Russian Borrowings in English: a Dictionary and Corpus Study

Home , Agitprop, Oprichnik, Reborrowing, Russianism, Selsoviet, Sluggish schizophrenia

Russian borrowings in English: A dictionary and corpus study

Mirosława Podhajecka

Russian borrowings in English: A dictionary and corpus study

OPOLE 2013

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 RECENZENCI Arleta Adamska-Sałaciak Tadeusz Piotrowski

REDAKTOR TECHNICZNY Halina Szczegot

SKŁAD I ŁAMANIE Henryk Kobiela

PROJEKT OKŁADKI Jolanta Brodziak

ISSN 1233-6408 ISBN 978-83-7395-565-3

Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Opolskiego, 45-037 Opole, ul. H. Sienkiewicza 33. Składanie zamówień: 77 441 08 78; 774412714, e-mail: [email protected] Druk: ALNUS Sp. z o.o., 30-698 Kraków, ul. Wróblowicka 63, e-mail: [email protected]

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 To the memory of my Mother

List of figures and tables...... 11 List of abbreviations...... 13 Acknowledgements...... 15 Introduction...... 17

PART ONE

1. Language contact: General considerations...... 29 1.1. Definition of language contact...... 29 1.2. Reasons for lexical transfer...... 27 1.3. Mechanism of borrowing...... 29 1.4. Glossary of key terms...... 31

2. History of Anglo-Russian and Russo-American contacts...... 33 2.1. Relations between England and Russia...... 33 2.2. Relations between the United States and Russia...... 41 2.3. Conclusions...... 44

3. Russian loanwords in monolingual English dictionaries...... 47 3.1. Russianisms in pre-twentieth-century dictionaries of English...... 47 3.1.1. Samuel Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language (1755) ...... 47 3.1.2. Noah Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language (1828)...... 52 3.1.3. Conclusions...... 57 3.2. Russianisms in the Oxford English Dictionary (1989) ...... 58 3.2.1. Description of the OED...... 58 3.2.2. Selection procedure...... 60 3.2.3. Russianisms in the diachronic perspective ...... 61 3.2.4. Types of borrowings ...... 63 3.2.5. Etymology...... 65 3.2.5.1. Etymological metalanguage...... 65 3.2.5.2. Russianisms: Ambiguous cases ...... 68 3.2.6. Range of vocabulary...... 72

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 3.2.6.1. Headword status...... 75 3.2.6.2. Antedating headwords ...... 77 3.2.6.3. Russianisms: Orthography...... 80 3.2.6.4. Russianisms: Phonology...... 81 3.2.7. Semantic classification ...... 84 3.2.8. Conclusions...... 88 3.3. Russianisms in three editions of Webster’s New International Dictionary (1909, 1934, 1961)...... 89 3.3.1. Webster’s New International Dictionary of the English Language (1909)...... 90 3.3.1.1. Etymologies...... 91 3.3.1.2. Headwords...... 93 3.3.1.3. Definitions ...... 96 3.3.1.4. Semantic classification...... 98 3.3.1.5. Conclusions ...... 99 3.3.2. Webster’s New International Dictionary of the English Language (1934)...... 100 3.3.2.1. Etymologies...... 100 3.3.2.2. Headwords...... 102 3.3.2.3. Definitions ...... 106 3.3.2.4. Semantic classification...... 110 3.3.2.5. Conclusions ...... 112 3.3.3. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of English (1961)...... 113 3.3.3.1. Etymologies...... 114 3.3.3.2. Headwords...... 119 3.3.3.3. Definitions ...... 123 3.3.3.4. Semantic classification...... 127 3.3.3.5. Conclusions ...... 129 3.4. Russianisms in American dictionaries of new words...... 130 3.4.1. The Barnhart Dictionary of New English 1963-1972 (1973)...... 131 3.4.2. Second Barnhart Dictionary of New English (1980)...... 132 3.4.3. Third Barnhart Dictionary of New English (1990)...... 133 3.4.4. Conclusions...... 135

4. Russian loanwords in texts: A corpus approach...... 137 4.1. Outline of the research procedure ...... 137 4.2. Corpus methodology ...... 138 4.2.1. Conceptual framework: Diachronic headword...... 139 4.2.2. Conceptual framework: Raw frequency (RF), dispersion frequency (DF) and textual dispersion frequency (TDF)...... 139 4.2.3. Russian borrowings in the BNC: Facts and figures...... 140 4.2.4. OED and BNC: Some interesting examples...... 143

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 4.2.4.1. Variant spellings...... 143 4.2.4.2. Russian-based coinages...... 144 4.2.4.3. Other Russianisms...... 145 4.3. Russianisms in LDOCE...... 146 4.3.1. Hyper-adequate documentation...... 149 4.3.2. Adequate documentation...... 150 4.3.3. Inadequate documentation...... 151 4.4. Conclusions...... 152 Concluding remarks...... 155

PART TWO

Table 1. Russianisms in alphabetical order (OED2)...... 161 Table 2. Russianisms in chronological order (OED2) ...... 177 Table 3. Semantic classification of Russianisms ...... 193 Table 4. Russianisms in dictionaries and corpus...... 221

Explanations to Tables ...... 272 Bibliography...... 273 Summary in Polish...... 287 Index of names...... 289

Figure 1. Distribution of Russianisms (1550-2000)...... 61 Figure 2. Distribution of Russianisms (1900-2000)...... 63

Table 1. The first Russianisms documented in OED2 ...... 62 Table 2. Etymologies of voivode, vaivode and waywode in OED2 ...... 70 Table 3. Labels given to Russian loanwords in OED2...... 77 Table 4. Semantic categories in OED2...... 84 Table 5. Corresponding etymologies in Webster’s First and OED2...... 92 Table 6. Field markers given to Russian borrowings in Webster’s First...... 94 Table 7. Semantic categories in Webster’s First...... 98 Table 8. Field markers assigned to Russian borrowings in Webster’s Second...... 103 Table 9. Definitions of corresponding lemmas in Webster’s First and Second...... 107 Table 10. Corresponding entries in OED2, Webster’s Second and the Century Dictionary. . . . . 108 Table 11. Examples of semantic extension in Webster’s Second ...... 109 Table 12. Semantic categories in Webster’s Second...... 110 Table 13. Etymologies of ethnic names in Webster’s Third...... 118 Table 14. Entry Russki in Webster’s Third on CD-ROM ...... 120 Table 15. Calques in Webster’s Third...... 122 Table 16. Corresponding entries in Webster’s Second and Third (letter K)...... 125 Table 17. Semantic categories in Webster’s Third...... 127 Table 18. Methodological framework of corpus research...... 140 Table 19. Raw frequency, dispersion frequency and textual dispersion frequency ...... 140 Table 20. Textual dispersion frequency of Russianisms in the BNC...... 141 Table 21. Most frequent Russianisms in the BNC...... 141 Table 22. Russian loanwords with TDF 10-50...... 142 Table 23. Sample spelling variants recorded in the BNC...... 143 Table 24. Russian-based coinages recorded in the BNC ...... 145 Table 25. Differences between raw and dispersion frequencies...... 146 Table 26. Russianisms in LDOCE 2 and LDOCE 3...... 147 Table 27. BNC sample documentation for the word-form Soviets (a random query) ...... 150 Table 28. BNC sample documentation for the omitted meaning of Soviet...... 150

Languages1

Aleut. Aleutian N. Lat. New Latin Arab. Arabic OE. Old English Bulg. Bulgarian OFris. Old Frisian Caucas. Caucasian ON. Old Norse Da. Danish OPol. Old Polish East. Turk. Eastern Turkish ORuss. Old Russian Eng. English OSl., OSlav. Old Slavic / Old Slavonic Eskim. Eskimo OTeut. Old Teutonic F., Fr. French Pers. Persian Fin. Finnish Pg. Portuguese G., Ger. German Pol. Polish Goth. Gothic Roman. Romanian Gr. Greek Russ. Russian Icel. Icelandic Scand. Scandinavian It. Italian Serb. Serbian L., Lat. Latin Slav. Slavic / Slavonic Lap. Lapponian Sp. Spanish L. Ger. Low German Sw. Swedish M. E. Middle English Teut. Teutonic Med. Gr. Mediaeval Greek Tur. Turki MHG. Middle High German Turk. Turkish / Turkic Mod. Lat. Modern Latin Ukrain. Ukrainian Mong. Mongolian Yid. Yiddish

Labels and field markers

Alternative Med. Alternative medicine Biol. Biology Anthropol. Anthropology Chem. Chemistry Archaeol. Archaeology Cytol. Cytology Astron. Astronomy East. Church Eastern Church Austr./N.Z. Australia and/or New Econ. Economy Zealand Gastron. Gastronomy

1 The abbreviations in the list come from etymological sections of the dictionaries cited in this monograph.

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 Geol. Geology Pharm. Pharmacy Hist. History Pol.2 Politics Med. Medicine Russ. Hist. Russian history Mil. slang Military slang Slang / Colloq. Slang and/or colloquial N. Amer. North America language Nonce wd. Nonce word Theol. Theology Obs. Obsolete US United States Path. Pathology Zool. Zoology

Other abbreviations a. adopted from ind. ref. indirect references abbrev. abbreviation modif. of modification of ad. adapted from n. noun adj. adjective no ref. no references app. apparently orig. f. originally from cap. capitalized part. trans. partial translation corresp. to corresponds to perh. perhaps deriv. derivative pl. plural dimin. diminutive prob. Russ. probably of Russian origin etym. etymology sing. singular f. from v. verb geog. ref. geographical references var. form variant form

2 It should be noted that this label shares the form with the abbreviation for Polish.

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 Acknowledgements

I would like to express my gratitude to those who have made the writing and publishing of this monograph possible. My deep thanks go, first and foremost, to Profes- sor Wanda Laszczak, the former Director of the Institute of East Slavonic Philology of Opole University, where I first found employment, for allowing me to do library research in Poland and the United Kingdom. I am most grateful to my reviewers, Profes- sor Rafał Molencki and the late Professor Stanisław Kochman, for their helpful sug- gestions on how to improve the quality of my analysis. I am indebted to my colleague Stephen Dewsbury, who read the whole manuscript and made the necessary corrections to ensure its clarity and readability. The financial support promised by the former Director of the Institute of English Philology, Professor Andrzej Ciuk, and granted by the present Director, Professor Ryszard Wolny, has been essential in having the book published. I owe more than I can express to my mentor and colleague, Professor Tadeusz Piotrowski, for the many illuminating discussions on linguistic and lexicographic issues, and for his invaluable comments on subsequent drafts of this monograph. Needless to say, I would not be able to complete the task undertaken without the care and encouragement of my husband, Wojciech Podhajecki. Our two sons, Ma- ciej and Paweł, showed more understanding for my endless research than I could have expected, for which I am very grateful.

This monograph, based on a revised version of my doctoral dissertation, is the first comprehensive examination of Russian words that have entered the English language since the mid-sixteenth up to the end of the twentieth century, estimating the rate of their impact on English vocabulary. It rests on the assumption that words of foreign origin can be analyzed on the basis of primary materials (i.e. texts) and secondary materials (i.e. dictionaries), and I apply both of these approaches. Moreover, in order to arrive at reliable qualitative and quantitative results, I analyze my research material from a diachronic as well as a synchronic angle. For the diachronic part, I survey Russian words recorded in the largest monolingual dictionaries of British and American Eng- lish. For the synchronic study, I use the British National Corpus (BNC), a computerized collection of twentieth-century texts, to check the currency of Russianisms attested in contemporary British English. The research is expected to provide empirical evidence to my hypothesis that Russian influences in English have been far from negligible. Words taken from one language into another are called borrowings, which is an umbrella term for an array of elements. Based on the degree of morphemic substitution, Haugen (1950: 214-215) distinguishes three types of borrowings: (1) loanwords (without morphemic substitution); (2) loanblends (with partial morphemic substitution); and (3) loanshifts (with complete morphemic substitution). Words such as troika, Russki-land and Old Believer, all of which are traced back to Russian, exemplify each of these types respectively. This monograph deals mainly with loanwords, or loans, which are thus a specific subgroup of borrowings (cf. section 1.3). They will be called alternatively Russianisms or Sovietisms; the latter term denotes or connotes the Soviet regime, hence its inherent pejorative meaning. It should be noted that the concepts of borrowing and loanword, by being approached from divergent methodological perspectives, are not uncontroversial in linguistics. Due to the diversity of interpretations, results of similar research cannot always be compared with one another as neatly as might be expected (cf. Chan and Kwok (1985), Cutler (1994), Pinnavaia (2001), etc.). As words spread through a chain of borrowings, it is of primary importance to specify which of the languages involved should be treated as the donor one. After Rot (1991: 38, cf. Walczak 1989: 73-98), I will differentiate between three sources of borrowings: historical (or direct); primary historical (or intermediary); and genetic (or ultimate). To illustrate the point with an example of OED2’s etymology, for the English word saffian, Russian is the direct source, Romanian is its primary historical source,

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 whereas Turkish (or Persian) is its ultimate source. To make my research methodology fully transparent, I adopted the principle that only borrowings imported into Eng- lish directly from Russian, regardless of their intermediary or ultimate sources, will be classified as Russianisms proper. This monograph covers two distinct parts. Chapters 1-4 form the first part, whereby Chapter 1 addresses issues pertaining to language contact and its widely acknowledged outcome, lexical borrowing; Chapter 2 describes the history of Anglo-Russian and Russo-American relations; and Chapter 3 deals with Russian words recorded in the largest monolingual dictionaries of English. Listed chronologically, these are Sam- uel Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language (1755); Noah Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language (1828); the second edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (1989); and three subsequent editions of Webster’s New International Dic- tionary (1909, 1934, 1961). Under scrutiny is also more recent vocabulary included in the Oxford Additions Series (1993,1997) for British English and The Barnhart Dictio- nary of New English (1973, 1980, 1990) for American English. The respective entries are analyzed in terms of lexicographic information they carry so that the Russianisms can be classified into semantic categories. In Chapter 4, the list of words excerpted from the dictionaries has been checked against the British National Corpus. To evaluate the results on the basis of contemporary British lexicographers’ intuitions, I additionally use two editions of a pedagogical dictionary, Longman Dictionary of Con- temporary English (1987, 1995). The second part of the book encompasses four tables which provide the documentation material. Table 1 is an alphabetical list of Russian words in OED2; in Table 2, the same words are arranged in chronological order; Table 3 covers a semantic classification of the items regarded as Russianisms; whereas Table 4 groups words described as Russian loans in at least one of the major dictionaries under analysis. The last table includes also variant spellings of the lemmas with their corpus frequencies; blank spaces signify that the word-forms have not been found in the corpus. It needs to be emphasized that the tables complement the descriptive component of this monograph, providing information on the etymologies, graphic forms and (broadly) semantics of the loanwords, each of which has been given specific lexicographic treatment, and whose more detailed analysis would be neither feasible nor desirable. It is believed that the strength of the comparative data lies in its comprehensiveness and representativeness of British and American English vocabulary. While English words imported into Russian have been subject to thorough analy- ses (e.g. Benson 1958, 1959, Aristova 1978, 1985, Wójtowicz 1984), the process of lexical borrowing from Russian into English has not been studied in much detail so far. However, Martin Lehnert’s paper “Slawisches Wortgut im Englischen” (1977), a synthetic work devoted to Slavic borrowings in English, is a valuable exception to the rule. Based on the first edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (henceforth, OED1) and diligently selected literary sources, Lehnert analyzes approximately 80 words of

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 Slavic origin, a majority of which he classifies as Russianisms. The study conducted leads him to the conclusion that the number of Slavicisms in English vocabulary, particularly when compared with corresponding elements in German, should be seen as fairly impressive. This hypothesis, which I will attempt to verify in my conclusions, has served as a point of departure for the present book. Apart from Lehnert’s analysis, papers on Russian loans are scarce, and they often tackle a single aspect of the complex phenomenon of borrowing. In a paper entitled “A note on the Russian words in an American dictionary” (1961), Stacy lists and dis- cusses words of Russian origin recorded in Webster’s New International Dictionary of the English Language (1934). While Stacy’s description is based on lexicographic material, Benson’s “Russianisms in the American press” (1962) investigates Russian loanwords in journalistic language. Leeming’s two papers under the same title, “Russian words in 16th-century English sources” (1968, 1969), are devoted to Russian vocabulary attested in Renaissance texts. By contrast, Stanley (1985) analyzes, in a somewhat speculative manner, Slavic vestiges in Old and Modern English. Wrenn’s “Linguistic relations between Russia and England” (1945), originally a 1944 lecture given at the School of Slavonic and East European Studies, is an outline of mutual linguistic influences firmly anchored in history. The most recent contributions are Wade’s “Russian words in English” (1997), tracing the origin of several conspicuous Russianisms, and Kabakchi’s “Russianisms in modern English. Loans and calques” (1997), exploring Russian-derived words in contemporary English vocabulary. In addition, brief comments on Russian borrowings in American English have been offered, for instance, by Pound (1913-1917), Chase (1913-1917), Russel and Boyett (1958), White (1958) and Ackerman (1958). Among investigations by Russian scholars one can find Fadeev’s “Russkije slova v anglijskom jazyke” (1969), as well as Malaxovskij and Mikulina’s “Russkaja kul′turno-konnotirovannaja leksika v dopelnenii k Bol′šomu Oksfordskomu Slovarju” (1982). As can be seen, except for Lehnert, no other linguist seems to have studied systematically the process of borrowing from Russian into English.1 Notwithstanding little attention paid to Russian influences, histories of the English language do mention borrowings of Russian origin. Still, most authors (e.g. Serjeantson 1935, Wrenn 1954, Francis 1965, Baugh and Cable 1981, Mencken 1982, Hughes 2000, Minkova and Stockwell 2003, etc.) state, either implicitly or fully explicitly, that borrowings from Russian have been rare and insignificant in English vocabulary. The lack of interest in Russianisms on the part of scholars, however, contrasts sharply with a large body of writing on Russia by the Westerners. From the mid-sixteenth century onwards, journeys and travels to Russia undertaken by foreigners had been depicted in memoirs and travelogues, and through this channel numerous words of Russian provenance were transmitted to English, the more so because the exoticism

1 Despite a paucity of linguistic studies devoted to Russian borrowings in English, there has been a significant interest in the history of Anglo-Russian interrelations (e.g. Watson 1974: 921-924).

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 of Russia aroused great curiosity in the West. As the words appeared, in some cases extensively, in printed sources, English and American lexicographers started recording them in dictionaries. Characteristically, the etymological status of the borrowings was often vague, that is, many of them were treated as loans from other languages or were not etymologized at all. In the face of inadequate or divergent etymological references, potential Russian- isms need to be analyzed with an eye for consistency. Unfortunately, the traditional criteria of historical linguistics (e.g. Cienkowski 1964: 417-429, Hock 1991: 559-562) are not easy to apply. Firstly, the chronology of occurrences is often debatable. For the earliest loans, OED2, an historical dictionary of English, has been an almost exclusive source of data, but occasional gaps in its documentation undermine its reliability (cf. section 3.2.6.2). Secondly, neither the phonological nor the graphic form of the borrowings has been an objective indicator, so in some cases it is very difficult to ascribe the words to one particular language. During Anglo-Russian language contact that lasted for nearly five centuries, and Russo-American relations which covered a relatively shorter period of time, Russian influences were filtered through other Western languages, mainly French and German, often to the extent that it is impossible to say which of the languages was the direct source of a given borrowing. Therefore, when no clear-cut linguistic evidence has been available, I treat the problematic words at face value; in other words, their cultural identity becomes a predominant factor. It should be noted that, throughout this monograph, Russian words are transliterated into English according to the ISO 9 transliteration standards (available from ‹http:// www.translitteration.com/transliteration/en/russian/iso-9/›), which are markedly different from transliteration standards typically used in American English texts. The principles of transliteration from the Cyrillic into the Latin alphabet are provided below.

Cyrillic Russian Cyrillic Russian Cyrillic Russian А а a К к k Х х x Б б b Л л l Ц ц c В в v М м m Ч ч č Г г g Н н n Ш ш š Д д d О о o Щ щ šč Е е e П п p Ъ ъ ′′ Ё ё ë Р р r Ы ы y Ж ж ž С с s Ь ь ′ З з z Т т t Э э è I і i У у u Ю ю ju Й й j Ф ф f Я я ja However, for reasons of consistency, the system of transliteration employed in the etymology sections of the dictionaries under analysis, as well as in Anglicized Russian proper names (e.g. Solzhenitsyn or Trubetzkoy), has not been modified.

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 With the English reader in mind, Russian quotations have been translated into Eng- lish by myself, and so have the titles of Russian and Polish sources included in the bibliography. In each case, I attempted to provide a functional rather than formal translation.

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 1. Language contact: General considerations Language contact is a phenomenon known since prehistoric times, but contact linguistics, a discipline of general linguistics focused on studying language contact, developed as late as the early twentieth century. A number of linguists and language historians would deserve mention at this juncture, Edward Sapir (1921), Nikolai Trubetz- koy (1923) and Leonard Bloomfield (1933) being perhaps the first ones to have contributed, in fairly divergent ways, to the newly-developing field. In the mid-twentieth century, scholars such as Uriel Weinreich and Einar Haugen advanced investigations into the nature of linguistic contacts, and their hypotheses have since been revised and elaborated on from a multitude of vantage points and in a large array of languages. The scholars who have become involved with both theoretical and practical aspects of languages in contact are too many to be enumerated exhaustively, but worthy of mention are works by van Coetsem (1988), Rot (1991), Thomason (2001), Meyers-Scot- ton (2002), Clyne (2003), Winford (2003), Heine and Kuteva (2005), Matras (2009), Haspelmath and Tadmor (2009) and Hickey (2010), to name just a few.1 Explorations in this broad research area intensified greatly in the last decades. Unsurprisingly, the scholarly literature available today is enormous, the more so because contact linguistics overlaps two vast interdisciplinary fields, that is, sociolinguistics and psycholinguistics.

1.1. Definition of language contact

In the first place, it is essential to explain the term ‘language contact’. It has been understood as the use of more than one language in the same place at the same time (Thomason 2001: 1). This definition draws attention to some communication between speakers of different languages, but it does not imply fluent bilingualism or multilin- gualism, usually treated as a prerequisite (cf. Haugen 1950, Weinreich 1970, Paradis and LaCharité 1997, Myers-Scotton 2002). Still, it is possible to discern some am- biguity in this definition. Firstly, language can well be substituted by dialect, since the boundary between the two is unclear. As Thomason (2001: 2) states aptly, given enough time and the right social circumstances, dialects are bound to turn into separate languages, and during the transition process differentiating between the language and the dialect will be next to impossible. From this angle, the categories of ‘dialect borrowing’, i.e. borrowing from another dialect, and ‘cultural borrowing’, i.e. borrow-

1 A thorough study of achievements in the field of contact linguistics can be found in Filipović (1988).

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 ing from another language (Bloomfield 1933: 444-445, cf. Rot 1991: 12), are closely interrelated. Secondly, language contact does not necessarily involve face-to-face interactions between groups of speakers. For example, in the past, classical languages like Latin or Greek spread mainly via written texts, and there was often no active contact between the parties involved. Nowadays, many people come into contact with a foreign language through radio, television or the Internet, so the mass media have, to a substantial degree, substituted humans in a traditional language contact situation. In a broader sense, then, one may refer to language contact as to a situation in which speakers of one language are exposed to another language used in speech or writing. Under such circumstances, they will, either deliberately or unconsciously, introduce into their language features of another tongue (cf. Lehiste 1988: 19, Trask 1999: 150-151). In all communities, whatever the size, language contact has always had some social consequences. Sometimes they are advantageous, for example, when two languages co- exist peacefully, which is true of many countries with two or more official languages. On the other hand, the dominant position of one language can threaten and eventually lead to the extinction of a weaker, more vulnerable one. In the most extreme situations, a strong position of one language can even lead to the death of a vanishing language, as has been the case with hundreds of indigenous languages of Africa or both Amer- icas. In the literature, linguists have referred to upper, dominant language or ‘super- stratum’, in contrast to lower, subordinate language or ‘substratum’ (e.g. Bloomfield 1933: 461, Rot 1991: 19-21, Lyons 1997: 82). Clearly, contact and conflict have been intricately interwoven on various levels of interaction between languages. However, the view that borrowings always show a superiority of the nation from whose language they are taken, as argued by Jespersen (1964: 209), seems far too ex- aggerated, particularly when the relations between the languages involved are those of ‘adstratum’, i.e. equal prestige. Many countries experienced periods of strong resistance to the borrowing of foreign words and expressions, presumably a dangerous phenomenon both for the identity of the nation and its language, as was implied by language purists. Yet the borrowing language integrating into its system elements and patterns resulting from contact with another language does not show its inferiority. On the contrary, as Rot (1991: 26) has claimed convincingly, it is an overt proof of “internal strengths” of the borrowing language. Language contact usually results in contact-induced change, which is otherwise known as ‘interference’. The most common effect is change in some or all of the languages involved; typically, at least one of the languages will exert at least some influence on at least one of the other languages. If we leave aside speech varieties resulting from language contact situations such as koinés, pidgins, creoles or trade jargons, which are often subsumed under the umbrella term ‘mixed languages’ (see e.g. Hock 1991: 472-531), the most specific form of the influence is the so-called ‘lexical transfer’, which refers to the borrowing of words (Sapir 1921: 193, cf. Myers-Scotton 2002: 171). However, the implications of this type of evidence are asymmetrical, that is, the

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 presence of borrowings is an unmistakable sign of contact with a donor language, but their absence does not necessarily point to the lack of it. It is not just lexical items which get borrowed, although they are imported most easily, inasmuch as all aspects of language structure may be subject to transfer from one language to another, given the right social and linguistic circumstances. In most cases one-way or mutual influences on languages are confined to lexical borrowing, but one can find transfer in all areas of language structure such as phonology, morphology or syntax. In fact, it has to be admitted that, when human creativity comes into play, there are almost no limits to the borrowability of linguistic features between languages, especially those exhibiting typological proximity rather than distance (Thomason 2001: 11, cf. Weinreich 1970, Rot 1991).

1.2. Reasons for lexical transfer

The process of borrowing reflects the interests and onomasiological needs of the people building up their lexical resources. As language is primarily a social phenomenon, linguists have claimed that two extralinguistic factors have been responsible for the transfer phenomenon: the prestige motive and the need-filling motive. If speakers of a language take over new cultural items, such as new technologies or religious or social concepts, there is an obvious need for the vocabulary naming the concepts. In this way English has borrowed a number of Russian words referring specifically to Russian or Soviet context (e.g. muzhik, rouble or samizdat). On the other hand, prestige is referred to as a stimulus that implies heavy borrowing, which tends to reflect the higher status of the donor language (cf. Hock and Joseph 1996: 271-285). Still, the line between need and prestige as independent factors is arguably vague: if something is prestigious, one may feel the need to imitate it (Gottlieb 2002: 131). Apart from the external causes of borrowing, several intralinguistic motives of the process have been placed emphasis on. Weinreich (1970: 56-61) distinguishes the following factors, which are independently or mutually responsible for introducing foreign elements into a language: (1) low frequency of rare words, which makes them susceptible to oblivion and replacement; (2) homonymy, because sometimes words seem to be taken from another language to resolve the clash of homonyms; (3) tendency of af- fective words to lose their expressive force; (4) constant need for synonyms, because lexical expansion appears to be inherent in the recipient language; (5) insufficiently differentiated semantic fields; and (6) symbolic, either positive or pejorative, associations with the donor language. In the case of Russianisms, one of the intralinguistic motives that seems to come into play is the last one. As Podhajecka (2009) has shown, a number of words of Rus- sian origin, except perhaps the icons of the Russian spirit such as troika, balalaika or samovar, not only carry a specific semantic content but, by symbolizing the foreign and the strange, are also subtly linked with feelings of antipathy rather than sympa-

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 thy. Burgess’ linguistic experiment in A clockwork orange mentioned in section 3.4.2 indicates this fact clearly.2 Once adopted by the donor language, foreign borrowings are believed to follow two basic paths. In some cases, they tend to be associated with something deliberately foreign and exotic. Such words are usually fairly isolated in the borrowing language; they are neither members of a semantic field nor are self-explanatory from the etymological point of view. In this way, they can be safely treated as foreignisms. For- eignisms in English are generally used for special effect, for “local colour” or to demonstrate special knowledge. In print, they typically appear in italics and are glossed (McArthur 1992: 409). It is common knowledge that foreign words and expressions are often encountered in translations of foreign literature – Vinay and Darbelnet regard them as effective means of achieving translational equivalence (1995: 32) − and this applies particularly to Russian writing due to significant cultural differences between the Russian and (British / American) English cultures. A glance at a few English translations of Russian novels reveals such foreign words as fortochka, turma (Bulgakov’s Master and Margarita); komendant, komendatura, Stalinka (Solzhenitsyn’s Cancer ward); batuchka, paddiovka, traktir (Dostoyevsky’s Crime and punishment). The use of Russianisms, the translators’ vehicle of cultural transmission, is a promise of an interesting research area. However, since this monograph aims at estimating objective- ly Russian influences on English vocabulary, incidental occurrences of borrowings in literary sources have not been treated as valid for the study. Other borrowings become nativized to a degree when they lose their connotative value of originality (called ‘foreign flavour’), becoming fully or partly integrated into the receiving language; such lexical items are known as loanwords. Still, describing the exact mechanisms that govern the integration of words in the borrowing language is fraught with difficulty. The cultural significance of the denotatum is considered to be at least partly responsible for the process, the speed and extent to which a foreign word is adapted being probably dependent on ideas about the denotatum and its rele- vance for the civilization. In any case, the shift from a foreignism to a loanword is by no means a matter of mechano-diachronic development (Finkenstaedt and Wolff 1973: 58). It has been emphasized that, regardless of their cultural load, foreignisms will only become fully-fledged loanwords if adopted by the general public (Wang 1999: 55). The Russianisms whose frequency in the textual sources of the British National Corpus is highest, e.g. Soviet, mammoth, vodka or tsar, have apparently been such lexical items. The typical distinction between foreign words and loanwords has been further elaborated into a tripartite division: (1) words denoting a phenomenon of foreign reality, i.e. exoticisms; (2) foreign words; and (3) loanwords (Richter qtd. in Rot 1991: 41). It corresponds, to some extent, to the three-step German system which differentiates

2 Assimilated loanwords can also be marked stylistically. Interestingly, stylistic labels are not only attached to particular words or meanings, but also to their contextual uses, which has been shown by Benson (1962, cf. Ivir and Kalogjera 1991: 244).

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 between (1) ‘Gastwörter’, i.e. unassimilated borrowings, which are usually italicised and glossed; (2) ‘Fremdwörter’, i.e. borrowings which have been partly adapted; and (3) ‘Lehnwörter’, i.e. borrowings fully assimilated in the borrowing language. Still, likewise in the previous case, this classification does not solve all the problems, inasmuch as the boundaries between the types are fuzzy. One might wonder whether there are any grounds for the distinction between necessary and superfluous borrowings. Although some linguists have advocated the introduction of this dichotomy, particularly in the past (e.g. Jespersen 1964: 210), it does not seem to be fully justified. On the one hand, every borrowing can be perceived as a necessity, since it fills a lexical gap, or an empty lexical field, whatever motive is actually at play. Hope (1963: 38) claims that sometimes loanwords provide the only effective means of visualising or handling the concepts they signify. On the other hand, one can oppose the view by stating that no borrowing is ever a linguistic necessity, because it is always possible to extend and modify the use of native lexical resources to meet new communicative needs (cf. Hock and Joseph 1996: 291). Any theoretical constraints notwithstanding, the concept of superfluous borrowings, by reflecting the principles of prescriptive linguistics, has been rejected in this descriptive study.

1.3. Mechanism of borrowing

As mentioned above, the most common outcome of language contact is lexical borrowing, which consists in taking over individual words or even large sets of vocabulary from one language into another. The borrowings are introduced in the form of quotations, which may then be adopted and reproduced by the rest of the society. Such words typically undergo a process of assimilation, in the course of which they become integrated into the system of the borrowing language. Two kinds of activi- ties have been distinguished in the underlying process: substitution and importation, which refer not only to a given loanword as a whole, but also to its constituent parts, i.e. morphemes (Haugen 1950: 212). The obtained results are responsible for more or less striking differences between the foreign model and the native replica (cf. Russ. drug > Eng. droog, Russ. intelligencija > Eng. intelligentsia, Russ. kul′turnyj > Eng. kulturny, Russ. osëtr > Eng. osseter). Let me refer again to Haugen’s classification of borrowings. It covers (1) loanwords; (2) loanblends; and (3) loanshifts, depending on the degree to which morphological elements have been substituted in a word.3 Loanwords are lexical items imported from one language into another and assimilated phonetically, graphemically, morphological- ly and semantically. Loanblends are formed by two (or more) merged elements, one of

3 Apart from that, Haugen introduces the concept of ‘semantic borrowing’, whereby only the meaning is imported, not the form (e.g. Eng. pioneer < Russ. pioner). This type of borrowing has been excluded from my analysis.

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 which is foreign and one native, so the morphemic substitution is partial. Significantly, since Haugen does not specify whether the elements should be bound morphemes (i.e. affixes) or free ones (i.e. words), I treat both types as equally legitimate.4 Thus, a loanblend will be formed by a borrowed stem and native affix (e.g. Sovietize < Russ. So- viet + Eng. -ize), a native stem and foreign affix (refusenik < Eng. refuse + Russ. -nik) or will take the shape of a hybrid compound, in which a native stem is combined with a foreign one (e.g. Russki-land < Russ. Russky + Eng. land) (cf. Gomez Capuz 1997: 88). Finally, in loanshifts, a type of structural borrowing, all constituent elements of a foreign element, be it a single word or a phrase, are translated literally (e.g. Eng. black soil < Russ. černozëm or Eng. Old Believer < Russ. starover). It needs to be underlined that, in Haugen’s model, loanshifts comprise both loan meaning extensions and loan translations (also called translation loans), but it is only the latter that will be of interest to us. As both types of structural borrowing are clustered under the term ‘calque’, in this monograph I will refer to loan translations and calques rather than to loanshifts (cf. Durkin 2009: 132-154). It should be added that calques exemplify complete morphemic substitution, i.e. transmorphemization (Filipović 1997: 122). Where elements of one language are adopted into another one, two further terms have been proposed. First of all, linguists refer to ‘intimate borrowing’, which refers to the transfer of loanwords within topographically and politically a single community (Bloomfield 1933: 461). In such a contact situation, speakers of one language become familiar with elements of another language through personal intercourse with its speakers, and, on occasion, they will transfer such elements into their own language (on the difference between borrowing and code switching, see Durkin 2009: 173-176). This is opposed to the so-called ‘remote borrowing’,5 which occurs when two languages are not related geographically, and only sporadic language contact situations stimulate lexical transfer (Lehnert 1977: 18). Remote borrowings are characterized by three primary features: (1) they represent literary language (being limited to written language); (2) they almost always denote specific native realia; and (3) they tend to be re-borrowed. Consequently, remote loans are almost invariably brought into the language by the educated members of the society, whereas the process of intimate borrowing occurs among lower social classes (Eichhoff 1980: 63). Although Russian words in English should be classified as remote borrowings, they do not always fall neatly into the above-mentioned categories, since dialectal or slang forms (e.g. barabara, stilyaga or stukach) have also been brought into English. Moreover, with huge Russian communities established years ago in English-speaking countries, particular-

4 Cf. Winford’s treatment of the Pensylvania German loandblend bassig ‘bossy’ (< Eng . boss + Ger. -ig) (2010: 172). However, a controversy is worth highlighting here: Haspelmath (2009: 39) argues that loanblends are not widely attested, because “[M]ost hybrid-looking or foreign-looking expressions are in fact not borrowings at all, but loan-based creations, i.e. words created in a language with material that was previously borrowed”. 5 The term ‘remote borrowing’ is a calque of German Fernenlehnung, which was most probably coined by Bielfeldt (Eichhoff 1980: 67).

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 ly in the United States, one cannot tell exactly what the stimulus for the borrowing really was, and where it came from.6 As far as the intensity of language contact is concerned, two basic types have been distinguished: (1) casual language contacts, i.e. temporal, occasional and superficial language interrelations; and (2) permanent language contacts, i.e. long-term, constant and intensive interrelations (Rot 1991: 18). Anglo-Russian relations will be categorized as casual contacts, which suggests that the borrowers need not be fluent in the donor language, and only non-basic items are borrowed (cf. Haugen 1950: 224, Tho- mason 2001: 70). Still, as has been highlighted above, the massive emigration of Rus- sians into the United States, which could have potentially resulted in a wave of bilin- guals, might represent category (2).

1.4. Glossary of key terms

Key terms such as ‘borrowing’ or ‘loanword’ have had a long but fairly confusing history (cf. Haugen 1950, Weinreich 1970, Coetsem 1988, Rot 1991, Podhajecka 2006a). Since they can be encountered in the literature, particularly in interdisciplinary contexts, in a range of meanings, it is important to clarify the taxonomy employed throughout the book. Terms frequently referred to are defined below: • assimilation – adaptation or nativization, the process of integrating a word in- to the system of the borrowing language; the process occurs on the graphemic, phonological, morphological and semantic planes; • borrowing – (1) a word or phrase taken directly from one language into another; (2) the process of taking lexical items from one language into another; • borrowing language – a recipient, receptor or receiving language; the language into which a foreign lexical item has been taken; • cognate – a corresponding word in a genetically or typologically related language, e.g. Russ. sobol′ is a cognate of Pol. soból; • corpus – a collection of texts in a machine-readable form, selected and ordered according to explicit criteria, which is used as a sample of the language; • donor language – a lending language, the language from which a foreign lexical item has been taken; • entry – the basic reference unit in a dictionary encompassing a lemma, its definition and other information categories;7 • etymon – the prototype or model of a borrowing in the donor language; Russ. kopejka is the etymon of Eng. copeck;

6 That a loanword comes from immigrant communities is obviously possible, but this would pertain to first- or second-generation immigrants, inasmuch as third-generation speakers usually do not speak the native language of their grandparents (Baker 2011: 75-76). 7 It should be noted that the term ‘entry’ is not treated as synonymous with ‘headword’, which has been typical of American English metalexicographic literature (e.g. Landau 2001).

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 • headword – a lemma or entry-word, the head of a dictionary entry, usually the canonical form of a lemma (e.g. the singular nominative for nouns or the infin- itive for verbs); • loanblend – a hybrid, a structural borrowing in which one element has been imported and one substituted, as in Russki-land (< Russ. Russki + Eng. land); • loan-translation – a translation loan, a structural borrowing in which direct translation of the constituent elements of a foreign lexical item has occurred, e.g. Eng. Old Believer (< Russ. starover); the term is also referred to more broadly as a calque; • loanword – a borrowing with full morphemic importation, e.g. Eng. perestroika (< Russ. perestrojka); • quotation – a citation or an illustrative example; a passage drawn from a textual source in order to illustrate a specific meaning or sense of a given lemma in the dictionary entry; • sublemma – a secondary headword, the head of a sub-entry; • wordlist – the list of headwords in a dictionary, usually arranged alphabetically, as an element of its macrostructure.

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 2. History of Anglo-Russian and Russo-American contacts Anglo-Russian relations deserve mention, because the process of lexical borrowing has always been triggered, either directly or indirectly, by historical events (Lehn- ert 1977: 29). The native speakers of English came into contact with the Russian language and culture primarily through political and commercial causes, as for nearly three centuries the Muscovy Company, a joint-stock company established by English merchants for trade with Russia (Wagner and Schmid 2011: 778), was the basic link between the two countries. It is thus worthwhile looking at the extralinguistic perspective of Anglo-Russian and Russo-American contacts.

