Жанрово-тематические особенности древнерусских сказаний об иконах
2009, Вестник славянских культур
Sign up for access to the world's latest research
Related papers
Sprachwissenschaft, 2019
Studies in African Linguistics, 2010
Hadza is one of three East African languages with clicks. Previous field repons on this language have disagreed on several of its phonetic chanacteristics, including the number and nature of the clicks. This paper-based on acoustic and aniculatory analyses of data collected in recent fieldwork-presents a more detailed picture than any previous work. Special attention is given to the aniculation of the click types and the acoustic features of the click accompaniments, the role of aspiration in distinguishing classes of consonants, and the fonnant structure of vowels. 101 p pataku'Je 'palm of hand' 99 iupa-kho 'foam' 81 b bada 'hole' 44 I)~oba-kho 'baobab' p' p'a?Uwe-'to split' m makllo 'clay pot' 85 samakha-phi 'three' mph mphalamafio-kho 'slingshot' fiomphai-kho 'wing' mb mbalata-kllo 'cockroach'-kJlamba-bi 'small intestine' Labiodental: f fa-'to drink.' 11 ts'ifi 'night' Dental: kI kjUthi_ 'neck' 177 kjakja 'large jla! roc/(lJl' lJl'ats'e-'to reheat' 211 talJl'e 'belt' 1)1 'I)lathll 'longue' 228 k/ikili'rja 'little finger' 181 Alveolar: t h thase 'long' 'nose' nd ndagWe-ko 'notch'-lJ!anda 'agama lizaT{f 97 l[r] lala-kho 'gazelle' 67 ba?ala-kho 'honey' 91 ts tsipit'J 'porcupine' 65 tsetse-'to grow old' dz dza-'come!' 2 lA'odzo-'to say' ts' ts'ake-'to steal' 24 fiits'a-phe 'fat' nts ntsa-kho lsrar' 47 tan(t)se-'to crack' ndz ndzopha. 'bottle' mindza 'reedbuck' s samaka-phi 'three' 37 papa'sa 'hip bone' i iano 'python' 95 Q!'ak'iia 'palate' k! 'k!cik."l1-'to jwnp over' 4 k!o'k!6-k h o 'back of head' lJ! ' lJ!' oje (wax' 139 fia~!'a-kho 'rock' I)! I)"ina-'sp. mongoose' 64 I)!ikil)!i-'to push a lot'
Математика Механика Физика, 2014
ɄɈɇɋɌɊɍɄɐɂɈɇɇȺə ɉɊɈɑɇɈɋɌɖ ɉɈɅɂɆȿɊɇɕɏ ɄɈɆɉɈɁɂɌɈȼ ɇȺ ɈɋɇɈȼȿ ɄɈɊɈɌɄɂɏ ɋɌȿɄɅəɇɇɕɏ ȼɈɅɈɄɈɇ 1 ɋ.Ȼ. ɋɚɩɨɠɧɢɤɨɜ 2 , Ɋ.Ɋ. Ⱥɛɞɪɚɯɢɦɨɜ 3 , Ⱥ.Ⱥ. ɒɚɤɢɪɨɜ 4 ɉɪɢɜɟɞɟɧɵ ɪɟɡɭɥɶɬɚɬɵ ɷɤɫɩɟɪɢɦɟɧɬɚɥɶɧɵɯ ɢɫɫɥɟɞɨɜɚɧɢɣ ɩɪɨɱɧɨɫɬɢ ɯɚɨɬɢɱɟɫɤɢ ɚɪɦɢɪɨɜɚɧɧɨɝɨ ɫɬɟɤɥɨɩɥɚɫɬɢɤɚ, ɩɨɥɭɱɟɧɵ ɞɚɧɧɵɟ ɩɨ ɱɭɜɫɬɜɢɬɟɥɶɧɨɫɬɢ ɦɚɬɟɪɢɚɥɚ ɤ ɤɨɧɰɟɧɬɪɚɬɨɪɭ ɧɚɩɪɹɠɟɧɢɣ ɜ ɜɢɞɟ ɨɬɜɟɪɫɬɢɹ. Ɉɩɪɟɞɟɥɟɧɨ ɡɧɚɱɟɧɢɟ ɷɮɮɟɤɬɢɜɧɨɝɨ ɩɪɟɞɟɥɚ ɩɪɨɱɧɨɫɬɢ ɞɥɹ ɞɚɧɧɨɝɨ ɦɚɬɟɪɢɚɥɚ ɫ ɩɨɦɨɳɶɸ ɧɟɥɨɤɚɥɶɧɨɝɨ ɷɤɫɩɪɟɫɫ-ɤɪɢɬɟɪɢɹ ɢ ɷɮɮɟɤɬɢɜɧɵɣ ɪɚɡɦɟɪ ɤɨɧɟɱɧɨɝɨ ɷɥɟɦɟɧɬɚ ɞɥɹ ɨɰɟɧɤɢ ɩɪɨɱɧɨɫɬɢ ɷɥɟɦɟɧɬɨɜ ɤɨɧɫɬɪɭɤɰɢɣ ɫ ɤɨɧɰɟɧɬɪɚɬɨɪɚɦɢ ɧɚɩɪɹɠɟɧɢɣ. Ʉɥɸɱɟɜɵɟ ɫɥɨɜɚ: ɯɚɨɬɢɱɟɫɤɢ ɚɪɦɢɪɨɜɚɧɧɵɣ ɫɬɟɤɥɨɩɥɚɫɬɢɤ, ɤɨɧɰɟɧɬɪɚɬɨɪ ɧɚɩɪɹɠɟɧɢɹ, ɦɟɬɨɞ ɤɨɧɟɱɧɵɯ ɷɥɟɦɟɧɬɨɜ, ɗɤɫɩɪɟɫɫ-ɤɪɢɬɟɪɢɣ. 1 Ɋɚɛɨɬɚ ɜɵɩɨɥɧɹɥɚɫɶ ɩɪɢ ɮɢɧɚɧɫɨɜɨɣ ɩɨɞɞɟɪɠɤɟ Ɇɢɧɨɛɪɧɚɭɤɢ ɊɎ ɜ ɪɚɦɤɚɯ ɩɪɨɟɤɬɚ «ɋɨɡɞɚɧɢɟ ɜɵɫɨɤɨɬɟɯɧɨɥɨɝɢɱɧɨɝɨ ɩɪɨɢɡɜɨɞɫɬɜɚ ɦɨɞɟɥɶɧɨɝɨ ɪɹɞɚ ɷɧɟɪɝɨɫɛɟɪɟɝɚɸɳɢɯ ɧɢɡɤɨɩɨɥɶɧɵɯ ɬɪɚɦɜɚɣɧɵɯ ɜɚɝɨɧɨɜ ɦɨɞɭɥɶɧɨɣ ɤɨɧɫɬɪɭɤɰɢɢ» ɩɨ ɞɨɝɨɜɨɪɭ ʋ 02.G36.31.0002 ɨɬ 12.02.2013 ɝ. 2 ɋɚɩɨɠɧɢɤɨɜ ɋɟɪɝɟɣ Ȼɨɪɢɫɨɜɢɱ-ɞɨɤɬɨɪ ɬɟɯɧɢɱɟɫɤɢɯ ɧɚɭɤ, ɩɪɨɮɟɫɫɨɪ, ɤɚɮɟɞɪɚ ɉɪɢɤɥɚɞɧɨɣ ɦɟɯɚɧɢɤɢ, ɞɢɧɚɦɢɤɢ ɢ ɩɪɨɱɧɨɫɬɢ ɦɚɲɢɧ, ɘɠɧɨ-ɍɪɚɥɶɫɤɢɣ ɝɨɫɭɞɚɪɫɬɜɟɧɧɵɣ ɭɧɢɜɟɪɫɢɬɟɬ.
