Частицы dokh и zhe языка идиш в сравнении с их славянскими и германскими эквивалентами
Yiddish is a Germanic language that was highly influenced by Slavic languages (Polish, Ukrainian, Belorussian, Russian) on different levels, including vocabulary and pragmatics. Discursive markers are one of the spheres that have many loanwords. In this paper, the usage of the Yiddish particle zhe (cf. pol. -że, ukr. že, bel. ž (a), rus. ž(e)) is compared to the usage of the Yiddish particle dokh (cf. germ. dokh). The German particle doch and the Russian particle ž(e) are often considered translation equivalents [Orlova 2012]. The aim of this paper is to understand to what extend the particles dokh and zhe are semantically and contextually different and whether they can be interchangeable.
The 2014 Symposium 'Language Contact: The State of the Art' took place in Helsinki, August 28-30
Yiddish-speaking groups of Communists played a visible role in many countries, most notably in the Soviet Union, United States, Poland, France, Canada, Argentina and Uruguay. The sacrificial role of the Red Army, and the Soviet Union as a whole, reinforced the Left movement in the post-Holocaust Jewish world. Apart from card-careering devotees, such groups attracted numerous sympathisers, including the artist Marc Chagall and the writer Sholem Asch. But the suppression of Yiddish culture in the Soviet Union radically changed the climate in Jewish left-wing circles. Former Communists and sympathisers turned away, while the attention of Yiddish commentators in the West turned to the conditions for Jewish cultural and religious life in the Soviet Union and Poland, Jewish emigration and the situation in the Middle East. Ideological confrontations between Communist Yiddish literati in the Soviet Union, United States, Canada, Poland, France and Israel are in the centre of Gennady Estraikhs pioneering study, Yiddish in the Cold War. This ground-breaking book recreates the intellectual environments of the Moscow literary journal Sovetish Heymland (the author was its managing editor in 1988-91), the New York newspaper Morgn-Frayhayt and the Warsaw newspaper Folks-Shtime.
The volume includes proceedings of the 23th Scandianvian Conference of Linguistics (SCL 23) that was held at Uppsala University 1–3 October 2008. It includes studies covering a wide spectrum of approaches to linguistics, for example, cross-linguistic typological studies, linguistic variation and language change in contact situations as well as studies relating to bilingualism and to second and foreign language learning.
The issues connected with gastronomic culture have become increasingly topical throughout the last two decades. Food, meals, bodily and communicative gastronomic practices reflect dramatic changes of culture. Food is one of the most important and suggestive markers of everyday practices which signify the patterns and the intensity of globalisation. Russian gastronomic culture has always developed in a very specific way with the import of foreign culinary traditions being the main trend of this process. The alien traditions have been adopted first by the elite circles, then by the lower strata of the Russian population to finally become an authentic part of Russian culture. Borrowing foreign gastronomic vocabulary was the hallmark of such assimilation. Although unified fast food still remains the mainstream of the modern gastronomic culture, it is being challenged by a new tendency. The diversity of culinary traditions of different cultures in the globalized world offers an opportunity of forming a bodily identity by choosing one of the exported types of cuisines even at the level of so called Mac-variant. Today, the modern Russian food discourse reflects the process of globalization and macdonaldalisation of the domestic gastronomic culture. The major marker of the latest linguistic changes is the extension of food nominatives as the consequence of the adoption of new foreign nominatives, which denote new gastronomic practices and habits. Such words as “smoothie”, “fresh”, “sushi”, “macchiato” have become an integral part of the active gastronomic vocabulary of Russians. Gastronomic loanwords demonstrate a new crucial tendency in the modern Russian language: the substitution of the native gastronomic thesaurus with a new one of the foreign origin.
Chapter 3 deals with the interaction of language and culture that make two facets of Russian English. Section 1, prepared by Zoya Proshina, provides for the comparison between Russian and English. It describes typological characteristics of Russian and English and their common features and distinctions on different language levels, which may have an impact on the features of Russian English. It is known that language contact between English and an indigenous language is usually a two-way process that leads to nativization of English and Englishization of the indigenous language. Englishization of Russian is elucidated by Alexandra Rivlina and Zoya Proshina in section 2. In section 3, Alexandra Rivlina elabo-rates on English and Russian code-mixing and code-switching. She argues that English-Russian hybridization is increasingly widely used in Russian discourse, especially in the form of word play based on code-mixing. Section 4, by Svetlana Ter-Minasova, focuses the discussion on the contemporary changes in Russian mentality and culture caused by the sudden ‘intrusion’ of English into the Russian language, culture, and lifestyle. The impact of English culture via the English language in its various forms (mass media, advertisement, the avalanche borrowing, etc.) on the Russian culture can be seen in different domains: in the business domain, change of attitudes to patronymics; in academic papers, change of style, a great damage inflicted on the Russian linguacultural picture of the world by poor translations from English into Russian. Section 5, by Victor Kabakchi and Elena Beloglazova, characterizes the way English adjusts to expressing Russian culture-loaded concepts.
The paper reviews D.G. Miller's recent book, "External influences on English: From its beginnings to the Renaissance".
Language contacts have been extensively studied linguistically and sociolinguistically. This paper argues that cross-cultural analysis of language transfer can also prove useful in contact linguistics. One of the latest borrowings from English into Russian, the semantic calque vyzov vyzovy (‘challenge/challenges’) used often in the cliche´ ugrozy i vyzovy (‘threats and hallenges’), makes certain shifts in the Russian world view traceable. Challenge, a key word in English, is untranslatable into Russian and the trite Russian translation equivalent for challenge – problema (‘problem’) reveals important differences between the two cultures: the Anglophone (especially, American) linguaculture, whose dominant values are individual success and activity, competitiveness, positive thinking, sense of adventure, etc., perceives difficulties as ‘‘stimuli’’ and conceptualizes them in terms of challenges; contrary to this, the Russian linguaculture, which is, if compared with the Western cultures, ‘‘being-oriented,’’ ‘‘relationship-oriented,’’ ‘passive’’ and ‘‘pessimistic,’’ encourages the discussion of difficulties in terms of problems. The borrowing of the concept challenge by extending the meaning of vyzov registers a shift of the Russian value system in the direction of increased agentivity, assertiveness, positivism, competitiveness, etc. Such borrowings are ‘‘challenges’’ rather than ‘‘threats’’ to the Russian language and culture and they call for a more in-depth linguacultural analysis of English–Russian interactions.
In Udi (Northeast Caucasian, Lezgic), the prenominal relative clause may be preceded by a genitive phrase referring, at first glance, to some of its arguments. It is proposed that this construction results from a borrowing from Azerbaijani, which, however, underwent reanalysis: the genitive phrase behaves as the possessor of the matrix nominal phrase and the relative clause appears to specify the possessive relation. The Udi data are further compared with data from a few other languages that display similar constructions.
The problem of morphological ambiguity is widely addressed in the modern NLP. Mostly ambiguity is resolved with the use of large manually-annotated corpora and machine learning. However, such methods are not always available, as good training data is not accessible for all languages. In this paper we present a method of disambiguation without gold standard corpora using several statistical models, namely, Brill algorithm (Brill 1995) and unambiguous n-grams from the automatically annotated corpus. All the methods were tested on the Corpus of Modern Greek and on the Corpus of Modern Yiddish. As a result, more than a half of words with ambiguous analyses were disambiguated in both corpora, demonstrating high precision (>80%). Our method of morphological disambiguation demonstrates that it is possible to eliminate some of the ambiguous analyses in the corpus without specific linguistic resources, only with the use of raw data, where all possible morphological analyses for every word are indicated.