2.1. Relations between England and Russia

The first note of language contact between England and Russia can be found in the history written in Latin by Saxo Grammaticus (dated to 1067), who mentions the marriage of the daughter of Harold II, the last king of Anglo-Saxon England, to Waldemar,1 the grand prince of Kievan Rus: “[W]herefore the English blood on the one side and the Russian on the other side concurring to the ioyful birth of our prince, caused that mutual kindred to be an ornament unto both nations” (Hakluyt 1599). The Norman Conquest had put a stop to any further relations between the two countries, and half a millennium had had to pass before England re-established contacts with Russia. The history of new Anglo-Russian relations goes back to 1553, when the expedi- tion of three ships headed by Hugh Willoughby, captain of Bona Esperanza; Richard Chancellor, captain of Edward Bonaventure; and Cornelius Durforth, master of Bona Confidentia, set sail for the North Cape in an attempt to find a passage to China, but instead came upon the Russian land.2 The “discovery” of Russia, as the English used to call the first journey to the White Sea, was merely a discovery of a new route to Rus- sia, yet the Tudors claimed proudly that Chancellor had discovered Muscovy as Co- lumbus had discovered America (Wilson 1970: 9).3

1 In the above passage, Saxo Grammaticus refers supposedly to Vladimir Monomakh. Problems with recreating Slavic names in English have been notorious since then. 2 Hugh Willoughby and his company froze to death in Lapland, and it was only Chancellor who reached Archangel. He then made a journey to Moscow, where he was received by the tsar, before returning safely to England. However, he drowned off the coast of Scotland during his next voyage (Ash 2004: 112-113). 3 Such claims would be difficult to support, inasmuch as a Russian boyar had apparently arrived in England before Chancellor got to Russia (Cross 1971: 21). What is more, Russia was not isolated politically or commer-

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 Though Chancellor was apparently the first Englishman in Muscovy, he is likely to have been acquainted with the country and its realia thanks to a book entitled Rerum Moscoviticarum comentarii (1549), which was the first extensive description of Rus- sia in the West (published in Latin). Its author, Sigismund von Herberstein, was the imperial ambassador in Russia in the years 1517 and 1526. Importantly, Herberstein was an authority on Russian matters and − unlike a predominant majority of Western travellers − he must have had at least a working knowledge of the Russian language (Poe 2000: 54). Consequently, his publication became a veritable mine of information, and foreigners travelling to that part of the world must have treated it as a guide.4 Tsar Ivan the Terrible allowed English merchants certain privileges, in this way fostering direct trade between England and Russia. In 1555, the pioneers of the first voyage established a joint stock company known as the Russia or Muscovy Compa- ny, to which Queen Mary granted a monopoly of English trade with Russia and the lands that had not yet been “discovered”. The trade was flourishing; the Company’s agents established commercial centres in the port of St. Nicholas (later replaced by Archangel), Kholmogory, Vologda and Moscow. They travelled freely throughout the country, buying goods from local merchants and the Muscovite government and selling English commodities. The Anglo-Russian commerce served the needs of both countries: while Russia sought manufactured goods, England was desperate to find new markets. Therefore, supported by both rulers, English commerce in Russia intensified, particularly as the trade was not subject to tariffs imposed by Livonian or Hanseatic middlemen who dominated the Baltic trade (Bobrick 1987: 151). Furthermore, the tsar needed allies against his hostile neighbours, not to mention guns and ammunition; in the scenario of a foreign threat, England’s support seemed invaluable. Apart from military commodities, English merchants used to buy a wide range of Russian goods. Furs and hides, primarily greatly appreciated sable, marten, ermine and fox skins, were certainly the most prestigious ones.5 Other imported products included key items for shipbuilding (hemp, cables, cordage, etc.), as well as the silks, drugs and spices of Bukhara and Persia. Later English traders started importing one of Muscovy’s luxuries – caviar − produced from the roe of sterlet, osseter, sevruga or beluga (cf. Lehnert 1977: 24). cially from Western Europe; as early as the thirteenth century, the Russian city of Novgorod was a member of the Hanseatic League (Lehnert 1977: 21). Aspects of the “discovery” of Russia, a term which reflects the traditional Western ethnocentrism, have been discussed by a number of historians (Lubimenko 1927-1928, Yakobson 1935, Mayendorff 1946, Sumner 1948, Gleason 1950, Willan 1956, Berry and Crummey 1968, Wilson 1970, Halperin 1975, Baron 1978, Cross 1985, Bobrick 1987, etc.). 4 The popularity of the book can be judged by the pace and number of its foreign translations; within only eight years, the Latin original was rendered into Italian (1550), English (1555) and German (1557). 5 Sables, in particular, were perceived as a genuine status symbol in England. It has even been claimed that “der sibirische Zobel, für den ungeheure Preise erzielt wurden, war in der Tat der eigentliche Magnet, gewis- sermaßen das Zauberwort für den Vorstoß nach Sibirien. Er hat das historische Schicksal Sibiriens in ähnlicher Weise bestimmt wie das Gold die Erschließung Americas” (Lehnert 1977: 24).

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 England exported manufactured goods, wool, lead, tin and finished cloth, the latter being perhaps the most valuable commodity. Apart from that, England sent to Russia skilled labourers, particularly shipbuilders, artisans and physicians. During the reign of Paul I, Englishmen became so numerous in Russia that “persons calling themselves English Physicians are found in almost every town” (Cross 1971: 27). However, unlike Germans who established large ethnic communities in Russia − the first German Quarter in Moscow was established in the reign of tsar Basil III (1505-1533) − the Englishmen never settled permanently in Russia. Although the Russian language was called “the most copious language in the world” (Vočadlo 1966: 4), very few English travellers mastered it. In fact, most foreign travellers to Russia had only a superficial knowledge of the Slavic tongue, which to their ears was “merely the speech of a remote and, they believed, inferior people” (Unbe- gaun 1960: 46). This suggests that, despite the apparent use of Latin and Greek, the early diplomatic and commercial relations must have developed in the face of fairly ineffective communication (cf. Stone 2005: 1). The English were aware of that. Among scholars who took steps to contribute to the understanding of the Russian language in England was Mark Ridley, court physician at Moscow, and Richard James, chaplain to the British embassy. The former was the author of an English-Russian manuscript dictionary (1599) containing approximately 6,000 entries, whereas the latter compiled, in the years 1618-20, a less extensive Rus- sian-English vocabulary.6 H. W. Ludolf, the author of the first Russian grammar published at Oxford, Grammatica Russica… (1696),7 also deserves mention, although he was in fact a German by birth. The other Englishmen interested in Russian were only orientalists (Simmons 1950: 108). When Elizabeth was crowned queen of England, she continued to support the trade with Russia. A lively correspondence was exchanged,8 and embassies travelled almost yearly from one country to the other. Yet Elizabeth did not intend to meet Ivan’s re- quest for a close political alliance (Willan 1956: 166), and her firm resistance to the tsar’s demands, together with unsuccessful marriage negotiations (Ivan the Terrible failed to marry lady Mary Hastings) put a strain on the relations between the two courts. This led to a temporary revocation of the Muscovy Company privileges. By 1622, the trade was nearly lost; a few years later, England was sending only two ships a year to Russia against thirty-five sent by the Dutch (Anderson 1954b: 141). In the face of in- creasingly difficult commercial arrangements, England turned to India and America

6 Mark Ridley left a manuscript Russian-English dictionary, whose two existing copies are entitled A Dictio- narie of the Vulgar Russe Tongue and A Dictionarie of the Englishe Before the Vulgar Russe Tongue (McConchie 1997: 17). Copies of James’ work known under the title A Russian Vocabulary (and an untitled Russian manuscript), which record 2,176 words, are held at the Bodleian Library in Oxford (Stone 2005). 7 Ludolf’s grammar contains, among others, the first relatively consistent system of transliterating Russian words into English. 8 This is by no means an exaggeratation, because of the letters passed between the Russian and English courts, as many as 92 have survived to this day (Stone 1996: 6).

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 where she hoped to find greater opportunities and, consequently, much higher profits (Lehnert 1977: 27). Even though English trade with Russia in the sixteenth century has been depicted as peripheral in both the geographical and economic sense (cf. Meyendorff 1946: 109-121, Willan 1956: 274), there is no doubt that the accidental “discovery” of Russia brought about long-lasting social, economic and political consequences for both countries.9 Linguistically, too, the sixteenth century was an important period, thanks primarily to Richard Hakluyt, the first lecturer on geography and cosmography at Oxford Uni- versity. Interest in the history of discovery led him to collect accounts of voyages and travels undertaken by the English, which were published in a collection entitled The Principal navigations… (1589). The original single-volume edition was followed by a three-volume publication (1598-1600), which documented English explorations up to the year 1600. In a nutshell, the narrative was a record of maritime discovery, which was of primary importance to the history and culture of England, and which served as a source of inspiration for many English poets and writers. Had it not been for Hakluyt’s publication, the early accounts of English travels to Russia would have been probably lost without a trace. Therefore, most of the sixteenth-century Russian borrowings owe their existence, so to say, to the remarkable success of The Principal navigations. The most important contributions to the collection are descriptions by Richard Chancellor, Stephen Burrough, Anthony Jenkinson, Thomas Randolf, George Turberville and Jerome Horsey.10 Another portrayal of Mus- covy was offered by Giles Fletcher, an English ambassador to Russia in the years 1588- 1589, whose narrative Of the Russe Commonwealth… appeared in 1591. Banned for the harsh criticism of the Russian empire (called “a Tyrannical state”), particularly its oppressive regime, Fletcher’s work is argued to have been the most insighful analysis of Muscovite Russia undertaken in the sixteenth century (Berry and Crummey 1968: 92, cf. Poe 2000: 58). In the seventeenth century, Anglo-Russian relations became steadily more tenu- ous and intermittent. Until the 1620s, political contacts retained importance, and at the end of the Time of Troubles there were even plans for an English protectorate over Russia.11 However, the Civil War and the execution of Charles I led to a decrease in English influence. To the tsars Michael and Alexis, the opposition to the monarch was beyond understanding, at least from the perspective of samoderžavie (autocracy) in which they so firmly believed. Hence, the death of the English king in 1649 was fol-

9 Dmitrieva and Abramova (2006) offer insight into sixteenth-century Anglo-Russian relations through an exhibition of Russian royal treasury. 10 Some of the travel accounts were compiled by Samuel Purchas, an English cleric, who later published them in Purchas his pilgrimage… (first edition, 1613). In 1625, Purchas published Hakluytus Posthumus, or Purchas his Pilgrimes…, a continuation of Hakluyt’s Principal navigations, based partly on manuscripts left by Hakluyt. Volume 3 of the massive collection provides the history of the North-East and North-West passages and summaries of travels to Tartary, Russia and China. 11 A detailed account of the plans can be found in Konovalov (1950) and Dunning (1989).

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 lowed by a tsarist ukase banishing English merchants from the interior of Russia, and leaving only Archangel open to their trade. Once lost, the privileges proved to be irre- coverable (Anderson 1954a: 141, cf. Phipps 1990). The Russian commercial code of 1667 and the growth of the tsar’s monopoly on the sale of various important commodities such as wheat, masts, caviar or Persian silk were aimed to prevent any resurgence of the trade with England. In consequence, by 1669, there were only two English merchants left in Moscow. Under such circumstances, the English government had no intention to establish a political alliance with Russia. No wonder, in the last two decades of the seventeenth century, the diplomatic relations between the two countries were reduced to a minimum (cf. Konovalov 1950). The political and commercial situation seems to have had a visible impact on the pace of the borrowing process. According to OED2, approximately 25 words of Russian provenance were introduced in the seventeenth century compared to almost 50 in the next one. The decline in Anglo-Russian contacts meant that the English knowledge of Rus- sia was at a low ebb for most of the period. From the 1620s onwards, first-hand accounts by Englishmen became rare, and it was translations of foreign narratives, often fragmentary and based on prejudices and stereotypes, that shaped the English views of Russia.12 Characteristically, the descriptions of Russia published at that time express superiority and contempt for the “rude and barbarous kingdom”. The tyranny of the emperors, the ignorance of the Orthodox clergy, as well as Russian “inherent” quali- ties such as drunkenness, dishonesty, bigotry and cruelty created a picture of Russia that was highly unfavourable.13 The accession of Peter the Great to the throne opened a new period in Russia’s history. The tsar visited Holland’s and England’s shipyards to learn the techniques of shipbuilding and navigation in an attempt to modernize the Russian navy, which would transform Russia into a major European power. For this purpose, cooperation with foreigners was necessary, and foreign merchants, officers, architects, craftsmen and engineers became more and more numerous in Russia. As a result, throughout the eighteenth century, Russia’s contacts with the West assumed a particular intensity, which had a visible linguistic effect: a great deal of foreign words for Western concepts were taken into the Russian vocabulary (see e.g. Comrie, Stone and Polinsky 1990). In terms of commerce, in the seventeenth century, the Muscovy Company was still involved in trade with Russia, although the balance of British imports versus exports was clearly unfavourable.14

12 Fragmentary and distorted knowledge bred legends of strange and exotic beasts and plants such as rosso- makha or baronets (Anderson 1954b: 156, Cross 1971: 39). 13 This negative view has been examined critically by Halperin (1975: 99-107), who claims that Europeans in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Muscovy, particularly employees of the Muscovy Company, enjoyed a far-from-undeserved reputation of being ill-mannered, arrogant and frequently drunk swindlers. Bobrick (1987: 151) attributes negative views on Russia mainly to snobbery, arguing that sixteenth-century Englishmen were equally uncivilized. 14 In 1729, the value of imports amounted to £300,000, whereas the value of exports was only £75,000 (Hunt 1954: 36).

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 The pattern of diplomatic relations, too, changed greatly during the reign of Peter the Great. On his accession to the throne, Russia had no ambassadors abroad, but at the end of his reign, there was a Russian ambassador at every European court. What is more, some of the high positions in Peter’s government were held by foreigners, and two of the tsar’s top generals were Scotsmen.15 The violent wave of change initiated by Peter the Great, which won him admiration in the West, shocked and appalled Russians. Particularly the conservative boyars, forced to throw away their long-lived traditions, treated Peter’s innovations as outra- geous.16 On the other hand, the changes were welcomed by those who were looking forward to reforms in the Russian state; still, the hopes soon proved illusive. All in all, Russia oscillated in her attitudes towards Europe between two opposing poles: contempt and fascination, which later gave rise to the traditional opposition between Sla- vophiles, identifying the West with moral destruction, and Westernizers, ready to imitate the political and social models of Western Europe (Crankshaw 1976: 54). Diverse European cultures exerted strong influences on Russia. German patterns were apparently the first sign of Westernization, and subsequent Russian rulers looked for inspiration to German models. From the 1750s till the end of the nineteenth century, French became the common language of the Russian nobility, and the French style formed an important model to emulate; what France represented was perceived as the summit of civilization. In this context, it comes as little surprise that many members of Russian high society were bilingual in Russian and French. Enthusiasm for England, widespread among the upper classes during the reign of Alexander I, proved to be a remedy for Gallomania. Vogue for English horses, addic- tion to English beer, passion for cricket, as well as the English style in gardening sug- gested that “Russia is now, by the Empress’ determined and declared opinions, and will be more so by all her institutions, decidedly English” (Cross 1983: 92).17 What is more, in a short-lived attempt to liberalize her domestic policies, Catherine the Great presented Russian nobility with an opportunity to travel abroad, which was allegedly aimed at overcoming the backwardness of the country. Consequently, in the next three decades, many embarked on long journeys that frequently included a visit to England.

15 It may be interesting to note that one of them, Patrick Gordon, was originally a Scottish soldier of fortune serving in turns in the Swedish, Polish and Russian armies (Krawczyk 2010). 16 John Perry, in The state of Russia under the present czar (1716), described Peter’s reforms in the following way: “[I]t had been the manner of the Russes, like the Patriarchs of old, to wear long beards hanging down upon their bosoms … The Tsar therefore to reform this foolish custom, and to make them look like other Europeans, ordered a tax to be laid … for the wearing of their beards. … As to their clothes, the general habit which the Russes used to wear, was a long vestment hanging down to the middle of the small of their legs, and was gathered and laid in plaits upon their hips, little differing from the habit of women’s petticoats. The Tsar … therefore resolving to have this habit changed, first gave orders, that all his Boyars … upon penalty of falling under his displeasure, according to their several abilities, equip themselves with handsome cloathes made after the English fashion” (qtd. in Cross 1971: 150-152). 17 The cosmopolitan models are best exhibited by an ironic comment that Catherine the Great was a German on the Russian throne who used French to express her admiration for things English (Cross 1986: 62).

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 Amazingly, among the Russian words that entered English at that time one encounters three characteristic concepts of the Russian regime: knout, prikaz and ukase. The eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries witnessed an immense increase in the number of materials published on Russia in European languages. Inexplicably, Russia seemed irresistible to the Western world, perhaps because foreigners held to the belief that “the Russians are a People who differ from all other Nations of the world, in most of their actions”, as was noted by Collins in his Present state of Russia (qtd. in Cross 1971: 27). A number of travellers of many different backgrounds and walks of life − diplomats, merchants, soldiers, missionaries, physicians and the like − described their observations on the country and its people, so the English accounts of travels to Russia make up a vast corpus of records. As might be anticipated, the accounts vary in length, intention and the author’s talent, but all the travellers depicted roughly the same pe- culiarities of Muscovy Russia. From the linguistic point of view, it seems logical that an overwhelming majority of Russian loans in English name typically Russian realia: ethnography, fauna and flora, weights and measures, system of government, religion, professions, cuisine, etc. In the nineteenth century, after short moments of Russophilia related to Russia’s victory over Napoleon, came a period of Russophobia. The negative attitudes towards Russia grew stronger during the Crimean War, the December revolt of 1825 and the Polish uprisings of 1830-1831 and 1863, suppressed brutally by the tsarist army.18 Re- gardless of these dramatic events, English curiosity about Russia was on the increase. The English romantic poets showed enthusiasm for oriental and exotic motifs of Rus- sia’s culture, while the English readers were eager to familiarize themselves with the history of Russia and with Russian writings.19 The last quarter of the nineteenth century and the first quarter of the twentieth century were therefore characterized by a great interest in Russian literature, mainly the works of Pushkin, Turgenev, Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, many of which appeared in English translation by Constance Gar- nett. Though the interest proved temporary, translating Russian literary works became a steady phenomenon, continuing throughout the twentieth century. Still, as has been noted by Wade (1997: 104), Russian literature brought in new concepts rather than words to foreign readers.20 In the last decade of the nineteenth century, Russia experienced a rate of industrial growth. Yet the development of the industry was connected with the working-class dissatisfaction and increasing social tensions. These, supported by Marxist agitators,

18 Observations on the rise of Russophobia in Britain are presented by Gleason (1950: 9-15). 19 A number of eighteenth-century writings by Russian authors were translations from French (e.g. Princess Dashkova’s Memoirs) or German (e.g. Karamzin’s Letters of a Russian traveler, 1789-1790…). On top of that, even in the nineteenth century, novels were rendered from French translations rather than Russian originals, as was the case with Turgenev’s Fathers and sons (Waddington 1995: 16). 20 A detailed analysis of the Russian theme in English literature can be found, for instance, in Cross (1985) and Rogalski (1960).

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 led to the general strike of 1905. Soon, the social unrest was to give rise to the Bolshe- vik Revolution. At the dawn of that event, Russian revolutionaries maintained close ties with the West: they had supporters abroad (many opponents to the tsarist regime had been in exile for years), the classic works of the communist ideology were translations of Western authors (e.g. Karl Marx’s Das Kapital), and even the Second Con- gress of the Russian Social-Democratic Workers’ Party in 1903 was held in London. The 1917 October Revolution brought in the Bolshevik dictatorship. Once in power, Bolsheviks set about tearing up the Russian “root”; first under Lenin (1917-1921), and even more so under Stalin (1929-1953), they reconstructed almost every aspect of Russian life (Davies 1997: 920). Social and political opposition was eliminated, all branches of economy were militarized, and the revolutionary police − Cheka, OGPU, NKVD and, eventually, KGB − struck down all “class-enemies”, real and imaginary, which resulted in a multitude of nameless victims. Bureaucracy, propaganda, collec- tivization, coercion and terror became characteristic features of the Soviet totalitarian regime. Unsurprisingly, words taken into English at that time, e.g. agit-prop, Cheka, commissar, kolkhoz, Komsomol, Politburo, proletcult or sovkhoz, became lexical symbols of the Soviet changes. Although frail finances heavily restricted expansion, the newly-established Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (the USSR) pursued economic development, industrial strength and political independence. In terms of foreign policy, Russia’s relations were strained by threats of war with Germany, Europe’s economic and military power. There- fore, in the wake of the First World War, Russia remained diplomatically and strategi- cally committed to France and England, fighting on their side against the German in- vader during the First World War and, subsequently, the Second World War. One of the basic lexical outcomes of the latter is the loanword Russki (coming from Ja Russkij), which, as Mencken (1982: 265) points out, was popularized by American soldiers. Initially, the communist state found no allies in the West. In 1924, the USSR was recognized officially by Great Britain, France and Italy and, in 1933, by its most hardened opponent, the United States. Because of Russia’s contribution to the defeat of the Nazis, Stalin participated at the Yalta Conference of 1945, which established the ultimate share of post-war territorial and political gains. Significantly, after the First World War, Britain maintained its position on the political scene. After 1945, due to Britain’s much weaker position internationally, Anglo-Soviet relations became considerably subordinated to Soviet-American relations (Sumner 1948: 16). Following the end of the Second World War, the mutual relations between Britain and the USSR deteriorated significantly, and Winston Churchill’s statement that the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe was like an ‘iron curtain’ became an apt metaphor of the imaginary line between the Western and Eastern blocs. During the Cold War, the political relations between the two countries were generally tense, but the dé- tente policy of the 1960s and 1970s brought about the easing of the tension in an effort to avoid conflict. During the 1980s, the détente policy was substituted by strong

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 anti-communist policy pursued by the British prime minister Margaret Thatcher and the American president Ronald Reagan. Anglo-Soviet relations improved significantly after Gorbachev came to power in 1985 (cf. Light 1990, White 1992). The post-war history of Anglo-Russian relations encompasses far too many details to describe them even briefly, so I will indicate a few basic facts only. In 1958, Boris Pasternak was awarded the Nobel Prize for literature. In the early 1980s, Mikhail Gor- bachev, a successor of Andropov and Chernenko, called for economic reforms, which eventually took the shape of perestroika. Two years later, Gorbachev was voted ‘Man of the Year’ by Time magazine, and Josif Brodsky was awarded the Nobel Prize for literature; it was the third prize to go into the hands of a Russian writer under the totalitarian regime. In 1987, a summit meeting was organized in Washington, and in 1988 − in Moscow. In 1988, Pasternak’s Doctor Zhivago was published in Russia for the first time. In 1990, Gorbachev was awarded the Nobel Prize for peace, and on 12 June 1990 the First Congress of People’s Deputies of RSFSR passed the ‘Declaration of State Sovereignty of Russia’. On 25 December 1991, Gorbachev announced his res- ignation, and the USSR, in its formal shape, ceased to exist.

2.2. Relations between the United States and Russia

Describing Anglo-Russian relations one should not forget that Russia was also linked with the United States. In the words of Thomas Bailey, “[O]ur next [after France] oldest traditional friend is Russia. She was on our side, or appeared to be, not only during the War of Independence but also during the hardly less critical years of the War of 1812 [with England] and the great Civil War. Little wonder the legend of the tsarist affection for the new republic took such a deep hold” (qtd. in Wilson 1970: 291). In fact, Russia’s affection for America coincided with growing tensions in the diplomatic relations with England. When Catherine the Great refused to offer king George III military help to subdue the rebellion, she was acclaimed a liberal empress sympathiz- ing with the American colonists’ fight for independence.21 The fact that Catherine soon partitioned Poland did not overshadow the American gratitude to Russia. America and Russia established firm commercial bonds − up till then, trade between Russia and America had been controlled by Britain − although mainly for political ends. The first American ship dropped anchor in Russian waters in 1783, and the Russo-American Trading Company was formed as early as 1799. Ten years later, the United States sent their first ambassador, John Quincy Adams, to St. Petersburg, where he received a warm welcome, particularly because tsar Alexander hoped that the new republic over the ocean would become the commercial rival of Great Britain. Nevertheless, the visit cemented the friendship between America and Russia to the extent that tsar Alexander offered to mediate between Britain and the rebellious ex-col-

21 Catherine was not a strong supporter of the American republic’s independence; she was merely demonstrat- ing her negative bias towards Britain’s naval supremacy.

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 onists. Although his intervention proved unnecessary, America was grateful for his in- tentions (Wilson 1970: 292-293). As for the traded commodities, one hundred years later, tsarist Russia exchanged hides, wool, fur and flax for the American cotton, and two hundred years later, Sovi- et Russia traded palladium, ammonia, gold and fur for the American-grown grain. It seems paradoxical to Libbey (1999: 2) that these resource-rich, industrialized giants continued to exchange such basic goods for so long. In the following years, there were ups and downs in contacts between Russia and the United States. Cultural relations from the 1750s to the 1870s emphasized mutual appreciation, mainly due to the success of American literature in Russia and, in turn, Russian writing in America. During the Crimean War, Americans sympathized with Russians, and a number of American doctors worked for their wounded. On the other hand, Americans supported Poles in their patriotic November (1830-1831) and Janu- ary (1863) Uprisings, as well as Hungarians in the 1848 revolution. It is worth mentioning that, in consequence of the above events, a flood of refugees from Eastern Eu- rope sought freedom in America. The prejudiced attitude towards Russia was forgotten when the tsarist fleet arrived in New York ready to intervene in the Civil War in favour of the North. All the way from Boston to Washington, toasts were drunk to Lincoln, “the Emancipator of the slaves”, and to Alexander, “the Liberator of the serfs”.22 Very few Americans realized that the Russians wanted to remove their fleet from the Baltic in case the British and the French intervened over Poland, but it had no significant impact on public opinion (Wilson 1970: 293). The selling of Alaska to the United States for the unexpectedly low sum of $7,200,000 was believed to be another favourable gesture towards Americans. The truth lies elsewhere: in the era of Russia’s expansion in the Near and Far East, Alas- ka’s exploitation was perceived as too costly, so it was decided that disposing of it would be the best solution. In 1881, after the death of tsar Alexander II, the Russo-American relations deteriorated visibly. American engineers and technicians employed in the development of the Russian industry witnessed inefficiency and corruption. Thanks to George Kennan’s book entitled Siberia and the exile system (1891), Americans discovered that thousands of Russians, not necessarily political prisoners, were deported to Siberia where they lived in inhumane conditions. It was also learnt that tsar Alexander III was bru- tal and despotic. When he accused Jews of the assassination of his father, a wave of pogroms shook Russia, and thousands of Russian and Polish Jews fled to America for fear of further bloodshed. A similar persecution of dissenters from the official Rus- sian Orthodox Church caused the emigration of thousands of Doukhobors, Molokans, Stundists, Starovers and Subbotniks. Apart from that, the policy of the government

22 Alexander II indeed emancipated the serfs in 1861, but this did not improve the economic situation of the Russian peasants.

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 caused the voluntary exile of hundreds of social democrats, revolutionaries, nihilists and other opponents to the imperial regime (cf. Chyz and Roucek 1938/9, Moseley 1948, Conklin and Lourie 1983, Glazier 1995). Growing friction ensued between Rus- sia and the United States. The tensions culminated in 1917. Alarming news was being sent from the Ameri- can consulate in Russia about the ongoing events (cf. Papers relating to the foreign relations of the United States…). A book by John Reed,23 Ten days that shook the world (1919), became a detailed first-hand account of those days available in the West. Soon the Americans were to hear about the murder of tsar Nicholas II and his whole family committed by the Bolsheviks in Ekaterinburg. Thousands of victims who “confessed” to crimes against the Soviet state, both prominent members of the communist elite and ordinary Russians, followed suit. Once the revolution was over, the United States refused to recognize the newly established state; however, the position of indifference towards such a great political and economic power was untenable in the long run. It was in 1933 that the USA officially accepted the existence of the USSR. As already mentioned, the Soviet Union was an ally in the Second World War and, consequently, in the post-war arrangements. For most of the second half of the twentieth century, the United States and the So- viet Union were involved in the Cold War. Initiated by Stalin, the Cold War left visible landmarks in both countries: the space stations in California and Ural, the arms plants in Detroit and Omsk, the rocket launchers in Wyoming and western Siberia. In 1957, Russia launched the first unmanned satellite, sputnik. Linguistically, too, sputnik made a huge success, because in spite of attempts undertaken by the American press to name it otherwise, the Russian name caught on immediately (Foster 1968: 110, Kabak- chi and Doyle 1990). It paved the way for several other lexical items relating to astronautics such as lunik, lunokhod, marsokhod or planetokhod. The triumph of the subsequent sputniks shot into the orbit, intensified by Gagarin’s first space flight in 1961, opened a space gap in Soviet-American relations. The political climate of Khrushchev’s ‘thaw’ brought about a significant relaxation of control and lessening of hostility towards America. It contributed to the rise in tourism and the establishment of cultural and scientific contacts. On the other hand, Khrushchev − whom American journalists dubbed Mr Nyet for his extravagant behav- iour during the visit in the United States − continued the armaments race, and the thaw inaugurated by his policy only partially opened Russia to the world. A few further important events may be worth mentioning: in 1965, demonstrations were held in Moscow against the American air raids in North Vietnam, and in the same year Mikhail Sholokov won the Nobel Prize for literature. In 1968, an international venture, Moscow-New York commercial airline service, was established, and in the same year the Soviets invaded Czechoslovakia. In 1970, the US-USSR cultural ex-

23 Reed was an American journalist, social activist and enthusiastic supporter of the revolutionary government, who translated many of its propaganda pamphlets into English.

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 change was initiated, and two years later President Nixon came to Moscow for a summit meeting. In spite of promising talks, the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979; a year later, 64 countries boycotted the Moscow Summer Olympics to protest this move. Twentieth-century relations between the Soviet Union and the United States evoked mixed feelings. Sympathy towards Russians contrasted with strong and hostile anti- Soviet propaganda, competition over space travel, as well as the race for technological advancement, economic profitability and effectiveness of the intelligence networks. On top of that, the ‘iron curtain’ prevented a reliable flow of information, which means that American views were inevitably shaped by stereotypes and distorted clichés. At the same time, the Bolshevik jargon virtually flooded the West.24 Not only did Soviet- isms (apparatchik, Cheka, Gosplan, gulag, kolkhoz, Komsomol, Politburo, presidium, etc.) find their way into American English, but also more or less opaque calques of Russian origin (disinformation, fellow-traveler, five-year-plan, labor day, etc.) came into use. As might be expected, a huge number of the Russianisms entered English through the American press.25 When Mikhail Gorbachev came to power, he initiated a series of reforms which led to the perestroika. In 1991, Boris Yeltsin became the first democratically elected Rus- sian president, which brought about an overhaul of American foreign and defense policy. In consequence, the end of the Cold War gave the United States and Russia new opportunities to cooperate. For example, Russia took over the permanent seat previously held by the Soviet Union at the United Nations Security Council, and was also invited to join the gathering of the world’s largest economic powers (dubbed the group of eight, or G8). However, the United States and Russia still face a number of conflict- ing issues (for a fuller account, see Porter (n. d.)).

2.3. Conclusions

This chapter attempted to outline the history of Anglo-Russian and Russo-Amer- ican relations, but many personages and historical events which traditionally deserve mention were omitted for lack of space. Furthermore, facts traced to the sixteenth or seventeenth centuries may seem to be given too much attention as compared to the course of events in the twentieth century. The selection of data was indeed subjective, yet bringing the remote past into broad daylight was expected to prompt more interest than drawing attention to widely known facts, like the details of the Cold War, which contemporary readers must be well familiarized with. Therefore, for more elaborate historical accounts one should consult specialist sources (e.g. Bailey 1950, Kirchner

24 The post-war period in Russia, particularly the years 1946-1955, was characterized by increasing hostility towards the United States and Western Europe and, consequently, negative bias towards foreign borrowings (Comrie, Stone and Polinsky 1996: 209). English and American receptiveness to Russian and Soviet concepts does not seem to have been adversely affected. 25 For a detailed account of the Russianisms introduced, see Benson (1962).

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 1975, Kennan 1989, Cross 1993, Cross 2000, Seeger 2005, Kroll 2007, etc.). To conclude, Anglo-Russian relations can be described as a clash of two different cultures and languages, as well as social and political systems. In terms of foreign policy, rivalry and conflict of interest was often unavoidable, since both countries attempted to secure their dominant positions. A number of similarities have been pointed out in the history of Russia and Great Britain, particularly expansion and imperial- ism which both of them so vigorously pursued (Sumner 1948: 3). Some parallels can likewise be found between Russia and the United States; it is clear that both countries have been striving to become the world’s political and economic superpowers. In general, because of limited and distorted pictures of the countries, mutual feelings fluctu- ated between friendship and hostility, and violent contrasts seem to have been the most striking feature of Anglo-Russian and Russo-American contacts.

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 3. Russian loanwords in monolingual English dictionaries This chapter, which is focused entirely on the analysis of lexicographic material, investigates Russianisms recorded in the largest dictionaries of British and American varieties of English: Samuel Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language (1755), Noah Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language (1828), the second edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (1989) and three subsequent editions of Webster’s New International Dictionary (1909, 1934, 1961). Three volumes of The Barnhart Diction- ary of New English (1973, 1980, 1990) are taken into account for more recent vocabulary. Each section closes with a summary of the issues discussed and findings arrived at.

3.1. Russianisms in pre-twentieth-century dictionaries of English

As already mentioned, this section is devoted to the examination of Russianisms recorded in two pre-twentieth century dictionaries, each of which was a unique lexicographic symbol of its times. Samuel Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language (1755) represents the British dictionary-making tradition, whereas American Dictio- nary of the English Language (1828) reflects Noah Webster’s lexicographic concept of standard American English vocabulary.

3.1.1. Samuel Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language (1755) This chapter looks at the lexical outcome of Anglo-Russian language contact, which will be examined on the basis of eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century reference works. Since Samuel Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language (1755) has been universally acknowledged as one of the milestones in the history of English lexicography, it is worthwhile starting this study with his dictionary. My purpose has been to verify the number of Russian loanwords recorded in it, evaluating the manner in which they were presented to English users. Samuel Johnson (1709-1784), as Rogers (2009) puts it succinctly, was “arguably the most distinguished man of letters in English history”, who dealt successfully with poetry, satire, biography, the moral essay, travel writing, political pamphleteering, jour- nalism and dictionary-making. He intended his dictionary to be not only a repository of common English vocabulary, but also – thanks to the use of illustrative quotations − an encyclopaedia of philosophy, history, science, technology and poetry (Wallis 1945: 6). In the preface, however, the lexicographer admitted sadly that the task resembled “chas-

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 ing the sun”; catching the whole English lexis into a lexicographic form was as impossible to achieve as catching the sun. Moreover, Johnson’s grand conception had to be limited for quite prosaic reasons, namely lack of space and funds. This explains, in a nutshell, why the two-volume dictionary published in 1755 contains only approximately 40,000 entries. One might wonder what made the dictionary an influential work throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Firstly, the publication of Dr. Johnson’s dictionary, as it used to be called, could be at last compared to the great lexicographic pro- ductions of the French and Italian academies, whose completion had made the Eng- lish “uncomfortably aware of their backwardness in the study of their own tongue” (Starnes and Noyes 1991: 146-147). Secondly, Johnson’s work was admired for the literary taste; his definitions were supported by documented quotations reflecting actual examples of usage. In this way, the dictionary established a lasting model of reflecting language usage.1 Thirdly, the lexicographer was the first to deal systematically with such elements as phrasal verbs, compound nouns or -ing forms (McDermott and Moon 2005: 153). Lastly, with approximately 5,000 quotations drawn from religious sources, primarily the highly esteemed King James Bible, the dictionary can also be seen as a moral and religious venture (DeMaria 1986: 183). Other critics have been somewhat less generous in their judgements. They claim that Johnson underestimated colloquial language, excluded specialized words, and was too restrictive in his choice of authors (Landau 2001: 65). He is said to have derived much data from earlier dictionaries such as Bailey’s Dictionarium Britannicum (1736) (McDermott 2002: 211), at the same time being intensely prescriptive in his attempt to “fix the language”, that is, to set the standards of English orthography (Reed 1962: 95, Burchfield 1985: 85). Apart from that, Johnson was accused of failures in etymology, and was even named “a wretched etymologist” (Macaulay qtd. in Hill 1799: 216). While some of the criticism was deserved, and the last point definitely has not been missed, etymology has become a discipline of science only since Johnson’s days (Lit- tlejohn 1971: 41).2 After this brief introduction of the dictionary, whose more detailed description would go beyond the scope of my research, I will look at Russian borrowings included by Samuel Johnson. The study has been based mainly on the electronic version of the dictionary (1996), which covers the first and third editions (1755 and 1765 respectively). In the analysis of Johnson’s dictionary, it is necessary to take into account the fact that in 1755, when the dictionary was being published, England had already been involved in political and commercial relations with Russia for two hundred years. OED2

1 In Johnson’s dictionary, Shakespeare, Dryden, Milton, Bacon and Addison are the top five authors by citation; together they account for almost 40% of the citations in volume 1 (Willinsky 1994: 210). 2 Generally speaking, etymologies in early English dictionaries have been assessed as feeble, and most of the definitions also “fall far short of perfection” (Starnes and Noyes 1991: 190).

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 records thirty Russian borrowings whose first occurrences go back to the sixteenth century, and seventeen more loans have been traced to the seventeenth century, among them words of easily recognizable Russian origin (e.g. beluga, copeck, mammoth, moujik, rouble, steppe, telega, verst). Moreover, a study of sixteenth-century sources, most of which were published by Hakluyt, reveals that the actual number of Russian borrowings recorded in texts was far wider (cf. Leeming 1968, 1969). This might suggest that the English in the Elizabethan era were “more interested in Russia and knew more about it than any other European people”, as has been argued by Vočadlo (1966: 39), with the proviso that the circle of such potential language enthusiasts must have been very limited. This view does not seem to have been shared by Johnson, who admitted into his dictionary merely three headwords (czar, czarina, vaivode) out of a potentially wide choice of Russia-related items. One derivative, czarish, was added to the third edition (1765). The dictionary entries, in the original typography, are presented below.

CZAR n .s. [a Sclavonian word, written more properly tzar] The title of the emperour of Russia. There were competitors, the czar of Muscovy’s son, the duke of Newburg, and the princes of Lorraine. Brown, Trav. p. 153. CZARISH adj. [from czar .] Relating to the czar. His czarish majesty dispatched an express. Tatler, No. 55. CZARINA n .s . [from czar.] The empress of Russia. When Catherine Alexowna was made empress of Russia, the women were in an actual state of bondage. – Assemblies were quite unknown among them; the czarina was satisfied with introducing them, she found it impossible to render them polite. Goldsmith, Ess. 22. VAIVODE n .s.[waiwod, a governor, Sclavonian.] A prince of the Dacian provinces. He desired nothing more than to have confirmed his authority in the minds of the vulgar, by the present and ready attendance of the vayvod. Knolles, Hist . of the Turks.

As for the etymology proposed, the words included by Johnson are regarded as Scla- vonian borrowings. As OED2 shows, the name Slavonic / Slavonian was often used in English with reference to Old Church Slavonic, i.e. the first written Slavic language and a direct historical antecedent of Church Slavonic, which remains the official language of the Orthodox Church.3 Slavonic was also referred to as Common Slavic, as in the

3 The first account of the distinction between Russian and Church Slavonic in Muscovite Russia has been found in the preface to Ludolf’s Grammatica Russica (1696) which reads as follows: “[R]ussian should be used for speaking and Slavonic for writing” (qtd. in Dunn 1993: 201). Thomas Consett also differentiated between the Russian language, which he called the “language of the country”, and Church Slavonic, or the “Slavonian tongue”, which was regarded as the language of literature (qtd. in Berkov 1962: 22). The relationship between Rusian (low) and Church Slavonic (high) must therefore have been that of diglossia (cf. Halperin 2007: 2, Stone 2005: 5).