2009
Cilungu Phonology provides a comprehensive description of the intricate and diverse tone system of Cilungu, a Bantu language of Zambia classified as M14 in Guthrie's (1967Guthrie's ( -1971 Bantu classification. An asset of this work for which the author must be commended is that it provides a thorough and fully worked out tone system of a particular language in contrast to fragments of tonal systems abounding in the Bantu literature.
ɇɚɫɬɨɹɳɨɬɨ ɢɡɫɥɟɞɜɚɧɟ ɟ ɧɚɫɨɱɟɧɨ ɝɥɚɜɧɨ ɤɴɦ ɩɨɫɥɟɞɫɬɜɢɹɬɚ ɨɬ ɫɜɟɬɨɜɧɚɬɚ ɮɢɧɚɧɫɨɜɨ-ɢɤɨɧɨɦɢɱɟɫɤɚ ɤɪɢɡɚ ɜɴɪɯɭ ɪɟɚɥɧɢɹ ɫɟɤɬɨɪ ɜ Ȼɴɥɝɚɪɢɹ. ɉɨ ɦɧɨɝɨ ɩɪɢɱɢɧɢ ɮɢɧɚɧɫɨɜɢɹɬ ɫɟɤɬɨɪɬɴɪɝɨɜɫɤɢɬɟ ɛɚɧɤɢ ɢ ɧɟɛɚɧɤɨɜɢɬɟ ɮɢɧɚɧɫɨɜɢ ɢɧɫɬɢɬɭɰɢɢ, ɩɪɟɡ ɜɬɨɪɚɬɚ ɩɨɥɨɜɢɧɚ ɧɚ 2008 ɝ. ɢ ɩɴɪɜɚɬɚ ɩɨɥɨɜɢɧɚ ɧɚ 2009 ɝ. ɧɟ ɛɹɯɚ ɡɚɫɟɝɧɚɬɢ ɢɥɢ ɩɨɱɭɜɫɬɜɚɯɚ ɫɥɚɛɨ ɧɟɝɚɬɢɜɧɢɬɟ ɟɮɟɤɬɢ ɨɬ ɫɜɟɬɨɜɧɚɬɚ ɤɪɢɡɚ. ɉɨɪɚɞɢ ɬɨɜɚ ɩɨɥɨɠɟɧɢɟɬɨ ɜɴɜ ɮɢɧɚɧɫɨɜɢɹ ɫɟɤɬɨɪ ɧɟ ɟ ɜ ɰɟɧɬɴɪɚ ɧɚ ɜɧɢɦɚɧɢɟɬɨ ɧɚ ɢɡɫɥɟɞɜɚɧɟɬɨ.
2025
A. Manaster Ramer disputes the reconstruction of Turkic *kulkak ‘ear’ based on Karakhanid qulaq, qulqaq, qulxaq, qulɣaq. These show every *kulKāk possible in Turkic, and one more, for no *x is reconstructed in Proto-Turkic. However, partly based on the work of Orçun Ünal, many new reconstructed sounds are being found or better understood. Where would x come from, if not *x? I see no theoretical reason why Proto-Turkic *x could not exist, or *kulxāk ‘ear’. Other’s attempts to have *k or *g become x have no real merit, since *-lk- is not odd, but *-lx- might have only this one example. In a word with 3 K’s, asm. or dsm. might be expected, explaining how *x > *g might happen. However, based on other evidence (below), it makes more sense for *x > *γ > *g to be optional or based on environment (no other ex. of *-lx-). This also, based on other Turkic word formation, almost requires *kulxāk ‘ear’ to be from *kulxa- ‘hear’ + *-Vk. It would be impossible to ignore that Uralic *kuxle- ‘hear’ (F. kuule-, Mi. kōl-, NMi. hūl-, etc.) is almost identical. The disputed nature of Uralic *x is essentially the same as the ignored existence of Turkic *x. If evidence for them in the “same” root existed, it would go a long way in proving both their existence and a relation between these families. The only reason not to have Tc. *x is that it would be rare. If *x > *g in most environments, then there would be no way to tell its origin without comparison with non-Tc. languages. If some *x > *ʔ (glottal stop, for convenience ’ in words), likely among others (see below for some *T > *ʔ ) then it might explain the origin of Tc. long vowels. These do not always behave as if from *V:, showing changes to adjacent C’s. If all or most V: were V’ (or some V’V ?), then ’ glottalizing or geminating some C’s might explain some changes, especially if V’C > VC’ were possible. Also, see below for *-m’r- > *-m’Vr- > -m(ü)r-, etc. Also, *kulxāk resembles PIE *k^lous- ‘hear / ear’ closely enough for examination. Since many IE branches turned *s > x \ h in many environments, often *VsV, it is likely that *k^lous-o\e- > *klusV- > *kluxV- > *kulxV- \ *kuxlV-. The motivation for metathesis is the absence of many (or maybe any) CR- in old Turkic & Uralic (see variants of ‘gnaw’ below). The resemblance of many IE words to Turkic are always considered loans, often from Tocharian (*kaH2uni-s > TB kauṃ ‘sun/day’, Turkic *kün(eš) \ *kuñaš > Uighur kün ‘sun/day’, Dolgan kuńās ‘heat’, Turkish güneš ‘sun’, dia. guyaš; *work^wutko- > Ar. *worśyuθk > goršuk, Kd. barsuk, OUy. bors(m)uk, Kx. bors(m)uq, Ui. borsuq, Tk. porsuk ‘badger’; *ukso:n ‘ox’ > TB okso, TA opäs, Tc. *fökü:z > Karakhanid ökǖz, Uighur (h)öküz, Mc. *hüker; *udero- ‘belly’ > *wïdiǝrö > Tc. *vadiarï > *bagiara ‘liver / belly’ > Tkm. bagïr, Yak. bïar, Cv. pěver ‘liver’; *wrH- > H. warnu- / wahnu- ‘burn’, Li. vìrti ‘cook’, *werH-ro-? > *wraH-ro- > OCS varъ ‘heat’, Av. urvāxra- ‘heat’, Tc. *öRä:- intr. ‘burn / be hot’, OUy. ört ‘flame’, Cv. virt ‘burning / (steppe) fire’; *dhewbo- > Go. diups, E. deep, Tc. *dü:p ‘bottom / root’; more below). I can not believe that the long V in *ukso:n ‘ox’, Tc. *fökü:z can be explained by chance, let alone the rest. I also find it impossible to believe PT was so prominent that it could influence PTc. so much. It is not reasonable that all Turkic languages would or could have been able to replace so many native terms entirely with Tocharian loans. Other proposed loans, like Ir. *barsūka- > Kd. barsuk, etc., >> Tc. *borsuk (in their reconstructions) would not explain -m- in OUy bors(m)uk, etc. The Tc. data helps show that PIE *work^wutko- is needed in both IE & Tc. (Whalen 2025a) with opt. *w > *w \ m, *Cwu > Cu (also seen in *sülüwen ? > Tk. sül(üm)en ‘leech’; *syo’wxǝ-k \ *so’wxyǝ-k \ etc. ? > sömek, sögük, süwek, siwek, etc. (below)). -m- appearing “from nowhere” in expected *borsuk is not just something that can be passed over in silence (yet it has previously). The -o- corresponding to Ar. -o- also can’t be found in Ir. It would be impossible if *borsuk really had existed as an Ir. loan from something like barsuk, so why is this theory so prominent? It is only needed if all similarities between Tc. & IE need to be loans, however much they might not fit. If even ‘ear’ matches, these would be of far too wide a scope to reasonably be seen as loans. I say this helps show that Turkic was an IE branch. It is fascinating that Ünal has reconstructed so many of these matches and continues to call them “loans”. This is part of a major discovery. Ünal’s other work on PTc. sounds often create words very close to IE. If he recognizes them, he always says Tocharian >> Turkic. As I’ve said, this is simply too much borrowing, and the many words shared by PT & PTc. are often slightly different, just enough that borrowing in either direction can’t be made to work with known changes. Many have seen that *kaH2uni-s > TB kauṃ ‘sun/day’ is related to Turkic *kün(eš) \ *kuñaš ‘sun/day’, but how? Some say PT >> PTc., others PTc. >> PT, but the details are never exact. Both show -n- vs. -ñ-, and Tc. *-eš vs. 0 could be from the PIE nom., so if *-is > *-yïš it would account for Tk. güneš ‘sun’, also dia. guyaš. If *au-y > *aü-y it would explain optional fronting by umlaut, then *aü > *au \ *äü > u \ ü, etc. The TB word has a good IE source in *kaH2w- ‘burn’. These could not show so many similarities with IE sources if a loan from Tc., so some genetic relation seems needed. It is similar to Tocharian, with both *e & *i > *iä, etc., but not exactly the same. Ünal (2023) also reconstructs Tc. *f that often matches PIE *p or *w. If most *p- & *w- > *v > Turkic *b, but *v- > *f- when followed by a fricative (unless *v-v existed, or in *v-sv- ?) it would explain this and *worswuk ‘badger’ > OUy. bors(m)uk, etc. Many of his examples of *p- > *f- > h- have cognates with w-s- or p- in other languages (that others see as Altaic, even in Yenissian). He said ‘borrowings’, but do so many of this type really make sense as loans? How could Tc. borrow so much from PT and loan so much into Altaic (or what would NOT be Altaic, in his mind). In other works, he added still more, and I can’t believe there could be so many loans (which would have to be out of a still larger group of loans unless ALL Tc. >> Altaic loans happened to exemplify *p-, *-ts-, etc.). B. In order to provide more support for some of the ideas above, other ex. of *kR- > *k-R-, *k \ *x > *g should be looked for. Good matches in PIE *skremt- \ *kremts- ‘chew / bite / gnaw / cartilage’ can explain oddities in Tc. : *(s)kr(e)mt- \ *kr(e)mts- > Li. kremtù 1s., krim̃sti inf. ‘bite hard / crunch / chomp / bother / annoy’, kram̃to 3s., kramtýti inf. ‘chew’, Lt. kram̃tît inf. ‘gnaw’, kràmstît ‘nibble / seize’, kramsît ‘break with the teeth / crumble’ *skr(e)mt-tri- > *xremsti- > Sl. *xręščь ‘cartilage’ > R. xrjašč, Cz. hrešč *(s)kr(e)mt-triH2- > *kremstliya: > Li. kremslė̃ \ kremzlė̃ ‘cartilage’, Ltg. krimtele, Lt. skrimslis