français d’ici, de là, de là-bas. P.: Lattès, 1998.
12. Neale S. Context and Communication. Readings in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: A Bradford Book, 1998:415-474.
13. Widdowson HG. Linguistics. N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 2002.
14. Makovsky MM. The theory of lexical attraction: Experience of the functional typology of lexical-semantic systems. M.: URSS; 2017.
15. Filin FP. On the structure of the modern Russian literary language. Questions of linguistics. 1973;2:3-12.
16. Galchenko IE. Vocabulary of the languages of the peoples of the North Caucasus in Russian. Ordzhonikidze: Publishing house of the North Ossetian state. un-that; 1976:100.
17. Baziev AT., Isaeva MI. Language and nation. M.: Science; 1973.
18. Gulmagomedov GA. Dagestan regionalisms in the vocabulary of the modern Russian language: author. Dis. ... cand. philol. sciences. Makhachkala; 1995.
19. Zherebilo TV. Dictionary of linguistic terms. 5th edition. Corrected and supplemented. Nazran: Pilgrim LLC; 2010.
20. Sokolyanskaya NN. On some groups of regional vocabulary in the “Description of the Land of Kamchatka” by S.P. Krasheninnikov. Ideas, hypotheses, search. Magadan: Severn Publishing House. int. un-that; 1995;2:63-66.
21. Zvarkina IS. On the issue of the ratio of dialectal and regional in Russian (on the example of the vocabulary of the Astrakhan region). Humanities research. 2013;2(46):30-36.
22. YuA. Rezvukhina Regionalism: towards the definition of the concept. Interexpo Geo-Siberia. 2015;2(6):84-90.
23. Klimkova LA. Regional word in artistic speech. Regional aspects of lexicology. Interuniversity collection of scientific papers. Tyumen: Tyumen State un-t; 1994:52-53.
24. Materials of the forum of the project “Languages of Russian cities”: What is lexical regionalism / Urban dialects. Available at: http // forum. Lingvo.ru/actualtnread.aspx?tid=69828. Accessed Nov. 5, 2020.
25. Gruzberg LA. Regiolect. Philologist. 2010, no 11. Доступно по: http // philology.pspu.ru / modelle / magazine /.do mpub11208. Footnote active as of 10/20/2020.
26. Erofeeva EV. Probabilistic structures of idioms: a sociolinguistic aspect. Permian; 2005.
27. Belikov VI. Comparison of St. Petersburg with Moscow and other considerations on social lexicography. Russian language today. Problems of Russian lexicography. M.: Institute of the Russian language RAS, PIK VINITI; 2004;3:23-34.
28. Akhmanova OS. Dictionary of linguistic terms. M.: Soviet encyclopedia; 1966.
29. Erofeeva EV., Erofeeva TI., Skitova FL. Localisms in the literary speech of townspeople: Textbook. Benefit. Ed. 2nd, rev. and add. Perm: Publishing house Perm. un-that; 2002.
30. Torokhova EA. Regional variant of the Russian literary language, functioning in the territory of Udmurtia (sociolinguistic aspect). Author’s abstract. dis. … Cand. philol. sciences. Izhevsk; 2005.
31. Kosharnaya SA. Regiolect of the Belgorod region as a linguocultural education. Scientific statements of the Belgorod State University. Humanitarian sciences. Philology. Journalism. Pedagogy. Psychology, 2017;14(263). Issue 34:14-26.
32. Tikhonov AN. Encyclopedic dictionary-reference book of linguistic terms and concepts. Russian language: in 2 Vol. M.: Russian language, 2008;1.
33. Ozhegov SI. Explanatory dictionary of the Russian language. M.: Peace and Education; 2013.