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 quotation from Chambers Cyclopaedia (1728): “The Sclavonic is the common Mother of their several Languages”. Above all else, however, it was described as the language of the Slavs, in particular, the language of the Muscovites. A typical example is John Dee’s General and rare memorials pertayning to the perfect arte of navigation quoted by OED2: “Far-Forreyn Languages: As... the Sclauonian, or Moschouite” (c. 1577). There is every indication that Johnson’s etymology pertains to the last meaning, but the reference itself should be treated as fairly outdated in the mid-eighteenth century. The few recorded headwords are of ultimately Russian provenance, even though only czar (Russ. car′) and voivode (Russ. voevoda) are direct Russianisms. Despite the vague etymology of vaivode, the material gathered suggests that the word was taken in- to English from Russian, so it is treated as a Russianism in this monograph (cf. section 3.2.5.2). Czarina, transferred to English via an intermediary language, is an indirect Russian loanword, whereas czarish is a loanblend. It is worth mentioning that John- son’s main competitor, Nathan Bailey, included only two words pertaining to Russia, boyar and czar, in his Universal Etymological English Dictionary (1747). The lexical items are borrowed in one specific meaning each. Johnson defines them very briefly, at the same time displaying his prescriptivism: he clearly prefers the spelling tzar to that of czar, and vaivode to its apparent variant waiwod included in square brackets. Each lemma is supported with only one quotation. It is puzzling why Johnson excluded other Russianisms attested in English sources, including Hakluyt’s renowned maritime narrative, and what his arguments for doing so may have been. Two hypotheses should be taken into consideration, although one can only speculate about Johnson’s motives at this point, because the textual resources available to me do not elaborate on Johnson’s attitude to, or knowledge about, Russia.4 Firstly, the goal of most sixteenth- and seventeenth-century English reference works, which fall into the so-called ‘hard-word’ tradition, was to explain rare or difficult Eng- lish words derived from classical languages, particularly Latin and Greek. Johnson’s dictionary had quite different aims and appealed to a different type of readership. The lexicographer believed that it was necessary to compile a dictionary that would describe the common vocabulary or, putting it in a different way, the lexical core of eighteenth- century English. He explained the crux of the matter in the following way: “[W]orks of this kind are by no means necessary to the greater number of readers, who, seldom intending to write or presuming to judge, turn over books to amuse their leisure, and to gain degrees of knowledge suitable to lower characters, or necessary to common business of life” (qtd. in Starnes and Noyes 1991: 184). Most Russianims, by denoting typically Russian realia, were confined to Russian contexts and, as such, they must have been unknown to the average English reader. More importantly, few loans were supported by citations from the respected authors whom Johnson quoted so abundant-

4 Nevertheless, the vast Russian empire must have stimulated Johnson’s imagination. For instance, in one of his plays he writes emphatically “[C]all me to civilize the Russian wilds” (Johnson and Murphy 1823: 81).

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 ly in his dictionary. With his refined linguistic and literary taste, Johnson must have felt intuitively that Russianisms were insignificant in English, which was reflected in his dictionary wordlist.5 Secondly, the lexicographer was no doubt biased against Gallicisms and Latin- isms, regarding them as a destructive element in English vocabulary. Landau (2001: 61) finds that Johnson deliberately excluded from his dictionary many obsolete and foreign items. One may assume, by way of analogy, that he was not willing to consider other visibly “alien” constructs and “barbarous” expressions of Sclavonian origin that had crept into the English language. Not admitting them into his dictionary might have been an effective strategy to “secure the language from corruption and decay”.6 Although Johnson recorded only four words of Russian origin, two of which are loanwords proper, there are several references to Russia and things Russian in his dictionary. Shakespeare, for instance, was greatly inspired by the “discovery” of Russia (Lehnert 1977: 28), so among Shakespearian quotations illustrating Johnson’s headwords one comes across such phrases as “the rugged Russian bear”,7 “Russian billows by the top” or “Russian lust”. From Dryden’s Dedication of Virgil pastorals John- son quoted “the heat of a Russian summer”; from Milton’s Paradise lost − “the Tar- tar from the Russian foe”,8 and from Miller − “the Russian cabbage”. In several citations the proper nouns Muscovy and Russia were also employed. The material indicates that although words borrowed from “the Russe tongue”, as Henry Walpole put it (1745), were apparently peripheral in Johnsonian England, the country had already been put on the map, to use a geographical metaphor, of the overwhelmingly self-cen- tred Western world. To sum up, the number of Russianisms and their treatment in terms of etymology and evidence of usage indicates that, to Samuel Johnson, Russian words must have had the status of foreignisms, considered as insignificant or, worse still, destructive for English vocabulary. Since Russianisms were borrowed steadily into English from the mid-sixteenth century onwards, it could also mean that Johnson was a tradition- alist, and his dictionary stood in opposition to the growing rationalism and expansion of the vocabulary. In consequence, when a hundred years later Richard Trench, Dean

5 It seems a universal remark that dictionary-makers have hardly ever satisfied users; in any single dictionary, omissions are always lamented upon, while superfluities are condemned (Osselton 1995: 155). 6 This puristic attitude, arising from a conviction that “every one who loves good English cannot but have a healthy hatred for … pages with alien words and foreign phrases”, continued well into the twentieth century (Matthews 1897: 433-436). This statement echoes one of the basic principles of the Fowler brothers: “prefer the familiar word to the far-fetched” (Fowler and Fowler 1993: 11). 7 Despite the first attestation in OED3 coming from Dekker’s Whore of Babylon (1607), it is Shakespeare who should be credited with coining the phrase Russian bear, which came to be widely used with reference to the Russian state (often in a pejorative sense). Shakespeare’s references to Russia and Poland in the historical context have been discussed by Draper (1927), Vočadlo (1966) and Lehnert (1977). 8 Interestingly, Milton was the author of A brief history of Moscovia, and other less known countries lying eastward of Russia as far as Cathay… (1682) written on the basis of Hakluyt’s and Purchas’ narratives.

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 of Westminster, outlined the shortcomings of the existing dictionaries of English, inadequate coverage of English vocabulary was one of the main defects that he pointed out (Trench 1857). A somewhat different approach to the lexicographic description of English was taken by Noah Webster, an American lexicographer, whose Dictionary of the American Language is investigated in the next section.

3.1.2. Noah Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) In his American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster (1758-1843), an American lawyer, schoolteacher, editor and lexicographer, sought to enhance the principles of the language to “purify it from some palpable errors, and reduce the number of its anomalies”.9 A challenger of the ubiquitous hegemony of British English in general, and Johnson’s dictionary in particular, he called for a radically modernized Amer- ican orthography, which he viewed as an embodiment of the national spirit (Simpson 2008: 257). Webster’s dictionary took 18 years to produce. Though the task undertaken did not prove a complete success,10 the dictionary made a good impression, and its reception in America was similar to that of Johnson’s work in England (Collison 1971: 202). Interestingly, the two dictionaries share one more feature: like Johnson’s, Web- ster’s entries were worked out almost single-handedly. It is well known that Noah Webster criticized Johnson severely; as argued by Lan- dau (2005: 218), Webster wanted to surpass Johnson as “the leading lexicographer of the English language”. At the same time, however, he was influenced by Johnson’s lexicographic principles. Webster must have been aware of the inadequacies of John- son’s dictionary, including inaccurate etymologies, yet some affinities between the two dictionaries are evident.11 Still, Webster’s work had its own character, because the author admitted a number of borrowings, technical, legal and medical words, as well as proper nouns that had not been considered by Johnson. In this way, American Diction- ary of the English Language represents a new genre of encyclopaedic dictionary, so typical of today’s dictionary market in the United States. Turning to the main focus of my research, Russianisms in Webster’s dictionary are more frequent than in Johnson’s, which must be attributed, first and foremost, to Webster’s awareness that the lexicographer’s concern is to “collect, arrange and define, as far as possible, all the words that belong to a language” (Wells 1973: 65). This notwithstanding, it is difficult to speak of Russian loanwords in the case of Webster’s

9 On 25 July, 1809, Webster wrote in a letter to judge Dawes: “[T]o supply the defects of the English Dictionaries is a very important thing to do. From the great improvements in various sciences, within half a century, the English dictionaries are rendered deficient in five or six thousand words, which are found in the best authors. To supply these is a very important thing” (qtd. in Ford Skeel 1912: 70). 10 The dictionary has been criticized for its provincialisms, as Webster focused primarily on New England, and its etymologies called “an unparalleled disaster” (Green 1996: 264). 11 As proved empirically, out of 4,505 definitions written by Webster, about one third display an unmistakable sign of Johnson’s influence (Reed 1962: 95-98).

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 dictionary, because most lemmas are not accompanied by any etymological information.12 Instead, one must rely on various references ‒ descriptive labels, comments and illustrative uses ‒ to the country or its realia. The list below, excerpted from Webster’s volumes, comprises 43 headwords in their original typography. As emphasized, the definitions of some of the lemmas (e.g. caftan, kumiss, mammoth or vaivode) do not refer to Russia in any way; in such instances, I looked up the lemmas in OED2, checking them against my own data. At the end of each entry, I include the transliterated Russian etymon, which is not part of Webster’s dictionary material.

'ARSHINE, n. a Russian measure of two feet, four inches and 242 decimals. This seems to be the Chinese arschin, of which four make three yards English. (Russ. aršin) BELU'GA, n. A fish of the cetaceous order, and genus Delphinus, from 12 to 18 feet in length. The tail is divided into two lobes, lying horizontally, and there is no dorsal fin. In swimming, this fish bends its tail under its body like a lobster, and thrusts itself along with the rapidity of an arrow. This fish is found in the arctic seas and rivers, and is caught for its oil and its skin. (Russ. beluga) BOI'AR or BOY'AR, n. In the Russian Empire, a nobleman; a lord; a person of quality; a soldier. This word answers nearly to Baron in Great Britain, and other countries in the west of Eu- rope. (Russ. bojarin) BOI'ARIN, n. In Russia, a gentleman; a person of distinction; the master of a family. (Russ. bojarin) BOY'AR, n. A Russian nobleman. [See: Boiar.] (Russ. bojarin) CAFTAN, n. A Persian or Turkish vest or garment. (Russ. kaftan) CARLOCK, n. A sort of isinglass from Russia, made of the sturgeons bladder, and used in clarifying wine. (Russ. karluk) CAVIAR, n. The roes of certain large fish, prepared and salted. The best is made from the roes of the sterlet, sturgeon, sevruga, and beluga, caught in the lakes or rivers of Russia. The roes are put into a bag with a strong brine, and pressed by wringing, and then dried and put in casks, or into cisterns, perforated at bottom, where they are pressed by heavy weights. The poorest sort is trodden with the feet. (Russ. ikra) CORSAK, n. A species of fox. (Russ. korsak) COSSACK, n. The Cossacks inhabit the Ukraine, in the Russian empire. (Russ. kazak) CZ'AR, n. A king; a chief; a title of the emperor of Russia; pronounced tzar, and so written by good authors. (Russ. car′) CZARINA, n. A title of the empress of Russia. (Russ. carica)

12 Webster’s working method is best illustrated by Micklethwait (2000: 177): “[W]here he [Webster] had serious problems (as his own account made clear) was in tracing the origins of words. He would put down a list of kindred words in various languages, with some speculation on roots and primary meanings. Later, he often changed his mind, crossed it all out, and wrote another chunk of speculative etymology on the blank left page. If he later changed his mind again, he would cross out what was on the left hand page, and stick a strip of paper over the crossed-out entry on the right, to provide space for another guess”.

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 CZ'ARISH, a. Pertaining to the czar of Russia. (Russ. carski, carskij) KAR'AGANE, n. A species of gray fox found in the Russian empire. (Russ. karagan) KNOUT, n. nout. A punishment in Russia, inflicted with a whip. (Russ. knut) KO'PECK, n. A Russian coin, about the value of a cent. (Russ. kopejka) KU'MISS, n. A liquor or drink made from mare's milk fermented and distilled; milkspirit, used by the Tartars. (Russ. kumys) MAM'MOTH, n. This name has been given to a huge quadruped, now extinct, whose bones are found on both continents. (Russ. mamont) POOD, n. A Russian weight, equal to 40 Russian or 36 English pounds. (Russ. pud) PRO'TOPOPE, n. [Gr. first, and pope.] Chief pope or imperial confessor, an officer of the holy directing synod, the supreme spiritual court of the Greek church in Russia. (Russ. protopop) QUAB, n. A fish of Russian rivers, which delights in clear water. (Russ . žaba)13 RU'BLE, n. roo'bl. A silver coin of Russia, of the value of about fifty seven cents, or two shil- lings and seven pence sterling; in Russia, a hundred kopecks; originally, the fourth part of a grivna or pound, which was cut into four equal parts. (Russ. rubl′) RUSS, a. Roos. Pertaining to the Russ or Russians. [The native word is Russ. We have Russia from the south of Europe.] (Russ. Rus′) RUSS, n. Roos. The language of the Russ or Russians. (Russ. russkij) RUSSIAN, a Roo'shan. Pertaining to Russia. (Russ. russkij) RUSSIAN, n. Roo'shan. A native of Russia. (Russ. russkij) SAGE'NE, n. A Russian measure of about seven English feet. (Russ. sažen′) SAJE'NE, n. [written also sagene. Tooke writes it sajene]. A Russian measure of length, equal to seven feet English measure. (Russ. sažen′) S'ARLAC, n. The grunting ox of Tartary. (Russ. sarlyk) SEVRU'GA, n. A fish, the ‹accipenser stellatus›. (Russ. sevruga) SHAM'AN, n. In Russia, a wizzard or conjurer, who by enchantment pretends to cure diseases, ward off misfortunes and foretell events. (Russ. šaman) STAROST, n. In Poland, a feudatory; one who holds a fief. (Russ. starosta) STEP, STEPP, n. In Russ, an uncultivated desert of large extent. (Russ. step′) STERLET, n. A fish of the Caspian and of the rivers in Russia, the Acipenser ruthenus of Linne, highly esteemed for its flavor, and from whose roe is made the finest caviare. (Russ. sterljad′) SU'DAK, n. A fish, a species of Perca. (Russ. sudak) SUS'LIK, n. A spotted animal of the rat kind. A quadruped of the genus Arctomys, of a yellow- ish brown color, with small white spots; the earless marmot. (Russ. suslik) UKA'SE, n. In Russia, a proclamation or imperial order published. (Russ. ukaz)

13 OED3 provides a revised etymology for quab, deriving it from early modern Dutch quabbe ‘toad, frog’ or, alternatively, Middle Low German quappe . Russ . žaba ‘toad’ is considered as a cognate form.

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 VA'IVODE, n. A prince of the Dacian provinces; sometimes written waiwode, for it is the pronunciation. (Russ. voevoda) VERST, n. A Russian measure of length, containing 1166 2/3 yards, or 3500 feet; about three quarters of an English mile. (Russ. versta) WAYWODE, WAIWODE, n. 1. In the Ottoman empire, the governor of a small town or province, which not forming a pa- shawlic, is the appendage of some great officer; also, a mussulman charged with the collection of taxes, or with the police of a place. 2. In Poland, the governor of a province. (Russ. voevoda) WAYWODESHIP, n. The province or jurisdiction of a waywode. (Russ. voevodstvo) YUFTS, n. Russia lether, prepared from ox hides in a peculiar manner. (Russ. juft′) ZIZEL, n. The suslik or earless marmot, a small quadruped found in Poland and the south of Russia. (Russ. suslik)

Out of these lemmas, 31 turn out to be loanwords proper; two should be treated as loanblends (czarish, waywodeship); four are spelling variants (boiar, boiarin = boyar,14 sajene = sagene, waywode = vaivode); and three are indirect borrowings (czarina, Rus- sian1, Russian2) taken into English via an intermediary language. Three other lexical items (caviar, quab and zizel) are not derived from Russian, although they do in fact describe Russian realia. Despite the fact that the headwords are not given etymologies, and some of them have not been defined adequately, they shed more light on Russian concepts than Johnson’s wordlist. The loanwords recorded by Webster represent various categories. The list is dominated by names of Russian weights and measures (arshine, pood, sajene, verst), social status (boyar, Cossack, czar, shaman, starost, vaivode), fauna of the tsarist empire (beluga, corsak, karagane, mammoth, sarlac, sevruga, sterlet, sudak, suslik), domestic goods (caftan, carlock, kumiss, yufts), monetary units (kopeck, ruble) and power- related terms (knout, ukase). Additionally, the categories of the Eastern Church (protopope), ethnic names (Russ) and geography (step) are represented by one lemma each. As will be shown later, these are the main semantic categories into which all the Rus- sianisms identified in my study have been classified (cf. Part 2, Table 3). Two lemmas supposedly derived from Polish (starost and vaivode / waywode) have long been etymological riddles. In this monograph, they are both treated as Russian- isms, but their Polish cognates, starosta and wojewoda respectively, are indeed comparable both in form and meaning. With respect to the former, ambiguities may arise from the fact that Herberstein, in his influential Rerum Moscoviticarum comentarii (1549), recorded starosta in the meaning ‘the title of an official in Lithuania’ (Leeming 1968: 16). The earliest quotations in OED2 come from Fletcher’s accounts of his trav-

14 See e.g. Dictionary of Russian historical terms from the eleventh century to 1917 (1970).

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 els in Russia, yet the etymology remains controversial.15 The origins of voivode and a handful of other problematic loanwords are discussed in more detail in section 3.2.5.2. In one entry, belabor, Webster employs a remote reference to Russian, which may be worth mentioning:

BELA'BOR, v.t. [perhaps from be and labor; but in Russ. bulava is a club.] To beat soundly; to thump.

What is striking in this etymological conjecture is the bizarre association between Eng. belabor and Russ. bulava; the two words clearly cannot be recognized as genetically-related cognates, and could at best be treated as analogues (words introduced by “cf.”). Needless to say, to OED2’s lexicographers, belabour is simply a combina- tion of be- and labour. The types of definitions in Webster’s 1828 dictionary also deserve some attention. Even though James Murray, an experienced lexicographer himself, called Webster “a born definer of words” (qtd. in Ford Skeel 1912: 399), there is little evidence for the excellent defining skills alluded to. For instance, the definition of Cossack ‘the Cos- sacks inhabit the Ukraine, in the Russian empire’ was only partially satisfying for the dictionary user; it explained where the Cossacks lived, but did not tackle any of the attributes of the people. Apart from that, Webster’s definitions are sometimes awkward- ly worded (e.g. beluga), and the way in which the author handles geographical references (e.g. Polish), historical information (e.g. boiarin) and zoological explanations (e.g. mammoth) is admittedly far from ideal. Although pronunciation was not Webster’s focal point, one can spot occasional notes on matters of pronunciation. For instance, voivode is accompanied by the note “sometimes written waiwode, for it is the pronunciation”, while czar is recommended to be “pronounced tzar”. In fact, both remarks are fairly idiosyncratic, especially the latter, because tzar could be pronounced as /tsa:/ or /za:/, but the pronunciation /tza:/ would no doubt be alien for any native speaker of English. John Walker, a renowned English orthoepist, whom Webster must have consulted in compiling his dictionary, provides czar and czarina with a respelling indicating that the words were only pronounced with /z/. Moreover, in “Principles of English pronunciation” attached to his dictionary (Critical Pronouncing Dictionary and Expositor, 1791), Walker notes that [c] in these words is silent, just like [c] in indict, muscle, etc.16 Still, as noticed by Landau (2001: 68), Walker occasionally “corrected” his pronunciations, so his insistence on /za:/ might have been guided by his own intuition, not the actual American English usage.17

15 Comparing this etymology with Polish resources is pointless; Brückner’s outdated Słownik etymologiczny języka polskiego (1927) does not include the headword starosta, Sławski’s (unfinished) dictionary ends with the letter Ł, whereas Długosz-Kurczabowa’s Wielki słownik etymologiczno-historyczny (2008) derives starosta simply from the adjective stary (old). 16 I am very greatful to Professor April MacMahon for this information (e-mail of 22 May 2003). 17 Despite this, Walker was held in high esteem, and his authority may be indicated by the fact that many of his usage preferences have been kept to this day.

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 Four headwords are provided with what could be called ‘newspaper’ respelling, whereby combinations of letters represent sounds: knout [nout], ruble [roo'bl], Russ [Roos] and Russian [Roo'shan]. This system was called ‘newspaper’, because such simplified respellings used to represent pronunciations in the popular press, targeted at readers without adequate knowledge of, or interest in, dictionary pronunciations. Landau (2001: 122) remarks that newspaper respellings are often inconsistent, since the same characters can refer to two or more different sounds. In this context, Web- ster’s system is just as inconsistent and inaccurate; for instance, judging by the examples mentioned above, [oo] could have been pronounced as either /u:/, /u/ or /ə/. The merit of his crude respelling system notwithstanding, only a tiny proportion of the recorded lemmas were respelled at all.18

3.1.3. Conclusions In this chapter, I discussed briefly direct and indirect borrowings of Russian origin recorded in two pre-twentieth century dictionaries of English: Samuel Johnson’s Dic- tionary of the English Language (1755) and Noah Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language (1828). The main aim of this comparative study was to look at the corresponding lists of Russianisms in order to identify similarities and differences between them, with special focus on the lexicographic treatment of the loans. As has been found out, the way in which both dictionary-makers handled Russianisms could not be more different.19 Johnson’s dictionary encompasses only three words attributed to Slavic, czar, czarina and vaivode, as Russian did not make its way into etymological references . The derivative czarish appeared solely in the third edition. The definitions are extremely short, but they are supported by illustrative quotations drawn from literary sources. All the words represent the semantic category of social status in the Russian empire. Compared to Johnson’s, Webster’s lexicographic work is more advanced in its coverage of the vocabulary, insofar as 44 headwords in it refer, mainly through the use of descriptive labels, to Russia and things Russian. Since the lemmas are not accompanied by etymological references in the standard form, all of them had to be verified accordingly. Upon scrutiny, some of the words turned out to be spelling variants, indirect borrowings and unrelated items. As for the category of Russianisms proper, it included 31 lexical items naming mainly Russian weights and measures, fauna and political concepts. The comparative analysis shows that Webster’s dictionary offered to dictionary users a more up-to-date wordlist than its predecessor. More exactly, Webster added 29 new words imported from Russian to barely two Sclavonian loanwords admitted by

18 Webster’s dictionary has been discussed exhaustively by Landau (2009). 19 Johnson’s and Webster’s dictionaries in contrast can be prolific sources of data. For example, Miyoshi (2007) conducts a comparative analysis of Johnson’s and Webster’s use of verbal examples.

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 Johnson. As far as proper usage is concerned, however, Johnson’s entries were carefully illustrated with quotations from English literature, whereas in the case of Web- ster’s one had to rely either on the dictionary’s authority or one’s own intuition, both of which could no doubt be a potential source of error. The next section will look at the treatment of Russian loanwords in a monumental historical dictionary of English, the Oxford English Dictionary.

3.2. Russianisms in the Oxford English Dictionary (1989)

This section concentrates on the quantitative and qualitative analysis of Russianisms recorded in the Oxford English Dictionary (henceforth, the OED). For an historical inquiry into English vocabulary, the Oxford English Dictionary seems a natural starting point: not only is it the most prestigious English dictionary that recorded dated quotations, but it is certainly the largest and most exhaustive one. Illustrative quotations had previously been used in Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language (1755) and Rich- ardson’s New Dictionary of the English Language (1837).20 These works, together with Jacob and Wilhelm Grimms’ Deutches Wörterbuch and Littré’s four-volume dictionary, both with a rich, diachronically arranged documentation (Zgusta 1989: 221-225), were the main inspirations for the OED.21

3.2.1. Description of the OED The first edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (henceforth, OED1), started by James Murray in 1884 and completed by William Craigie in 1928 under the name The New English Dictionary, covers the vocabulary of English with “a completeness of historical evidence”, so “no other dictionary of English since The New English Dic- tionary was completed has failed to reveal a profound debt to this monumental work” (Whitehall 1963: 7). It is believed to have brought together all English vocabulary from the Anglo-Saxon times to 1900 and a little beyond. Such abundant evidence made the dictionary an impressive record of linguistic heritage; no wonder it was immediately acclaimed a “cultural treasure-house” of the English language (Brewer 2007: 4).22 It is obvious that a description of a particular dictionary is, to some extent, a description of its editors and their historical background. From this perspective, OED1 (and, consequently, OED2) can only be understood as a product of nineteenth-century

20 Silva (2005) offers an instructive case study of Johnson’s dictionary as a source of data for the OED. 21 The methodology of OED1 was extremely influential and inspired numerous historical dictionaries compiled on the basis of the same or similar methodological principles, e.g . the Dictionary of New Zealand English: A Dictionary of New Zealandisms on Historical Principles (1997), Dictionary of the Older Scottish Tongue (1937- 2002) or the Dictionary of Canadianisms on Historical Principles (1967). 22 Apart from a handful of empirical descriptions of the OED such as Willinsky’s (1994), Murray’s (1995), Brewer’s (2007) or Ogilvie’s (2013), there are also books of a more popular character such as Winchester’s The meaning of everything (2003).

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 philology. This claim is borne out by the available empirical evidence (e.g. Starnes and Noyes 1991) that dictionaries in the eighteenth century hoped to counteract the corruption of the language, which illustrated the normative (or prescriptive) trend in lexicography. By contrast, nineteenth-century dictionary-makers followed the life-lines of individual words, using a considerable amount of literary and historical knowledge, which gave rise to the descriptive trend (cf. Brewer 2010). In 1933, the first edition of the OED was enlarged with a one-volume supplement edited by William Craigie. Half a century later, Robert Burchfield and his team of lexicographers compiled four volumes of supplement published over the years 1972- 1986. In 1989, all the data, including approximately 5,000 new entries not recorded in Burchfield’s supplement, were merged and published as the second edition of the OED (henceforth, OED2). The long-awaited electronic version came out in 1994. There are also three additional volumes, the Oxford Additions Series comprising 9,000 new words, which were published in 1993 (vols.1-2) and 1997 (vol. 3). These dictionaries enabled me, at least theoretically, to examine more recent Russian borrowings.23 As already mentioned, it is the documentation of OED2, edited by John Simpson and Edmund Weiner, which constitutes my research material. I will refer to the printed edition (1989) throughout the monograph, but for the most part I worked with the electronic version of the dictionary. The point is that the material covered by the printed and electronic editions is identical, but the CD-ROM allowed for a range of reliable search procedures, which would not be feasible in a manual study. If limited to the printed version, a study of OED2’s material would be extremely labour-intensive: the dictionary includes 452,958 entries, 12,271 of which have been specified as words of foreign provenance.24 It is evident that OED2, based predominantly on nineteenth-century philological concepts, might soon become what Laski called “a magnificent fossil” (qtd. in Ilson 1986a: 17). To rescue the dictionary from becoming outdated, a fully-fledged revision under the editorship of John Simpson was undertaken; the dictionary in its present form is available as OED Online (henceforth, OED3). The lexicographers systematically verify and update entries from the letter M onwards (so far, the revision has been completed in the alphabet range M-R), but they also correct entries throughout the alphabet. In doing so, they challenge Murray’s outdated lexicographic principles; as Brewer (2012) puts it succinctly, the revision is a chance to witness the morphing of a Victorian dictionary into a twenty first-century one. Since the third edition, whose completion will probably take at least a decade or two (personal communication from OED3’s lexicographers, June 2010), is not yet ready for a fully consistent analysis, OED2 remains my basic research material. Still, when-

23 In fact, few headwords in the addenda are recent importations, most being omissions from OED1, the 1933 supplement or Burchfield’s supplement (cf. Part 2, Tables 1 and 2). 24 The figures are quoted after Piotrowski (1994: 91). On controversies concerning the number of entries in OED1, see Finkenstaedt and Wolff (1973: 22).

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 ever possible, remarks will be provided on the treatment of particular Russianisms in the third edition. An overview of Russian borrowings in the revised section of OED3 can be found in Podhajecka (2010). Detailed information on the scope of the revision process, and some of the lexicographic strategies adopted in it, has been offered by Simpson (2004), Durkin (2004, 2006), Simpson, Weiner and Durkin (2004) and Gil- liver (2005), to mention just a few. The following sections will address major problems faced in the analysis of OED2’s diachronic material.

3.2.2. Selection procedure It was essential in my research to specify which words ought to be treated as Rus- sian borrowings. As has been pointed out in the Introduction, I posited that only words for which the Russian language was the direct source would be considered as loanwords proper. This general methodological principle, however, could not always be applied successfully for the selection of Russianisms in OED2. One can certainly search for lemmas using etymology as the main criterion. Still, if the search is carried out in a naïve way, it is bound to produce misleading results, that is, a list of headwords whose etymologies refer, in one way or another, to a particular language (e.g. Russian). For example, the English word gold can be compared to Old Slavic zlato, and a number of cognates can be found in related Indo-European languages, among them Russian zoloto:

gold1 (ɡəʊld.). Also 3 guold, 56 golde, (5 gowlde), 89 Sc . and north . dial . gowd. [Common Teut.: OE. gold str. neut. = OFris. gold, OS. gold (MDu. goud-, gout, golt, Du. goud), OHG. gold, golt, colt (MHG. gold-, golt, G. gold), ON. goll, gull (Sw., Da. guld), Goth. gulþ:–OTeut. *gulþom:– pre-Teut. *ghl̥ to-, app. formed, with suffix -to-, from the wk. grade of the root *ghel- yellow (see gall n .1); cf. OSl. zlato, Russ . zoloto, of similar origin. (Finnish kulta is an early adoption from Teutonic.)]

Selecting words in that way is not as infrequent as it might seem. For instance, in his History of English words (2000), based on OED2’s electronic search, Hughes provides a list of sources of borrowings in English, of which 615 items allegedly come from Russian, 127 from Polish and 44 from Czech. My own research indicates that only 369 words have been borrowed from Russian, 19 from Polish and as few as 14 from Czech (Podhajecka 2002). The author failed to realize that the preliminary list should be verified manually so that the data obtained could be fully credible. The analysis of OED2 differs from the analysis of the previous dictionaries in several respects. Above all else, OED2 includes a great deal of Russianisms which are no longer easy to find. Therefore, in order to avoid mistakes, my selection procedure included several phases. Firstly, I extracted all the entries that included Russian in the etymological references (615). Secondly, it was necessary to analyze all the headwords

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 with the descriptive labels Russian (268), Russia (166) and Soviet (96) in the definitions, because occasionally OED2’s entries include geographical references instead of standard etymologies.25 The results were then evaluated qualitatively. In other words, I excluded loanwords imported from Russian via intermediary languages (e.g. French for poletouche or German for tsarina), calques (e.g. Old Believer) and loanblends (e.g. refusenik). Finally, the items in the list were compared with headwords in other dictionaries, including etymological dictionaries of English and Russian, in order to spot false Russianisms. The pool of Russian loanwords embraces 369 lemmas.

3.2.3. Russianisms in the diachronic perspective OED2, as an historical dictionary, allowed me to look at the borrowings from a diachronic angle, which added a valuable dimension to my study. Below, I show two charts in which the distribution of Russianisms is presented both from a broad and narrow diachronic perspective. Figure 1 demonstrates the number of Russian loans for which the first dated quotations in the dictionary come from the period 1550-2000.26

Figure 1. Distribution of Russianisms (1550-2000).

As can be seen, the first 31 loanwords appeared in English in the second half of the sixteenth century, nearly all of which come from Hakluyt’s Principal navigations

25 An ethnocentrism-oriented analysis of descriptive labels pertaining to China and things Chinese in the OED has been carried out by Benson (2001). 26 As thousands of antedatings now incorporated into OED3 show, there are often significant differences between the first occurrence of a word, i.e. the earliest existing attestation of it in textual sources, and the first quotation recorded in the dictionary, i.e. the earliest attestation identified [emphasis mine] by the lexicographers (with or without the help of contributors).

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 (1589). There was a decrease in the number of words borrowed afterwards, but from the 1750s onwards Russianisms became more frequent, with the peak observed in the first half of the twentieth century. The First World War (1914-1918), the October Revo- lution (1917) and the Second World War (1939-1945) were the world’s major events in the first half of the twentieth century, but from the linguistic perspective only the Bol- shevik revolution turned out to be a prolific source of Russianims (cf. Part 2, Table 2). Table 1 below lists chronologically the first borrowings recorded in OED2, hence, as one might expect, in English vocabulary.

Table 1. The first Russianisms documented in OED2.

Headword Date of first quotation Headword Date of first quotation kvass 1553 voivode 1570 pood 1554 struse 1581 rouble 1554 losh 1583 tsar 1555 knez 1586 verst 1555 Samoyed 1589 telega 1558 beluga 1591 Russ 1567 boyar 1591 moujik 1568 caback 1591

Significantly, these earliest borrowings from Russian indicate the main semantic categories into which all Russianisms fall, namely social status (boyar, knez, moujik, tsar, voivode), means of transport (struse, telega), measures and currencies (pood, rouble, verst), fauna (beluga, losh), food and drinks (kvass), facilities (caback) and ethnic names (Russ, Samoyed). The loanwords do not show much derivational productivity; the first three centuries of linguistic relations between England and Russia contributed only three documented derivatives, i.e. beglic (1614), Kalmuckian (1727) and Vogulian (1796), as indicated in Part 2 (Tables 1 and 2). Let us now take a closer look at the loans in a narrow diachronic perspective limited to the twentieth century only. This is displayed in Figure 2. As the column diagram below demonstrates, the greatest interest in Russianisms was aroused in the 1920s, which must be related to the October Revolution and its consequences. Then, the number of loans decreased, but a slight revival could be observed in the 1960s. This is surely the result of the launch of the first sputnik and the development of Soviet astronautics (or, to use a more suitable term, cosmonautics).

27 In OED3, contrary to what might be assumed, the revised lemmas are not antedated but postdated instead: pood (1554 > 1589), rouble (1554 > 1557), moujik (now muzhik) (1568 > 1587), moujik (now muzhik) (1568 > 1587) and losh (1583 > 1591). For Samoyed and Russ the dates remain unchanged, but the etymology of the latter has been significantly altered (Russian > German).

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 Towards the end of the century interest in Russianisms wanes visibly, which makes the future prospects of borrowing difficult to determine. It should be noted, however, that the last two decades are only represented by lemmas excerpted from the Ox- ford Additions Series, few of which have turned out to be recent loanwords. As the dates of the first occurrences show, words like druzhina (1879), niet (1925) or Gulag (1946) must have been overlooked at various phases of OED2’s compilation process.

Figure 2. Distribution of Russianisms (1900-2000).

3.2.4. Types of borrowings OED2 records different types of Russian borrowings, i.e. loanwords proper, loanshifts and loanblends, but there are considerable disproportions between the respective groups.28 More accurately, in OED2’s wordlist there are 369 Russian loanwords, 197 loanblends and approximately 30 calques and semi-calques. The loanblends encompass 66 words treated as sublemmas in run-on entries, e.g. boyardism. Addition- ally, 131 non-etymologized forms such as Leninism have been recorded as either lemmas or sublemmas. As the loans will be discussed at length in further sections, below I will briefly characterize Russian-based loanblends and loanshifts. Loanblends, as OED2’s documentation material indicates, are formed in three ways: (1) a Russian free morpheme combines with an English suffix (-an, -ian, -ic, -ium,- ize, -izing, -mania, -oid, -ology) or prefix (de-, post-), e.g. bolshevising, de-Sta- linize, glasnostian, Gorbymania, kurchatovium, post-Stalin, Russic, Sovietize, Sovietology, Stalinoid, Turgenevian, Tuvan, etc.;

28 A handful of semantic borrowings, e.g. monolith, nihilism, nihilist, revisor, pioneer or Talmudism, also found their way into OED2. In two cases, the borrowings are claimed to have been imported indirectly, i.e. Rayonism (lučizm) was transferred to English from French, whereas Sprachbund ‘language union’ is a German translation of jazykovyj sojuz, a linguistic term coined by Nikolaj Trubetzkoy.

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 (2) an English free morpheme combines with a Russian suffix (-nik, -ski), e.g. refusenik, buttinsky, etc.;29 (3) a Russian free morpheme combines with an English free morpheme, e.g. artel- man, Russky-land, Sovietophobia. As far as the first group is concerned, a large number of alternative English suffixes helped to develop derivatives formed from Russian loanwords. Among them one will find semantic doublets, most of which are adjectives, such as Bolshevisia / Bolshevy, Cossackian / Cossackic, glasnostic / glasnostian, Lesghian / Lesghic, Menshevik / Men- shevist, Ossetan / Ossetian / Ossetic, shamaness / shamanin, sputnikitis / sputnikery, Stalinist / Stalinite, Trotskyist / Trotskyite, tsarian / tsarish, etc. The second category is less numerous, which results from the fact that the transfer of bound morphemes such as prefixes or suffixes is extremely rare (cf. Weinreich 1970: 31, Filipović 1961: 91). The origin of the suffix –nik is disputable, because it is derived from Russian, Yiddish and sometimes from Polish.30 The only instance of a loanblend formed with the suffix -ski in OED2 is buttinsky / buttinski, even though the suffix has been attributed broadly to Slavic rather than Russian. A few similar formations, e.g. smartski or allrightski, are included in the first volume of the Oxford Ad- ditions Series.31 Speaking of the last group, it covers merely three compounds created from Eng- lish and Russian nouns. This suggests that hybrid compounding, i.e. the combining of free morphemes of English and Russian origins, has not been a productive derivational process. The research material shows that the borrowing of words was predominant, but the translating of foreign material was also resorted to. Interestingly, several Russian lemmas were both borrowed and calqued, which helped to introduce semantic doublets such as chernozem, rendered variably as black soil / black earth; Doukhobor / spirit- wrestler; starover / Old Believer; subbotnik / Saturdaying or udarnik / shock-worker.32 A handful of Russianisms were taken into English only as calques, which may point to English users’ socio-cultural preference for loan translations over loanwords. Examples include Comecon “acronym from the initial letters of Council for Mutual

29 This pattern should not be assumed to account for all the lemmas ending in -nik in English. For example, despite OED2’s treatment of kolkhoznik as a derivative, the word seems to have been taken into English directly from Russ. kolxoznik, the more so because the first quotation in OED2 (1955) is unreliable. With the help of Google Books Corpus one can easily antedate the lemma to Maynard’s The Russian peasant and other studies (1942): “The new name for the collective farmer, kolkhoznik…”. Kolkhoznik is treated as a loanword proper, for instance, in Webster’s Third. 30 There is some evidence that the suffix -nik has not been derived from one source (cf. Serb. chetnik). In contrast to other lexicographers, in their Barnhart Dictionary of New English 1963-72 (1973), Barnhart, Steinmetz and Barnhart attribute the suffix solely to Russian. 31 On the nativization of the suffix -ski, see Pound (1913-1917: 304). 32 The supply of such forms is conditioned by the constant need for synonyms. The British National Corpus shows that, in the rivalry between Russian loanwords and calques, the latter, more often than not, are on the win- ning side.

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 Economic Assisstance, tr. Russ. Sovet Ekonomicheskoj Vzaimopomoshchi”, defamil- iarization “tr. Russ. ostranenie”, fellow-traveller “after Russ. poputchik”, the Godless “after Russ. bezbozhnik”, Old Ritualist “translation of Russ. staroobryádets”, socialist realism “tr. Russ. sotsialisticheskij realizm” or superplasticity “tr. Russ. sverkhplas- tichnost′”. Apart from the well-documented cases, a few more coinages are likely to be considered as calques; Red Army, for instance, must have been patterned on Russ. krasnaja armija. Rayevska (1979: 239, cf. Kabakchi 1997) believes that a number of Soviet calques, e.g. hero city, party nucleus, Soviet power or wedding palace, entered English vocabulary, but these loan translations have not been admitted into OED2. For a more compact analysis, calques and other types of borrowings will only be tackled briefly. Nevertheless, shortcomings in the description of Russian borrowings in OED2, which the further sections will show, refer to calques and loanblends as well.

3.2.5. Etymology It goes without saying that etymology is the focal point of etymological dictionaries, and usually those dictionaries give it, or at least are supposed to give, an exhaustive treatment (cf. Liberman 1998, 2002). Still, even reference works which are not etymology-oriented provide users with etymological information (Malkiel 1976: 10). In particular, it is of utmost importance for historical dictionaries, which trace the development of the forms and meanings of words attested in the language.