These had *(s)kr- > kr- in Baltic, unexplained *x- in Slavic. Since some *s- & *sk- > Sl. x-, it is likely that *sk > *ks > x, *s > *ks > x (as in *H2awso-m > U. ausom, L. aurum ‘gold’, *aH2wso- > OLi. ausas, Li. áuksas). These odd alternations in IE can be used when parallel oddities exist in Tc. words of the same 2 meanings, already known to be related from studies within Tc. (*käm- ‘gnaw’, *kämük ‘cartilage / (soft) bone’). *kämük having the oldest meaning ‘cartilage’ is implied by the presence of another word for ‘bone’ (C). This provides an explanation for *sk- > Tc. *k-, *ks- > *x- > Tc. *g- (as opt. in *kulx- \ *kulg- > Karakhanid qulxaq \ qulɣaq) in *skremt- *> kriǝm’- > *käm- ‘gnaw’vs. *ksremt- > *ksemtr- > *xiǝm’r- > *gäm’ür- ‘gnaw’. PIE *-mt- is not common, and either > *-m’- or *-md-. If *kr- > *k-r- (as for *kl-, above), then new *-m’r- can insert a V : *kremt- > *kriǝm’- > Tc. *käm- ‘gnaw’, Tk. dia. gämä ‘(someone) with large teeth’, Tkm. gämä ‘mouse or species of mole’, gämmik ‘having gaps in one’s teeth’ OTc. kämdi- ‘to strip meat from the bones’, kämdük süngük ‘bone with meat stripped off’ *ksremt- > *ksemtr- > *xiǝm’r- > Tc. *gäm’ür- ‘gnaw’ > MTc. kömür-, Tkm. gemir-, Tk. g\kemir-, Uz., Oy., Ui., Kz., Kaz. kemir-, Tv., Tf. xemir- OTc. kämr-ük ‘crack(ed) / gap(py)’, kämr-ük ‘having gaps in one’s teeth or missing teeth’ Yak. kömürüö ‘spongy bone’ This *-m’r- can also be seen in Tg. *gïmra- > *gïra+ ‘bone (in cp.)’, *gïmra-sa > *gïram-sa ‘bone’ (see below for many cases of ‘gnaw’ -> ‘bone’ ). Just as in Baltic, this root also formed ‘cartilage’, with *-tt- > *-st- > *-št-, met. in the long C-cluster *-mštr-, etc. These can be partly observed even without Baltic data, since Tc. had so many variants : *(s)kr(e)mt-triH2- > *kremttri: > *kriǝmstri: > *kr^ämši:rt > Tc. *ke:čir > Kirghiz kečir ‘cartilage of the scapula’, Tf. kedžir ‘cartilage’ [no +v or +phar], Oy. ked’ir ‘trachea’ *kr^ämši:rt-äk > Shor kečirtke ‘cartilage’, Tatar käčerkä ‘*gristle on the shoulder (to be picked off) > small hair on the back of a baby’ *kr^ämi:rtš-äk > *kämürčäk > Ui. kömürchek, Uz. kemirchak, Tkm. gemirçek, Kyrgyz kemircek, Tt. kimerčäk dsm. > *kyämi:rtš-äk > *čämirčik > Kirghiz čemirček ‘cartilage of the scapula’, Kazakh šemıršek ‘cartilage’, Tatar čǝmǝy ‘knucklebone’, Oy. čamay ‘cheekbone’ There also was a new word for ‘cartilage / (soft) bone’ formed directly from the verb root, with common suffix *-Vk : *käm’ük ‘cartilage / (soft) bone’ > Chg. kämük, Oy. kēmik, Qm. gemik ‘cartilage’, Uz. kɔmik, Kirghiz kemik ‘spongy bone’, Tk. kemik ‘bone’, Mc. *kemi(k) > Mo. kemi ‘(bone with) marrow’, kemik ‘cartilage’, Tg. *xumān > Eki. umān ‘marrow’, Ne. oman, *xumnu > onmụ ‘metatarsus’, *xumākin > Man. umǝhaŋ, LMan. umχan ‘marrow’, umuxun ‘metatarsus’ These also resemble Japanese words, and those even “further” apart in normal theory : J. kamu ‘to bite’, Oki. kam...
«Кино и немцы: гендерный субъект и идеологический «запрос» в фильмах военного времени // Гендерные исследования, # 6 (Харьков, 2002). Сc.187 – 205
Ʉɢɧɨ ɢ ɧɟɦɰɵ: ɝɟɧɞɟɪɧɵɣ ɫɭɛɴɟɤɬ ɢ ɢɞɟɨɥɨɝɢɱɟɫɤɢɣ «ɡɚɩɪɨɫ» ɜ ɮɢɥɶɦɚɯ ɜɨɟɧɧɨɝɨ ɜɪɟɦɟɧɢ Ⱥɥɶɦɢɪɚ ɍɫɦɚɧɨɜɚ ȼɨɣɧɚ ɩɪɟɞɫɬɚɜɥɹɟɬ ɫɨɛɨɣ ɫɨɜɟɪɲɟɧɧɨ ɨɫɨɛɵɣ ɝɟɧɞɟɪɧɵɣ ɨɩɵɬ, ɢ ɡɧɚɸɬ ɨɛ ɷɬɨɦ ɧɟ ɬɨɥɶɤɨ ɮɟɦɢɧɢɫɬɫɤɢɟ ɬɟɨɪɟɬɢɤɢ: ɢɫɬɨɪɢɹ, ɥɢɬɟɪɚɬɭɪɚ, ɤɢɧɟɦɚɬɨɝɪɚɮ, ɮɨɬɨɝɪɚɮɢɹ, ɨɛɪɚɳɚɹɫɶ ɤ ɬɟɦɟ ɜɨɣɧɵ, ɪɚɡɦɵɲɥɹɸɬ ɧɟ ɨ ɜɨɣɧɟ ɜɨɨɛɳɟ, ɧɨ ɨ ɦɭɠɱɢɧɚɯ ɢ ɠɟɧɳɢɧɚɯ, ɭɱɚɫɬɜɭɸɳɢɯ ɜ ɧɟɣ, ɩɨɫɬɪɚɞɚɜɲɢɯ ɨɬ ɧɟɟ, ɜɫɩɨɦɢɧɚɸɳɢɯ ɨ ɧɟɣ ɢ ɨɬɧɨɫɹɳɢɯɫɹ ɤ ɧɟɣ ɩɨ-ɪɚɡɧɨɦɭ, ɫɤɜɨɡɶ ɩɪɢɡɦɭ ɫɜɨɟɝɨ, ɝɟɧɞɟɪɧɨɦɚɪɤɢɪɨɜɚɧɧɨɝɨ ɜɡɝɥɹɞɚ. Ʉɚɤ ɩɢɲɟɬ Ⱥɧɬɨɧɢɹ Ʌɚɧɬ, ɜɨɣɧɚ ɨɛɪɭɲɢɜɚɟɬɫɹ ɧɚ ɝɟɨɝɪɚɮɢɱɟɫɤɭɸ ɬɟɪɪɢɬɨɪɢɸ, ɪɚɡɪɭɲɚɹ ɢ ɩɟɪɟɫɬɪɚɢɜɚɹ ɧɚɰɢɨɧɚɥɶɧɵɟ ɢ ɝɨɫɭɞɚɪɫɬɜɟɧɧɵɟ ɝɪɚɧɢɰɵ, ɧɨ ɨɞɧɨɜɪɟɦɟɧɧɨ ɨɧɚ ɩɪɟɨɛɪɚɡɭɟɬ ɢ ɝɟɧɞɟɪɧɵɣ «ɥɚɧɞɲɚɮɬ», ɪɚɡɦɵɜɚɹ ɢ ɮɨɪɦɢɪɭɹ ɡɚɧɨɜɨ ɝɪɚɧɢɰɵ ɦɟɠɞɭ ɩɨɥɚɦɢ. 2 ȼɨɣɧɚ ɨɛɧɚɠɚɟɬ ɩɪɨɢɡɜɨɥɶɧɨɫɬɶ ɤɭɥɶɬɭɪɧɵɯ/ɝɟɧɞɟɪɧɵɯ ɪɚɡɥɢɱɢɣ, ɢ ɢɫɤɭɫɫɬɜɨ (ɜ ɬɨɦ ɱɢɫɥɟ ɤɢɧɟɦɚɬɨɝɪɚɮ) ɜɨɟɧɧɨɝɨ ɜɪɟɦɟɧɢ ɫ ɩɪɢɫɭɳɟɣ ɟɦɭ ɱɭɬɤɨɫɬɶɸ ɮɢɤɫɢɪɭɟɬ ɷɬɭ ɧɨɜɭɸ/ɢɧɭɸ ɫɢɬɭɚɰɢɸ.
