Активный словарь русского языка (Т 3, Д-З)
This paper presents an overview of Russian and foreign existing approaches that have been practiced in relation to the compilation of lexical minima. Special attention is paid to the most influential English-speaking tradition, as well as the German-speaking tradition. The purpose of the review is to follow the development of lexical list science and also to define the criteria list compilers should be oriented in order to compose the best lexical minima for the modern user. The first chapter of the article discusses Russian approaches to the lexical minima compilation, the second chapter discusses the approaches used abroad, the third chapter compares domestic and foreign traditions and summarizes the review. The review given in the article gives grounds for the conclusion that the creation of LM requires a combination of both statistical and communicatively oriented methods. In addition, to compile an up-to-date and reliable corpus it is necessary to have an equal proportion parts of the data analyzed: in addition to the fiction texts corpus, authors should refer to the oral corpus data, as well as sources diverse in style and genre, such as newspaper, art and academic corpses, and internet speech corpus.
This paper sets out to review current approaches to world Englishes from a range of perspectives, from English studies to sociolinguistics, applied linguistics, lexicography, ‘popularizers’ and critical linguistics. It then proceeds to consider current debates on English worldwide and world Englishes, noting the recent criticisms of the world Englishes approach from a rhetoric of a critical linguistics ironically at odds with the realities of many educational settings.
The article presents two addenda to the author’s recent study concerning the manuscript variants πυρρούλας and πυρρὸς ὕλας in Arist. Hist. An. 592b22. In that previous work, an attempt was made to trace back the Latin fortune of the Greek ὕλας. Now, we scrutinize D’Arcy W. Thompson’s assertion πυρρούλας means ‘bullfinch’ in Modern Greek. Thompson mistakenly refers to Theodor von Heldreich – it is apparently Demetrios Bikelas who he is quoting. The latter, in turn, could have taken the "Modern Greek" bird name πυρρούλας from Skarlatos Vyzantios’ 1835 dictionary. Given Vyzantios’ purist and prescriptive approach to lexicography, he must have drawn the word from a learned source based on Aristotle rather than from a vernacular one close to the oral tradition. That is why Thompson’s "Modern Greek" argumentation for identifying Aristotle’s πυρρούλας with the bullfinch most probably results from a vicious circle. This corroborates Carl Jacob Sundevall’s identification of πυρρούλας with the robin and, furthermore, increases the plausibility of the reading πυρρὸς ὕλας. The second part of the article analyzes three testimonies of the rare bird name πυρρίας/πυρρία and of the homonymous denomination of a snake. Although apparently irrelevant for assessing the variant readings in Arist. Hist. An. 592b22, these words deserve examination. Namely, a comparison of manuscript readings and possible emendations in Ath. 2, 69, 3, Dionys. Per. Ixeut. 3, 13, 22 and Hsch. 4461 suggests that Claudius Salmasius’ conjecture in Ath. 2, 69, 3 should be rejected. Another conjecture is ventured instead.