3.2.5.1. Etymological metalanguage Since OED2 is the only English historical dictionary in my research material, looking at the quality of its etymologies is an imperative. Some of the pitfalls faced in my study have been enumerated below. Firstly, a handful of Russian words in OED2 are treated as borrowings from tongues such as French or German, mainly due to the fact that the earliest graphic forms suggest an intervention of an intermediary language. However, it is fairly difficult to establish whether the Russian words were taken directly from those languages or were merely spelled in a foreign-like (i.e. Gallicized or Germanized) manner. In other words, what the etymologist seeks is an objective linguistic fact, not a description of some- one’s idiolect. Although OED2’s etymologies are, on the whole, consistent in this respect, words like koumiss or shaman are an illustration of the problem (cf. knout, souslik or rouble).33 Apart from that, for occasional lemmas the origins proposed are erroneous. For instance, why kromesky has been derived from Polish is unclear, the more so because the first citation comes from the recipe of “Kromeskys, a la Russe” (Fran- catelli 1846: 309).

33 For situations in which direct borrowing into English is uncertain, Philip Durkin, OED3’s Principal Ety- mologist, has proposed the concept of ‘mixed etymologies’ (Durkin 2002, cf. Podhajecka 2010: 170-172).

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 Secondly, some Russian borrowings in OED2 are described with a metalanguage that is vague and inconsistent. Most of the analyzed lemmas are accompanied by three parenthetical remarks: “Russ.” (i.e. Russian), “a. Russ.” (i.e. adopted from Russian) and “ad. Russ.” (i.e. adapted from Russian), all of which apparently indicate words of Russian origin. Despite obvious differences between the labels ‘adoption’ and ‘adaptation’, lack of explicit explanations as to how they should be interpreted makes the disambiguating of the etymologies an unnecessarily time-consuming task. In fact, a handful of studies have already shown that it is difficult, not to say impossible, to make a clear distinction between adoption and adaptation (Finkenstaedt and Wolff 1973: 115- 116, Berg 1993: 24-25, Hock and Joseph 1996: 275-279, Algeo 1999: 60). Thirdly, apart from the above-mentioned abbreviations, some lemmas are accompanied by parenthetical remarks “f. Russ.”. This may again suggest some difference in the status of the borrowings, but it is not always clear what exactly the difference should consist in. To provide an example, any potential dissimilarity between agitprop “f. Russ.” and apparat “Russ.” is hard to tell, because despite being described inconsistently, both lemmas are loanwords proper derived from Russian etyma (agitprop and apparat respectively). Additionally, a few headwords are of dubious origin, so they have been described as “prob. ad. Russ.” and “perh. Russ”; this is specifically the case of crash, regarded as an adaptation of Russian krašenina.34 Fourthly, a proportion of Russian-related headwords are not given standard etymological references. To mention a couple of examples, Permian is derived from “Perm, the name of a province in Eastern Russia (now a region of the R.S.F.S.R.)”, while uva- rovite is remarked upon as “named in 1832 by G. H. Hess, after Count S. S. Uvarov, President of St. Petersburg Academy”. A great deal of words based on Russian proper nouns have been explained in this way, which is indicative of their structural heterege- neity. The implication is that any formations of this kind should be seen as loanblends, which excludes them from further analysis. Fifthly, proper names no doubt constitute an important part of the lexicon, being a way to “gauge” the influence of foreign languages (Finkenstaedt and Wolff 1973: 159, Svensen 1993: 51-53). Still, I did not want my research data to be distorted by over- rating the number of proper names, so certain criteria had to be set. Thus, I decided to treat as legitimate Russianisms abbreviations of proper nouns (e.g. KGB), ethnic names (e.g. Chukchee), lexicalized proper names (e.g. pavlova)35 and items standing on their own (e.g. Molotov or Tokarev), to the exclusion of proper nouns used in the attributive position (e.g. Stanislavsky technique or Zinoviev letter). It is worth mentioning that not all the proper names under analysis have been equipped with etymologies in OED2.

34 Crash is derived from Russian krašenina in the New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary on CD-ROM (1996). Despite being an abridgement of the OED, the dictionary has gone through a series of its own revisions. 35 Lexicalization is a process in which a proper noun, i.e. a word denoting a unique phenomenon, changes to an appellative or common noun, i.e. a word denoting one of several phenomena of the same kind. This process occurs when a proper name takes on a transferred meaning (Svensen 1993: 51).

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 Lastly, the treatment of loanwords and loanshifts is not always consistent, particularly as regards structurally related lemmas. For one thing, it is hard to draw a sharp line between different types of borrowings if the foreign model and the native replica are convergent in form. In Haugen’s model, such instances are measured according to a degree of substitution. To reiterate, if all the morphemes of a given word are imported, not substituted, the word ought to be treated as a loanword. When a free or bound morpheme has been substituted, the formation should be treated as a semi-calque, i.e. a borrowing in which one part is imported and another one substituted (cf. Rot 1991: 249). Semi-calques will cover biogeochemistry (Russ. biogeoximija), whereby chemistry is the English translation equivalent of Russ. ximija, and informatics (Russ. in- formatika), whereby the English suffix -ics replaces the Russian suffix -ika. Speaking of examples in (4) below, jarovization is the only lemma with an English suffix that OED2 treats explicitly as a Russian loan. Sublemmas such as Bolshevization or Sovi- etization are not remarked upon, yet they are outcomes of derivational processes starting with Bolshev- and Soviet. The derivatives Boshevize or Sovietize become bases for further derivation in order to create Sovietization and Bolshevization respectively. Be- low I indicate the headwords, most of which are structural borrowings, treated inconsistently in OED2:

(1) headwords ending in -ics biomechanics [cf. Russ. biomekhanika] folkloristics [ad. Russ. fol´kloristika, f. folkloristic] informatics [tr. Russ. informátika ] meteoritics [f. meteorit(e + -ics, ad. Russ. meteoritika ] (2) headwords ending in -ism bolshevism [a. Russ. bol´shevízm: see Bolshevik.] maximalism [f. maximal a . + -ism or ad. Russ. maksimalízm.] socialist realism [tr. Russ. sotsialistícheskij realízm.] suprematism [ad. Russ. suprematízm.] (3) headwords ending in -ium collegium [a. L. collegium (see college n .), tr. Russ. kollégiya.] presidium [Russ. prezídium, ad. L. præsidium, garrison, f. præsidẽre (see preside v .).] (4) headwords ending in -(a)tion Bolshevization [Bolshevize < Bolshev(ik) + -IZE] dis-information [f. dis- + information; perh. ad. Russ. dezinformatsiya] jarovization [Russian yarovizátsiya: see vernalization n.] Sovietization [Sovietize < Soviet + -IZE]

Another problem is that the Russian models are not always recreated accurately. Inadequacies refer, among others, to the lack of stress in the Russian etyma (e.g. sarafan), improperly marked stress (slyúda instead of slyudá) and an erroneous use of the soft sign (sotnik′ instead of sotnik). Occasionally, the corresponding Russian etymon is not mentioned at all, e.g. babushka [f. baba] or kazachok [dim. of kazak]. In the light

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 of my research, twentieth-century borrowings have been given most attention and, consequently, mistakes in their etymological references are fewest.36 Apart from that, the soft and hard signs in modern Russian as well as jers in Com- mon Slavic and Old Russian are occasionally used in a haphazard manner, as shown below.

knez [Russ. knjazь] plet [Russ. pleti ] pope [Russ. and OSlav. popu ] tolkach [Russ., f. tolkat′ ] ukase [ad. Russ. ukaz, f. ukazatj ]

During the digitization or, as Brewer (2004) calls it, “electronification” of the dictionary text for the production of OED2 on CD-ROM, metalinguistic descriptions of the headwords should have been standardized, but in view of my findings the procedure was not fully successful. By way of conclusion, neither the methodological basis of OED2’s etymologies nor the metalanguage applied has been neat and tidy. Even if the means adopted for explaining etymological routes appeared clear-cut to the lexicographers, they are a potential source of error.37 In practical terms, all the Russian-related headwords had to be examined carefully before the final list of loanwords proper was collected. To show the degree of difficulty in doing so, a handful of problematic lemmas will be looked at more closely in the next section.

3.2.5.2. Russianisms: Ambiguous cases The OED is claimed to provide “the most careful and precise delineation of etymological evolution ever published for English” (Béjoint 2000: 58). One might wonder to what extent the excellence alluded to has been taken for granted, the more so because etymologies in OED2 and other English dictionaries do not always overlap. In what follows, I will draw attention to some of the differences. In OED2, sable is described as a borrowing of Slavic provenance, and the Russian form is provided along with other Slavic cognates, whereas the Century Dictionary (1889-1891) treats sable as a borrowing from Polish. Lehnert claims that sable could have been (re)borrowed from several languages, hence (Old) Russian sobol′, Old French sable, Dutch sabel or Middle Low German sabel . The word had been first attested in The Kingis Quair (1423) and the English Rolls of Parliament (1463-1464) long before

36 Russian occasionally appears to be an exotic language even today. For instance, Freeborn’s academic book contains such mistakes in Russian etyma as borzoi ‘Russ. borzo’, commissar ‘Russ. komiss·r’ or socialist realism ‘Russ. sotsialisticheskia realism’ (1998: 426-427). 37 During the revision of OED3, etymological sections have been fully updated, and one of the tangible results is the implementation of a transparent metalanguage without the unhelpful references to adoption and adaptation.

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 direct Anglo-Russian contacts were established (Lehnert 1977: 23-24), which makes it likely to have been transferred to English via one of the Western languages. In his Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the English Language (1966), Klein records tundra as a borrowing from Russian, while to OED2’s lexicographers the word was taken from Lapponian. According to Lehnert, Eng. tundra (with its variant spellings toondra and toundra) is a borrowing of Russ . tundra and, ultimately, Fin. tuntur(i); this conjecture is supported by the first recorded instance of tundra discovered in Fletcher’s Of the Russe Commonwealth (1591) (cf. section 3.2.6.2). In Wyld’s Universal Dictionary of the English Language (1956), Cossack, a name of the nomad peoples of southern Russia, has been traced back to Russian. OED2, by contrast, derives Cossack from Turki quzzāq ‘adventurer, guerrilla’, entirely neglect- ing the Russian language as the historical source of the borrowing. This etymology is difficult to account for, as indicated by Lehnert (1977: 33). Since the first illustrative quotation in OED2, which is usually critical for determining the direct source of a given borrowing, comes from Hakluyt’s Principal navigations (1598), Turki should be regarded as the ultimate language source of Eng. Cossack. To provide another example, caftan in OED2 is derived from “Turkish qaftãn, also used in Pers. In early use apparently taken immediately from the Fr. cafetan”.38 In his Etimologičeskij slovar′ russkogo jazyka (1986), Vasmer maintains that kaftan was imported to Western Europe directly from Turkish, but does this refer to all Western languages, including English? It is true that English merchants established direct contacts with Persia and Turkey at the end of the sixteenth century, and that the borrowing of French cafetan cannot be rejected, but the etymological route via Russian seems far more likely. After all, the word was widely used in early English accounts describing Russia, the first citation in OED2 coming from Flecher’s Of the Russe Common- wealth (1591).39 It is worth mentioning that the etymology was modified step by step in Webster’s series of New International Dictionary: Webster’s First derives the lemma from Turkish, Webster’s Second from French, while Webster’s Third from Russian. The treatment of voivode in OED2 is even more obscure. In this case, three main headwords, voivode, vaivode and waywode, refer supposedly to the same Slavic concept, having been derived from different sources (Table 2). In addition, one should pay attention to the confusing cross-referencing structure in the example below: voivode (left undefined) is cross-referenced to vaivode ‘a local

38 The French form cafetan is found in the fifth edition of Dictionnaire de L’Academie Française (1798), which suggests that the word did not enjoy much popularity before that date. It was first recorded in French texts in 1537, but perhaps that occurrence comes from a manuscript version, which was published in a collection of documents entitled Négociations de la France dans le Levant: ou, Correspondances, mémoires et actes diplomatiques des ambassadeurs de France à Constantinople et des ambassadeurs, envoyés ou résidents à divers titres à Venise, Raguse, Rome, Malte et Jérusalem, en Turquie, Perse, Géorgie, Crimée, Syrie, Égypte, etc ., et dans les états de Tunis, d’Alger, et de Maroc (1848-1860). 39 Leeming (1969: 12) proposes the hypothesis that caftan additionally entered English through Arabic, which makes the history of the word even more complicated.

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 ruler or official in various parts of south-eastern Europe (in older use esp. in Transyl- vania)’, while waywode (left undefined) is cross-referenced to the undefined lemma voivode . It is not a blind reference in the strict sense of the term, i.e. a reference to a headword which has not been recorded (cf. Dictionary of Lexicography, 2001), but its effectiveness is nevertheless dubious.

Table 2. Etymologies of voivode, vaivode and waywode in OED2.

Voivode Vaivode Waywode voivode (ˈvɔɪvəʊd). Forms: vaivode (ˈveɪvəʊd). Now Hist . Forms: waywode (ˈweɪwəʊd). Now α.6 voy-, voiuoda, voivoda. a. 67 vayuod(e, 7 vayvod, 7, 9 vayvode, Hist . Forms: 79 waywode, β. 7 uoiuod, 7, 9 voyvode, 9 8 vaywode. β. 6 uai-, 7 vaiuoda; 7 vai- -wood, weywode, (7 weiwode, voivode. γ. 9 woivode, -wode, uod, 78 vaivod (7 vavoyd), 79 vaivode, 8 weyvode, -wod), 89 waiwode, woywod. 8 vaiwode. (8 waivod, woewood). [ad. Bulg. and Serb. vo- [Ultimately ad. older Magyar vajvoda [Var. of VAIVODE, repr. an jvoda, Czech. vojevoda, Pol. (now vajda), representing the com- early Magyar form of a common wojewoda, Russ. voevoda, mon Slavonic voj(e)voda VOIVODE. Slavonic title of office. Cf. whence also Rom. voevoda, The immediate source is partly mod.L. mod.L. wayvoda.] -vod, mod.L. voivoda, mod.Gr. vayvoda (cf. Sp., Pg., and It. vaivoda) or = voivode. βοεβόδα(ς = vaivode. F. vayvode. See also WAYWODE.] c. 1661 c. 1570 A local ruler or official in various parts of south-eastern Europe (in older use esp. in Transylvania). c. 1560

When these etymologies were checked against other monolingual English dictionaries, even more ambiguities came to the fore. Random House Dictionary (1987) treats voivode as a word of Slavic origin, with convergent forms in most Slavic languages. In the Century Dictionary (1889-1891), the forms voivode, vaivode and waywode are mere spelling variants, of which only voivode is accompanied by an etymology, sketched in a somewhat ambiguous way (“also vayvode and, after the Ger. or Pol. spelling with w, waiwode, waywode, also waivode …”). While Webster’s First and Webster’s Second trace voivode and the other convergent forms to Russian, the etymologists of Webster’s Third derive the lemma vaivode from “New Latin & Italian vaivoda, from obsolete Hungarian vajvoda, from Serbian & Slovene vojvoda, from Old Bulgarian vojevoda”, and it is only woiwode which is treated as a Russianism (“alteration of voivode, from Russian voevoda”). It is unclear where these discrepancies come from. It seems that, for more words than just vaivode, the controversies date back to 1549, when Herberstein’s Rerum Mos- coviticarum comentarii appeared on the market. The book was soon rendered into several languages, including Italian, German and English, and the translations introduced into general use a handful of Russian words in Herberstein’s preferred spellings (e.g. czar or werst).40 The first English translation by Richard Eden, included in his com-

40 If Eden had rendered Herberstein’s Latin text in its entirety, a number of Russian loans might have been attested in English already in the sixteenth century; examples of Russianisms recorded by Herberstein include Boiari (Russ. bojarin), Knes (Russ. knjaz′), Kolpackh (Russ. kolpak), Schapka (Russ. šapka), Polowczi (Russ.

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 pilation entitled The decades of the new worlde (1555), was not a faithful translation of the original, having been greatly reduced.41 It is only the second English translation undertaken by R. H. Major, Notes upon Russia (1851-1852), which provides readers not only with the whole text, but also with helpful notes to it. A passage from Major’s translation, “[S]ome years since, however, the Turk took possession of Alba, otherwise called Moncastro [Bielograd], also situated at the mouth of the river Dniester, and under the dominion of the Waywode of Moldavia” (Major 1851: 5), is commented upon as “the original is ‘Voyvoda’, which, in Russian, signifies leader of an army”. As far as borsch (Russ. boršč) is concerned, OED2 derives the loan and its three variants (borscht, borshch and bortsch) from Russian. Webster’s Third also treats borsch (alternatively spelled as borscht, borsht, bortsch and borshch) as a Russianism akin to Pol. barszcz. Other dictionaries derive the word either from Russian, Ukrainian or Yiddish, i.e. the languages that were in the past integrated along “linguistic shatter zones”.42 In Webster’s Second, for instance, the main entry-word borsch (borsht and bortsch are located in the so-called pearl entries, i.e. small-print entries located at the bottom of the page) is treated as a loan from Little Russian (i.e. Ukrainian). American Heritage Dictionary (1969) defines the lemma as ‘a beet soup served hot or cold, usually with sour cream’, tracing it back to Yiddish borsht, and the same Yiddish roots are found in Random House Dictionary (1987). Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (1993) distinguishes as many as three different language sources for borscht (and its variant borsch): Yiddish, Ukrainian and Russian. Interestingly, in his Loanwords In- dex (1983), an American dictionary with an immense coverage of Yiddishisms, Urdang views Russian as the only legitimate source of the loan borscht (cf. Podhajecka 2004). One would be tempted to ask what exactly triggered the variety of conjectures. This etymological ‘state of research’ in English lexicography has apparently been affected by at least two independent factors. Firstly, since English borrowed from practically every tongue it came into contact with, foreign borrowings account for a significant proportion of its lexical stock. Determining word origins of such a ‘melting pot’ requires not only in-depth knowledge, but, above all else, substantial documentation that accounts for the multiplicity of historical contexts. Secondly, a number of lexical items developed in Slavic languages that show affinities on the graphic, phonological, morphological and semantic planes, which makes the disambiguating of their intertwined polovcy), etc. The Russian translation of Herberstein’s narrative appeared in 1866 under the title Zapiski o Moskovii barona Gerberšteina. 41 Eden’s contribution to the Western knowledge of Russia has been discussed e.g. by Archer (2001: 101-138). 42 The term was coined with reference to the complex language boundaries of Eastern and Southeastern Europe (Custred 1997: 45), overlapping, to some degree, the meaning of Sprachbund ‘language union’. In other words, borsch was taken into English either from Ukrainian, Russian or Polish (genetically-related languages) or from Yiddish (a geographically-related language of Jewish communities in Poland, Russia, Ukraine, Lithuania, Belorussia, etc.), to whose influences the English vocabulary had been exposed in the course of multifarious interrelations.

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 ‘trajectories’ a complex task (for case studies, see Kochman 1975: 11, Lehnert 1977: 56). Similarities between East Slavic languages, i.e. Russian, Ukrainian and Belorus- sian, are most obvious, but there are also parallels between their South and West Slavic cousins.43 As Russian has been the major exporter of words to Western languages, the probability that a given Slavic word is of Russian origin is highest, yet statistics alone is not sufficient for dealing with problematic cases. In the face of inadequate diachronic evidence, the clarifying of word histories in English lexicography may occasionally be doomed to failure, particularly as etymological dictionaries are of little use in that respect.44

3.2.6. Range of vocabulary Speaking of the range of vocabulary to be included in a dictionary, Burchfield states that there are always some constraints in the dictionary-maker’s work, whose implication is that “the lexicographer must, like the naturalist, draw the line somewhere, in each diverging direction” (Burchfield 1989: 83-108). This statement echoes James Murray’s famous distinction between the core and periphery of the language presented in the preface to OED1, which formed an influential model of how to deal with the English lexicon. It is common knowledge that every standard English dictionary, regardless of its specific lexicographic design, is a record of the working vocabulary of the language. However, it would surely be too extravagant to include every single word attested in English without sufficient evidence that it has been in use. What are, then, the basic principles that should be observed in lexicographic practice? As has turned out, they are set differently for different dictionary projects. In the case of Webster’s Third, ten quotations as evidence for a word’s existence warranted its inclusion into the wordlist. For OED2, before a word was even considered for inclusion, at least five published instances had to be extracted from a variety of sources. These could vary from novels to newspaper articles and radio scripts; the more examples of a word, the higher the likelihood that it would be drafted and ultimately admitted into the dictionary.45 With regard to the pre-twentieth-century vocabulary, the OED’s inclusion criteria were more relaxed, since Murray and his subeditors had fewer texts at their disposal than Simpson and Weiner did for the more recent vocabulary. No wonder the editors of OED1 took into account a number of words for which there was very little textual evidence. For example, literary works, particularly those of William Shakespeare, John Milton, Geoffrey Chaucer and Walter Scott, provided numerous words which were of-

43 Dulewiczowa (1989: 65-75), for instance, draws interesting lexico-semantic parallels between different Slavic languages. 44 Of the etymological dictionaries of English surveyed by Liberman (1998), I consulted Skeat’s (1879-1882), Klein’s (1966) and Onion’s (1996), but they are of little help due to their limited coverage. 45 I am most grateful to the OED’s editors for their informative e-mail (12 March 2001).

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 ten of marginal importance, but were rarely omitted.46 Although OED2’s lexicographers had no intention to delete the headwords admitted, due to a rapid growth in Eng- lish vocabulary, the selection criteria for new words have had to be tightened for the third edition. OED3 is therefore more rigorous in this respect; five examples from a variety of sources are now a bare minimum on condition the data come from OED3’s own reading programmes. In the case of other sources (text databases, corpora, web resources, etc.), matches need to be counted in tens, hundreds or thousands instead.47 As previously mentioned, OED2 is believed to be an exhaustive dictionary, whose documentation covers virtually the whole history of the English language. My study is an opportunity to check whether or not this opinion is well deserved. The analysis has shown that OED2 recorded 369 loanwords of Russian origin as main headwords. It means that the number of Russian loans can be estimated roughly as 0.08 % of the dictionary wordlist. On the one hand, this low figure seems to support the opinions of linguists arguing that Russian borrowings in English have been scarce and “even fewer of them have been extended very far beyond immediate reference to the countries or cultures using the same language” (Francis 1965: 149). On the other hand, that the borrowing of Russianisms into English was a relatively steady phenomenon is now an undeniable fact. Even though some loans received more attention than others, a majority of the lemmas under analysis meet the basic requirements for inclusion in OED2, that is, they are supported with five or more quotations drawn from a variety of texts. In line with Finkenstaedt and Wolff’s findings, for earlier centuries the lexicographic material is exhaustive enough, because OED1 has been a very reliable source for the majority of object-type nouns from 1600 onwards (1973: 48). Since language contact between England and Russia dates back to the second half of the sixteenth century, and most borrowings are indeed object-type nouns, one may posit that the rate of omission, however inevitable, must have been negligible. The only exception is probably the underrated vocabulary of science, but, in this case, the dictionary was as comprehensive as the limits allowed (Hoare and Salmon 2000: 162). This conclusion seems to have been partly supported by Fennel, the author of Stan- ford Dictionary of Anglicised Words and Phrases (1892), who admitted 48 Russianisms into his wordlist. Despite considerable methodological differences between Fennel’s treatment and OED1’s (e.g. words like kvass are perceived as assimilated by Fennel but non-assimilated by Murray), there is little evidence of other frequent Russianisms

46 Hapax legomena and rare words were freely admitted into OED1 with the label Rare and the paragraph sign ¶ (Burchfield 1989: 89), which can hardly be seen as a disadvantage for an historical dictionary. Elisabeth Murray’s comment on her grandfather’s decisions in this respect reads as follows: “[H]is own criterion for exclusion was that inclusion would not improve the Dictionary, and might cumber it needlessly” (Murray 2001: 197). 47 This information was kindly shared with me by Philip Durkin, OED3’s Principal Etymologist (e-mail of 12 February 2008).

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 having been attested in English texts.48 It may be of interest that the author recorded several words not considered by OED1’s lexicographers such as amarodina (Russ. smorodina), batog (Russ. batog), carobia (Russ. korob / korob′ja) or dosneck (Russ. došnik / doščanik). Nevertheless, the lemmas were left undefined, which suggests that all of them shared the status of hapax legomena.49 Indeed, they have not been recorded in any other lexicographic sources available to me. Various words of Russian origin were also admitted into American dictionaries. The Century Dictionary (1889-1891), for example, records armiak (Russ. armjak), bugor (Russ. bugor), donsky (Russ. donskij), gogol (Russ. gogol′), kutia (Russ. kut′ja), lodja (Russ. lodka / lad′ja), rusalka (Russ. rusalka), soomga (Russ. sëmga), terpuck (Russ. terpug) or zapor (Russ. zapor), which have not been found in any other dictionary consulted (cf. Podhajecka 2006b).50 Subsequent editions of Webster’s New Internation- al Dictionary, examined in section 3.3, also recorded new words. For instance, Web- ster’s Second included such infrequent Russianisms as brodyaga (Russ. brodjaga), korova (Russ. korova), krouchka (Russ. kružka), lesiy (Russ. lešij), owtchah (Russ. ovčar?) or ziganka (Russ. cyganka). Russian borrowings allowed into Webster’s Third include bandura (Russ. bandura), barchan (Russ. barxan), irbis (Russ. irbis), Molokan (Russ. Molokan) or promyshlennik (Russ. promyšlennik). One might assume that none of these loanwords became recognizable in English, having been limited to Russia- related contexts only. Research conducted on Google Books Corpus shows, however, that the peripheral status of the above-mentioned Russianisms is not as obvious as it seems at first sight, inasmuch as there is solid evidence of their use in diachronic Eng- lish sources (Podhajecka 2010). How, then, should OED2’s documentation material be estimated? On the one hand, Curzan states that “the OED successfully achieves its goal of immense comprehensiveness. It includes almost all words that appear in the general dictionaries both preceding it and coinciding with it, and it treats these words in a more detailed fashion. The lexical area where these dictionaries and the OED do not overlap is small indeed” (2000: 100). On the other hand, OED3’s revision process, now well under way, brought the lexicographers face to face with a gigantic number of new words and meanings discovered thanks to large-scale digitization projects, which makes any claims of OED2’s exhaustiveness a bit too hasty.

48 Ogilvie’s (2010) paper is a detailed account of a conflict between Fennel and OED1’s lexicographers over the abuse of lexicographic material (see also Ogilvie 2013). 49 Writing definitions for words which were provided merely with English hyperonyms, like dosneck (e.g. “boats of that country, which they call Nassades, and Dosneckes”), was indisputably a difficulty in itself. 50 In the preface to the dictionary, William D. Whitney, the editor-in-chief of The Century Dictionary (1889- 1891), describes his purpose in the following way: “[T]he first duty of a comprehensive dictionary is collection, not selection. When a full account of the language is sought, every omission of a genuine English form, even when practically necessary, is so far a defect; and it is therefore better to err on the side of broad inclusiveness than of narrow exclusiveness”. This policy of inclusiveness brings to mind James Murray’s approach in the compilation of the OED.

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 Looking at OED2 from the perspective of my research, gaps are not necessarily numerous, yet some words have visibly been overlooked. One of the most conspicuous examples is perhaps Gulag, which appears in the Oxford Additions Series (1993), despite the first recorded instance of it dating back to 1946. Other headwords omitted from OED2 include ukha (1911), Zemsky Sobor (1902), paskha (1919), Lubyanka (1938), Khanty (1947) or matryoshka (1948).51 Nevertheless, for an enormous lexicographic endeavour like the OED, a margin of error should actually be taken for granted, inasmuch as omitting even high-frequency words is often inevitable. It goes without saying that corrections and additions are thus typical of dictionaries in general, and of historical dictionaries in particular.

3.2.6.1. Headword status The status of a loanword in the dictionary wordlist is unclear, since few tools – apart from native-speaker intuition – allow for evaluating which lemmas are short-lived and which, on the contrary, constitute the core of English vocabulary. This is all the more important that the “existence” of a word in the dictionary wordlist is no guarantee of its currency in the language, as dictionaries tend to “freeze” words (Finkenstaedt and Wolff 1973: 32). In primitive societies lacking a written form of language, words are often lost beyond recovery, but civilization, with its vocabularies and dictionaries, has given a “second life” to archaic and obsolete words, which can be successfully brought to use again. It is well documented that sometimes coinages had been introduced long before they gained wide currency in the language (Finkenstaedt and Wolff 1973: 54- 73, Nevalainen 1999: 340-341; cf. Lancashire 2010). A few words have to be said about the tools signalling, so to say, the status of words in an historical dictionary. The number of citations can be important for evaluating the capacity for survival of a word, although it is often standardized due to space restrictions, at least in a printed dictionary. Polysemous words have more likelihood to remain in use, but a lemma denoting a culture-specific concept is often borrowed in one specific meaning only. It seems that derivational productivity may significantly increase the vitality of borrowings, but it is characterized by low predictability. As the corpus analysis in Chapter 4 will indicate, intelligentsia is as deeply-rooted in Eng- lish as Bolshevik, in spite of the fact that intelligentsia has never been subject to any derivational process, whereas as many as 14 derivatives come from the root bolshev- (bolsh,52 Bolshevik, Bolshevikize, Bolshevikizm, Bolshevisia, Bolshevism, Bolshevist, Bolshevistic, Bolshevistically, Bolshevization, Bolshevize, Bolshevized, Bolshevizing,

51 This has been admitted by the compilers of the Oxford Additions Series (1993), who state that the majority of lemmas in each volume are not newcomers, some being “suprising omissions” from earlier editions (OED1 or OED2). Therefore, in contrast to the Barnhart dictionaries analyzed in section 3.4, the Oxford Additions Series can hardly be treated as belonging to the genre of new-word dictionary. 52 Bolsh, as explained by OED2, is a back-formation from Bolshevik.

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 Bolshevy) . Derivational potential can therefore offer clues as to the vitality of the given loanword, but it cannot be considered an only factor (for derivational productivity, see Part 2, Tables 1 and 2). An important indicator reflecting the status of a word in a dictionary is its marking. In line with the classification adopted originally by James Murray in OED1 (and maintained in OED2), based on the degree of their morpho-phonemic integration, foreign importations were divided into four groups: ‘casuals’, ‘naturals’, ‘denizens’ and ‘aliens’, of which denizens were partially nativized, whereas aliens were viewed as not nativized.53 The last two categories were marked with the so-called ‘tramlines’, the symbol ║, which Kastovsky (2000: 107) calls one of the distinct features of the OED’s conservativeness in marking borrowings (cf. Ogilvie 2008). As many as 143 headwords in OED2 are accompanied by tramlines, which means that one in two and a half Russianisms is treated as a foreignism. One might ask what criteria Murray adopted for the above classification, but they remain ambiguous both from the theoretical and practical angles. What is particularly awkward is that similar Russianisms, supported with the same number of quotations, have been marked differently. To provide a specific example, sovnarkhoz is perceived as an alien, whereas a formally and semantically related term, Sovnarkom, is recognized as a fully integrated loan. In fact, both proved equally ephemeral in Eng- lish.54 By contrast, a handful of words marked likewise as denizens or aliens, e.g. apparatchik, beluga, caftan, dacha, glasnost, nomenklatura, perestroika or troika, do appear in contemporary English vocabulary, which indicates that they have been useful items. It is therefore clear that the decisions as to which words should be treated as foreignisms must have been embedded in the Victorian concept of ‘language correctness’. Unsurprisingly, having been met with extensive criticism for its potentially prescriptive judgements (e.g. Curzan 2000: 107-108), the controversial quasi-linguistic scheme has been dropped in OED3. Apart from the mark of foreignness, important information about a word’s currency is also provided by status labels and field markers, which point to its existence in the lexical core or peripheral registers. As shown below, 60 main headwords of Rus- sian provenance in OED2 have been marked with various status labels, of which most indicate use in scientific registers (cf. Part 2, Tables 1 and 2). Less frequent items are varietal (babushka, pavlova, sulphazin), obsolete (beg, ikary, nefte, obarni, olen, peach, ribazuba, slude, struse, yam), rare (slude, yam) or are part of slang and colloquial language (Russki, stukach).55 Again, the labelling seems fairly arbitrary. For instance,

53 As we read in the preface to OED1 (p. xxix), ‘denizens’ are perceived as words fully naturalized as to use, but not as to form, inflexion or pronunciation, whereas ‘aliens’ are names of foreign objects, titles, etc., which are needed, but for which English speakers have no native equivalents. In practice, the boundary between these two categories is clearly fuzzy. 54 The words are treated as historicisms in the OED. It is not surprising, because the concepts they signify have already disappeared from Russian life. 55 Sometimes the descriptive marker is confined to a specific meaning, e.g . losh “1. An elk. Obs.”, or a specific spelling, e.g. keta “Also †keth”.

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 druzhina is treated as a historicism, whereas other words that have already gone out of use, e.g. Okhrana or pristaf, have not been marked at all.56 The quantitative data have been collected in Table 3.

Table 3. Labels given to Russian loanwords in OED2.

Status label Number of loanwords In historical use 10 Obsolete 8 Rare and nonce 2 Scientific and related 34 Slang and colloquial 3 Varietal57 3

The study makes it clear that half of the recorded Russianisms have been handled as non-core lexical items. More exactly, 180 loanwords in OED2 are recognized as peripheral to English vocabulary either through the use of graphic symbols or status labels.58 Almost identical results have been obtained from the analysis of the British National Corpus, which proves that approximately 180 Russianisms are not attested in contemporary English texts (cf. Chapter 4). Nevertheless, although the figures are comparable, the corresponding wordlists do not always overlap.

3.2.6.2. Antedating headwords All lemmas in the OED are supported by dated, chronologically arranged examples of use, whose selection must have been guided by the potential of the quotations to most adequately illustrate a particular word or meaning. Taken together, they constitute a huge quotations database which can be treated successfully as an historical corpus (Hoffmann 2004). The examples are drawn from a wide range of textual materials: encyclopaedias, magazines, papers and literary works, including Hakluyt’s Prin- cipal navigations (1589), the oldest source of information on Russia. The entry below describes the first documented Russian borrowing found in OED2, kvass.

║ kvass (kvas). Forms: 6–9 quass(e, 8 quas, 8–9 quash, 9 kuass, kvass, kvas. [Russ. kvas ‘leaven, kvass’.] A fermented beverage in general use in Russia, commonly made from an infusion of rye-flour or bread with malt; rye beer.

56 Of the two entries, only pristaf has so far been updated in the course of the revision for OED3, whereby it is treated as a historicism. 57 This label indicates a regional variety of English, e.g. American English, Australian English or New Zealand English. 58 I took into account 143 lemmas accompanied by tramlines and 60 lemmas given field markers and status labels, 23 of which are double marked (e.g. ║malossol is also given a field marker, Gastron.).

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 c1553 Chancelour Bk . Emp . Russia in Hakluyt Voy . (1886) III. 51 Their drinke is like our peny Ale, and is called Quass. 1608 Heywood Rape Lucrece iv. i. Wks. 1874 V. 216 The Russe drinkes quasses. 1609 Pimlyco (N.), The base quasse by peasants drunk. 1753 Hanway Trav . (1762) I. v. lxi. 283 Beer, quash, and bad wine. 1778 Phil . Trans . LXVIII. 672 The drink..was quas or sour small beer. 1823 Mechanics’ Mag . No. 4. 58 The common drink of the Russians is kuass, which is not so good as our small beer. 1863 Mrs. Atkinson Tartar Steppes 232 They have bread in unlimited quantity, quass,..farina- ceous food. 1894 Garnett tr. Turgenev’s Ho . Gentlefolk 121 ‘Fetch the kvas’, repeats the same woman’s voice.

It is one of the Russianisms whose history in English is fully transparent. The first attestation comes from Chancellor’s diary (manuscript version, 1553), which is the earliest English account of a voyage to Russia.59 It included several other exotic terms, e.g. Bellij Ozera (Russ. Belo Ozero), rossomakka (Russ. rosomaxa)60 or Zelotibaba (Russ. zolota baba), but they remained unknown to the general public, only kvass having gained the status of a loanword proper.61 For the other headwords, the chronological material can sometimes be questioned, because the first date quoted in OED2 is not necessarily the year in which the loan entered English. Instead, it represents the earliest date from which a printed source or another record (e.g. a manuscript) of the word exists in OED2’s files.62 This should not, after all, be a surprising fact. Firstly, a proportion of words escaped immediate notice when they appeared in English texts, some of which did not circulate widely. Second- ly, for OED1’s editors, five million painstakingly collected citations seemed sufficient enough, although the data were gathered by 1901, that is, too early to be representative of twentieth-century vocabulary. However, looking at the myriad of resources available today, in the era of the World Wide Web and gigantic electronic databases, like the Early English Books Online (EEBO), it is conspicuously clear that many early dates were missed. This is actually one of the findings of Schäfer’s seminal study conducted several decades ago (1980, 1989), in which the author argues (1980: 67) that 30% of all the headwords recorded in the dictionary have been misdated. It suggests that earlier occurrences should be found in texts for roughly 96,000 words, of which approximately 30% would involve a shift of more than fifty years.

59 Chancellor’s account was written in Latin by Clement Adams, so the text referred to in the quotation is its English translation by Hakluyt. 60 Although the description of “another Beast call’d Rossomakka whose Female bringeth forth by passing through some narrow place, as between two Stakes, and so presseth her Womb to a disburthening” appeared subsequently in Hakluyt’s (1599), Purchas’ (1625) and Milton’s (1682) narratives, the loan itself did not catch the attention of English lexicographers. 61 By contrast, the first English borrowings in Russian, most of which were nautical terms, appeared in the reign of Peter the Great (Kiparsky 1975: 124-125). 62 Part 2 (Table 2) can reveal potential gaps in OED2’s documentation. For instance, the derivative beglic had been recorded half a century before the main headword, beg, appeared in the dictionary.

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 An analysis of the early English accounts supports Schäfer’s hypothesis. Leem- ing (1968, 1969), for instance, identified several Russian loans that could be antedated (e.g. arsheen, Cossack, slude, saffian or zolotnik), but they were almost always recorded in quaint spellings.63 Rubashka seems to be an outstanding case; its first appearance in OED2 is dated to 1921, but the word, in the spelling rubasca, was introduced by George Turberville as early as 1568. Needless to say, the time lag between the two occurrences is more than 350 years.64 One of the obstacles in appreciating the value of the quotations is thus the early, often awkward spelling, which may be responsible for the wrong dating. OED2’s compilers have listed a number of graphic forms attested in textual sources, and the rich documentation is very impressive indeed (in fact, the revised evidence in OED3 is even more amazing). Nevertheless, as pointed out, gaps in the documentation material are inevitable. In the accounts of the first travellers to Russia, for example, I came across such obsolete forms as chetfyrds, chetfird or setfforth (corresponding to the nineteenth- century lemma tchetvert), which were omitted in OED2. The word which these spellings represent was first recorded by Hasse circa 1554 (Hakluyt 1589), and then by Fletcher (“Chetfirds, or measures of graine, wheate, rye, barley, oates”, 1591: 37), but the first citation in OED2 comes from 1814. Similarly, the headword pristaf, whose first attestation in OED2 has been traced to 1662, appeared in Randolph’s account of Russia published in 1598 (pristavy, qtd. in Berry and Crummey 1968: 68). Gospodar, too, can be antedated from 1847 (OED2) to 1591 thanks to the following quotation: “for the honour of Hospodare, or the Emperour” (Fletcher 1591: 44). It seems that several words derived from other languages might have been borrowed directly from Russian. Calpac, in OED2 derived from Turki (1813), was preceded by the Russian-sounding kolpak recorded by Jenkinson and published by Hakluyt in 1598 (qtd. in Berry and Crummey 1968: 57). Polk, in OED2 derived from French (1791), was used by Fletcher as early as 1591 (“these Bands into four Polskeis, or Legions”, 1591: 59), while Lech, in OED2 spelled variably as Lekh, Lach and L’ach (1893) and treated as a German loan, appeared in Flecher’s narrative in the following shape: “the Polonian whom the Russe calleth Laches, noting the first author or founder of the nation, who was called Laches or Leches” (1591: 65-66). That the quotations have not been admitted into OED2 must stem from their being unfaithful replicas of the Russian models. It should be mentioned that Fletcher’s Of the Russe Commonwealth (1591) is of special importance to a historian of the English language, which the examples cited below are expected to show. Speaking of ecclesiastical matters, Fletcher remarks: “Their leader or director in euery companie, is their Papa or Priest” (76), which an-

63 According to Nevalainen (1999: 361), the shape of words caused particular problems with languages which had no written form, e.g. the Powhatan dialect of Algonquian. By way of analogy, this may also refer to words transferred as phonetic loans. 64 It is gratifying to see that Turberville’s quotation has been incorporated as the earliest illustrative example of the lemma in OED3.