Sociolingvistika, 2021
ɆɂȽɊȺɐɂɈɇɇȺə ɋɈɐɂɈɅɂɇȽȼɂɋɌɂɄȺ MIGRATIONAL SOCIOLINGUISTICS ɍȾɄ ¶ '2, ɄɍɅɖɌɍɊɇȺə ɂ əɁɕɄɈȼȺə ɂȾȿɇɌɂɑɇɈɋɌɖ ȻɍɊəɌɋɄɂɏ, ɄȺɅɆɕɐɄɂɏ, ɆɈɇȽɈɅɖɋɄɂɏ ɂɆɆɂȽɊȺɇɌɈȼ ȼ ɂɌȺɅɂɂ 14 Ⱦɚɧɢɷɥɟ Ⱥɪɬɨɧɢ, Ⱦɠɨɪɞɠɚ ɉɨɦɚɪɨɥɥɢ, Ɋɢɦɦɚ Ⱥ. ɍɪɯɚɧɨɜɚ ȼɟɪɨɧɫɤɢɣ ɭɧɢɜɟɪɫɢɬɟɬ ɂɬɚɥɢɹ ɋɬɚɬɶɹ ɩɨɫɜɹɳɟɧɚ ɨɩɪɟɞɟɥɟɧɢɸ ɩɚɪɚɦɟɬɪɨɜ ɹɡɵɤɨɜɨɣ ɢ ɤɭɥɶɬɭɪɧɨɣ ɫɚɦɨɢɞɟɧɬɢɮɢɤɚɰɢɢ ɩɪɟɞɫɬɚɜɢɬɟɥɟɣ ɛɭɪɹɬɫɤɨɣ, ɤɚɥɦɵɰɤɨɣ ɢ ɦɨɧɝɨɥɶɫɤɨɣ ɢɦɦɢɝɪɚɰɢɢ ɜ ɂɬɚɥɢɢ. Ɉɩɢɫɵɜɚɟɬɫɹ ɫɨɰɢɨɥɢɧɝɜɢɫɬɢɱɟɫɤɚɹ ɯɚɪɚɤɬɟɪɢɫɬɢɤɚ ɩɪɟɞɫɬɚɜɢɬɟɥɟɣ ɬɪɟɯ ɷɬɧɢɱɟɫɤɢɯ ɝɪɭɩɩ ɜ ɫɜɹɡɢ ɫ ɹɡɵɤɨɜɨɣ ɫɢɬɭɚɰɢɟɣ, ɫɨɨɬɜɟɬɫɬɜɟɧɧɨ, ɜ Ɋɟɫɩɭɛɥɢɤɟ Ȼɭɪɹɬɢɹ, Ɋɟɫɩɭɛɥɢɤɟ Ʉɚɥɦɵɤɢɹ ɢ Ɇɨɧɝɨɥɢɢ. ȼɵɞɟɥɹɸɬɫɹ ɷɥɟɦɟɧɬɵ ɚɧɚɥɨɝɢɢ ɢ ɪɚɡɥɢɱɢɹ ɦɟɠɞɭ «ɪɨɫɫɢɣɫɤɢɦɢ ɦɨɧɝɨɥɚɦɢ» ɢ ɯɚɥɯɚ-ɦɨɧɝɨɥɚɦɢ. Ɉɩɪɟɞɟɥɹɟɬɫɹ ɫɬɚɬɭɫ ɩɪɢɧɚɞɥɟɠɚɳɢɯ ɤ ɦɨɧɝɨɥɨɹɡɵɱɧɵɦ ɤɭɥɶɬɭɪɚɦ ɢɦɦɢɝɪɚɧɬɨɜ ɜ ɢɬɚɥɶɹɧɫɤɨɦ ɤɨɧɬɟɤɫɬɟ. ȼ ɫɬɚɬɶɟ ɢɡɥɚɝɚɸɬɫɹ ɪɟɡɭɥɶɬɚɬɵ ɷɦɩɢɪɢɱɟɫɤɨɣ ɜɟɪɢɮɢɤɚɰɢɢ ɤɪɢɬɟɪɢɟɜ ɢ ɫɬɪɚɬɟɝɢɣ ɫɚɦɨɢɞɟɧɬɢɮɢɤɚɰɢɢ ɢɦɦɢɝɪɚɧɬɨɜ ɛɭɪɹɬɫɤɨɝɨ, ɤɚɥɦɵɰɤɨɝɨ ɢ ɯɚɥɯɚ-ɦɨɧɝɨɥɶɫɤɨɝɨ ɩɪɨɢɫɯɨɠɞɟɧɢɹ ɩɨɫɪɟɞɫɬɜɨɦ ɚɧɚɥɢɡɚ ɞɚɧɧɵɯ, ɫɨɛɪɚɧɧɵɯ ɫ ɩɨɦɨɳɶɸ ɚɧɤɟɬɢɪɨɜɚɧɢɹ ɢ ɝɪɭɩɩɨɜɨɝɨ ɢɧɬɟɪɜɶɸ. Ⱦɟɦɨɧɫɬɪɢɪɭɟɬɫɹ ɨɛɳɚɹ ɞɥɹ ɧɢɯ ɬɟɧɞɟɧɰɢɹ ɤ ɪɟɚɩɪɨɩɪɢɚɰɢɢ ɫɜɨɟɣ ɷɬɧɢɱɟɫɤɨɣ ɢɞɟɧɬɢɱɧɨɫɬɢ ɜ ɭɫɥɨɜɢɹɯ ɫɭɳɟɫɬɜɨɜɚɧɢɹ ɡɚ ɩɪɟɞɟɥɚɦɢ ɪɨɞɢɧɵ. Ʉɚɤ ɩɨɤɚɡɵɜɚɸɬ ɪɟɡɭɥɶɬɚɬɵ ɩɪɨɟɤɬɚ, ɫɨɡɧɚɬɟɥɶɧɨɟ ɜɨɡɜɪɚɳɟɧɢɟ ɤ ɫɜɨɢɦ ɤɨɪɧɹɦ ɩɪɨɢɫɯɨɞɢɬ ɭ ɢɦɦɢɝɪɚɧɬɨɜ ɢɡ ɦɨɧɝɨɥɶɫɤɢɯ ɷɬɧɨɫɨɜ ɜ ɂɬɚɥɢɢ ɩɨɫɪɟɞɫɬɜɨɦ ɪɟɚɥɢɡɚɰɢɢ ɞɜɭɯ ɨɫɧɨɜɧɵɯ ɫɬɪɚɬɟɝɢɣ: (1) ɱɟɪɟɡ ɩɪɨɹɜɥɟɧɢɹ ɷɬɧɢɱɟɫɤɨɝɨ ɚɤɬɢɜɢɡɦɚ ɢ (2) ɱɟɪɟɡ ɢɡɭɱɟɧɢɟ ɷɬɧɢɱɟɫɤɨɝɨ ɹɡɵɤɚ, ɬɚɤ ɤɚɤ ɡɧɚɱɢɬɟɥɶɧɨɟ ɱɢɫɥɨ ɢɦɦɢɝɪɚɧɬɨɜ-ɪɟɫɩɨɧɞɟɧɬɨɜ ɢɦ ɧɟ ɜɥɚɞɟɟɬ.
References (30)
- ɋɚɯɚɪɨɜ ȼ. Ⱥɩɨɤɪɢɮɢɱɟɫɤɢɟ ɢ ɥɟɝɟɧɞɚɪɧɵɟ ɫɤɚɡɚɧɢɹ ɨ ɩɪɟɫɜɹɬɨɣ Ⱦɟɜɟ Ɇɚɪɢɢ, ɨɫɨɛɟɧɧɨ ɪɚɫɩɪɨɫɬɪɚɧɟɧɧɵɟ ɜ Ⱦɪɟɜɧɟɣ Ɋɭɫɢ / ɀɭɪɧ. «ɏɪɢɫɬɢɚɧɫɤɨɟ ɱɬɟɧɢɟ». -ɋɉɛ., 1888. -ʋ 11- 12. -ɋ. 649.
- Ɋɨɦɨɞɚɧɨɜɫɤɚɹ ȿ. Ʉ. ȿɫɢɩɨɜ ɋɚɜɜɚ // ɋɄɄȾɊ. -ȼɵɩ. 3 (XVII ɜ.). -ɑɚɫɬɶ 1: Ⱥ -Ɂ. -ɋɉɛ, 1992. -ɋ. 315, 317.
- Ȼɭɥɚɧɢɧ Ⱦ. Ɇ. ɉɨɜɟɫɬɶ ɨ ȼɚɬɨɩɟɞɫɤɨɦ ɦɨɧɚɫɬɵɪɟ // ɋɄɄȾɊ. -ȼɵɩ. 2 (ɜɬɨɪɚɹ ɩɨɥɨɜɢɧɚ XIV -XVI ɜ.). -ɑɚɫɬɶ 2: Ʌ -ə. -Ʌ., 1989. -ɋ. 227-230.
- Ȼɭɥɚɧɢɧ Ⱦ. Ɇ. Ɍɨɤɦɚɤɨɜ Ƚɟɨɪɝɢɣ ɂɜɚɧɨɜɢɱ // ɋɄɄȾɊ. -ȼɵɩ. 2. -ɑ. 2. -ɋ. 431-432.
- Ɋɨɦɚɧɨɜɚ Ⱥ. Ⱥ. ɋɤɚɡɚɧɢɟ ɨ ɢɤɨɧɟ Ȼɨɝɨɦɚɬɟɪɢ Ƚɪɟɛɧɟɜɫɤɨɣ // ɋɄɄȾɊ. -ȼɵɩ. 3 (XVII ɜ.). - ɑɚɫɬɶ 4: Ɍ -ə. Ⱦɨɩɨɥɧɟɧɢɹ. -ɋɉɛ., 2004. -ɋ. 561.
- Ȼɭɥɚɧɢɧ Ⱦ. Ɇ. ɋɤɚɡɚɧɢɟ ɨ ɢɤɨɧɟ Ȼɨɝɨɦɚɬɟɪɢ ɂɜɟɪɫɤɨɣ // ɋɄɄȾɊ. -ȼɵɩ. 2. -ɑ. 2. -ɋ. 362- 365.
- Ȼɭɥɚɧɢɧ Ⱦ. Ɇ. ɋɤɚɡɚɧɢɟ ɨ ɢɤɨɧɟ Ȼɨɝɨɦɚɬɟɪɢ Ʉɭɪɫɤɨɣ // ɋɄɄȾɊ. -ȼɵɩ. 3. -ɑ.
- Ɉɯɨɬɢɧɚ ɇ. Ⱥ. ɋɤɚɡɚɧɢɟ ɨ ɢɤɨɧɟ Ȼɨɝɨɦɚɬɟɪɢ Ɉɪɚɧɫɤɨɣ // ɋɄɄȾɊ. -ȼɵɩ. 3 (XVII ɜ.). - ɑɚɫɬɶ 3: ɉ -ɋ. -ɋɉɛ., 1998. -ɋ. 394-399.