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 tedates the occurrence of pope2 in OED2 (1662, transferred via French and German). It is Fletcher who borrows tundra (“which towardes the Sea side are called Tondro, because they are all of hard and craggy rocke”, 76-77) as many as 250 years before it was recorded in Penny Cyclopaedia (1841), chronologically the earliest source of evidence in OED2. Strelitz ‘a soldier belonging to a body of Russian troops composed of infantry raised by the Tsar Ivan the Terrible (1533–84) and abolished by Peter the Great in 1682’, which is dated to 1603 both in OED2 and OED3, can also be antedated successfully with Fletcher’s account. In it, the plural form is mistakenly used as a singular: “The Strelsey or footman hath nothing but his piece in his hande” (58), which reflects baffling usage problems typical of that word. Similarly, shuba ‘a fur gown or greatcoat. †Also, a piece of fur’ (OED2 1591, OED3 1598) was apparently first recorded by Fletcher (“shube of furre”, 115). Last but not least, the narrative is rich in ethnic names (e.g. “the Nagaies, the Cheremissens, the Morvites, the Chircasses, and the Shalcans”, 73), which can be equally useful in the revision process. Unfortunate- ly, while the account is unique for Fletcher’s sharpness of observation, his ear leaves a lot to be desired. Two of OED2’s problematic lemmas, voevoda (c.1570) and knez (1586), have not been antedated. Still, their appearance in Fletcher’s account is additional proof that Russian acted as the donor language for both of the items. The quotations recorded in OED2, “the great Knes, or duke of Moscouia” (at knez) and “kneze Yoriue your Maies- ties Voiuoda at Plasco” (at voivode), clearly refer to Russian realia. The latter leaves no doubt as to the identity of the toponym; Plesco, “frequented of Marchants for the good store of Honie and Waxe that it yeeldeth”, was one of the towns of Muscovy mentioned, together with Novogorode, Yeraslave, Vologda and Colmagro, in Chan- cellor’s 1553 account.

3.3.3.3. Russianisms: Orthography The diachronic documentation in OED2 is very rich, which refers not only to the quality and quantity of illustrative quotations, but also to the number of spelling variants and pronunciations corresponding to them. The spellings, most of which are supported by evidence, are a mine of information for language historians, showing how the forms developed and changed. This section has been devoted to the orthography of the Russianisms as represented in the dictionary. That there are numerous graphic variants for a majority of Russianisms in OED2 may have been affected by two different factors. On the one hand, if recreated from writing, the words had to be transliterated from the Cyrillic alphabet into the Roman one. With no specific models to turn to, English authors spelled the newly seen words in any way that seemed appropriate (cf. arsheen / arshine / archine) . On the other hand, some of the early importations must have been phonetic loans, which acquired written forms that were, to a lesser or greater extent, indicative of the Russian sound pat-

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 terns.65 A typical example is tsar, with graphic variants ranging from czar, tzar, zarr, czaar to ksar. Interestingly, the last form is not at all idiosyncratic, inasmuch as it corresponds to Russ. kesar′ recorded by Dal′ in his Tolkovyj slovar′ živogo velikorusskogo jazyka (1880-1882). It should be emphasized that the unsettled state of sixteenth- century English orthography was responsible for variable spellings (Leeming 1968: 7), which today bring about interpretative problems. One of the major difficulties for English speakers was adapting the Russian consonants /ts/, /č/, /š/ and /šč/ to the English spelling system, which is explained by Bliss in his Dictionary of Foreign Words and Phrases in Current English (1972: 45). The consonants were frequently expressed with strings of characters atypical of English orthography, which can be illustrated by shchi (Russ. šči) and its alternative forms (tschee / stchi / stchie / stchee / shtchee / shtchi / shtshi) . Other strings of characters seen as exotic in English are found in prisjadka [sj], zemstvo [mstv], yamstchik [mstch], shefstvo [fstv], okhrana [khr] or Khlist [khl]. The so-called ‘wildcard’ search available in the electronic version of OED2 demonstrates that there are hardly any English words recorded in the dictionary that would include such strings (cf. sheikhly, sjambok or tukhrik). The variant forms of the lemma not only provide evidence for the development of a word’s spelling over centuries, but they also show the degree to which the loan has been assimilated in the borrowing language. As Malaxovskij and Mikulina (1982: 57- 58) emphasize, while the first attested variants violate the norms of the borrowing language, the graphic shape of the loanwords is bound to conform to the rules. This principle can be illustrated with the word intelligentsia borrowed in the foreignized form intelligentzia;66 the string of characters [tz], having been entirely alien to English orthography, was soon substituted with [ts], more acceptable in English. However, it is something of a paradox that not every loan becomes ultimately integrated into the system of the borrowing language. Eng. bazaar, for instance, has kept its exotic spelling − and its oriental flavour − in spite of endless bazaars found in Britain (Finkenstaedt and Wolff 1973: 58).

3.2.6.4. Russianisms: Phonology One of the first observations of OED2’s material is that the pronunciations of Rus- sian loans do not always correspond consistently to native pronunciations (cf. Eng. copeck /ˈkəʊpɛk/ and Russ. kopejka). According to Hock (1991: 390-397), this is mo- tivated by the fact that the loanwords have to be “pronounceable” in the borrowing

65 This hypothesis is supported by numerous misspelled (misheard?) words observed by English travellers, e.g. veža was mistakenly recorded as beza (Berry and Crummey 1968: 185). Dozens of contemporary examples can be found in Newmark’s Dictionary of Foreign Words and Phrases (1950), e.g. agurtsof (Russ. ogurcy), do′brii ve′tcher (Russ. dobryj večer), dyesit (Russ. desjat′), naushnyi (Russ. naučnyj), Otchi Chornaya (Russ. oči čërnyje), pazhalusta (Russ. požalujsta), etc. 66 As the new evidence in OED3 reveals, the first attestation of the word (antedated from 1907 to 1883) has the Polonized form intelligencia.

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 language, which triggers divergent strategies of phonological nativization. The preference for faithfulness can be so strong that the English pronunciations will reflect vowel reduction found in Russian speech, i.e. the so-called akan′e, as in kolkhoz /kalˈxos/, and ikan′e, as in beluga /bɪˈluːɡə/, which must be seen as features typical of phonetic loans.67 It should be noted that in the case of borrowings transmitted through writing, English pronunciations are secondary to spelling. The phonological adaptation of Russianisms can be observed on three basic levels, as will be shown below. Importantly, since the pronunciation of Russian is basically phonetic, in the examples below I will refer to approximated Russian phonemes.

(1) A high degree of similarity in pronunciation; the words map the original stress, and substitite Russian vowels with their closest matches in the inventory of Eng- lish, hence /a/→ /æ/, /e/ →/ɛ/, /a/→/a:/, /o/→ /ɔ/ and typically /a/→/ə/ in unstressed syllables; consonants, such as bilabial /b/ or fricative /f/, are no longer palatalized (beluga, feldscher); Russian /l/, comparable to dark English /ɫ/, is replaced by English alveolar /l/; transphonemization is relatively limited.

Russ. balalajka > Eng. balalaika /bæləˈlaɪkə/ Russ. beluga > Eng. beluga /bɪˈluːɡə/ Russ. dača > Eng. dacha /ˈdætʃə/ Russ. kibitka > Eng. kibitka /kɪˈbɪtkə/ Russ. kolxoz > Eng. kolkhoz /kalˈxos/ Russ. starover > Eng. starover /starəˈvjɛr/ Russ. tovarišč > Eng. tovarish /tɒˈvɑːrɪʃ/ Russ. trojka > Eng. troika /ˈtrɔɪkə/ Russ. vodka > Eng. vodka /ˈvɒdkə/ Russ. zek > Eng. zek /zɛk/

(2) Two (or more) parallel forms developed, of which the chronologically earlier one is patterned on the Russian pronunciation, whereas the later one conforms to the English phonological system, although this is not always indicated consistently by the order of pronunciation variants in the entry; the degree of transphonemization is shifting.

Russ. bojarin > Eng. boyar /bəʊˈjɑː(r)/, /ˈbɔɪəd)/ Russ. car > Eng. tsar /tsɑː(r)/, /zɑː(r)/68

67 Akan′e is a change in the pronunciation of unstressed /o/ to /a/ in the syllable(s) preceding the stressed one (e.g. Russ. goroda /gara′da/), whereas ikan′e consists in the pronunciation of unstressed /e/, ё/ and /ja/ as /i/ (e.g. Russ. berega /biri′ga/). 68 The affricate /ts/, treated as a singleton, is a rare sound in English, occurring only in borrowings from foreign languages (e.g. intelligentsia, jujitsu, kibbutz or Nazi) . The sound is particularly uncommon in the initial position (cf. tsunami, tsutsugamushi or tsetse), so the resistance to the visibly foreign pronunciation /tsA:/ may have contributed to the adoption of the Anglicized pronunciation /zA:r/.

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 Russ. Čeka > Eng. Cheka /ˈtʃɛkə/, /ˈtʃeɪkə/ Russ. černozëm > Eng. chernozem /ˈtʃɜːnəʊzɛm/, /tʃɜːnəʊˈzjɒm/ Russ. Ivan > Eng. Ivan /ˈaɪvən/, /iˈvan/ Russ. knut > Eng. knout /naʊt/, /nuːt/69 Russ. mužik > Eng. moujik, muzhik /ˈmuː(d)ʒɪk/, /muːˈʒiːk/ Russ. pogrom > Eng. pogrom /ˈpɒɡrəm/, /ˈpɒɡrɒm/ Russ. Rasputin > Eng. Rasputin /ræˈspjuːtɪn/, /ˈræspjuːtɪn/ Russ. sevruga > Eng. sevruga /sivˈrjuɡa/, /sɛvˈruːɡə/

(3) The English replica differs substantially from the Russian model, both in terms of stress and substitution of phonemes; single vowels shift from their closest equivalents to diphthongs /a/→/eɪ/, /u/→/ʊə/, /e/→ /eɪ/, and there is deviation in the selection of English consonants that replace Russian ones, e.g. /x/→/k/, /t/→/d/, /r/→/Ø/; the degree of transphonemization is significant.

Russ. cesarevič > Eng. cesarewitch /sɪˈzærɪvɪtʃ, -zɑːr/ Russ. Duxobor > Eng. Doukhobor /ˈduːkəbɔː(r)/ Russ. ikonostas > Eng. iconostas /aɪˈkɒnəʊstæs/ Russ. jurta > Eng. yurt /jʊət/ Russ. lunoxod > Eng. Lunokhod /ˈl(j)uːnəkɒd, -xɒd/ Russ. prezidium > Eng. Presidium /preɪˈsɪdɪʌm, -z-/ Russ. telega > Eng. telega /tɛˈleɪgə/ Russ. Tokarev > Eng. Tokarev /ˈtɔːkəjɛf/ Russ. ukaz > Eng. ukase /juːˈkeɪs/ Russ. versta > Eng. verst /vɜːst/

To summarize, the adaptation of Russianisms to the phonological system of Eng- lish has been fairly varied. Characteristically, in each of the distinguished groups one can find both the earliest borrowings traced back to the sixteenth century, and the more recent ones, transmitted to English in the twentieth century. One of the findings is, therefore, that the degree of nativization does not correlate to the length of time the borrowing has been attested. It should be noted that OED2’s pronunciations, particularly those in the alphabet range A-D, were proposed at the end of the nineteenth century, so they are not representative of today’s pronunciation patterns. It is not surprising that Longman Pronunciation Dictionary (2000) records modified pronunciations of some Russian loans (e.g. beluga /bəˈluːɡə/), which makes it clear, firstly, that pronunciation is indeed susceptible to change, and, secondly, that some of OED2’s pronunciations have already become outdated. The phonological systems of Russian and English, as any two languages that would only remotely be linked genetically, are certainly different, which might be potential ground for importation of Russian phonemes into English. It is intriguing whether the

69 As can be seen, the pronunciation of knout lost the phoneme /k/, because the consonant cluster /kn/ in the initial position would violate the English phonemic system (cf. knee, knife, knight, knock, etc.).

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 Russian affricate /ts/, treated as a singleton, might have penetrated the English phonemic system, inasmuch as the loan tsar, traced back to 1555, was the first importation of this type in English. Other words whose pronunciations reflect this sound, most of which are Japanese loans, were taken into English in the mid-nineteenth century. How- ever, there is no diachronic evidence as to which of the variant pronunciations, /tsɑː(r)/ or /zɑː(r)/, was chronologically earlier in English, so the hypothesis cannot be corrob- orated convincigly. In the light of linguistic facts − phonemic importation is not un- controlled and completely free, inasmuch as it is phonetically conditioned (Filipović 1960: 188) – the transfer is actually quite doubtful (cf. Holden 1980).

3.3.6. Semantic classification With regard to meaning, the 369 Russian borrowings excerpted from OED2 comprise seven categories, most of which are broken down into a number of subgroups. As can be seen in Table 4, there are noticeable quantitative differences between the particular categories.

Table 4. Semantic categories in OED2.

No Semantic category Number of loanwords % 1 Economy and trade 17 4.6 2 Science and technology 125 33.9 3 Man and society 42 11.4 4 Political life 76 20.6 5 Art, culture and education 16 4.3 6 Home and family 78 21.1 7 Religion 15 4.1 Total 369 100

The quantitative data do not embrace two sublemmas treated as derivatives in OED2, kolkhoznik and samizdatchik, which are nevertheless Russian loanwords proper in my view. The have been marked accordingly in the list below. Speaking of the qualitative data, the Russianisms grouped into the respective categories are displayed below, each category being briefly commented upon. Importantly, the classification is sometimes arbitrary, because lemmas with more than one meaning / sense can be ascribed to more than one category, e.g. tsar can be attributed both to the category Man in society and Political life. Based on my subjective decision as to which of the meanings should be seen as predominant, each word has only been admitted into one of the legitimate categories. For reasons of convenience, the subcate- gories and the words are listed alphabetically.

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 Economy and trade:

This group encompasses words, many of which are terms, taken into English in the course of commercial interrelations between England and Russia. The old-fashioned Russian weights and measures, expressed by means of their English equivalents, are the most characteristic items in the group. Somewhat surprisingly, the category is fairly modest, which suggests that the expansion of Anglo-Russian trade apparently did not intensify the need for new words. 1. Economic concepts: artel, Gosplan, Intourist, Profintern, sovnarkhoz, torgsin; 2. Measures and weights: arsheen, dessiatine, pood, sagene, tchetvert, vedro, verst, zolotnik; 3. Monetary units: chervonetz, copeck, rouble.

Science and technology:

This is no doubt the largest category, of which the fields Ethnology and Zoology are represented most abundantly; taken together, they contribute nearly half of all the words. Some loans in this category appear to be short-lived, but, as stated by Nevalainen (1999: 363), need-filling loans often have a special status as terms. The ethnic names Lesghian (Russ. Lezgi, Lezginy), Siryenian / Zyrian (Russ. Zyrjane) and Vepsian (Russ. Vepsy) are not treated as derivatives in OED2, which would perhaps be more consistent, but rather as adaptations of Russian forms; the first quotations in OED2 mention Lesghi (1854), Vesp (1859) and Zyrians (1886). 1. Anthropology: ethnonym; 2. Archaeology: kurgan, ploshchadka; 3. Astronautics and space travel: cosmodrome, cosmonaut, lunik, lunokhod, marsokhod, planetokhod, sputnik; 4. Botany: badiaga, barometz, kamish, kok-saghyz, mahorka; 5. Chemistry and petrology: astatki, mazut, turanose; 6. Economy: Kondratieff; 7. Ethnology: Abkhaz, Aleut, Buriat, Chechen, Cheremis(s), Chukchee, Cossack, Gilyak, Ingush, Kalmuck, Kamchadal, Kazakh, Khanty, Kipchak, Kirghiz, Koryak, Lesghian, Mordvin, Nenets, Ossetian, Ostyak, Polovtsy, Rus, Russ, Samoyed, Sibiriak, Siryenian, Svan, Tat, Tavgi, Tungus,Uzbek, Vepsian, Vogul, Votyak, Yakut, Zyrian; 8. Geography and geology: barchan, dolina / doline, liman, parma, polynya, shor, slude, steppe, taiga, thermokarst, tundra, ureilite; 9. Linguistics: yeri; 10. Medicine: adaptogen, idiogram, karyotype, miryachit, sulphazin; 11. Meteorology: buran, purga, sastruga; 12. Physics: hadron, magnetoid, polaron, tokamak;

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 13. Soil science: chernozem, gley, podzol, rendzina, sierozem, solod, solonchak, solonetz; 14. Technology: kalashnikov, Katyusha, Molotov, NIR, Stechkin, Tokarev; 15. Zoology: barukhzy, beluga, borzoi, corsak, dzeren, gorbuscha, hollushchikie, karagan, keta, kolinsky, laika, losh, mammoth, nerka, olen, omul, osseter, Przewalski, saiga, sarlac, seecatch, sevruga, sheltopusik, sterlet, sudak, suslik, tarbagan, tur, zemni, zubr.

Man and society:

The lemmas included in this category refer roughly to man’s role in Russian society. As can be seen, most words date back to the times of tsarist Russia, and only a few were taken in the Soviet era. The subgroup Sports and games is comprised of two borrowings, of which only sambo names a native Russian sport. 1. Communities: aoul,70 mir, otriad, skhod, stanitza; 2. Human features: kulturny, nekulturny, Oblomov, Rasputin, stilyaga; 3. Professions: dvornik, feldscher, provodnik, sanitar, tolkach, yamschik; 4. Social class and status: ataman, beg, boyar, cantonist, chinovnik, droog, gospodar, intelligentsia, Ivan, knez, kolkhoznik (der.), kulak, moujik, nomenklatura, Russki, shaman, sotnik, starosta, strelitz, tchin, tsar, tsarevitch, tsarevna, tsaritsa, voivode; 5. Sports and games: Cesarewitch, sambo .

Political life:

Both the pre-1917 and post-1917 periods contributed loanwords reflecting the pe- culiarities of Russian / Soviet political systems. Lemmas naming regime-related concepts deserve special attention, inasmuch as throughout centuries Russians experienced various forms of regime, both in the autocratic system of the tsardom and in the communist era under the Bolshevik rule. The latter, in particular, brought into life an unprecedented number of secret police organizations. Apart from that, English borrowed three Russian terms related to agriculture which mirror Soviet concepts introduced after the October Revolution (1917), hence their strong political connotations. 1. Administrative divisions: kray, oblast, okrug, rayon, volost, zemstvo; 2. Agricultural concepts: agrogorod, kolkhoz, sovkhoz;

70 Despite the fact that OED2’s lexicographers derive aoul (dated to 1828) from Eastern Turkish, an earlier attestation of the word can be found in Johann G. Georgi’s four-volume narrative entitled Russia: Or, a compleat historical account of all the nations … (1780), whereby it is explained as follows: “An aoul, or village contains about fifty huts built of bauks in a rude manner, and for the most part consisting only of one small room covered with a flat roof: the internal disposition is in the Tartar-fashion, but the whole poor and mean” (186). It was translated from German by William Tooke, a chaplain at St. Petersburg and a member of the Imperial Academy of Sciences and Arts.

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 3. Committees and organisations: Cominform, Comintern, duma, Komsomol, Po- litbureau, -buro, Presidium, Rabkrin, Sovnarkom, Soviet, Tass, Zemsky Sobor; 4. Political movements, doctrines, theories and related concepts: agit-prop, apparat, apparatchik, Bolshevik, Bolshevism, Bolshevist, Cadet, commissar, Dekabrist, glasnost, Menshevik, Menshevism, Menshevist, Narodnik, perestroika, proletcult, subbotnik, tovarish / tovarich, udarnik, uprava, vozhd; 5. Regime-related concepts: Cheka, druzhina, GPU, Gulag, ispravnik, KGB, knout, Lubyanka, MGB, MVD, nagaika, NKVD, Ogpu, Okhrana, plet, pogrom, prikaz, pristaf, residentura, rezident, rezidentsia, ROA, sharashka, shefstvo, Smersh, sotnia, Stavka, Stolypin, stukach, ukase, vlast, zek; 6. Names of states: RSFSR, SSR; 7. Varia: niet.

Art, culture and education:

This category lists Russianisms pertaining to art, culture and education. It is admittedly modest, apparently because Russia was perceived as a stereotyped “rude and barbarous kingdom”, which did not have much to offer to the “civilized” English- speaking world. 1. Dances: gopak, kazachoc, prisiadka; 2. Education: Rabfak, technicum; 3. Language and literature: Acmeism, bylina, skaz; 4. Musical instruments: balalaika, gusli, theremin; 5. Painting: Cubo-futurism, Suprematism; 6. System of publication: samizdat, samizdatchik (der.), tamizdat; 7. Theatre: constructivism.

Home and family:

This group embraces culture-specific words taken into English over the whole period of Anglo-Russian and, to a lesser extent, Russo-American relations. Delicacies of the Russian cuisine dominate the group (35), 19 items name clothes and materials, ten − buildings and facilities, eight − means of transport, whereas six − household goods. While a majority of these loanwords are pre-twentieth century items, terem is the most recently documented Russianism in English (1989), even though it is now a historicism. 1. Buildings and facilities: caback, choom, dacha, isba, ostrog, Prospekt, stolovaya, terem, yam, yurt; 2. Clothing and materials: astrakhan, babushka, Balaclava, bashlik, burka, caftan, crash, daggett, karakul, paranjah, parka, ribazuba, rubashka, saffian, sarafan, shapka, shuba, valenki, yuft; 3. Food, drinks and meals: blin, borsht, carlock, chai, coulibiac, icary, kasha, ke-

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 fir, kissel, koumiss, kromesky, -eski, kvass, malossol, manna-croup, Mukuzani, Nesselrode, obarni, paskha, pavlova, pelmeny, pirog, piroshki, pivo, rassolnik, samogon, shashlik, shchi, smetana, solyanka, Stolichnaya, Tsinandali, tvorog, ukha, vodka, zakuska; 4. Household goods: chark, kovsh, matryoshka, nefte, peach, samovar; 5. Means of transport: araba, bidarka, droshky, kibitka, struse, tarantass, telega, troika .

Religion:

The Orthodox Church was, directly and indirectly, a prolific source of Russian borrowings, of which many turned out to be ephemeral (Leeming 1968: 18-24). The names of religious sects are predominant in this group. In it, we find a name for those who followed religious principles in the most drastic form, practically unfamiliar to the Western world, that is, Skoptsi ‘an ascetic Russian Christian sect, known since the eighteenth century and now forbidden, given to self-mutilation’. Although the Eng- lish theological circles were greatly interested in Russian Orthodox Church (Rogalski 1960: 345), no strictly religious terminology was taken into English.71 1. Orthodox Church: iconostas, pope, protopope, riza, sobornost, starets; 2. Pagan beliefs: ongon; 3. Schism and sects: Doukhobor, Khlist, raskol, Raskolnik, Skoptsi, starover, Stundist, Uniat .

3.2.8. Conclusions As results from the analysis conducted, OED2 recorded and described 369 loanwords of Russian origin. While the range of the vocabulary is fairly reliable, the etymologies proposed lack a consistent metalanguage, and there are reasons to claim that many of the first quotations can be antedated. Yet any critic of the dictionary’s inadequacies must be aware of the hardships involved in dictionary compilation; in James Murray’s words, “in dealing with such a vast body of words, some inconsistencies, real or apparent, are, from the nature of the subject, inevitable” (qtd. in Curzan 2000: 99). The borrowings, along with a range of spelling variants, are supported by dated quotations. The numbers of illustrative examples of use, the types of labels applied, as well as the numbers of derivatives included in run-on entries are arguably indicative of the importance of the words in English. A significant proportion of the Russianisms in OED2 are marked as unassimilated items, which could be taken as a clear proof of their low recognizability in English. As I attempted to show, however, the lexicogra-

71 This may result from the fact that the English turned to translations of Russian works. For instance, as early as 1723, a translation of Feofan Prokopovich’s Russian catechism was published. It was followed by the highly influential translation of Platon Levshin’s Orthodox doctrine of the apostolic Eastern Church (1755), which was used by students of theology at Oxford and Cambridge universities (Rogalski 1960: 345).

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 phers must have often taken purely intuitive decisions in this respect. A large number of the words were transferred to English vocabulary in the twentieth century, particularly in the 1920s (the October Revolution and its outcomes) and in the 1960s (the development of astronautics). As in the case of items taken in the remote past, the borrowing process in the twentieth century is no guarantee of usability, though. Some lemmas will inevitably be used with reference to Russian / Soviet history only, all the more that the denotata have already ceased to exist. The classification of the loans into semantic categories aimed to illustrate roughly the meanings of the words taken into English. The category Science and technology ranks first (125), Home and family (78) and Political life (76) – almost on a par − rank second, and Man and society comes third (42). Russianisms in the other three categories, i.e. Economy and trade, Culture and education and Religion, are relatively infrequent. The classification has some implications for the socio-cultural aspects of the borrowing process: an overwhelming majority of the words denote culture-specific concepts, which makes them particularly prone to use in Russia-related contexts. Nevertheless, the material presented here demonstrates that the influence of the Rus- sian language, far from being immense, has not been negligible. The next section focuses on the examination of Russianisms recorded in an Amer- ican line of dictionaries. The primary aim of this analysis is to find out what Russian- isms have been representative of twentieth-century American English vocabulary.

3.3. Russianisms in three editions of Webster’s New International Dictionary (1909, 1934, 1961)

Contrary to the previous section, this one concentrates entirely on American lexicography. The Merriam-Webster line of dictionaries, Webster’s International Dictio- nary, has been present on the American market for more than a century. Three editions of Webster’s New International Dictionary are regarded as a significant contribution to American lexicography: the first edition of 1909 (henceforth, Webster’s First), the second edition of 1934 (henceforth, Webster’s Second) and the third edition of 1961 (henceforth, Webster’s Third). All of them are derived from the Webster-Mahn edition of 1864, which was based on Noah Webster’s American Dictionary of the Eng- lish Language (1828). Even though a number of monolingual dictionaries appeared in the United States in the twentieth century, the three editions have been exceptionally exhaustive, which makes them in some way comparable to OED2. This refers in particular to Webster’s Second and Webster’s Third; the former, by comprising approximately 600,000 entries, is the largest dictionary of English, the latter being the only unabridged American dictionary of contemporary English vocabulary (Landau 2001: 29-30). It was therefore assumed that the reference works would be a reliable source of data on Russianisms in American English. It should be explained that, in the case of Webster’s First, I will refer mainly to its

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 1913 version, i.e. the 1909 edition containing approximately 400,000 entries, enlarged with the 1913 supplement. The dictionary was available to me both in the printed and electronic formats, of which the electronic one greatly facilitated my searches. From Webster’s Second, by contrast, the loanwords were selected in the course of a manual study. The dictionary to be analyzed was the 1953 edition, i.e. the 1934 edition with the 1953 addenda . With respect to Webster’s Third (1961), whose coverage has been estimated at more than 450,000 entries, it was later combined with the 1986 supplement. The complete version was published as the CD-ROM edition of 2000 (Sweet- land 2001: 273).To avoid mistakes and omissions, my study was based primarily on the electronic version of the dictionary, which had the added advantage of the 1986 supplement, but the printed dictionary was also checked for consistency. To establish the rate of Russianisms introduced into English more recently, three subsequent dictionaries of new words were subject to examination: The Barnhart Dic- tionary of New English 1963-1972 (1973), Second Barnhart Dictionary of New Eng- lish (1980) and Third Barnhart Dictionary of New English (1990). They are referred to as First Barnhart, Second Barnhart and Third Barnhart respectively. Unlike the volumes of the Oxford Additions Series, which are an officially recognized supplement to OED2, the Barnhart dictionaries cannot be treated as the continuation of Webster’s Third, so they will be discussed in a separate section. As for the adopted methodology, the selection procedure remained basically the same as in the case of OED2. Firstly, I collected headwords with Russian etymologies, labels pertaining to Russia and broad references to Russian realia. Secondly, indirect borrowings, calques and loanblends were dropped. Lastly, the Russianisms were checked against OED2 and other dictionaries, so that possible shortcomings of Web- ster’s etymologies and gaps in the respective wordlists could be brought to light. The analysis showed a number of differences in the description of corresponding headwords, as described below (cf. Part 2, Table 4).

3.3.1. Webster’s New International Dictionary of the English Language (1909) Webster’s New International Dictionary of the English Language, edited by William T. Harris and F. Sturges Allen, was published by the Merriam Company in 1909. Al- though the dictionary carried Webster’s name, it was not a direct descendant of Noah Webster’s 1828 dictionary. The 1909 edition, derived from Webster’s International Dictionary of the English Language (1890) edited by Noah Porter, was already sixth in line, having been thoroughly revised, expanded and updated on the way.72

72 Differences between the two editions refer to literally every aspect of lexicographic description, from the dictionary format, to etymological references, to the entry structure. Significantly, the coverage of the vocabulary expanded from 70,000 entries (1828) to 400,000 (1909).

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 3.3.1.1. Etymologies This section raises the problem of etymological treatment of Russianisms in Web- ster’s First . Since etymology has been of vital importance in my research, it was the first aspect to investigate. Speaking of the coverage of Russianisms, borrowings in Webster’s First include approximately 130 lexical items pertaining, either through etymological references or descriptive labels, to Russia-related concepts. Out of this group, 90 headwords have been classified in this monograph as Russianisms proper. The preface to the dictionary explains that etymologies in the previous editions were revised with the help of Skeat’s Etymological Dictionary of the English Lan- guage (1879-1882) and Kluge’s Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache (1883), both of which were recognized as invaluable aids for linguists and language historians due to their rigorous use of the comparative historical method.73 The editors of Webster’s First, however, did not copy blindly the etymologies worked out by Skeat. For instance, koumiss, which Skeat attributed to French, is treated as a Rus- sianism in Webster’s First, whereas britzka, a Polonism in Skeat’s dictionary, is treated as a Russian loan. As mentioned above, the dictionary recorded words that employed descriptive labels Russia and Russian . Because labelling does not correspond directly to etymological references, one should not jump to a hasty conclusion that all the lemmas described in this manner are invariably of Russian origin. This is certainly true of Ivan Ivanovitch ‘an ideal personification of the typical Russian or of the Russian people’, mir ‘a Russian village community’ or Samoyedes ‘an ignorant and degraded Turanian tribe which occupies a portion of Northern Russia and a part of Siberia’, to mention just a few. However, headwords such as amber room ‘a room formerly in the Czar’s palace in Russia…’,74 caviar ‘the roes of the sturgeon … esp. in Russia’ or Varangian ‘one of the Northmen who founded a dynasty in Russia in the 9th century…’ are not Russian loanwords at all. A handful of Russianisms in Webster’s First are treated as borrowings from other languages, e.g. French (carlock, liman, ukase), Polish (starost), Greek (protopope), Turkic (beg, caftan), Mongolian (sarlac), Tungus (shaman) or Latin (arendator).75 In

73 Russianisms for which Skeat (Etymological Dictionary of the English Language, 1879-1882) provided etymologies are fairly infrequent, covering only copeck, Cossack, czar (tsar), droshky (drosky), mammoth, Permian, rouble (ruble), samovar, steppe, verst, vodka and zemstvo. 74 Amber room appears to have been a calque of Russ. jantarnaja komnata. 75 Russ. arenda, derived by Vasmer from Polish and by Dal′ from German, had a number of derivatives, one of which was arendator ‘obročnyj soderžatel′, s′′ëmščik, naëmščik, kortomščik, otkupščik, najmovatel′’ [a landlord of a tenement house, a property lessee, a tenant] (Tolkovyj slovar′ živogo velikorusskogo jazyka, 1880-1882). In OED2, the headword is not provided with etymology, but it is regarded as a Russian loanword in the Century Dictionary (1889-1891). Interestingly, only the spelling in Webster’s First corresponds to the characteristically Russian form arendator; in other dictionaries the consonant [r] has been doubled, apparently in the Latin-like manner (arrendator).

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 the case of some other lexical items, neither the etymologies nor the definitions have been suggestive of a Russian loan. This refers specifically to animal species (e.g. corsak, dzeren, sarlac, tarpan) and ethnic names (e.g. Gilyak, Tunguses, Yakoots), which I nevertheless regard as Russian loans proper. By contrast, three lemmas (britzska, Kremlin and tsarina), despite being transferred to English via French or German, are erroneously treated as Russianisms. The Russian etyma are usually provided in square brackets, e.g. arshine [Russ. arshin], badiaga [Russ. badiaga] or slepez [Russ. sliepets]. Upon scrutiny, the etymon sometimes turns out to be documented inaccurately, which refers to drojki (Russ. drožki), knut′ (Russ. knut), muikize (Russ. mykiz), osetr′ (Russ. osëtr), poluineia (Russ. polyn′ja), raskolenik (Russ. raskol′nik), sajene (Russ. sažen′) or stepe (Russ. step′). Speaking of muikize, it was recorded in Dal′’s dictionary (Tolkovyj slovar′ živogo velikorusskogo jazyka, 1880-1882) as mykiz ‘ryba iz roda lososej’ [fish of the salmon family], but it was accompanied by a question mark suggesting that the form was dubious. Interestingly, the loan holluschickie in Webster’s First is traced to “Russ. golouishka”, whereas Webster’s Third derives it from “Russ. kholostyak”. To find out whether there are any similarities between the etymologies in Webster’s First and OED2, I compared a sample of corresponding entries, keeping in mind that OED1 had been used for the revision of Webster’s First, mostly in the letters A-B.76 My analysis shows that there are noticeable quantitative differences between the juxtaposed wordlists (i.e. six Russian borrowings in Webster’s First correspond to 30 entries in the alphabet range A-B of OED2), but the headwords often share the same form and etymology. A handful of examples, selected randomly from Webster’s First and OED2, are shown in Table 5 below.

Table 5. Corresponding etymologies in Webster’s First and OED2.

Etymology in Webster’s First Etymology in OED2 Arshine [Russ. arshin, of Turkish-Tartar origin; arsheen [Russ.] Turk. arshin, ell, yard.] Barometz [Cf. Russ. baranets′ clubmoss.] barometz [App. an erroneous adaptation of Russ. baranets (dimin. of baran ramꞌ) applied to species of Club-moss, Lycopodium.] Badiaga [Russ. badiaga.] badiaga [Russ. ba’dyaga ‘river-sponge.’] Boyar [Russ. boiarin′] boyar [a. Russ. boyárin, pl. boyáre ‘grandee, lord’:– earlier bolyárin, prob. f. OSlav. root bol- great; but Miklosich would connect it with Turkish boj stature, boijlu high; Dahl, and others, with Russ. boi ‘war’, which may have influenced the later form. The word occurs in Byzantine Greek as βοϊλάδαι, βολιάδαι; Bulg. bolerin, Serb. bolyar, Roman. boiér.]

76 This information comes from explanatory notes to Webster’s First (1909, p. xxvi).

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 Table 5. cont.

Etymology in Webster’s First Etymology in OED2 Chetvert [Russ. chetverte.] tchetvert [Russian tchetverti quarter, f. tchetvero four.] Cossack [Russ. kozak′, kazak′: cf. Turk. kazāk.] Cossack [a. Turk. quzzāq adventurer, guerilla. ‘In India it became common in sense of predatory horse- man, freebooter’ (Yule).] Drosky [Russ. drojki, dim. of drogi, a kind of car- droshky [ad. Russ. drozhki, dim. of drogi waggon, riage, prop. pl. of droga shaft or pole of a carriage.] hearse; properly pl. of droga perch, or ‘reach’ of a four-wheeled vehicle. So Fr. droschki, Ger. droschke.] Knout [Russ. knut′; prob. of Scand. origin; cf. Sw. knout [a. French spelling of Russ. knut.] knut knot, knout, Icel. knūtr knot: cf. Fr. knout . See Knot.] Polynia [Russ. poluineia a warm place in water, i. e., polynya [Russ. polŭinya a rotten place in the ice, an a place which does not freeze.] open place amidst ice, f. root of pole, polyana field.] Ukase [F. from Russ. ukas′; pref. u- + kazate to ukase [ad. Russ. ukaz, f. ukazatj to show, direct, show, to say.] order, decree. Hence also F. ukase, oukase, Pg. ukase, Sp. ucase, G., Da., Sw. ukas.]

From the table, it can be seen that the differences are more striking than similarities, which refers not so much to etymological conjectures as to the detail of description. The etymological sections in OED2 are, as a rule, more elaborate than in the 1909 edition, but due to its genre of historical dictionary, OED2 is more focused on etymologies than a general monolingual dictionary that Webster’s First happens to be. It may be interesting to note that etymology sections in OED3 are even richer than in the second edition, attempting to provide users with as exhaustive information as possible.

3.3.1.2. Headwords This section provides insight into the status of Russianisms in Webster’s First. Dif- ferent categories of lexicographic information accompanying the lemmas (e.g. labels, spelling variants as well as grammatical and morphological information) will be investigated below. As many as 14 out of 90 loanwords of Russian provenance, i.e. one in six borrowings, are marked with tramlines (║), the symbol of foreignness signifying denizens and aliens, to use James Murray’s terminology. As in OED2, headwords labelled in this way were perceived as non-assimilated foreignisms or even entirely alien exoticisms. In Webster’s First, this group consists of the following lemmas: archierey, arshine, bezpopovtsy, karakul, kibitka, obrok, opolchenie, popovtsy, raskolnik, saiga, samovar, Stundist, tundra and zapas, of which two Russianisms, archierey and opolchenie, were left out in the revision process for Webster’s Second. Interestingly, only obrok maintained the mark of foreignness in the next edition.

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 Apart from the tramlines, the lexicographers applied two status labels, Rare and Obsolete. As could be predicted, the former refers to infrequent lemmas, whereas the latter accompanies words that have gone out of use. Somewhat unexpectedly, only one headword in my material, Russ, is described as Rare . Furthermore, as displayed in Table 6, 19 loanwords proper are given different field markers, of which Zoology is used most frequently. Two headwords, Raskolnik and Stundist, are labelled Ecclesiastic History (in Webster’s Second, only Stundist has been marked in this way). Additionally, Decembrist, a calque of Rus. dekabrist, is treated as a historicism.

Table 6. Field markers given to Russian borrowings in Webster’s First.

Field marker Lemma in Webster’s First Botany barometz Ecclesiastic History Raskolnik, Stundist Ethnology Samoyedes Greek Church protopope Nautical struse Russian History Decembrist Zoology badiaga, beluga, holluschickie, karagane, mammoth, mykiss, nerka, osseter, saiga, seecatch, slepez, sterlet, suslik

Standard grammatical information in Webster’s First includes references to parts of speech, abbreviated conventionally to [n.] for nouns, [adj.] for adjectives, etc. De- spite claims that borrowings represent different parts of speech, most Russianisms in the dictionary are nouns, barely few of them (e.g. Russ) being adjectival forms. What comes as a surprise is that no sublemmas have been found in Webster’s First; since sublemmas in a dictionary entry are usually derivatives, it means that the Russianisms showed no derivational productivity.77 A number of derivatives and compounds have been formed from Russia, but it is obviously a borrowing of Latin origin.78 Russian-derived nouns, as the lexicographers tell us, pluralize in a regular way, but several loans (e.g. Bezpopovtsy, holluschickie, Molokane, Popovtsy or zastrugi) adopt Russian inflectional endings. A majority of the nouns are recorded in the singular, but whenever morphological variability is possible, both regular and irregular plurals are included as a guide to proper usage (e.g. Raskolnik, pl. Raskolniki or Raskolniks). Strelitz has been described adequately as a singular noun, although it has sometimes

77 A nonce derivative, knouter, was attested in Adam Olearius’ The Voyages and Travels of the Ambassadors . . (1662). The contemporary translation reads: “honest people nowadays avoid the company of knouters and ex- ecutioners” (Olearius 1967: 231). Despite its supposed lack of vitality in English, it can be found in a number of contemporary sources in Google Books Corpus. 78 OED2 derives Russia and Russian from Mod. Lat. Russi and Mod. Lat. Russiān-us respectively.

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 been mistakenly used as the plural (cf. OED2). The borrowing astatki (Russ. ostatok, pl. ostatki), by contrast, has acquired a singular form in English. A comparison of Russianisms in the 1909 edition with those in Webster’s Second shows a shift from fairly archaic forms to modernized ones, e.g. arshine (→ arshin), bidarkee (→ bidarka), britzska (→ britska), copeck (→ kopeck), czarowitz (→ czarevitch), drosky (→ droshky), oseter (→ osetra), plitt (→ plet) and quass (→ kvass). Webster’s First only occasionally records alternative spellings which, likewise in OED2, follow the main headword. In a proportion of cases, however, spelling variants can be found at the end of the dictionary entry, as illustrated below.

Raskolnik n. [Russ. raskolenik′ schismatic, heretic.] Eccl. One of the separatists or dissenters from the established or Greek church in Russia. [Written also rascolnik.] Waywode n. [Russ. voevoda, or Pol. woiewoda; properly, a leader of an army, a leader in war. Cf. Vaivode.] Originally, the title of a military commander in various Slavonic countries; afterwards applied to governors of towns or provinces. It was assumed for a time by the rulers of Mol- davia and Wallachia, who were afterwards called hospodars, and has also been given to some inferior Turkish officers. [Written also vaivode, voivode, waiwode, and woiwode.]

In the case of two Russianisms, copeck and czar, all the variant spellings recorded have been given headword status. Interestingly, while only czar is equipped with etymology, both copeck and kopeck are etymologized, which − apart from being a puzzling strategy − takes extra space. Building an effective cross-referencing structure as a space-saving device would have been, as it seems, a more reasonable solution.

Copeck n. [Russ. kopeika .] A Russian copper coin. See Kopeck. Kopeck n. [Russ. kopeika.] A small Russian coin. One hundred kopecks make a rouble, worth about sixty cents. [Written also kopek, copec, and copeck.] Czar n. [Russ. tsare, fr. L. Caesar; cf. OPol. czar, Pol. car.] A king; a chief; the title of the emperor of Russia. [Written also tzar.] Tsar n. The title of the emperor of Russia. See: Czar. Tzar n. The emperor of Russia. See: Czar.

Moreover, the relationships between the last three definitions is difficult to account for; the lexicographic information might lead the dictionary user to a wrong assumption that czar can be used with reference to any king, whereas tsar and tzar denote specifically the emperor of Russia. The lexicographers of Webster’s Second and Third adopted a better tailored approach in this respect, at the same time paying more attention to the documentation of variant spellings. Lemmas in Webster’s First are spelled with an upper-case letter, which was a typical practice resorted to in dictionaries of English. Despite this, it was no doubt a confusing practice, which could lead to mistakes in the use of foreign words, of whose usage

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 most English speakers must have had a vague idea. Therefore, the distinction between proper nouns, spelled with upper-case letters, and common nouns, spelled with lower- case letters, is not explained properly. By contrast, every lemma in Webster’s Third is equipped with standard information on whether or not it is capitalized.

3.3.1.3. Definitions Almost all definitions of Russian loanwords in Webster’s First are traditional in that they single out English hyperonyms as part of the definiens, which is then particular- ized to provide the user with adequate semantic information. For instance, ataman is described as ‘a hetman, or chief of the Cossacks’, carlock as ‘a sort of Russian isinglass, made from the air bladder of the sturgeon, and used in clarifying wine’ and karagane as ‘a species of gray fox found in Russia’. A majority of the loans are defined in a brief and concise way, with relatively little factual information, but there are exceptions to the rule. One of the more elaborate definitions accompanies the lemma drosky ‘a low, four-wheeled, open carriage, used in Russia, consisting of a kind of long, narrow bench, on which the passengers ride as on a saddle, with their feet reaching nearly to the ground. Other kinds of vehicles are now so called, esp. a kind of victoria drawn by one or two horses, and used as a public carriage in German cities’. In a similar vein, Dukhobors is defined meticulously as ‘a Russian religious sect founded about the middle of the eighteenth century at Khar- kov. They believe that Christ was wholly human, but that his soul reappears from time to time in mortals. They accept the Ten Commandments and the “useful” portions of the Bible, but deny the need of rulers, priests, or churches, and have no confessions, icons, or marriage ceremonies. They are communistic, opposed to any violence, and unwilling to use the labor of animals. Driven out of Russia proper, many have emi- grated to Cyprus and Canada’. The most explicit − and no doubt encyclopaedic − definition has been provided for the lemma Raskolnik admitted to the 1913 supplement to Webster’s First. Here, not only did the lexicographers define the term, but they also explained in detail the particular sects inside the Raskolniks. Since it is the longest and most informative of all definitions of Russianisms found in English dictionaries, it is worthwhile quoting it in full.

Raskolnik n.; pl. Raskolniki or Raskolniks. [Russ. raskol’nik dissenter, fr. raskol dissent.] The name applied by the Russian government to any subject of the Greek faith who dis- sents from the established church. The Raskolniki embrace many sects, whose common characteristic is clinging to antique traditions, habits, and customs. The schism originated in 1667 in an ecclesiastical dispute as to the correctness of the translation of the religious books. The dissenters, who have been continually persecuted, are believed to number about 20,000,000, although the Holy Synod officially puts the number at about 2,000,000. They are officially divided into three groups according to the degree of their variance from orthodox beliefs and observances, as follows: I. “Most obnoxious”: the Judaizers; the Molokane, who refuse to recognize civil authority or to take oaths; the Dukhobortsy, or Dukhobors, who are communistic, marry without

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 ceremony, and believe that Christ was human, but that his soul reappears at intervals in living men; the Khlysty, who countenance anthropolatry, are ascetics, practice continual self-flagella- tion, and reject marriage; the Skoptsy, who practice castration; and a section of the Bezpopovtsy, or priestless sect, which disbelieve in prayers for the Czar and in marriage. II. “Obnoxious”: the Bezpopovtsy, who pray for the Czar and recognize marriage. III. “Least obnoxious”: the Popov- tsy, who dissent from the orthodox church in minor points only.

The corresponding definitions in Webster’s Second and Webster’s Third have been considerably shortened, and OED2 also defines Raskolnik in a highly condensed style as ‘a dissenter from the national Church in Russia’. Two of the borrowings under analysis have undergone extension in meaning: knout (noun → verb) and mammoth (noun → adjective). Speaking of the latter, in its nominal meaning, mammoth denotes ‘an extinct, hairy, maned elephant (Elephas primigenius), of enormous size, remains of which are found in the northern parts of both continents. The last of the race, in Europe, were coeval with prehistoric man’,79 whereas the adjectival meaning is defined as follows: ‘resembling the mammoth in size; very large; gigantic; as a mammoth’. As for knout, it is explained as ‘a kind of whip for flogging criminals, formerly much used in Russia. The lash is a tapering bundle of leather thongs twisted with wire and hardened, so that it mangles the flesh’ (nominal meaning) and ‘to punish with a knout’ (verbal meaning). Speaking of the latter, there is substantial evidence for its use in English travelogues, as visitors to Russia frequently witnessed − and then depicted in their writings − people publicly knouted. Though not intended as a dictionary on historical principles, Webster’s First does provide some citations in order to illustrate usage, but they are not dated and are far less numerous than in OED2. Still, such illustrative examples are rare in my research material. More exactly, koumiss is provided with one citation (“Koumiss has from time immemorial served the Tartar instead of wine or spirits”. J. H. Newman), and single glosses are added for boyar (“English writers sometimes call Russian landed proprietors boyars”) and mammoth (“Several specimens have been found in Siberia preserved entire, with the flesh and hair remaining. They were imbedded in the ice cliffs at a remote period, and became exposed by the melting of the ice”). In the entries for mir, obrok, polynia and vedro, one comes across an author’s name, and one source material enhances the lexicographic information in bidarka. The definitions in the 1909 edition are informative and easy to understand, which must have contributed to the positive reception of the dictionary. They also constitut- ed useful background material to be revised for the sake of the second edition. The definitions in Webster’s First are shorter and less sophisticated than those in Webster’s

79 The first citation for the lemma mammoth in OED2 comes from an account entitled Adam Brand’s embassy from Muscovy into China: “The Mammotovoy, which is dug out of the Earth in Siberia”(1698). The Russian etymon was recorded as mamontova kost′ in Dal′’s dictionary (Tolkovyj slovar′ živogo velikorusskogo jazyka 1880-82). Still, the word itself first appeared in Richard James’ manuscript Russian-English dictionary (1618-1620) in a quaint spelling maimanto (Simmons and Unbegaun 1951: 125).

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 Second, but they no doubt reflect the lexicographers’ knowledge of Russian culture, geography, history and religion.

3.3.1.4. Semantic classification As indicated in Table 7, 90 Russian loans represent six semantic categories: (1) Economy and trade, (2) Science, (3) Man and society, (4) Political life, (5) Home and family, and (6) Religion. Compared to OED2, there are no Russianisms which would be classified into the category Art culture, and education.

Table 7. Semantic categories in Webster’s First.

No Semantic category Number of loanwords % 1 Economy and trade 8 8.9 2 Science and technology 34 37.8 3 Man and society 12 13.3 4 Political life 9 10 5 Home and family 19 21.1 6 Religion 8 8.9 Total 90 100

Economy and trade: 1. Measures and weights: arshine, chetvert, pood, sagene, vedro, verst; 2. Monetary units: copeck, ruble .

Science and technology: 1. Botany: badiaga, barometz; 2. Chemistry and petrology: astatki; 3. Ethnic names: Calmucks, Cossack, Russ, Samoyedes, Tunguses, Yakoots;80 4. Geography, geology and meteorology: liman, polynia, steppe, tundra, zastrugi; 5. Zoology: beluga, corsak, dzeren, holluschickie, karagane, kolinsky, mammoth, mykiss, nerka, osseter, saiga, sarlac, seecatch, slepez, sterlet, suslik, tarpan, tur, zemni, zubr.

Man and society: 1. Community: mir; 2. Social class and status: ataman, beg, boyar, czar, czarevna, czarowitz, Ivan Ivano- vitch, shaman, starost, tsaritsa, voivode.

80 The plurals have been replaced by singular word-forms in the next edition.

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 Political life: 1. Administrative divisions: volost, zemstvo; 2. Regime and related concepts: knout, obrok, opolchenie, plitt, Strelitz, ukase, zapas .

Home and family: 1. Clothing and materials: Astrakhan, caftan, crash, karakul, kolinsky, parka, yufts; 2. Food, drinks and meals: carlock, koumiss, manna croup, quass, vodka; 3. Household goods: samovar; 4. Means of transport: bidarka, drosky, kibitka, struse, tarantass, telega.

Religion: 1. Orthodox Church: archierey, protopope; 2. Schism and sects: Bezpopovtsy, Doukhobors, Molokane, Popovtsy, Raskolnik, Stundist .

3.3.1.5. Conclusions As pointed out, the first edition of Webster’s New International Dictionary of the English Language (1909), though labelled Webster’s, was not a direct descendant of Noah Webster’s 1828 dictionary. Not only was it fully revised, but it was also produced nearly 80 years later, in the era of rapid expansion of knowledge, which facilitated the importation of foreign words in order to augment English vocabulary. There- fore, it should not be surprising that a great deal of Russian borrowings, referring to different aspects of Russian life, would be recorded in it. The group of Russianisms, selected with the methodology of step-by-step verifica- tion of the lemmas, encompasses 90 words, which have not always been treated consistently. In it, one can find headwords described as Russianisms, items accompanied with references to Russia, as well as words attributed wrongly to other languages. Even though the lexicographers must have put much effort into the selection of the headwords, Webster’s First recorded three nonce words, mykiss, nerka and opolchenie,81 which were not admitted into the next edition. The definitions of the lemmas, despite being brief, show lexicographic expertise on the one hand and knowledge of things Russian on the other. Since nearly all the loans are nouns, one should not be baffled to come across Russian, instead of regular English, plural forms (e.g. Doukhobortsy or Raskolniki). One of the most recognizable Russianisms has been recorded in three graphic variants: tsar, tzar and czar. In the

81 Two of the headwords, mykis (the final [s] was dropped) and nerka, were also admitted into the Century Dictionary (1889-1891).

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 case of other borrowings, variant spellings are sometimes documented, but definitely less frequently than in Webster’s Second or Webster’s Third. The semantic analysis indicates that over a third of the loans belong to the category Science and technology (34), primarily because it embraces names of Russian fauna and flora. The category Home and family (19), with traditional Russian names for foods, clothes and means of transport, ranks second. The other four classes (Economy and trade, Man and society, Political life and Religion) have approximately 10 words each. To sum up, Russianisms recorded by the lexicographers of Webster’s First account for a tiny proportion of the dictionary wordlist (roughly 0.02%). This indicates that the loanwords were taken into American English and were no doubt visible to the dictionary user, but the overall influence exerted by the Russian language must be seen as marginal.

3.3.2. Webster’s New International Dictionary of the English Language (1934) The second edition of Webster’s New International Dictionary of the English Lan- guage is the largest dictionary of English. Edited by William A. Neilson and Thomas A. Knott, it proudly claimed 600,000 words, including lemmas located at the bottom of the page in the so-called ‘pearl entries’. Given the dictionary’s immense coverage of both current as well as obsolete and rare words, it was for years regarded by many − even after the third edition was published in 1961 − as the dictionary par excellence (Landau 2001: 86). In two large folios, with informative definitions and fine picture plates that added to its appeal, the dictionary came to be seen as an authority on meaning and usage, whose prestige was “virtually unchallenged in the United States” (Mor- ton 1995: 172).

3.3.2.1. Etymologies This section concentrates on the etymologies of Russian loanwords in Webster’s Second. Despite the fact that advantages in this respect outweigh disadvantages, I will pinpoint mainly inconsistencies of etymological treatment. Using the selection criteria described in the previous sections, I collected 293 loans of Russian origin.82 The coverage visibly surpasses that of Webster’s First, which must have been conditioned by two distinct factors. On the one hand, work on the revision coincided with the Bolshevik rule in Russia, which drew considerable public attention. As a result, words reflecting dramatic changes in every sphere of Russian life started cropping up in English sources, drawing the attention of American dictionary-makers. On the other hand, the editors of Webster’s Second followed less restrictive inclusion

82 This part of the research was extremely labour-intensive, because the dictionary had to be browsed page by page. Particularly the small-print pearl entries were reader-unfriendly.

100

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 criteria, admitting a number of hapax legomena into the wordlist. The relaxation of the criteria to be met by potential candidates, in particular, explains why the dictionary grew to such a gigantic size. As the material of Webster’s First was subject to a fully-fledged revision, changes in etymology could be taken for granted. Below I will illustrate some of the problems faced in the interpretation of the data in Webster’s Second. Firstly, a handful of Russian words are considered to have entered English vocabulary via intermediary languages such as Modern Latin, Europe’s lingua franca, other major European languages like German and French, and various tongues spoken on the widespread Russian territory, including geographically and linguistically remote Siberian dialects. Borrowings representing the above languages include blintze, czarina, droschke, Stundist (Ger.), kremlin, Muscovite, polatouche (Fr.), Grindelia, iconostasis (N.L.) and parka (Eskim.). Most of the etymologies are correct, and only two of the lemmas, Stundist and parka, have been regarded in my analysis as Russianisms proper.83 A handful of Russian headwords in Webster’s Second are, in turn, traced back to different sources, e.g. Ukrainian (borsch), Mongolian (dzeren, sarlak) or an Eastern Turkish dialect (barkhan, beg). Characteristically, all these lemmas will eventually be treated as Russianisms in Webster’s Third. Secondly, many lemmas are defined with the use of references to Russia, Russian or Soviet, which can be safely viewed as keywords. Sometimes they are found in the text of the definition as a mere geographical indication, as in araba ‘a vehicle, esp. a cab or a coach, used in the Near East and Russia’. In other cases, an italicized label follows the definition, as in Kremlin ‘the citadel of a city, esp. of Moscow. Russia’. Since references and labels are by no means tantamount to etymologies, a proportion of the headwords turned out to be false Russianisms. The group encompasses also a few calques, i.e. Decembrist (Russ. dekabrist), fellow-traveler (Russ. poputčik), Old Believ- ers (Russ. starovery, starovercy) and vernalization (Russ. jarovizacija), of which the last one should apparently be treated as a semi-calque.84 In fact, five-year-plan, patterned on “Russ. pyatiletka”, is the only item explained transparently as a loan translation. Thirdly, the dictionary includes numerous mineral names formed from Russian proper nouns, mainly surnames and toponyms. For example, malinowskite has been described as deriving from the “name of E. Malinowski, a Russian engineer”, whereas

83 Parka is often treated as a borrowing from Aleut, yet the plural parki (dated to 1780 in OED2) may be an indicator of its Russian origin. The lemma must have been deeply-rooted in Russian vocabulary, as can be deduced from Dal′’s definition: ‘zimnaja verxnaja odežda samoedov, kamčadal, ili i russkich, iz oleniny, sobačiny, ovčiny; eë nadevajut sverx malicy, i potomu ona šire eë, takaja že kruglaja (gluchaja, bez razrezu) i bez kukolja; pyžikovyje parki neredko byvajut dvojnyje, nalico i naničku’ [a winter outer garment of Samoyedes, Kamchadals or Russians, made of deerskin, dogskin or sheepskin; it is worn on a fur coat, which is why it is wider than it; it is round (without a slit) and without a hood; parkas of young reindeer skin are not infrequently of two kinds, with the hide inside and outside] (Tolkovyj slovar′ živogo velikorusskogo jazyka, 1880-1882). 84 The calque is less obvious in its verbal form, vernalize, which can be juxtaposed with Russ. jarovizirovat′. This problem has been discussed by Kabachki and Butters (1989: 28).

101

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 samarskite is “named after Colonel Samarski, a Russian mine official”. Still, this strategy does not seem fully credible, as several coinages formed in this way are claimed to have been imported via other languages, primarily German or French. As the suffix -ite has been largely standardized (Russ. suffix -it, Ger. -ite, Eng. -ite, etc.), determining the origin of the headwords fully precisely would be fairly difficult. Therefore, mineral names have been excluded from further analysis. Fourthly, a significant number of ethnic names denoting peoples inhabiting Euro- pean and Asiatic territories of Russia have been admitted into the dictionary, but only some of them are given etymologies. To provide an example, Chuvash is treated as a word of Russian origin, whereas Chukchi does not enjoy a similar status. Ethnic names are often problematic for etymologists, which is especially true of the Russian language, which has been exposed to ‒ and has interacted with ‒ a number of vernaculars. No wonder etymologies for ethnic names have been dealt consistently neither in Webster’s Second nor Webster’s Third. Lastly, Russianisms treated in an ambiguous way (e.g. proso, verst or yurt) are infrequent, but they are still worth remarking on. Proso is one of the word-forms which are found in a few Slavic languages, hence the parenthetical remark “Russ., Pol., Czech, Ukr. proso millet”, verst is argued to have been imported from French, Ger- man and Russian, which is rather unlikely, as words are rarely borrowed from different languages at the same time, while yurt was allegedly taken into English via two languages, German and Russian. One might wonder what happened to these ambiguities in Webster’s Third. Proso and yurt are now described as direct borrowings from Russian, and it is only the etymology of verst that has remained unchanged. However, the spelling of verst / werst (Russ. versta) seems to have been influenced by German orthography rather than imported from German. In other words, the lemma became a victim, so to say, of inconsistent ways in which Russian [v] has been transliterated and/or transcribed into English (cf. cesarevitch / cesarewitch; czarowitz / czarevitch; Pavlov / Pawlow, pristav / pristaw or voivode / woiwode). More details of etymological discrepancies between corresponding lemmas in the dictionaries under analysis can be found in Part 2 (Table 4).

3.3.2.2. Headwords This section concentrates on various aspects of lexicographic description of the dictionary’s lemmas, including status labels, field markers and spelling variants. Although Russianisms recorded in Webster’s Second encompass as many as 293 items, the use of field markers is confined to relatively infrequent loanwords (19), as shown in table 8 below. One more item in the list, minimalist, is a calque. The other borrowings have not been given any specific field markers, which makes them prone to use in general vocabulary rather than specialist registers. In the case of maximalist and minimalist, treated as calques of Fr. maximaliste and minimaliste re-

102

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 spectively, only the headword minimalist is accompanied by the field marker Russian Politics.85

Table 8. Field markers assigned to Russian borrowings in Webster’s Second.

Field marker Lemma Anthropology barabara Archaelogy kurgan Astronomy meteoritics Chemistry turanose Eastern Church protopope Ecclesiastical History Stundist Geology dolina History Zemski Sobor Medicine miryachit Music balalaika Petrology belugite, kyschtymite, marekanite, miaskite, sviatonosite, taimyrite Russian History minimalist Slavic Mythology baba jaga, lesiy Zoology perwitsky (no ref.)

For another thing, the lexicographers introduced two additional categories: Weights (dola, fount / founte, zolotnik / zolotink, etc.) and Measures (arshin, berkovets, garnetz, pajak, poluosmina, stoof, tchast, etc). The status of the lemmas can be translated into their relative insignificance in English; most of them appear in pearl entries, often being merely cross-referenced to the “Table of Weights and Measures”. Names of Russian monetary units have been represented abundantly in Webster’s Second. Most of the loanwords, as might be expected, are items entirely unknown to the average English user and, as it were, of little practical use. They are illustrated by altin ‘a base silver coin of eighteenth-century Russia equal to 3 kopecks’, chervonets, pl. chervontsy or chervonetz ‘a gold monetary unit of the USSR, established by a decree of 1922, equivalent to ten rubles, and worth $5.15’,86 poltinnik ‘Russian silver half ruble’ or pul, pl . puls or puli (poul, polu) ‘an obsolete Russian copper coin, 15th century to 1810. In Georgia the pul equals 1/10 kopeck’. Another name for a monetary unit is grivna, treated as a Slavic borrowing; the Century Dictionary (1889-1891) derives

85 After the Second Congress of the Russian Social Democratic Workers’ Party (1903), the distinction between Bolsheviks (putative majority) and Mensheviks (alleged minority) did not reflect the actual facts, as the numerical representation of the factions was just the opposite (Comrie, Stone and Polinsky 1996: 186). 86 The graphic variants tchervonets and tchervonetz have been recorded in pearl entries.

103

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 grivna from Russian, which is easier to provide evidence for. Since most English dictionaries admit only the basic Russian monetary terms, copeck and rouble, the systematic treatment of Russianisms in this area is very impressive indeed.87 Several borrowings are marked as Obsolete, e.g. ikary ‘caviar’, nefte ‘naphta’, obarni ‘a kind of a Russian drink’, ribazuba ‘walrus ivory’ or visney ‘a kind of cherry brandy containing tent wine’.88 Only one word, yam, is labelled Rare; it is unclear why an archaic variant of boyar, barin, has not been labelled accordingly. Three spelling variants of the main headwords, i.e. bojar (boyar), ksar (czar) and quasse (kvass), are accompanied by the so-called ‘dagger’ symbol (†) indicative of word-forms that have gone out of use. It should be underlined that of all the obsolete Russian lemmas, the lexicographers of Webster’s Third admitted only ikary and losh. Apart from the labels mentioned above, Webster’s Second maintained tramlines (║), whose concept is clearly a legacy of the OED. This mark of foreignness was given to 22 headwords such as baidak ‘a large river boat used on the Dnieper, usually car- rying a mast and sail’, besprizorni ‘homeless; ‒ applied to the destitute, uncared for children of Russia after the World War’,89 izvozchik ‘driver, cabman’, kasha ‘a mush made from coarse cracked buckweat, barley or millet’, pomeshchik ‘landed proprietor, one of the landed gentry’, samogon / samogonka ‘vodka distilled and soldʼ, stanitsa ‘a Cossack village or commune. Russia’ or zakuska ‘hors d’oeuvre; relishes served before a meal’. Somewhat surprisingly, other lexical items, e.g. owtchah, szopelka or ziganka, might not have been fully naturalized in English, either. 90 A comparison of Webster’s Second with Webster’s Third has revealed that a number of loanwords were dropped in the revision process (leading to Webster’s Third). More exactly, as many as 41 items were excluded (e.g. baidak, barin, besprizorni, bidar, brodyaga, chetverik, chkalik, chort, izvozchik, karagan, korova, molka, mykiss, nefte, obarni, osmin, owtchah, palak, paletz, peach, pomeshchik, Staroobradsi, szopelka, tchin, totchka, uyezd, verchok, visney, wachna, ziganka or zokor) . Some of the loans, e.g. chetverik, peach, mykiss or szopelka, appeared in other sources, but a majority of them escaped the attention of English lexicographers.

87 The coverage of names for Russian monetary units in the Century Dictionary (1889-1891) and Webster’s Third is also worth highlighting. Apart from kopeck and ruble, the former records grivna, grivennik, denga, piatak, poltina, ruble and copeck, whereas the latter includes chervonets, poltinnik and pul . 88 Mark Ridley’s Dictionarie of the vulgar Russe tongue (1599) included an apparent synonym, ‘cherrye mede’ [med′ višnoi] (Stone 1996: 211). Twenty years later, Richard James recorded “veashna, a cherry” (Leeming 1969: 18). OED2 treats visney as a Turkic borrowing, with the first attestation traced back to 1733. A variant of the word, vishnofka, can be found in Tooke’s View of the Russian Empire during the reign of Catharine the Second (1799: 362). 89 Stacy is right, pointing out that the lemma besprizorni ought to refer to homeless children in Russia after the October Revolution (1961: 34, cf. Fürst 2008). 90 The spelling [sz] may have been influenced by Polish. Interestingly, the Century Dictionary (1889-1891) records the borrowing as sopelka .

104

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 What is a characteristic trait of Webster’s Second is that a number of items in the wordlist are either spelling variants or nonce words left undefined, e.g. britchka “var. of britska” or korec “See: Measure”. As many as 71 words of Russian origin (e.g. dessiatine, mir, osmin, ribazuba, totchka or vedro) have been recorded in pearl entries, of which as many as 47 lemmas represent variants of the main headwords (usually cognates), e.g. ataman (Russ.) = hetman (Pol.) or berkovets (Russ.) = berkowitz (Ger.). These figures indicate that a quarter of the Russianisms recorded in Webster’s Second were regarded as rare and insignificant lexical items. Virtually all the Russian loanwords in Webster’s Second are nouns, the few recorded adjectives being either semantic extensions (e.g. mammoth) or items which represent two different parts of speech, i.e. a noun and an adjective (e.g. soviet). The loan nichevo, a newcomer in Webster’s Second, functions as an interjection and a noun. The only verb forms included in the dictionary, knout ‘to punish with a knout’ and pogrom ‘to massacre in a pogrom’, are semantic extensions of prior nominal meanings. In the analyzed group of Russianisms derivations are rather infrequent. Nests built on the main headwords vary in size, but they usually include only one derivative, e.g. Bolshevikism (< Bolshevik), boyarism (< boyar), dumaist (< duma), kulakism (< kulak), pogromist and pogromize (< pogrom), soviet and sovietic (< soviet), voivodeship (< voivode) or zemstvoist (< zemstvo). Other derivations (e.g. Bolshevikian, Bolshevi- sation, Bolshevism, Bolshevist, Bolshevize, Bolshie, sovietisation, sovietism, sovietist and sovietize) can be found in the dictionary wordlist. However, despite being given the status of main headwords, such derivatives are loanblends, so they are not provided with etymologies. As previously mentioned, difficulties in transliterating Russian words brought in a number of variant spellings. Many English authors from the sixteenth century onwards misspelled Russian words which, in the English shape, often changed beyond recognition. It is little wonder that doublets or even triplets came into use, e.g. tsar / tzar / czar (also ksar). Again, a few Russian characters, mainly [šč] and [č], proved extremely problematic. As a result, chervonets is also spelled as tchervonets, shchi as stchi, while tovarish as tovarich . In addition to that, Russian [c] was transliterated in- to such strings of characters as [ts] or [tz], the latter violating the rules of English orthography (cf. chervonets / chervonetz, garnetz / garnets, slepetz, stanitsa / stanitza, Strelitz). The lemma korec (Russ. korec) is an exception, but the appearance of the letter [c] in it suggests that the loan was taken into English via Pol. korzec. The vowel system of the Russian language, too, produced inconsistencies in English spelling, which are displayed by barabara (Russ. dialectal barabora), barometz / boramez (Russ. bara- nec) or knez / kniaz / knyaz (Russ. knjaz′). The Russian loanwords in Webster’s Second, as in the previous edition, have occasionally been recorded in plural forms. The list comprises such collective nouns as Doukhoborts / Dukhobortsy, Khlysti, sastrugi, Staroobradsi and Starovertsi, whose

105

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 Russian models have often functioned in the plural. For nouns admitted in the singular, plural word-forms are usually indicated, e.g. bezpopovets (pl. bezpopovtsy), Bol- shevik (pl. Bolsheviki / Bolsheviks), kromeski (pl. kromeskies / kromeskys), Menshevik (pl. Mensheviki / Mensheviks), okrug (pl. okruzi), Popovets (pl. Popovtsy), Raskolnik (pl. Raskolniki / Raskolniks), Strelitz (pl. Strelitzes / Strelitzi / Streltzi) or zemstvo (pl. zemstvos) . As displayed above, in some cases the Russian inflectional ending, atypical of English, is provided as the first one, which can be interpreted as the recommended morphological variant.

3.3.2.3. Definitions In this section, I will focus on how Russianisms have been defined in the 1934 edition, pointing to some similarities and differences between the definitions in Webster’s Second, as well as its previous and next editions. One of the basic dissimilarities between Webster’s First and Webster’s Second is that a large number of headwords in the latter are defined in an elaborate way. Brief definitions built around English hyperonyms have been given to culture-specific words like borzoi ‘the Russian wolfhound’, chark ‘a small (Russian) glass or cup’, dacha ‘a country house, a villa’, isba ‘in Russia, a log hut’, kurgan ‘a barrow of the Russian steppes’, sarafan ‘a Russian national dress for peasant women’ or yuft ‘Russia leather’. Other definitions are longer and include detailed factual information, which is wrapped into an encyclopaedic form. This type of definition is illustrated by steppe ‘1. One of the vast tracts in southeastern Europe and in Asia generally level and without forests. 2. Hence, any large tract of arid land characterized by xerophilous vegetation and found mostly in regions of extreme temperature range and loess soil, steppeland’. General- ly speaking, a predominant majority of the Russianisms are described coherently and consistently, and the use of stylistic means and scientific terminology is a clear sign that the dictionary was directed at an educated user. The three dictionaries under analysis belong to a family of dictionaries, which provides useful ground for what has been dubbed “lexicographic archaeology” (Ilson 1986b). It was therefore interesting to find out what affinities could be found between the defining styles in Webster’s First and Second . In Table 9 below, I present definitions from four randomly selected entries. As could be assumed, the wording of the definitions is similar, which means that the lexicographers of Webster’s Second used the entries of Webster’s First as their background material. That the lemmas were given due attention is shown by the fact that changes between the two editions range from negligible (sterlet) to extensive (Cos- sack), and the lexicographers went to great lengths to improve the quality of the definitions. The definitions in Webster’s Second are usually longer and more elaborate that those in Webster’s First, but there are also exceptions to the rule.

106

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 Table 9. Definitions of corresponding lemmas in Webster’s First and Second.

Webster’s First Webster’s Second Boyar A member of a Russian aristocratic order boyar A member of a Russian aristocratic order next abolished by Peter the Great. Also, one of a privi- to the knezes, or ruling princes, and possessed of leged class in Roumania; English writers sometimes many exclusive privileges. It was abolished by Peter call Russian landed proprietors boyars. the Great. Also, one of a priviledged landholding class in Rumunia. – boyarism, boyardism → English writers sometimes erroneously use boyar for any Russian landed proprietor. Cossack One of a warlike, pastoral people, skillful Cossack 1. One of a division of the Russian people as horsemen, inhabiting different parts of the Russian of the steppes, of mixed origin, formerly settled along empire and furnishing valuable contingents of irregu- the frontiers. They are a warlike, pastoral people, lar cavalry to its armies, those of Little Russia and skillful as horsemen, and under the Czars furnished those of the Don forming the principal divisions. valuable contingents of cavalry to the armies. The primary unit of organization was the stanitsa. Since 1917 the Cossacks under the Soviet rule have become largely merged with the rest of the population. See: Russian. 2. One of an armed contingent employed by reaction- aries to suppress liberals or other opponents, esp. by force. Ruble The unit of monetary value in Russia. It is ruble The prewar gold monetary unit of Russia, divided into 100 copecks, and in the gold coin of the worth about 51.5 cents… and divided into 100 ko- realm (as in the five and ten ruble pieces) is worth pecks; also, a silver coin of this value. Formerly, the about 77 cents. The silver ruble is a coin worth about ruble in gold was worht about 77 cents and the silver 60 cents. [Written also rouble] ruble was somewhat less. See: chervonetz. Sterlet A small sturgeon (Acipenser ruthenus) found sterlet A small sturgeon found in the Caspian Sea in the Caspian Sea and its rivers, and highly esteemed and its rivers, and highly esteemed for its flavor. The for its flavor. The finest caviare is made from its roe. finest caviar is made from its roe.

A proportion of headwords in Webster’s Second are brand new, so their definitions had to be written from scratch. For a few lemmas, the lexicographers of Webster’s Sec- ond could consult corresponding definitions in OED2 and the Century Dictionary, another highly respected American dictionary (1889-1891). It seems that the following examples collected in Table 10 deserve special interest. Even a quick look at the contrasted data suggests apparent affinity; not only are the lemmas in the three dictionaries identical in form, but also the wording of the definitions shows strong resemblance (e.g. in each case the adjective “effervescent” has been employed to define koumiss). It suggests that, whenever possible, the editors of Web- ster’s Second drew on existing lexicographic resources to shape definitions for newly added headwords. The coverage of the Century, as the dictionary was called, might seem patchy, but it is the earliest of the three reference works.91

91 The Century does not have some lemmas admitted into Webster’s dictionaries. On the other hand, it records a number of items which cannot be found anywhere else (e.g. analav, armiak, baliki, donsky, gogol, kobza, oboz, pilaf, popofka, rusalka, starik, terpuck or zapor).

107

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 Table 10. Corresponding entries in OED2, Webster’s Second and the Century Dictionary.

Webster’s Second OED2 The Century Dictionary kefir An effervescent liquor like kefir An effervescent liquor re- kefir An effervescent drink kumiss, made from fermented sembling koumiss, prepared from prepared from the fermented milk milk, used as a food and medicine milk which has been fermented; of cows: used by the natives of in the Caucasus. employed as a medicine or food the northern Caucasus region, and for invalids; b. kefir ferment, now extensively used elsewhere grains, or seeds, a composite as a food for invalids. It contains substance used by the Caucasians from 1 to 2 per cent. of free lactic to ferment milk. (1901) acid and from 1 to 3 per cent. of alcohol. The original ferment used is a parcicular fungus called *kefir grains. (1909) nagaika A thick, tightly twisted nagaika A thick plaited whip used − whip, used by the Cossacks. by Cossacks. sotnia A Cossack cavalry squad- sotnia A squadron of Cossack sotnia A company or squadron in ron. cavalry. (1913) a Cossack regiment. (1889-1891) sotnik A captain of Cossacks; a sotnik A local official among the − chief officer of a sotnia.’ Cossacks; also, a commander of a sotnia.

Definitions in Webster’s Second provided the English target audience with useful descriptions of the Russian-derived headwords. Even if they tended to be super- fluously informative (e.g. mammoth) or encyclopaedic in form (e.g. Muscovy or Rus- sia Company), the aim was surely to achieve a high level of lexicographic excellence. Does it mean that there are no idiosyncrasies in this respect? One may have objec- tions to just a few definitions, including one for Anna Karenina that reads: ‘the fascinating and gifted heroine of Tolstoy’s novel of this same name, a woman whose high ideals have been stunted by an early loveless marriage with an elderly unsympathetic man. She deserts her husband and child for a young soldier; but her life soon becomes wretched, she and her lover drift apart, and she commits suicide’. This is evidently a narrative summary of the novel which, to my taste, is out of place even in an exhaustive encyclopaedic dictionary.92 The other imperfect definitions, by contrast, are worded in a telegraphic style, but it is not the brevity that deserves criticism, but rather poorly explained meanings. Let me comment briefly on a few examples: Ivan, knout, kromesky and obarni. As to Ivan ‘masculine proper name’, the dictionary-makers seem to have neglect- ed a slow shift to the transferred sense of the headword ‘a typical Russian’. For example, in Michel Mok’s article alluding to American help in building “New Russia” published in Popular Science magazine (1931), one comes across a familiar method of identifying Russian citizens with an imaginary Ivan: “When Ivan is sick, he gets free

92 Worth mentioning is the use of qualitative adjectives such as “fascinating” and “gifted” versus “elderly” and “unsympathetic”, which is seen, particularly from the perspective of Critical Discourse Analysis, as a manipulatory tactic to influence the reader’s perception.

108

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 medical treatment. When his wife has a baby, she is taken care of, free of charge, at a government hospital” (1931: 127). Knout is defined as ‘a kind of whip for flogging criminals, formerly much used in Russia…’, but it goes without saying that not only criminals were knouted (often heavily) in the autocratic system of tsarist Russia. Speaking of kromeski ‘a kind of croquette wrapped in bacon and calf’s udder, dipped in batter, and fried’, it seems highly unlikely that, in the mid-twentieth century, anyone should use calf’s udder to prepare that dish. Although it was indeed the original recipe of “Kromeskys, a la Russe” (Francatelli 1846: 309), its apparent inadequacy for contemporary dictionary users made the editors of Webster’s Third truncate the original definition to ‘a croquette wrapped in bacon, dipped in batter, and fried’. In this way, the reference to the problematic ingredient was deleted. In the case of obarni ‘a kind of a Russian drink’, the definition is too general, providing no specific information on the meaning of the lemma. By contrast, OED2 defines it as ‘scalded or boiled mead’,93 and OED3 enhances the definition with a helpful gloss: “A recipe for the drink appears in the Domostroj, an Old Russian book of household management from the mid 16th cent., but only in a late manuscript version from the 17th cent. It was therefore still being made in Russia in the 17th cent”. The editors of Webster’s Second show that they were not only familiar with Rus- sian, but also with Soviet realia. For instance, Gosplan, described accurately as a com- bination of Russ. gosudarstvennyj and plan, is defined as ‘a Soviet state commission for drafting economic projects; by extension, a project drafted by such commission’. There are also a few blends and acronyms pertaining to the Soviet regime (e.g. Cheka, Ogpu, Politburo or selsoviet), though Soviet coinages in OED2 are far more numerous. Interestingly, many of the Sovietisms recorded in OED2 were never admitted into Web- ster’s Third, which means that they did not gain wide currency in American English. As underlined in section 3.3.2.3, Webster’s First recorded only two words (knout and mammoth) that shifted in meaning. In Webster’s Second, there are five instances of such a functional shift (or zero-derivation), which is additionally indicated by the lack of etymology. The examples are given in Table 11 below.

Table 11. Examples of semantic extension in Webster’s Second.

Definitions of lemmas (nouns) Definitions of sublemmas (verbs / adjectives) knout1 [Russ.] A kind of whip for flogging criminals, for- knout2 To punish with the knout. merly much used in Russia. The lash is a tapering bundle of leather thongs twisted with wire and hardened. mammoth1 [Russ.] Any extinct elephant of several genera mammoth2 Resembling the mammoth in of Elephantidae, in which the molars have cement fillings size; very large, gigantic, as a mammoth ox. the interspaces between the numerous high narrow ridges of enamel …

93 A detailed analysis of obarni can be found in Leeming (1969: 17).

109

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 Table 11. cont.

Definitions of lemmas (nouns) Definitions of sublemmas (verbs / adjectives) pogrom1 [Russ.] An organized massacre of helpless people, pogrom2 To massacre in a pogrom. usually with the connivance of officials, specif. such a massacre of the Jews, as orig. in Russia. shaman1 [Russ.] A priest or conjurer of shamanism, loosely, shaman2 Of or pertaining to a shaman or medicine man, a tribal worker of magic, a magic heeler. shamanism. Uniat1 [Russ.] A Christian or an Eastern rite in union with Uniat2 Designating or pertaining to a Uniat, the Pope and acknowledging his primacy, but not belonging or a body of Uniats. (except when an Italo-Greek) to the Latin Patriarchate; such a Christian whose church agrees with the Latin church in matters of faith but differs from it in liturgy, in discipline, esp. in having married priests …

By contrast, Duma ‘in Russia, a council, spec. the Council of the State, or Russian Parliament, created by an Imperial ukase of 1905, and consisting of representatives elected on a restricted franchise …’ and duma ‘in Ukrainian folk literature, a class of poems narrating tales of olden times’, borrowed from Russian and Ukrainian respectively, are described fully adequately as homophones, that is, words spelled in the same way but unrelated semantically. Four Russian entries in Webster’s Second, balalaika, droshky, mammoth and sterlet, are accompanied by pictorial illustrations.

3.3.2.4. Semantic classification The Russian loanwords selected from Webster’s Second have been subsumed under seven headings corresponding roughly to semantic fields (see Table 12 below). The group comprises 293 lexical items, of which nichevo (an interjection and a noun) has not been assigned to any of the categories enumerated below.

Table 12. Semantic categories in Webster’s Second.

No Semantic category Number of loanwords % 1 Economy and trade 39 13.3 2 Science and technology 105 36.2 3 Man and society 33 11.3 4 Political life 44 15 5 Art, culture and education 9 3.1 6 Home and family 51 17.4 7 Religion 11 3.7 Total 292 ≈100

110

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 Economy and trade: 1. Economic concepts: artel, Gosplan; 2. Measures and weights: arshin, berkovets, botchka, boutylka, chetverik, chetvert, chkalik, dessiatine, dola, duim, fount, foute, garnetz, korec, krouchka, osmin, pajak, paletz, polugarnetz, polusomina, pud, sagene, stoof, tchast, totchka, vedro, verchok, verst, zolotnik; 3. Monetary units: altin, chervonets, kopeck, marka, poltina, poltinnik, pul, ruble.

Science and technology: 1. Archaeology: kurgan . 2. Botany: badan, badiaga, barometz, kok-saghyz, krym-saghyz, molka, proso, tau- saghyz; 3. Chemistry and petrology: aleutite, mazut, turanose; 4. Ethnology: Abkhas, Aleut, Balkar, Bashkir, Bielorouss, Budukha, Bukeef, Buriat, Calmucks, Chechen, Cheremiss, Cherkess, Cherneviye Tatar, Chorwat, Chud- ic, Chukchi, Chuvash, Cossack, Giliak, Ingush, Kamasin, Kamchadal, Kazak, Kipchak, Kirghiz, Koryak, Kyurin, Lezghian, Mordv, Osset, Ostyak, Permiak, Polovtzy, Rus, Russ, Rusin, Samoyed, Sirian / Siryenian / Zyrian, Svan, Tat, Tavghi, Tungus, Uzbek, Variag, Veps, Vogul, Votyak, Yakut; 5. Geography and geology: barkhan, dolina, liman, shor, steppe, taiga, tundra, urman; 6. Medicine: miryachit; 7. Meteorology: buran, purga, sastrugi; 8. Soil science: chernozem, podsol, rendzina, sierozem, solod, solonchak, solonetz; 9. Zoology: beluga, borzoi, corsac, dzeren, holluschick, karagan, keta, kolinsky, mammoth, matka, mykiss, owtchah, Przhevalski’s (horse), saiga, sarlac, scheltopusik, seecatch, slepetz, sterlet, suslik, taimen, tarpan, tur, wachna, zemmi, zokor.

Man and society: 1. Community: bratstvo, mir, stanitsa; 2. Professions: dvornik, feldsher, izvozchik, yamstchik; 3. Social class and status: atabeg, ataman, babushka, barin, beg, besprizorni, boyar, brodyaga, czar, czarevitch, czarevna, czaritza, gospodin, gospodar, intelligentsia, Ivan, knez, kulak, muzhik, pomeshchik, shaman, sotnik, starets, starosta, tchin, voivode .

Political life: 1. Administrative divisions: guberniya, oblast, okrug, uyezd, volost, zemstvo; 2. Agriculture: kolkhoz, sovkhoz;

111

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 3. Committees and organisations: Comintern, duma, Comsomol, Politburo, presidium, selsoviet, soviet, Zemski Sobor; 4. Political movements, doctrines and related: agitprop, Bolshevik, Bolshevism, Bolshevist, Cadet, commissar, Dekabrist, Menshevik, Menshevism, Menshevist, proletcult, tovarish; 5. Regime-related concepts: cheka, chekist (der.), ispravnik, knout, MGB, MVD, nagaika, NKVD, obrok, Ogpu, plet, pogrom, pristav, sotnia, strelitz, ukase, zapas.

Art, culture and education: 1. Dances: ziganka; 2. Language and literature: bylina, Kirillitsa; 3. Musical instruments: balalaika, gudok, szopelka; 4. Mythology: baba jaga, chort, lesiy .

Home and family: 1. Buildings and facilities: balagan, barabara, caback, dacha, isba, yam, yurt; 2. Clothing and materials: Astrakhan, babushka, Balaklava, bashlyk, crash, galyak,94 karakul, kolinsky, korova, losh, parka, ribazuba, saffian, sarafan, shuba, yuft. 3. Food, drinks and meals: borsch, ikary, ikra, kasha, kromeski, kumiss, kvass, manna croup, obarni, samogon, stchi, visney, vodka, zakuska; 4. Household goods: chark, nefte, peach, samovar; 5. Means of transport: arba, baidak, bidar, bidarka, droshky, kibitka, struse, tarantass, telega, troika .

Religion: 1. Orthodox Church: iconostas, pope, protopope, sobor; 2. Religious sects: Bezpopovets, Dukhoborts, Khlysti, Popovets, Raskolnik, Sko- pets, Staroobradsi, Uniat .

3.3.2.5. Conclusions Webster’s New International Dictionary of the English Language (1934) has been the largest dictionary in the history of English lexicography so far – chances are OED3 may soon come to the lead in this respect – and was instantly acclaimed a great success. It comprised approximately 600,000 entries, including pearl entries, in two bulky

94 Despite not being given any etymology, the word most probably derives from a dialectal Russian form (cf. Webster’s II New College Dictionary, 2005). Two spelling variants of the lemma, Golliak and Galiak, have been identified in Google Books Corpus (Fur Trade Review, 1929: 34).

112

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 volumes. Although some of the newly admitted items have now turned out to be hapax legomena, the lemmas were explained with a great deal of lexicographic ‘craftsman- ship’. With just a few exceptions, the definitions are long and informative, and they show the lexicographers’ familiarity with the Russian and Soviet realia. As for the etymologies, some of them are defective, yet most of the loans have been properly traced to their sources. The number of Russianisms selected from Webster’s Second surpasses that of Web- ster’s First, which requires no justification. The decades which followed the publication of the first edition coincided with fundamental social, political and economic changes in the Soviet Union, which was critical for the ever increasing interest in Russian concepts. Consequently, a multitude of Russian loans poured into American English. Ob- viously, since we are dealing with a dictionary published in 1934 (enhanced with the 1953 addenda), the group of Sovietisms admitted into it is still relatively modest. Having compared the pool of Russianisms in Webster’s First with that in Webster’s Second, it is easy to see that several lemmas appeared in Webster’s Second with brand- new etymologies (britska, Calmucks or parka) and in slightly modified forms (e.g. Ivan Ivanovitch → Ivan or plitt → plet). In other instances, a variant spelling in Webster’s First came to be recorded as the main headword in Webster’s Second (e.g. drosky → droshky or quass → kvass). A handful of obsolete headwords, archierey, astatki, carlock, nerka, opolchenie and osseter, were dropped altogether.95 In contrast to Webster’s First, calques of Russian words also found their way into the wordlist of Webster’s Second. The calques are not remarked upon, and only one coinage, five-year-plan patterned on Russ. pyatiletka, is an exception. As displayed in Table 15, Webster’s Third applied a more transparent strategy in this respect. The loanwords recorded in the dictionary can be classified into seven semantic fields. Again, a majority of the words refer to the category Science (106), but this time Home and family ranks second (51), and the other three groups, i.e. Economy and trade (39), Man and society (33), and Political life (44), are represented fairly evenly. The categories Religion (11), as well as Art, culture and education (9) have the fewest words.

3.3.3. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of English (1961) Webster’s Second became the natural starting point for the third edition, and during the 1930s work on it was already in progress. Yet, published by G. & C. Merriam under the editorship of Philip B. Gove, the dictionary turned out to be quite different from its predecessor, because a number of radical changes were introduced into it. One might wonder whether there was indeed any real need for a new dictionary, given the success of the second edition. Gove’s answer reads as follows: “[W]hen the seman-

95 Interestingly, four loans which appeared in Webster’s First but not in Webster’s Second, i.e. karakul, Molokan, polynia and Stundist, were readmitted into Webster’s Third.

113

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 tic center of gravity appears to have moved far enough … when a new science makes new knowledge and methods available, then revision … becomes the conscientious duty of the lexicographer” (qtd. in Sledd and Ebbitt 1962: 260). What he means is that a dictionary that was good for the 1930s was apparently outdated for the 1960s, etc., which is a simple, commonsensical truth that most lexicographers are acutely aware of. The third edition was aimed at recording new words, but the newcomers had to meet certain criteria, particularly that of a minimum number of citations, to prove wide currency in American English. At the same time, obsolete vocabulary was considerably limited, and all the pre-1755 lemmas were dropped. After decades of fierce arguments over the dictionary’s presumable permissiveness,96 Gove’s decision to limit archaic vocabulary appears to have killed two birds with one stone. Not only did it provide room for approximately 100,000 new words, but it also offered English speakers a reliable representation of contemporary vocabulary. The dictionary, in the words of Randolph Quirk “a meticulously complete register of English vocabulary” (qtd. in Morton 1994: 197), comprised 464,000 entries in a single volume. The CD-ROM version, yoked with the 1986 supplement, totals 476,000 entries.

3.3.3.1. Etymologies In this section, I will analyze methods adopted for delineating etymologies of the Russianisms in Webster’s Third. As results from my examination of the electronic version, there are 295 loans of Russian provenance in it, of which 15 come from the supplement (including a variant for the previously recorded lemma droshky).97 It may seem bewildering that Russian borrowings recorded in Webster’s Third are as numerous as in Webster’s Second, despite the fact that the Soviet Union, with all the intricacies of its remodelled reality, so to say, aroused great interest in the American media. It should be noted, however, that although the figures are the same, there are considerable qualitative differences between the corresponding wordlists (cf. Part 2, Table 3). The words of Russian origin are again treated in a slightly haphazard manner; while some loanwords are traced back to Russian, others are derived from various foreign languages, and a handful of lemmas are not etymologized at all. Below, I will discuss a few pertinent problems concerning the quality of etymologies in Webster’s Third.98 Firstly, five Russian-related scientific terms (informatics, kupferite, labite, pedolo- gy and polaron) are included in the so-called ISV (International Scientific Vocabulary)

96 On the dispute over Webster’s Third, see e.g. Doster (1963) or Dean and Wilson (1963). 97 The editor’s aim was twofold: to record new words and new meanings attested in contemporary vocabulary, identifying apparent omissions from Webster’s Second. Items such as gulag, glasnost, perestroika or hadron illustrate the former, whereas coulibiac (OED2 1898), osetra (OED2 1887, OED3 1753), paskha (OED3 1855), pavlova (OED3 1927) or sevruga (1591) are examples of the latter. Interestingly, osseter (a variant of osetra) had been recorded in Webster’s First, but was not admitted into the next edition. 98 It should be noted at this juncture that etymology is the only aspect of lexicographic description in Webster’s Third that has escaped criticism (Morton 1995: 255).

114

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 register, of which only polaron “International Scientific Vocabulary polar + -on; probably originally formed in Russian” makes an impression of being treated as a Russian loan. However, it is unclear on what grounds the headwords have been categorized as internationalisms, which are pan-national in character and cannot be confined exclusively to English, and why other scientific terms have been excluded from the group.99 Contrary to claims of “the synthesizing brilliance of the conception ISV” (Chapman qtd. in Morton 1995: 255), one might risk a hypothesis that the register included mainly Latin- and Greek-based formations whose etymologies could not be figured out easily. Secondly, etymologies have been attempted for a large group of ethnic names (e.g. Abkhas, Bashkir, Chukchi, Kamchadal, Ostyak, Tat or Vogul), which were only provided with geographical references in Webster’s Second . Still, the lexicographic policy adopted in this respect is not fully consistent, because several ethnonyms (e.g. Gilyak, Ingush, Khanty or Mordvin) still lack etymological references (cf. Part 2, Table 4). It needs to be underlined that the names whose forms and meanings manifest their Rus- sian origin, e.g. Gilyak (Russ. Giljaki) Kyurin (Russ. Kjuriny) or Mordvin (Russ. Mord- viny), are regarded as Russianisms in this monograph. Thirdly, in contrast to its predecessor, Webster’s Third recorded more than a hundred proper nouns, mainly toponyms. Such lemmas have been described in a systematic way, with almost no deviation from the standard pattern of wording, e.g. Kursk ‘from Kursk, city in central part of European Russia, Union of Soviet Socialist Repub- lics’ or Scherbakov ‘from Shcherbakov, city in north central European Russia, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics’. The dictionary includes also proper nouns used attrib- utively, usually formed from Russian surnames. Some of the nominal phrases, e.g. Molotov cocktail, have apparent Soviet connotations, while others name phenomena in various branches of science, e.g. Kernig’s sign (medicine), Markov chain / process (mathematics) or Pavlov pouch (physiology), which the average dictionary user has not been familiar with. In contrast to lexicalized items spelled with a lower-case letter, e.g. pavlova, all the above proper nouns have been capitalized. Since lemmas of this kind pose methodological problems, I decided to exclude all the words which retain the features of proper nouns. Still, as Molotov (cocktail) occurs also in a lexicalized form, as OED3’s quotations show (e.g. “Thirty cars zooming out of the night loaded with molotovs”), it will be treated as a Russianism proper. Fourthly, the metalanguage of the etymology section is not as clear-cut as must have been originally assumed. In the printed dictionary, the origin of the Russian loans has been abbreviated to “Russ.”, which corresponds to “Russian” in the electronic version. Upon examination, however, an alternative pattern emerged, “f. Russ.” / “from Rus- sian”, even though the items etymologized in this way share the status of loanwords proper, there being no significant qualitative differences between them. The etymology of solonchak “Russian, salt marsh, from solonyĭ salty, from sol’ salt; akin to Latin

99 The so-called internationalisms have been treated, more often than not, in a haphazard manner, which calls for clear-cut and consistent criteria of their selection (Maćkiewicz 1984: 176-184).

115

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 sal salt” exemplifies the former technique, whereas the lemma podzol “podzol, podsol from Russian podzol, from zola ashes” is an illustration of the latter. To make things worse, the dictionary applies two distinct transliteration systems. As a result, an old fashioned manner of transliterating (e.g. beluga “Russian byeluga, from byely white” or Cherneviye Tatar “Russian cherneviye”) contrasts sharply with modernized transliteration standards (e.g. Nentsi “Russian Nentsy”, Samoyed “Russ. samoed” or troika “Russian troika”). Such inconsistencies indicate that the lexicographers’ efforts were not coordinated effectively. Lastly, the etymologies of a handful of Russianisms have been explained in a debatable way, which affects both their routes and status in the dictionary macrostructure. Four of such ambiguous cases, cosmonaut, czar, iconostas and knez, are remarked upon below. Cosmonaut has been widely treated as a semi-calque. This coinage was adopted in English practically in one day, due to its massive use in English and American press. After a few attempts to render Russ. kosmonavt as (space) navigator (Lehnert 1977: 54-55), press editors altered the foreign-sounding -navt to more familiar -naut, a suffix derived from Greek (cf. astronaut). What makes this etymology, which might seem quite neat and tidy, less consistent is that Webster’s Third treats comparable structural borrowings, cosmodrome (Russ. kosmodrom) and autocrator (Russ. avtokrator), as loanwords proper rather than semi-calques.100 Due to the cultural significance of the word cosmonaut, it has been regarded as a Russianism in this book. Two reasons make the etymology of czar in Webster’s Third worthy of attention. On the one hand, the variant spellings czar and tsar/tzar are claimed to have followed two different etymological trajectories, which is a fully innovative approach to the lineage of this loan. On the other hand, the etymologies in the printed dictionary (1961) and in the electronic version (2000) are not the same. More exactly, the 1961 dictionary derives czar from the obsolete Polish form czar, which is traced back, via Russian and Old Russian, to Latin Caesar. The dictionary on CD-ROM, by contrast, treats czar as a New Latin coinage, i.e. patterned in a New Latin manner.101 It is the only lemma in my research material whose etymology has been changed entirely in the 2000 edition. Interestingly, the Polish origin of czar is not as idiosyncratic as it might seem. Ac- cording to Leeming (1968: 17), the spelling of Herberstein’s Rerum Moscoviticarum comentarii (1549) imported into other languages, including English, may have been influenced by Czech czyesarz or Polish czesarz.102 Speaking of the etymology pro-

100 For a more detailed discussion, see Benson (1962: 44) and cosmo- in The Barnhart Dictionary of New English 1963-72 (1973). 101 The concept of New Latin was introduced by the German etymologist Thomas Mahn, who assisted in the rewriting of the defective etymologies of Webster’s 1828 dictionary. By New Latin formations he understood the Latin that developed after A.D. 1500. He explains, in the remarks to the 1909 edition, that New Latin in etymology “amounts to saying … not that a word was taken into English from modern Latin …, but that a word is composed in a form befitting modern Latin rather than English”. 102 A documentary dictionary of sixteenth-century Polish usage, Słownik polszyczny XVI wieku (1966-), records an array of spellings for cesarz. The variants with the digraph [cz] are claimed to come mainly from manuscripts.

116

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 posed in the electronic dictionary, it apparently rests on the premise that the spelling was indicative of New Latin conventions, yet the initial digraph [cz] has been typical of Polish rather than Latin orthography (cf. Czech or Czestochowa).103 Irrespective of the direct source of the borrowing, one inconsistency deserves mention: if czar is indeed a New Latin formation, why is it that two closely related items, czarevitch and czarevna, are treated as direct Russianisms? This clearly undermines the reliability of the new etymology.104 Iconostas is another problematic lemma in Webster’s Third. The origin of the main headword iconostasis and its variant spelling iconostas are explained in the following way: “iconostasis modification of Middle Greek eikonostasi, eikonostasion, from Late Greek eikonostasion shrine, from eikono- icon- + -stasion (from Greek histanai to stand); iconostas from Russian ikonostas, from Middle Greek eikonostasi, eikonostasion”. The quality of the etymologies notwithstanding, the inclusion of cognate forms of Russian and Greek origins respectively in a single entry must be seen as controversial. By contrast, vaivode (< New Latin and Italian) and woiwode (< Russian) are recorded as separate headwords, and so are two further cognates, ataman (< Rus- sian) and hetman (< Polish). The last Russianism to be discussed, knez, is treated as a Slavic borrowing. Al- though there are cognates in several Slavic languages, convergent in form rather than meaning (cf. Vasmer’s Etimologičeskij slovar′ russkogo jazyka, 1986), in the historical context of relations between England and the Slavic world, the Russian origin of the word is most likely, the more so because the first quotation in OED2 refers to “the great Knes, or duke of Moscovia” (1586).105 What is more, Leeming notes another occurrence of the word traced to 1559: “before his father they were neither called Em- perours nor kings, but onely Ruese Velike, that is to say, great Duke” (1968: 11), explaining that Ruese is an erroneus transcription of knese. Lehnert (1977: 31-32) points to the fact that L. Ger. knes was also taken from Russian; the first attestation of kneß is found in Novgorod documents of the Hanseatic League as early as 1494. Thus, unless strong counterevidence has been found, I will treat knez as a word of Russian origin. Generally speaking, in terms of the quality of etymological information, the dictionary entries vary. While some etymological sections are extensive, others are confined merely to the direct language source, e.g. baronduki “Russian burunduk”.106 Oc-

103 There are more word-forms in Herberstein’s Latin narrative which keep the digraph [cz] for the Russian sound /c/, e.g. Polowczi (Russ. polovcy). 104 Whose influence contributed to the gradual adoption of the spelling tsar instead of czar remains shrouded in mystery, although Thomas Consett boasts of being the first one to “give the tsar his rightful name” (Berkov 1962: 23). OED2’s editors believe that the variant tsar became frequent in English towards the end of the nineteenth century, having been adopted by the Times newspaper as the most suitable English spelling. In contrast to British English, czar has always been predominant in American English. 105 Fletcher’s observations should also be appreciated, because he used the loanword several times. Importantly, he differentiated between the singular and plural forms, e.g. “the sons of a Knez or Duke are called Knazey” (1591: 29). 106 Etymological reconstruction of word histories in Russian dictionaries is not always comparable. For instance, according to Vasmer, burunduk was imported into Russian from Mari urumdok, whereas Evgen′eva argues that

117

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 casionally, the dictionary provides incorrect information. For instance, Chechen is treated as a modification of Rus. Chechenets, although the form Čečen was actually pri- or to Čečenec. Chernozem is derived from “cherno- (from cherny black) + -zem earth (from Old Russian zem earth)”, but the Old Russian form was spelled with a jer, hence zem′ .107 Doline is not only akin to Slavic dolǔ, but it stems directly from the word- form dolina, which has been noted by Sławski in his Słownik prasłowiański (1974). Etymologies in Webster’s Third were apparently consulted with Vasmer’s etymological dictionary (despite its focus on the history of the words within the Slavic branch of languages rather than outside of it), which is proved by affinities in etymological conjectures (e.g. shuba). In other cases, the etymologists of Webster’s Third proposed their own hypotheses. For instance, Webster’s Third treats mazurka as a Russianism, perhaps overestimating the value of the earliest quotation in the OED, which is highly unlikely (cf. Lehnert 1977, Piotrowski 1999). Apart from that, no attention has been paid to German and Polish in the transmission of intelligentsia, despite the contribution of the two languages having now been well documented in the literature (Pipes 1971, Kochman 1988).108 What is perhaps little known is that the changes introduced by the Soviets after the October Revolution had a visible effect on Russian toponyms and ethnonyms. Com- rie, Stone and Polinsky (1996: 204-205) state that, in order to avoid derogatory connotations, a number of ethnic names were renamed. For example, Čeremis was replaced by Mari, Lamut changed into Évenk, Ostjak substituted Xanty, Sart was abandoned in favour of Uzbek, Votjak became Udmurt, etc. A glance at the entries confirms that the etymologists of Webster’s Third were acquainted with the innovations, yet not all the lemmas were given respective etymologies. This is indicated in Table 13 (etymologies are provided if included).

Table 13. Etymologies of ethnic names in Webster’s Third.

Ethnic name Etymology Cheremis Etymology: Russian Cheremis, from Old Russian, probably from Chuvash Śarmĭš Evenk Etymology: Russian Khanty Lamut Mari it comes from Tatar burunduk . Dal′ does not offer any etymology, defining the headword as ‘sibirskij zverok Tamias striatus, malen′kaja, polosataja, zemljanaja belka’ [a Siberian animal, Tamias striatus, a small striped ground squirrel] (Tolkovyj slovar′ živogo velikorusskogo jazyka, 1880-1882). 107 On the use of jers in Old Russian, see e.g. Bermel (1997: 23). 108 OED3 has corrected both etymologies: mazurka is derived from Polish, whereas German and Polish are regarded as indirect sources in the borrowing of Russ. intelligentsia.

118

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 Table 13. cont.

Ethnic name Etymology Ostyak Etymology: Russian Ostyak, from Ostyak āsyakh dwellers on the Ob river, from Ās Ob river, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Sart2 Etymology: Kirghiz Udmurt Etymology: Votyak, Votyak man Uzbek Votyak Etymology: Russian Votyak member of the Votyaks, from Vot′ Votyak people, from Cheremis òdə, from Votyak Udmurt Votyak man

On the whole, etymological information in Webster’s Third has been worked out fairly accurately, and speculation, however inevitable, was kept to a minimum. One of the advantages of Gove’s top-to-bottom revision of Webster’s Second was that ambiguous etymological conjectures were corrected. What is not quite clear, however, is to what extent the new etymologies were supported with newly collected historical evidence. The etymology of verst, for instance, seems to have been patterned on the OED. Charles Sleeth, the chief etymologist of Webster’s Third, admits to having turned to the OED in the handling of loans, usually in order to get familiarized with the first citations (Morton 1994: 108), but the consultation process no doubt had broader implications. Many dictionary-makers over the years have supposedly drawn on OED2’s diachronic data. Nevertheless, in the light of Schäfer’s research and OED3’s extensive update, it may have been a potential source of error (cf. section 3.2.5.2).

3.3.3.2. Headwords This section looks at formal aspects of Russianisms in Webster’s Third. I will start by presenting a sample entry as it appeared in the paper dictionary (1961).

russ·ki also russ·ky or rus·ki ki \`rəskē\ n, pl russkies or russkis also ruskies or ruskis usu cap [Russ. russkĭĭ, adj. & n., Russian, fr. Rus′, old name for Russia – more at RUSS] : a native of Russia : RUSSIAN – often taken to be offensive

The CD-ROM version of the dictionary (2000) will help us to better discern the changes introduced into the entry structure. The abbreviations, in particular, are explained in it fully explicitly, as displayed in Table 14 below. One of the novelties is information on the spelling with either an upper- or lower-case letter, which takes the shape of such abbreviations as “cap.” (i.e. capitalized), “often cap.” (i.e. often capitalized) or “usu cap.” (i.e. usually capitalized). The editors, inspired by a descriptivist approach to language, made attempts to avoid any normative decisions, but such a strategy could also be confusing to the dictionary user. Given

119

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 the variety of contexts, figuring out when the word is to be capitalized and why may be doomed to failure.109

Table 14. Entry Russki in Webster’s Third on CD-ROM.

Main Entry: russ·ki Variant: also russ·ky or rus·ki \`rəskē\ Function: noun Inflected Form: plural russkies or russkis also ruskies or ruskis Usage: usually capitalized Etymology: Russian russkiĭ, adjective & noun, Russian, from Rus′, old name for Russia - more at RUSS : a native of Russia : RUSSIAN – often taken to be offensive

Another difference is the lack of tramlines, which means that denizens and aliens have disappeared from the dictionary’s (implicit) metalanguage. At the same time, temporal status labels (Archaic, Obsolete), stylistic labels (Non-standard, Slang, Substand- ard) and regional status labels (Dialect, Varietal, etc.) have been kept. The description of lemmas is now to a large degree standardized, and notes on usage are particularly worthy of mention. Sometimes, a gloss communicates usage information; in the example above, “often taken to be offensive” replaces the labels Derogatory and Offensive widely used in mono- and bilingual English lexicography (cf. Wells 1973: 95-100). As illustrated by the entry above, pronunciation is not represented by the Interna- tional Pronunciation Alphabet (IPA), which is typical of British English dictionaries. Instead, the dictionary applied another system called respelling, in which the lemma is respelled in alphabetic characters with diacritic marks over certain vowels, and with primary and secondary stress indicated (cf. section 3.1.2). Due to the lack of parallels between the respelling system, whereby one letter represents more than one sound, and the IPA adopted in OED2, whereby a specific character represents only one sound, this aspect of the dictionary entry will not be discussed in this book. The pronunciations in Webster’s Third have been examined by Malone (1966: 233-244, cf. Marck- wardt 1977: 195-199). As archaic vocabulary in Webster’s Third was to be significantly shortened, only berkovets and ikary were allowed into the dictionary’s wordlist.110 Speaking of the former, it was recorded in Webster’s Second in a pearl entry, whereas the German-derived variant berkowitz was the main headword. The latter, cross-referenced to the more

109 Somewhat surprisingly, one can come across headwords which are usually capitalized (e.g. Cheka), but relevant information is not provided. 110 Even after the great cutback in the number of outdated words, Webster’s Third retained nearly 20,000 archaic and obsolete items on the premise that they appear in literature that is still read (Morton 1994: 209).

120

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 recognizable caviar, was left undefined. It is difficult to understand why the two obsolete lemmas were admitted into Webster’s Third; since the selection of headwords is claimed to have been guided by usefulness, it could be concluded that both berkovets and ikary were supported by adequate textual evidence, yet there is little proof for it. What is more, a few rare graphic forms, particularly the old-fashioned variants of chervonets (tchervonets and tchervonetz) and kvass (quass and quas) were retained in the dictionary for no apparent reason. Nevertheless, looking at the ‘limbo’ at the foot of each page in Webster’s Second one will realize how many outdated forms must have been dropped in the revision process for Wesbter’s Third. The spellings of the headwords are sometimes different from those included in Web- ster’s Second (e.g. Przevalski horse → Przevalski’s horse, slepetz → slepez or Uniat → Uniate). As already noted, the lexicographers of Webster’s Third readmitted four words which had appeared in Webster’s First, but were left out in Webster’s Second (i.e. Molokane, ossetra, polynya and Stundist). A handful of Russianisms in Webster’s Third, just like in the previous editions, are used in rival morphological forms. The Russian inflectional endings, less favoured in Webster’s First and Webster’s Second, have visibly come to the fore in Webster’s Third (e.g. Khlysty / Khlysts, kolkhozniki / kolkhozniks, kolkhozy / kolkhozes or sovkhozy / sovkhozes).111 The use of the Russian plural is justified, at least from the linguistic point of view, in words ending in -s, e.g. starets (pl. startsy) or Popovets (pl. popovtsy) . Speaking of currency, for the lemma gospodin, the lexicographers recorded only the plural gospoda, because gospodins has been fairly rare in texts. In fact, a search in Google Books Corpus shows that The circulator of useful knowledge… (1825) is the only (pre-1961) source of this Anglicized plural.112 The Russian plural endings are standardized into -i (e.g. kulaki) and -y (e.g. kolkhozy), although the range of native Russian inflectional endings is wider (e.g. Russ. Molokan, pl. Molokane). Interestingly, I have found two inconsistencies in the printed dictionary (1961), namely the lemma oprichnic ends in -c, but the plural forms include -k instead (pl. oprichniks / oprichniki), whereas soloth, a variant spelling of solod, is claimed to pluralize as soloti. While the former has been corrected in the electronic version, the latter apparently reflects common usage. The headword baronduki (and its three spelling variants following the lemma: baranduki, barunduki and burunduki) is treated as a singular noun. This notwithstanding, another variant further in the wordlist, borunduk, is also recorded as singular, which indicates that barondukis (also barandukis, barundukis and burundukis) represents an extremely rare case of pluralia tantum (a double plural) in the group of Rus- sian loanwords.

111 Anglicized plurals are recommended for such loanwords as kulak (pl. kulaks / kulaki), Menshevik (pl. Mensheviks / mensheviki), Molokan (pl. Molokans / Molokani) or Strigolnik (pl. Strigolniks / Strigolniki) . 112 The quotation reads as follows: “All the merchants are addressed as Gospodins, or Sirs, and so are the simple Mestchanins, or burgesses” (1825: 154).

121

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 Apart from Russianisms proper, 14 calques and semi-calques have been identified in the dictionary. As can be seen in Table 15 below, most of the coinages are explained uniformly by the phrase “translation of”, with two exceptions: black earth and vernalization. The former is given a cross-reference to the synonymous form chernozem (Russ. černozëm), whereas the latter is part of “International Scientific Vocabulary vernalize + -ation”, cross-referenced to a corresponding English term, jarovization. The nominal form jarovization is apparently a loanblend of Russian jaroviz- and the Eng- lish suffix -ation.113

Table 15. Calques in Webster’s Third.

Lemma Etymological information black earth : chernozem biogeochemical translation of Russian biogeokhimicheskiy biogeochemistry translation of Russian biogeokhimiya Decembrist translation of Russian Dekabrist; from the fact that the uprising occurred in De- cember 1825 fellow-traveler translation of Russian poputchik five-year-plan translation of Russian pyatiletka freedomite probably translation of Russian svobodnik labor day translation of Russian trudoden, from trud labor + den day Octobrist translation of Russian oktyabrist Old Believer translation of Russian Starover priestist translation of Russian popovets priestless translation of Russian bezpopovets spirit wrestler translation of Russian dukhoborets Doukhobor vernalization : jarovization

The perception of Webster’s Third as a modern dictionary resulted from the deletion of archaic or obsolete items and the inclusion of new words and meanings, which added a flavour of freshness to the dictionary wordlist. To provide the exact facts and figures, 105 Russian borrowings admitted into Webster’s Second were left out, apparently as obsolete lexical items, while 107 newcomers were admitted into Webster’s Third. In the case of one headword, pope, there was a significant change in status (cf. Part 2, Ta- ble 4). The inclusion of contemporary quotations from a variety of sources was also an important novelty. Still, Russianisms are rarely supported by quotations, which accom- pany more recent loans such as agitprop, apparat, apparatchik, kulak or praesidium.

113 According to OED2’s lexicographers, černozëm has also been calqued as black soil, but this translation loan is not in Webster’s Third.

122

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 3.3.3.3. Definitions In order to be recognized as a modern dictionary, Webster’s Third introduced changes not only to the macrostructure, but also to a specific element of the microstructure, namely the defining style. As a result, lengthy definitions in Webster’s Second were replaced with single-sentence definitions, whose goal was to bring a vital advantage − extra space − that could be filled with new vocabulary. What is astonishing in this context is that many definitions in Webster’s Third are actually longer than those in Webster’s Second, but they are worded in a coherent and consistent manner, and awk- wardly defined lemmas being scarce. However, in an attempt to save space the lexicographers have taken too radical steps, devising an extensive cross-referencing structure which replaced definitions of less common headwords. To provide a specific example, looking up blin, one stumbles across blintze, searching for the definition of doline, one is directed to sink5, Evenk leads us to Tungus, keta provides a cross-reference to dog salmon1, while nelma is apparently a lesser known synonym of inconnu. It goes without saying that, if properly designed and implemented, a cross-referencing structure becomes an effective means of increasing the accessibility of lemmas (cf. Zgusta 1971: 259). On the other hand, if this goal is overshadowed by other factors, like space restrictions in this case, cross- references can become fairly discouraging for the dictionary user. This is but a single example in the realm of practical lexicography which indicates that, in a paper dictionary, comprehensiveness always comes at a price. Russian loans rarely pose problems as to the number of meanings and versatility of functions typical of native lexical items in English vocabulary. Most Russianisms in the dictionary are words denoting culture-specific concepts, often borrowed in one meaning only, and the group of polysemous words is relatively modest. However, the distinction between polysemy and homonymy is not always clear-cut. Comparing the treatment of corresponding lemmas in different dictionaries, one realizes that sense discrimination is fairly arbitrary. For example, while OED2 treats pope1 (a multi-sense item) and pope2 ‘a parish priest of the Greek Church in Russia, Serbia, etc.’ as separate headwords, pope in Webster’s Third is treated as a polysemous lemma, one of whose senses (‘an Eastern Orthodox priest’) refers implicitly to Russian. On the contrary, two meanings of mammoth in OED2, represented by two different parts of speech, are included in a single entry, whereas the lexicographers of Webster’s Third provide mammoth1 (a noun) and mammoth2 (an adjective) with the status of main headwords. Meanings naturally change over time, and new meanings and/or senses emerge in response to social, political or technological changes that need to be expressed. No wonder several borrowings included in Webster’s Second acquired novel senses in Web- ster’s Third. The word babushka, for instance, previously defined simply as ‘grand- mother’, in Webster’s Third has its meaning extended to two senses (a) ‘a usually tri- angular or triangularly folded kerchief worn over the head and usually tied under the

123

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 chin’, and (b) ‘a head covering resembling a babushka’. Similarly, the headword tovarich ‘comrade: a title frequently used of members of the Russian Communist party’ (Webster’s Second), in Webster’s Third has acquired a new meaning ‘an inhabitant of the Soviet Union’. Sometimes the same lemmas carry different meanings in British and American dictionaries. To provide a specific example, the loan subbotnik in OED2 has strong Sovi- et connotations ‘in the Soviet Union, the practice or an act of working voluntarily on a Saturday, for the benefit of the collective; = Saturdaying’.114 In Webster’s Third, the headword is left undefined, but it is cross-referenced to Sabbatarian3 ‘a member of a non-Jewish religious sect originating in Russia distinguished by observance of Jewish rites and festivals including Saturday as the day of rest’.115 This meaning of Subbotnik, apparently obsolete in contemporary Russian, can be found neither in Ožegov’s Slo- var′ russkogo jazyka (1978) nor Evgen′eva’s Slovar′ russkogo jazyka (1984), to mention a couple of well-known dictionaries of Russian, but it has been included by Dal′, whereby the definition reads: “subbotničat′, prazdnovat′ den′ subbotnij, kak židy i sub- botniki” [to celebrate Saturday (as a holy day) as Jews and Subbotniks do] (Tolkovyj slovar′ živogo velikorusskogo jazyka, 1880-1882). Occasionally, the definitions in Webster’s Third are worded less precisely than one might expect. For example, if Ivan denotes ‘a Russian soldier’, as the lexicographers of Webster’s Third claim, how should one interpret the following use in Harry Walton’s article “It’s tough to buy a car in Russia” published in Popular Science: “Ivan must pay through the nose, wait interminably, unwind miles of Red tape to get an auto” (1960: 81) or “Once Ivan has his car, he faces a service problem” (1960: 187)? On a different note, the lemma Skoptsy is defined as ‘members of an ascetic religious sect of dissenters from the Russian Orthodox Church dating prob. from the 18th century and stressing sexual abstinence’. In fact, sexual abstinence derived from the fact that many members of the sect, both men and women, had their genital organs re- moved (Engelstein 1997: 5-6). To avoid shocking the dictionary user, the editors resorted to an understatement, which is less offensive but also less explicit. In the past, critics of Webster’s Third accused the lexicographers of pro-communistic biases − “bolshevik spirit”, as a Detroit newspaper put it bluntly (Morton 1995: 183) – yet a careful examination of selected Sovietisms (e.g. agitprop, agitpunkt, apparatchik, Cheka, agrogorod, kolkhoz or politburo) contradicts this claim. My research shows that the editors of Webster’s Third went to great lengths to define the lemmas in an impartial and objective way, and the definitions are deprived of any ideological bias. Apart from that, Sovietisms in Webster’s Third are rather infrequent. For example, a number of acronyms and blends pertaining to Soviet concepts, as recorded by OED2

114 The use of Russ . subbotnik is richly documented with quotations in Tolkovyj slovar′ jazyka Sovdepii (1998), an unrivalled dictionary of Soviet jargon. 115 Great Britan, unlike the United States, never became the destination place for a massive emigration of dissenters from the official Russian Orthodox Church.

124

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 (e.g. KGB, MVD, NKVD, nomenklatura, Ogpu, Profintern, residentura, ROA, Smersh, sovnarkhoz, Sovnarkom, TASS or zek), have never found their way into Webster’s Third. One of the definitions ridiculed by Gove’s most outraged critic, Dwight MacDon- ald, accompanies the headword Stalinism ‘the political, economic, and social principles and policies associated with Stalin; especially: the theory and practice of com- munism developed by Stalin from Marxism-Leninism’. MacDonald argued that it was completely absurd, since Stalin never had any theory in his life (1963: 78). This criticism, however, does not seem to be justified, because the editors merely updated, perhaps less skilfully than in other cases, the definition recorded in Webster’s Second ‘the political theories and practices of Joseph Stalin’. To get a better idea of what the differences between the defining strategies in Web- ster’s Second and Webster’s Third consist in, I paired corresponding entries from the two dictionaries (letter section K, randomly chosen). They are displayed in Table 16.