- Ȼɭɥɚɧɢɧ Ⱦ. Ɇ. ɋɤɚɡɚɧɢɟ ɨ ɢɤɨɧɟ Ȼɨɝɨɦɚɬɟɪɢ ɋɬɪɚɫɬɧɨɣ // ɋɄɄȾɊ. -ȼɵɩ. 3. -ɑ.
- Ʉɚɝɚɧ Ɇ. Ⱦ., Ɍɭɪɢɥɨɜ Ⱥ. Ⱥ. ɋɤɚɡɚɧɢɟ ɨ ɢɤɨɧɟ Ȼɨɝɨɦɚɬɟɪɢ Ɍɨɥɝɫɤɨɣ // ɋɄɄȾɊ. -ȼɵɩ. 3. - ɑ.
- Ȼɭɥɚɧɢɧ Ⱦ. Ɇ. ɋɤɚɡɚɧɢɟ ɨ ɢɤɨɧɟ Ȼɨɝɨɦɚɬɟɪɢ ɒɭɣɫɤɨɣ // ɋɄɄȾɊ. -ȼɵɩ. 3. -ɑ.
- Ⱥɞɪɢɚɧɨɜɚ-ɉɟɪɟɬɰ ȼ. ɉ. Ɂɚɞɚɱɢ ɢɡɭɱɟɧɢɹ «ɚɝɢɨɝɪɚɮɢɱɟɫɤɨɝɨ ɫɬɢɥɹ» Ⱦɪɟɜɧɟɣ Ɋɭɫɢ // ɌɈȾɊɅ. -Ɍ. 20. -Ɇ.; Ʌ., 1964. -ɋ. 41.
- ɉɨ ɧɟɬɨɱɧɨɦɭ ɩɨɞɫɱɺɬɭ ɬɚɤɨɜɵɯ ɛɵɥɨ ɹɜɥɟɧɨ ɜ Ɋɨɫɫɢɢ ɜ ɪɚɡɧɵɟ ɜɪɟɦɟɧɚ ɛɨɥɟɟ 460 (Ʉɢ- ɫɟɥɺɜ Ⱥ. ɑɭɞɨɬɜɨɪɧɵɟ ɢɤɨɧɵ Ȼɨɠɢɟɣ Ɇɚɬɟɪɢ ɜ ɪɭɫɫɤɨɣ ɢɫɬɨɪɢɢ. -Ɇ.: Ɋɭɫɫɤɚɹ ɤɧɢɝɚ, 1992. -ɋ. 23).
- Ʌɢɯɚɱɟɜ Ⱦ. ɋ. ɉɨɷɬɢɤɚ ɞɪɟɜɧɟɪɭɫɫɤɨɣ ɥɢɬɟɪɚɬɭɪɵ. -Ʌ., 1971. -ɋ. 46. 16 ɉɫɤɨɜɫɤɢɟ ɥɟɬɨɩɢɫɢ. -ȼɵɩ. 1. -Ɇ., 1941. -ɋ. 34; ȼɵɩ. 2. -Ɇ., 1965. -ɋ. 37. 17 ɉɫɤɨɜɫɤɢɟ ɥɟɬɨɩɢɫɢ. -ȼɵɩ. 1. -ɋ. 38; ȼɵɩ. 2. -ɋ. 40, 121. 18 ɉɫɤɨɜɫɤɢɟ ɥɟɬɨɩɢɫɢ. -ȼɵɩ. 2. -ɋ. 235-236.
- Ƚɪɟɛɟɧɸɤ ȼ. ɉ. ɂɤɨɧɚ ȼɥɚɞɢɦɢɪɫɤɨɣ Ȼɨɝɨɦɚɬɟɪɢ ɢ ɞɭɯɨɜɧɨɟ ɧɚɫɥɟɞɢɟ Ɇɨɫɤɜɵ. -Ɇ., 1997.
- Ʉɚɝɚɧ Ɇ. Ⱦ. ɋɤɚɡɚɧɢɟ ɨ ɢɤɨɧɟ Ȼɨɝɨɦɚɬɟɪɢ Ɏɟɞɨɪɨɜɫɤɨɣ // ɋɄɄȾɊ. -ȼɵɩ. 3. -ɑ. 3. -ɋ. 407-412.
- ɋɛɨɪɧɢɤ ɩɟɪɜɨɣ ɱɟɬɜɟɪɬɢ ɏVIII ɜ., ʋ 293 Ɉɬɞɟɥɚ ɪɟɞɤɢɯ ɤɧɢɝ ɢ ɪɭɤɨɩɢɫɟɣ ɛɢɛɥɢɨɬɟɤɢ ɢɦ. Ɇ. Ƚɨɪɶɤɨɝɨ ɩɪɢ ɆȽɍ.
- ɋɤɚɡɚɧɢɟ ɨ ɛɢɬɜɟ ɧɨɜɝɨɪɨɞɰɟɜ ɫ ɫɭɡɞɚɥɶɰɚɦɢ // ȻɅȾɊ. -Ɍ. 6: XIV -ɫɟɪɟɞɢɧɚ XV ɜɟɤɚ. - ɋɉɛ.: «ɇɚɭɤɚ», 2000. -ɋ. 444-449 (ɩɨɞɝ. ɬɟɤɫɬɚ, ɩɟɪɟɜ. ɢ ɤɨɦɦ. Ʌ. Ⱥ. Ⱦɦɢɬɪɢɟɜɚ).
- ɉɨɜɟɫɬɶ ɨ Ɍɟɦɢɪ Ⱥɤɫɚɤɟ // ȻɅȾɊ. -Ɍ. 6. -ɋ. 230-241 (ɩɨɞɝ. ɬɟɤɫɬɚ, ɩɟɪɟɜ. ɢ ɤɨɦɦ.
- -Ɍ. 5: XIII ɜɟɤ. -ɋɉɛ.: «ɇɚɭɤɚ», 1997. -ɋ. 164-167 (ɩɨɞɝ. ɬɟɤɫɬɚ ɢ ɩɟɪɟɜ. ȼ. ȼ. Ʉɨɥɟɫɨɜɚ, ɤɨɦɦ. Ʌ. Ⱥ. Ⱦɦɢɬɪɢɟɜɚ).
- Ʉɢɪɢɥɥɢɧ ȼ. Ɇ. ɋɤɚɡɚɧɢɟ ɨ Ɍɢɯɜɢɧɫɤɨɣ ɢɤɨɧɟ Ȼɨɝɨɦɚɬɟɪɢ «Ɉɞɢɝɢɬɪɢɹ». Ʌɢɬɟɪɚɬɭɪɧɚɹ ɢɫɬɨɪɢɹ ɩɚɦɹɬɧɢɤɚ ɞɨ XVII ɜɟɤɚ. ȿɝɨ ɫɨɞɟɪɠɚɬɟɥɶɧɚɹ ɫɩɟɰɢɮɢɤɚ ɜ ɫɜɹɡɢ ɫ ɤɭɥɶɬɭɪɨɣ ɷɩɨɯɢ. Ɍɟɤɫɬɵ. ɂɆɅɂ ɊȺɇ, ɈɂȾɊ. -Ɇ.: əɡɵɤɢ ɫɥɚɜɹɧɫɤɨɣ ɤɭɥɶɬɭɪɵ, 2007 (ɫɦ. ɉɪɢɥɨɠɟɧɢɹ).
- ɉɨɜɟɫɬɶ ɨ Ʌɭɤɟ Ʉɨɥɨɱɫɤɨɦ // ȻɅȾɊ. -Ɍ. 9: Ʉɨɧɟɰ XV -ɩɟɪɜɚɹ ɩɨɥɨɜɢɧɚ XVI ɜɟɤɚ. - ɋɉɛ.: «ɇɚɭɤɚ», 2000. -ɋ. 100-105 (ɩɨɞɝ. ɬɟɤɫɬɚ, ɩɟɪɟɜ. ɢ ɤɨɦɦ. Ʌ. ɂ. ɀɭɪɨɜɨɣ).
- «ɋɤɚɡɚɧɢɟ ɨ ɱɭɞɨɬɜɨɪɧɨɣ Ʉɚɡɚɧɫɤɨɣ ɢɤɨɧɟ ɩɪɟɫɜɹɬɨɣ Ȼɨɝɨɪɨɞɢɰɵ» ɩɚɬɪɢɚɪɯɚ Ƚɟɪɦɨɝɟ- ɧɚ. -Ɇ., 1912.
- ɉɪɨɤɨɮɶɟɜ ɇ. ɂ. ȼɢɞɟɧɢɟ ɤɚɤ ɠɚɧɪ ɜ ɞɪɟɜɧɟɪɭɫɫɤɨɣ ɥɢɬɟɪɚɬɭɪɟ // ɍɱɟɧɵɟ ɡɚɩɢɫɤɢ. -Ɍ. 231. -Ɇ.: ɆȽɉɂ ɢɦ. ȼ. ɂ. Ʌɟɧɢɧɚ, 1964. -ɋ. 36. 32 Ɍɚɦ ɠɟ.
- Ʉɢɪɢɥɥɢɧ ȼ. Ɇ. ɋɤɚɡɚɧɢɟ ɨ Ɍɢɯɜɢɧɫɤɨɣ ɢɤɨɧɟ Ȼɨɝɨɦɚɬɟɪɢ «Ɉɞɢɝɢɬɪɢɹ». -ɋ. 238-241 (ɉɪɢɥɨɠɟɧɢɟ I).
- Ɍɚɤɨɜɚ, ɧɚɩɪɢɦɟɪ, ɪɟɞɚɤɰɢɹ ȿ ɩɚɦɹɬɧɢɤɚ: Ʉɢɪɢɥɥɢɧ ȼ. Ɇ. ɍɤɚɡ. ɫɨɱ. -ɋ. 245-258 (ɉɪɢ- ɥɨɠɟɧɢɟ I).
- ɉɪɨɤɨɮɶɟɜ ɇ. ɂ. ȼɢɞɟɧɢɟ ɤɚɤ ɠɚɧɪ ɜ ɞɪɟɜɧɟɪɭɫɫɤɨɣ ɥɢɬɟɪɚɬɭɪɟ. -ɋ. 40. 36 ɉɢɝɢɧ Ⱥ. ȼ. ȼɢɞɟɧɢɹ ɩɨɬɭɫɬɨɪɨɧɧɟɝɨ ɦɢɪɚ ɜ ɪɭɫɫɤɨɣ ɪɭɤɨɩɢɫɧɨɣ ɤɧɢɠɧɨɫɬɢ. -ɋɉɛ.: «Ⱦɦɢɬɪɢɣ Ȼɭɥɚɧɢɧ», 2006. -ɋ. 163-205.
- 37 Ɉɩɭɛɥɢɤɨɜɚɧɚ: Ʉɢɪɢɥɥɢɧ ȼ. Ɇ. ɍɤɚɡ. ɫɨɱ. -ɋ. 274-287 (ɉɪɢɥɨɠɟɧɢɟ III).
- ɇɟɞɨɫɩɚɫɨɜɚ Ɍ. Ɋɭɫɫɤɨɟ ɸɪɨɞɫɬɜɨ XI-XVI ɜɜ. -Ɇ., 1997. -ɋ. 101-102; ɂɜɚɧɨɜ ɋ. Ⱥ. Ȼɥɚ- ɠɟɧɧɵɟ ɩɨɯɚɛɵ. Ʉɭɥɶɬɭɪɧɚɹ ɢɫɬɨɪɢɹ ɸɪɨɞɫɬɜɚ. -Ɇ.: «əɡɵɤɢ ɫɥɚɜɹɧɫɤɢɯ ɤɭɥɶɬɭɪ», 2005. -ɋ. 231-287.
- Ɍɚɬɚɪɫɤɢɣ ɂ. ɋɢɦɟɨɧ ɉɨɥɨɰɤɢɣ. (ȿɝɨ ɠɢɡɧɶ ɢ ɞɟɹɬɟɥɶɧɨɫɬɶ): Ɉɩɵɬ ɢɫɫɥɟɞɨɜɚɧɢɹ ɢɡ ɢɫɬɨ- ɪɢɢ ɩɪɨɫɜɟɳɟɧɢɹ ɢ ɜɧɭɬɪɟɧɧɟɣ ɰɟɪɤɨɜɧɨɣ ɠɢɡɧɢ ɜɨ ɜɬɨɪɭɸ ɩɨɥɨɜɢɧɭ XVII ɜɟɤɚ. -Ɇ., 1886. -ɋ. 141.