Table 16. Corresponding entries in Webster’s Second and Third (letter K).

Webster’s Second Webster’s Third Kamchadal 1. One of an aboriginal people Kamchadal 1a: a Paleo-Asiatic people of southern Kam- in southern Kamchatka, chiefly hunters and chatka who are chiefly hunters and fishers b : a member of fishermen. They are decreasing in number, and such people 2: a Luorawetlan language of the Kamchadal their language is disappearing. 2. The language people of the Kamchadals. karagan = corsac kasha A mush made from coarse cracked kasha 1: a mush made from coarse cracked buckwheat, buckweat, barley or millet. barley, millet, or wheat 2: kasha grain before cooking kefir (Caucasian) An effervescent liquor like kefir a slightly effervescent acidulous beverage of low kumiss, made from fermented milk, used as a alcoholic content made chiefly in southern Russia of cow’s food and medicine in the Caucasus. milk that is fermented by means of kefir grains kendyr 1: a strong bast fiber that resembles Indian hemp and is used in Asia as cordage and as a substitute for cotton and hemp 2: an Old World dogbane (Apocynum venetum) cultivated chiefly in Asiatic Russia for the kendyr that it produces keta The dog salmon. keta DOG SALMON1 Khlysti One of a sect of the Raskolniki. Khlyst a member of a secret Russian Christian sect that originated in the 17th century or earlier, taught that God becomes incarnate in many Christs through their suffering, and followed ascetic and ecstatic practices kibitka 1. A Kirghiz circular tent of lattice- kibitka 1: a Kirghiz circular tent of latticework and felt 2: work and felt. 2. A rude Russian vehicle, on a Russian covered vehicle on wheels or runners wheels and runners. Kirillitsa The Cyryllic alphabet. Kirillitsa CYRILLIC ALPHABET knez Prince or duke, a Slavic title. knez (Slavic) a Slavic prince or duke

125

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 Table 16. cont.

Webster’s Second Webster’s Third knout A kind of whip for flogging criminals, knout a flogging whip with a lash of leather thongs twisted formerly much used in Russia. The lash is a with wire used for punishing criminals tapering bundle of leather thongs twisted with wire and hardened. kolinsky 1a. Among furriers, any of several kolinsky 1 or kolinski a: any of several Asiatic minks (es- Asiatic minks; b. the furor pelt of any of these pecially Mustela sibirica); b: the fur or pelt of any of these minks often called red sable and Tatar sable. minks — called also red sable, Tatar sable 2: LEAFMOLD kolkhoz A collective farm of the Soviet kolkhoz 1: a collective farm of the Union of Soviet Social- Russia. ist Republics 2: a system of collectivized agriculture based on the kolkhoz and developed or enforced especially among satellite countries Komsomol, Comsomol. The Communist Komsomol, Comsomol a member of a Russian Commu- Union of Youth, a branch of the Russian Com- nist youth organization with members between the ages of munist party. 16 and 23 years kopeck A minor Russian coin and money of kopeck 1: a Russian unit of monetary value equal to 1/100 account, 1/100 ruble. It was originally of base of a ruble — see MONEY table 2: a coin originally of base silver. silver representing one kopeck korova Calfskin. kovsh a ladle or drinking vessel with a boat-shaped bowl and a handle at one end korec Measure>> kromeski A kind of croquette wrapped in kromesky a croquette wrapped in bacon, dipped in batter, bacon and calf’s udder, dipped in batter, and and fried fried. krouchka Measure>> † ksar czar kulak A rich peasant, esp. a prosperous farmer kulak 1: a prosperous or wealthy peasant farmer in 19th or peasant who has made money out of the century Russia often associated with gaining profit from poorer class or who refuses to cooperate with renting land, usury, or acting as a middleman in the sale of the government. Russia. the products of other farmers 2: a farmer characterized by Communists as having excessive wealth usually by possession of more than a minimal amount of property and ability to hire laborers or sometimes merely by unwillingness to join a collective farm and as a result denounced as an oppressor of less fortunate farmers and subjected to severe penalties (as heavy fines and confiscation of property) ‹a large proportion of the kulaks of the twenties were liqui- dated – L.K.Soth› kumiss An intoxicating fermented (or distilled) koumiss a fermented beverage made originally by the liquor originally made by the Tatars from nomadic peoples of central Asia from mare’s milk and now mare’s or camel’s milk. also from cow’s milk elsewhere — compare LEBEN kurgan A barrow of the Russian steppes. kurgan a burial mound of eastern Europe or Siberia kvass A thin sour beer, commonly made by kvass a weak homemade beer of Eastern European pouring warm water on rye or barley and let- countries (as Russia) made by pouring warm water over a ting it ferment. mixture of cereals and allowing it to ferment

126

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 As can be seen, 23 entries drawn from Webster’s Second correspond to 20 from Webster’s Third. Their analysis has brought the following results. Five borrowings in Webster’s Third (i.e. kasha, kolinsky, kolkhoz, kopeck and kulak) have developed new meanings, but the meanings are defined partly on the basis of definitions in Webster Second (e.g. kopeck or kulak). Only one word is claimed to have shifted in meaning; in Webster’s Second comsomol is described as an organization (Russ. komsomol), whereas in Webster’s Third it denotes a member of that organization (Russ. komsomolec / komsomolka). Definitions of three lemmas have been significantly extended (Khlysti, kolkhoz and kulak), which results, to some extent, from the inclusion of a new meaning, whereas for three other lemmas they are slightly shortened (kibitka, knout and kromeski). In two out of three cases (keta and Kirillitsa), the exact English translation equivalent serving as a definiens has been replaced by a cross-referenced item. Twelve definitions are modified stylistically, which has usually helped to explain the concepts in a more comprehensible way. This refers to Kamchadal, kasha, kefir, kibitka, knout, kolinsky, komsomol, kopeck, kromeski, koumiss, kurgan and kvass. Taken together, the changes introduced are less significant than publicized in that they involve alterations to the wording of the definitions rather than to the defining style in the strict sense of the term (cf. Dictionary of Lexicography, 2001).

3.3.3.4. Semantic classification As regards the semantic classification, the 295 borrowings excerpted from Web- ster’s Third have again been grouped into seven broad categories. The quantitative and qualitative results are displayed in Table 17 below.

Table 17. Semantic categories in Webster’s Third.

No Semantic category Number of loanwords % 1 Economy and trade 15 5.1 2 Science and technology 126 42.7 3 Man and society 31 10.5 4 Political life 40 13.5 5 Art, culture and education 17 5.8 6 Home and family 51 17.3 7 Religion 15 5.1 Total 295 100

Economy and trade: 1. Economic concepts: artel; 2. Measures and weights: arshin, berkovets, chetvert, dessiatine, pood, sagene, vedro, verst, zolotnik;

127

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 3. Monetary units: chervonets, kopeck, poltinnik, pul, ruble .

Science and technology:

1. Archaeology: kurgan; 2. Astronautics and space travel: cosmodrome, cosmonaut, sputnik; 3. Botany: badan, kok-saghyz, krym-saghyz, makhorka, proso, tau-saghyz; 4. Chemistry and petrology: mazut, turanose; 5. Economy: Kondratieff; 6. Ethnology: Abashev, Abkhas, Adzhar, Aleut, Balkar, Bashkir, Budukha, Bukeyef, Buryat, Chechen, Cheremiss, Cherkess, Cherneviye Tatar, Chorwat, Chudic, Chukchi, Chuvash, Cossack, Evenk, Gilyak, Ingush, Kalmuck, Kamasin, Kam- chadal, Karachai, Kazak, Khanty, Kipchak, Kirghiz, Koryak, Kyurin, Lezghi- an, Mansi, Mordvin, Nentsi, Osset, Ostyak, Permiak, Petcheneg, Russ, Rus- sene, Samoyed, Siberski, Siberyak, Svan, Syryenian / Sirian / Zyrian, Tat, Tav- gi, Tungus, Uzbek, Variag, Veps, Vogul, Votyak, Yakut; 7. Geography and geology: barchan, doline, liman, polynya, shor, steppe, taiga, tundra, urman; 8. Meteorology: buran, purga, sastruga; 9. Physics: hadron, polaron, tokamak; 10. Soil science: chernozem, gley, podzol, rendzina, sierozem, solod, solonchak, solonetz; 11. Technology: Molotov cocktail 12. Zoology: baronduki, barukhzy, Beetewk, beluga, borzoi, corsac, dzeren, holluschick, irbis, keta, kolinsky, malma, mammoth, matka, Orloff, osetra, perwitsky, Przhevalski’s (horse), Romanov, saiga, sarlak, scheltopusik, seecatch, sevruga, slepez, sterlet, suslik, taimen, tarbagan, tarpan, tur, wachna, zemmi, zokor.

Man and society:

1. Communities: mir, stanitsa; 2. Professions: feldsher, yamstchik; 3. Social class and status: atabeg, ataman, babushka, beg, bogatyr, boyar, cesarevitch, czar, czarevitch, czarevna, czaritza, chinovnik, gospodin, intelligentsia, Ivan, knez, kolkhoznik, kulak, muzhik, promyshlennik, Russki, shaman, starets, voivode / woiwode; 4. Sports and games: sambo, vint.116

116 In contrast to numerous English sports terms taken into Russian (see Benson 1958), Russianisms in English are extremely modest in this category.

128

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 Political life: 1. Administrative divisions: guberniya, oblast, raion; 2. Agricultural concepts: agrogorod, kolkhoz, sovkhoz; 3. Committees and organisations: buro, duma, Komsomol, politburo, presidium, soviet; 4. Political movements, doctrines and related: agitprop, agitpunkt, apparat, apparatchik, Bolshevik, Bolshevism, Bolshevist, Cadet, commissar, Dekabrist, glasnost, Menshevik, Menshevism, Menshevist, perestroika, proletcult, tovarish; 5. Regime-related concepts: cheka, chekist, chistka, Gulag, knout, nagaika, obrok, oprichnik, pogrom, pristav, ukase .

Art, culture and education: 1. Dances: gopak, kamarinskaia, lezginka, prisiadka, trepak; 2. Education: rabfak, technicum; 3. Language and literature: bylina, chastushka, Kirillitsa; 4. Musical instruments: balalaika, bandura, domra, gudok, gusli, theremin; 5. System of publishing: samizdat .

Home and family: 1. Buildings and facilities: aul, barabara, chum, dacha, isba, yurt; 2. Clothing and materials: Astrakhan, babushka, balaclava, bashlyk, burka, caftan, crash, galyak, karakul, kendyr, kolinsky, losh, parka, peschaniki, saffian, shuba, yuft; 3. Food, drinks and meals: blin, borsch, ikary, kasha, kefir, koumiss, kromeski, kvass, Nesselrode (pie), paskha, pavlova, pelmeni, pirogi, piroshki, samogon, shashlik, vodka, zakuska; 4. Household goods: kovsh, samovar; 5. Means of transport: araba, bidar, bidarka, droshky, kibitka, tarantass, telega, troika .

Religion: 1. Orthodox Church: iconostas, protopope, sobor, sobornost; 2. Religious sects: Bezpopovets, Doukhobor, Khlyst, Molokan, Popovets, Raskol- nik, Skoptsy, Strigolnik, Stundism, Stundist, Subbotnik, Uniate .

3.3.3.5. Conclusions The most contemporary edition of Webster’s line of dictionaries, Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of English (1961), is the only present-day unabridged

129

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 American dictionary of English. Despite the initial controversies aroused by its policy of descriptivism, it came to be regarded as an authoritative dictionary. The “cardinal virtues of dictionary-making: accuracy, clearness, and comprehensiveness”, to which the editors make a reference in the preface, must have indeed been held steadfastly to. While Webster’s Second was meant to be an historical dictionary of English that would embrace existing as well as obsolete words, the purpose of Webster’s Third was to record contemporary American English vocabulary. There was a clear rationale for this change in lexicographic profile, as users facing ground-breaking developments in virtually every sphere of life were less concerned with the history of words. To them, a dictionary that would provide reliable information about contemporary usage had undisputable advantages. By declining the concept of all-inclusiveness, tempting as it was, the lexicographers of Webster’s Third covered the standard variety of predominantly twentieth-century English. As far as the semantic classification of the loans is concerned, the Russianisms have been grouped into seven semantic categories, of which Science (126) ranks first, Home and family (51) comes second in the ranking, while Political life (40) is third. The categories Man in society (31), Art, Culture and education (17), Religion (15) and Economy and trade (15) are represented less numerously. Again, the majority of the borrowings denote culture-specific concepts. The examination of the dictionary shows that the number of lemmas described inaccurately is negligible, which indicates that Russia (and its political successor, the Soviet Union) was no longer remote to English lexicographers in terms of language, culture or geography. The pool of Russianisms represented in American dictionaries since Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) grew with every extensive reference work compiled. Of them all, the last two editions of Webster’s New International Dictionary (1934, 1961) have been truly unprecedented in the coverage of American English vocabulary. Central to my analysis is also more recent vocabulary, so the next sections will describe three volumes of new words in order to find out what Russian loanwords were recorded in the years 1963-1990.

3.4. Russianisms in American dictionaries of new words

The second half of the twentieth century was a time of substantial changes in the United States. Rapid technological progress, scientific discovery, increasing industri- alization, urbanization and immigration, practically from every corner of the globe, contributed to the ongoing transformation of the country, its society and, inevitably, its language. No wonder attempts were undertaken by lexicographers to collect new words pouring into American English vocabulary. Three Barnhart dictionaries analyzed below exemplify the genre of new-word dictionary.

130

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 3.4.1. The Barnhart Dictionary of New English 1963-1972 (1973) The Barnhart Dictionary of New English 1963-72 (henceforth, First Barnhart) is claimed to be a collection of core vocabulary of the English-speaking world attested in the decade of 1963-1972. Edited by Clarence Barnhart, Sol Steinmetz and Robert Barnhart, it covered 4,927 headwords, many of which were not admitted into Web- ster’s Third and other dictionaries. Importantly, items to be recorded in First Barn- hart had to show substantial currency in the Barnhart files; in accord with this rigorous principle, ephemeral and nonce words were automatically excluded. Quotations illustrating headwords came from a vast range of sources, mainly American, British and Canadian newspapers, magazines and books published between 1963 and 1972 (Cannon 1987: 22). An extensive study of the first two Barnhart dictionaries was carried out by Cannon (1987), so I posited that my findings could be checked against his results. However, such a comparison turned out to be impractical due to differences between Cannon’s list of borrowings and mine, resulting from our different methodological approaches to Russianisms. Therefore, I decided to stick to my own classification used throughout this monograph. Since the material excerpted is relatively modest, all the recorded types of borrowing have been briefly commented upon. One Russianism in First Barnhart is given a wrong etymology: katyusha is obviously of Russian, not Czech origin. No calques of Russian provenance have been recorded in the dictionary (cf. kurchatovium). As the dictionary tells us, druzhinnik and the nouns ending in -nik pluralize by adding -i (irregular inflection). Interestingly, the suffix –nik, in most dictionaries derived from Russian and/or Yiddish, is traced back to Russian in First Barnhart.117 The dictionary recorded the following headwords, nine of which are loanwords proper (Cannon identifies 14 Russian borrowings, including loanblends):

(1) Loanwords proper: (cosmo-), do svidania, druzhinnik, kalashnikov, katyusha, Lunokhod, Planetokhod, samizdat, tokamak, zveno; (2) Loanblends: a) Main headwords: folknik, (-nik), Oblomovism, Sovietology, Sovietologist, Vietnik, Zhdanovan, Zhdanovisms; b) Secondary headwords: cinenik, citynik, computernik, cosmodog, cosmo- dom, cosmodrome, cosmograd, cosmonautics, filmnik, goodwillnik, jobnik, no-goodnik, protestnik; (3) Calques or semi-calques: kurchatovium; (4) Nominal phrases: Markov chain, Markov process:

117 See Kabakchi and Doyle’s treatment of –nik formations (1990), of which subbotnik in Webster’s Third is wrongly recognized as a word of Jewish, not Russian origin.

131

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 (5) Entries related to the Soviet Union: Kremlinologist, Kremlinology, Pax So- vietica.

Nine of the words displayed above, i.e. cosmodrome, cosmonautics, Kremlinolo- gist, Kremlinology, Markov chain, Markov process, samizdat, sovietologist and tokamak, appeared in Webster’s Third on CD-ROM. It is clear that such derivatives of the ‘sputnik age’ as cosmograd, filmnik or jobnik were doomed to be ephemeral, as they were apparently introduced for stylistic purposes. Rayevska adds a few additional coinages of this type, e.g. picnic, pupnik or sputnik (1979: 239-240), all of which came to be short-lived in American English. Examin- ing a diachronic succession in the integration of the suffix -nik, Bauer (1983: 256-257) presents even more formations that came into life in 1957 such as dudnik, enoughnik, kaputnik or nutnik (stage 1), followed by dognik, goofnik, oopsnik or stayputnik (stage 2). Symbolic coinages connoting American achievements as well as failures in astronautics, i.e. Uncle-Sam-nik, USnik or Yanknik (Klöhn 1981: 253), immediately followed suit (see also Ostler 2005: 100-101). The interjection do svidania ‘good-bye’, transferred mainly by the American press, was applied predominantly for intended Russian or Soviet connotations.118

3.4.2. Second Barnhart Dictionary of New English (1980) Second Barnhart Dictionary of New English (henceforth, Second Barnhart) is a continuation of the first dictionary, covering 4,536 newcomers recorded up to 1980. It is said to have included not only new borrowings, neologisms and neosemanticisms established since 1961, but also some older terms which were excluded from earlier Webster’s dictionaries because of weaknesses in the reading and marking programs, mistakes in editorial judgement, proofreaders’ errors, etc. (Cannon 1987: 23). As in the case of First Barnhart, citations were gathered from a huge collection of sources. The dictionary was again edited by Clarence Barnhart, Sol Steinmetz and Robert Barnhart. It has been found out that Second Barnhart never duplicated meanings from the first dictionary (Cannon 1987: 35), which is indeed true. There is one duplication, samizdat, but the senses are arranged in a different way, and all the quotations supporting the lemma are brand-new. One loanword is recorded in two variant spellings, karakteristika / kharakteristika, both of which are treated as separate headwords. By contrast, the word-forms refusenik / refusnik and sulfazin / sulphazin respectively are included in the same entries. In line with the lexicographic information provided, only one loanword, psikhushka, plural- izes by adding the Russian inflectional ending -i . Seven of the borrowings (biogeo-

118 A few lemmas supported by the same dated quotations continue to appear in Third Barnhart, just like some of the derivatives treated as sublemmas (i.e. nouns with the suffix -nik) . This policy needs to be viewed with a critical eye, because readmitting headwords makes sense only if some new evidence has been found.

132

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 cenose, gulag, Kirlian photography, refusenik / refusnik, sambo, samizdat and stishovite) appeared in Webster’s Third on CD-ROM. Second Barnhart includes the following headwords, 14 of which are loanwords proper (Cannon identifies 18 Russianisms):

(1) Loanwords proper: aminazin, aulacogen, biogeocenose, bioplasma, droog, gulag, Gulag Archipelago, karakteristika / kharakteristika, psikhushka, sambo, samizdat, samizdatchik, sulfazin / sulphazin, zek; (2) Loanblends: pomeron, refusenik / refusnik; (3) Calques: biogeocoenology, disinform,119 OVIR, sluggish (schizophrenia); (4) Mineral names formed from proper names: irghizite, stishovite; (5) Nominal phrases: Kirlian photograph, Kirlian photography, Markarian gal- axy, Pomeranchuk theorem; (6) Shortenings: sots; (7) Entries related to the Soviet Union: Department D,120 Kremlin watcher, Rus- sian bear.

It may be interesting to note that a number of the lemmas connote pejoratively aspects of the Soviet regime, mainly the bureaucratic apparat (disinform, karakteristika, refusenik and samizdat) and the prison system (gulag, psikhushka, sluggish (schizophrenia) and zek). One word in Second Barnhart, droog ‘a member of a lawless gang, gangster’, has not been given any etymology, despite being a deliberately misspelled Russian- ism (Russ. drug). It has been properly delineated as Anthony Burgess’ coinage publicized by his Clockwork orange, a dystopian novel first published in 1962. However, Nadsat, the artificial language that Burgess devised for the novel, was not only patterned on Russian, but it transferred the whole lexical elements from Russian, e.g. ba- boochka ‘old woman’ (Russ. babuška), bezoomny ‘mad’ (Russ. bezumnyj), devotchka ‘girl’ (Russ. devočka), eemya ‘name’ (Russ. imja), govoreet ‘to speak’ (Russ. govorit′), klootch ‘key’ (Russ. ključ), litso ‘face’ (Russ. lico), malenky ‘little’ (Russ. malen′kij), ptitsa ‘bird’ (Russ. ptica), slooshying ‘listening to’ (< Russ. slušat′), yahzick ‘tongue’ (Russ. jazyk), zhenna ‘wife’ (Russ. žena), etc. Of all these apparent Russianisms, only droog gained relatively wide currency in English, which has been indicated by OED2.121

3.4.3. Third Barnhart Dictionary of New English (1990) Third Barnhart Dictionary of New English (henceforth, Third Barnhart) edited by Robert Barnhart, Sol Steinmetz and Clarence Barnhart is the most recent of the dic-

119 This borrowing is a back-formation of a previously documented loanshift, disinformation . 120 Cannon treats Department D as a Russian translation loan, but the letter D stands both for Russian dezinformatsiya and its English translation equivalent, disinformation . 121 On the range of problems in new-word lexicography, see e.g. Algeo (1994: 39-46).

133

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 tionaries under examination, comprising 12,000 neologisms and borrowings collected up to 1990. It records several words which appeared also in First or Second Barn- hart. Among the newly included lemmas one can find Brezhnev doctrine, marsokhod and troika; the last element is the only undoubtful case of reborrowing. Some of the readmitted items, however, provide no or little additional information. The entry for OVIR, for instance, was recorded verbatim without the slightest change. In the case of the suffix -nik, one short clause (“inviting disparagement or ridicule”), one sublemma (protestnik), as well as authors and titles of the press articles quoted in run-on entries were excluded, but all the dates remained the same. Here, too, headwords pertaining to Russia and things Russian can be grouped in- to several categories, of which 11 lemmas should be seen as loanwords proper. Eight items in the list, i.e. glasnost, Gulag, Kirlian photography, sambo, samizdat, stishovite, tokamak and troika, have been admitted into Webster’s Third on CD-ROM.

(1) Loanwords proper: glasnost, Gulag, marsokhod, planetokhod, sambo, samizdat, samizdatchik, tokamak, troika, zek, zveno; (2) Loanblends: a) Main headwords: freezenik, -nik, peacenik, Vietnik, Zhdanovism, Zhdanov- ist, Zhdanovite; b) Secondary headwords: cinenik, citynik, computernik, filmnik, goodwillnik, nogoodnik;122 (3) Calques: OVIR, sluggish (schizophrenia); (4) Mineral names formed from proper nouns: stishovite; (5) Nominal phrases: Brezhnev doctrine, Kirlian photography, Pomeranchuk theorem.

Interestingly, the dictionary has no mention of Wappnik, a neologism that came in- to use in the 1980s. This coinage, defined as ‘a journalist employed by News Interna- tional who has refused to cross the print union’s picket line to work at the company’s new plant in Wapping’, has been discussed in some detail by Zabotkina (1989: 83). Third Barnhart was published in the post-Soviet period, which explains why it recorded headwords relating to the Soviet regime (gulag, Ovir, zek and zveno), as well as lexical symbols of incoming changes (glasnost). Information in the late twentieth century was transmitted, without any exaggera- tion, at lightning speed, so it could be safely assumed that the pool of new words recorded in Third Barnhart would also appear in British dictionaries. One of the differences is that zveno, treated as a loanword proper in Third Barnhart, is a loan translation (link) in OED2, whereby it is defined as ‘the name of a small labour unit on a collective farm in the U.S.S.R’.

122 An interesting story behind nogoodnik is provided by Steinmetz (qtd. in Podhajecka 2010: 169-170).

134

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 3.4.4. Conclusions To sum up, the group of Russian loans in the three editions of The Barnhart Dic- tionary of New Words, which together cover the years 1963-1990, comprises 34 loanwords of Russian provenance. Scientific and technical terms have been most numerous in the group, which may signal an important shift in the traditional perception of Rus- sianisms as words denoting culture-specific concepts. Sovietisms, with their strongly negative connotations, come second. It may be interesting to note that the Russianisms dated to 1963-1988, that is, very closely reflecting the time span of the three Barnhart dictionaries, are said to have influenced American English vocabulary to a significant degree. In a study carried out by Algeo, which aimed to determine foreign influences in English, Russianisms are ranked third, after French and Spanish borrowings. This rank position is unexpectedly high, particularly when one looks at the three dictionaries under analysis, whose coverage of Russian loans is more than moderate. Algeo (1999: 78-79) comments on this seemingly undeserved position in the ranking in the following way: “[T]he most likely explanation for the discrepancy is that the readers for that periodical [i.e. The Barn- hart Dictionary Companion] used sources with more material about Russian matters than did the readers for the other corpuses. If that discrepancy is corrected, Russian would rank about twelfth place, just below Arabic and Chinese, as a source of loans, and that seems appropriate”. A study of the American National Corpus (ANC), once it is available in its entirety, may complement the present lexicographic analysis by providing data on the frequency of Russianisms in contemporary American English. It is not yet possible at present, inasmuch as, despite efforts undertaken for over two decades to compile a 100-million- word corpus of American English that would be parallel to the British National Corpus, the ANC in its current size encompasses only approximately 40-50 million words.123

123 This information comes from the official website of the American National Corpus (9 January 2013).

135

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 4. Russian loanwords in texts: A corpus approach This study, by exploring corpus data and applying corpus methodology, is corpus- based.1 It rests on the assumption that dictionaries and corpora are complementary lexical resources, because neither lexicographic nor corpus analysis alone will allow for an apt description of infrequent lexical items, particularly foreign borrowings (see e.g. Sinclair 1991, Aston and Burnard 1998, Ooi 1998). By combining data excerpted from an historical dictionary, a huge corpus of British English and a contemporary learner’s dictionary, I will attempt to provide a quantitative check of what Russianisms and with what frequencies function in present-day English. A summary of the research can be found in Podhajecka and Piotrowski (2003).

4.1. Outline of the research procedure

A study like this requires an initial wordlist, and the more extensive it is, the more reliable the findings will be. The frequency list generated from the British National Corpus (henceforth, the BNC) would be a potentially suitable source of data, but the lemmatized list covers approximately 6,000 most frequent words only, whereas the unlemmatized one is too long to be checked manually.2 Therefore, I used the list of all the lemmas (and variant spellings) excerpted from OED2, and added to it all the lemmas (and variant spellings) obtained from the other dictionaries under analysis. Apart from being commonsensical, such a procedure was also expected to determine potential gaps in OED2’s wordlist, as the BNC is predominantly a record of British English. The fact that a word had not been treated consistently as a Russianism in this or that reference work was not an obstacle, as long as my materials pointed to its Russian origin. Thus, for example, balaclava, which is non-etymologized in OED2, is a Russian- ism in my view, cosmonaut represents a loanword rather than a loanblend, and shaman is seen as a borrowing of Russian, not German origin. The list of words to be queried in the corpus embraced more than 500 items, including such false Russianisms as Bo- gomil, britzka, Kremlin, mazurka and tsarina (see Part 2, Table 4). The words collected were then checked against two contemporary lexical resources: the British National Corpus (henceforth, the BNC), a 100-million-word corpus of

1 For a comprehensive overview of the history of corpus linguistics, its methodology and applications, see e.g. Landau (2001: 273-342). 2 Both lists are available from Adam Kilgarriff’s web page ‹http://www.kilgarriff.co.uk/bnc-readme.html›.

137

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 present-day British English, and two editions of a pedagogical dictionary, Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. More exactly, I took into account the second edition published in 1987 (henceforth, LDOCE 2) and the third one launched onto the market in 1995 (henceforth, LDOCE 3). As the OED has already been described, below I will briefly characterize the other two resources. The British National Corpus containing 100 million words of running text has been acknowledged as a reliable point of reference for contemporary British English. 4,124 texts in the BNC come from written (90%) and spoken sources (10%); the written sources comprise “informative “prose, all post-1975 (app. 75%), and “imagina- tive” prose (literary works), all post-1960 (app. 25%). The spoken text consists of up to 2,000 hours of transcribed recordings made by 124 volunteers from different socio- economic groupings, both male and female, aged between 15 and 60 plus (for a fuller account, see e.g. Kennedy 1998, Aston and Burnard 1998). In this way, the British National Corpus is both well-balanced and representative, which is what Rundell and Stock (1992: 49) expect of a corpus. In contrast to the other dictionaries analyzed in this book, Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English offers a very specific coverage of English words. With vocabulary tailored to the needs of foreign language learners, the dictionary is believed to reflect the lexical core of English. The headwords are described with the so-called ‘defining vocabulary’ limited to 2,000 words, and they are presented in an explicit, readable style. The first edition of LDOCE appeared in 1978, a decade later it was replaced by the revised and improved second edition (1987), and the third edition soon followed suit (1995). Two more updated editions, fourth and fifth, enhanced with such novel features as the Longman Language Activator, have appeared since then. Impor- tantly, the third edition claims to have covered both spoken and written English, deriving its material from two corpora: the Longman Corpus Network and the British National Corpus.3 It will therefore be interesting to compare the vocabulary recorded in both dictionaries, of which LDOCE 2 was compiled on the basis of the lexicographers’ intuitions, while LDOCE 3 was based on corpus data.

4.2. Corpus methodology

This section is meant to be an introduction to the methodology of my research. It should be noted that although the methods are firmly grounded in a quantitative, corpus-based approach, the conceptual framework has been modified to achieve more reliable results.

3 Needless to say, in the era of computers, dictionary-makers are shifting from manual to computerized databases, and their reliance upon corpora has become a major factor ensuring the infallibility of their lexicographic products. This shift has been discussed by a number of practical lexicographers (e.g. Sinclair 1991, Piotrowski 1994, Bańko 2001, Landau 2001, Rundell 2002, etc.).

138

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 4.2.1. Conceptual framework: Diachronic headword As an historical dictionary, OED2 lists a range of spelling variants of the headwords, which have been documented in millions of textual sources available to the lexicographers. Let us consider the diachronic forms for the lemma copeck:

copeck. Also 7-8 copec, 8 copeik, copique, capeck, kapeke, 8-9 copeek, 9 kopek4

That in corpus research each spelling (or word-type) occurring in a range of contexts (whereby each occurrence is seen as a token) is conventionally treated as a separate en- tity is a well-known fact. Nevertheless, for my analysis I needed a unit that would embrace all existing variants. Due to the paucity of studies that would be helpful in this respect, I introduced my own concept termed ‘diachronic headword’, which is a class of all diachronically-related spellings represented by the given dictionary headword. For example, the form copeck is just one spelling out of several semantically equivalent word-forms in OED2. In other words, the unit that covers all the recorded variants, in all their inflectional forms, will be treated here as the diachronic headword. In line with this principle, for copeck, I took into account the singular and plural forms ‒ none of the spellings was used in the Saxon Genitive ‒ of a range of its spellings, namely capeck / capecks, copec / copecs, copeck / copecks, copeek / copeeks, copeik / copeiks, copique / copiques, kapeke / kapekes and kopek / kopeks .

4.2.2. Conceptual framework: Raw frequency (RF), dispersion frequency (DF) and textual dispersion frequency (TDF) The terms listed in the subtitle are all related to the frequency of an item in corpus texts. ‘Raw frequency’ (RF), one of the most crucial indicators in corpus methodology, is understood as the number of occurrences of a word-type in corpus texts, usually in the standardized form (e.g. per one million words). Yet for infrequent items, raw frequency is not adequate if an item can be found in merely one or two texts, which means that its occurrences are not valid for the corpus as a whole. To level out the disproportions, I introduced my own notion of ‘dispersion frequency’ (DF) referring to the number of occurrences in individual texts. More exactly, all occurrences of a word-type in a single text are treated as one occurrence per text. As there are numerous graphic variants in OED2, it was necessary to introduce an even more restricted criterion for word frequency in corpus materials that would cover the multitude of spellings. This is accounted for by ‘textual dispersion frequency’ (TDF), which displays the number of sources that the spelling variants, recognized as a diachronic headword, come from .

4 In OED2, the numbers correspond to the centuries in which the given forms were in use, e.g. 7 stands for the seventeenth century, 8 – for the eighteenth century, etc. This imperfect system has been replaced by a more transparent and user-friendly one, employed consistently in OED3 (e.g. 17 = the seventeenth century).

139

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 For each spelling variant, corresponding to a word-type in this approach, one can calculate the dispersion frequency (DF). Sets of spelling variants form diachronic headwords, for which one can calculate the textual dispersion frequency (TDF). This is shown in Table 18 below.

Table 18. Methodological framework of corpus research.

Spelling variant → Diachronic headword

↓ ↓

Dispersion frequency → Textual dispersion frequency

The methodology can be explained further using the example of copeck (Table 19). The table shows the respective raw frequencies and dispersion frequencies for the individual spelling forms. In this case, all the related word-types, subsumed under the diachronic headword copeck, come from 9 different sources, therefore their TDF equals 9.

Table 19. Raw frequency, dispersion frequency and textual dispersion frequency.

BNC spelling variants RF DF TDF

kopek 1 1

kopeks 4 2

kopecks 3 3 9 kopeck 2 2

copecks 2 2

copek 2 1

It needs to be underlined that TDF is not the sum of particular dispersion frequencies of the spelling forms, so the figures may, but do not have to, add up to TDF. Be- cause automated counts of TDF are not possible, for most headwords the study had to be done manually. Fortunately, thanks to the codes of individual texts accompanying the concordance lines in the BNC, the manual part of the research was not as difficult as I anticipated it would be.

4.2.3. Russian borrowings in the BNC: Facts and figures My analysis has revealed that only approximately half of the 369 Russianisms excerpted from OED2 ‒ more exactly, 188 diachronic headwords ‒ appear in the corpus, but their distribution across the BNC texts is not even. In fact, one could easily pre- sume that while some words would show high frequency, others would be extremely rare. The dispersion of the borrowings in the BNC is shown in Table 20.

140

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 Table 20. Textual dispersion frequency of Russianisms in the BNC.

Frequency (TDF) Number of diachronic headwords > 200 (>700) 1 200-150 2 150-100 3 100-50 7 50-20 19 20-10 12 10-5 34 5-2 48 1 62 Total 188

The results deserve to be looked at in more detail. From the table, it can be seen that as many as 110 items (59%) are very rare, with TDF ranging from two to five (48 words) and one (62 words). Only a handful of the Russian loans are fairly frequent, which is correlated to their higher recognizability, and which, in turn, warrants a relatively stable position in the lexicon (cf. Wade 1997). Table 21 below lists words with the highest TDF.

Table 21. Most frequent Russianisms in the BNC.

BNC lemma Frequency (TDF) Soviet >700 mammoth 174 vodka 152 rouble 119 KGB 112 tsar 110 Politburo 100 perestroika 92 bolshevik 88 intelligentsia 85 glasnost 76 balaclava 64 Cossack 60 tundra 51

141

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 It may seem awkward that KGB, an abbreviation of the Soviet coinage Komitet Gosudarstvennoj Bezopasnosti, ranks fifth, being employed predominantly in Russian culture-specific contexts. The phrases KGB agent(s) and KGB officer do not contribute significantly to the high frequency of this Russianism, so a lively interest of the English public in the intelligence network signified by the word must be an underlying factor. Interestingly, the other closely related terms, GPU, NKVD and Ogpu, are far less conspicuous in the corpus: GPU has TDF 5, NKVD occurs merely 14 times, whereas Og- pu is not recorded at all. It is not surprising that two buzzwords of the 1980s, glasnost and perestroika, prove relatively current in contemporary English. In Table 22, I include a list of all the Russianisms with TDF ranging from 10 to 50. The list comprises 31 lexical items. The data demonstrate that a large number of the borrowings represent typically Russian or Soviet concepts, whose denotata have never been brought to the English-speaking world.

Table 22. Russian loanwords with TDF 10-50.

BNC lemma Frequency (TDF) BNC lemma Frequency (TDF) steppes 49 Nomenklatura 24 Kazakh 40 parka 24 shaman 40 cosmonaut 21 apparatchik 39 Comintern 17 Presidium 38 Lubianka 16 TASS 35 kulak 14 pogrom 34 NKVD 14 Kalashnikov 32 Duma 14 kaftan 31 Menshevik 12 commissar 30 beluga 12 sputnik 30 Cesarewitch 11 Uzbek 30 constructivism 11 Ak 47 29 Gosplan 11 Kirghiz 28 samizdat 10 troika 27 RSFSR 11 oblast 25

As many as 13 lexical items are Sovietisms which, in the post-Soviet era, are doomed to become outdated. In other words, they will only be referred to in the context of Russian or Soviet history. The high frequency of three ethnic names, Kazakh (TDF 40), Uzbek (TDF 30) and Kirghiz (TDF 28), out of an array of ethnonyms derived from Russian, cannot be explained easily, but some words are inevitably over- or

142

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 underrepresented even in balanced corpora. On the contrary, sputnik and cosmonaut, the most recognizable words representing Russian contribution to astronautics, take unexpectedly low rank positions in the list.

4.2.4. OED and BNC: Some interesting examples As previously explained, the list of the Russianisms and their variant spellings excerpted from the OED became the basic material to search for in the BNC. The corpus-based research led to some interesting findings which are briefly discussed below.

4.2.4.1. Variant spellings It was already explained that, for the corpus queries, I took into consideration all the variant spellings of the headwords in all their existing morphological forms. This gave me a chance to look more closely at the frequency of some particular items. Table 23 displayed below presents a handful of word-forms found in the BNC. Even though the range of variant spellings recorded in OED2 is impressive, I managed to identify word-forms (bold and italicized in the table below) that cannot be found in the historical dictionary.

Table 23. Sample spelling variants recorded in the BNC.

OED2 main headword BNC lemma RF DF TDF burka burkha 5 1 burkhas 3 1 2 burka 3 1 burkas 1 1 copeck kopecks 3 3 kopeck 2 2 kopeks 3 1 9 kopek 1 1 copek 2 1 copecks 2 2 voivode voevody 6 1 voevoda 3 1 2 voivode 1 1

As can be noticed, the spellings of the main headwords recorded in OED2 do not always correspond to those employed most frequently in the corpus. This provokes an intriguing question of whether the main headwords in an historical dictionary are − and if so, to what extent – dependent on frequency, given that the frequency of items collected from selected [emphasis mine] diachronic materials is inevitably far from a trustworthy indicator. Copeck, for which OED2 provides seven alternative variants (capeck, copec, copeek, copeik, copique, kapeke and kopek) attested in a range of Eng-

143

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 lish texts, can be a case in point. The evidence from the BNC indicates that two additional word-forms, of which OED2 has no mention,5 are actually most frequent in it. One of the implications of my research is that it is difficult, even today, to speak of uniform English orthography in this respect. Russian soft and hard signs do not seem to have influenced the spelling of the borrowings in any way, although there is one instance in the BNC, volost′, which demonstrates that Russian words at the penetration stage may be spelled with transliterated soft or hard signs. One should note, however, that in other cases (e.g. glasnost’ or knez’) the presumable soft signs turned out to be apostrophes or single quotes.

4.2.4.2. Russian-based coinages It has been emphasized that Russianisms recorded in English dictionaries do not show any significant derivational productivity. Apart from a few words such as Bol- shevik or Soviet that gave rise to a family of related words, derivations and compounds are not abundant. Naturally, one would like to know whether this finding has been confirmed by the corpus study. Again, the distribution of derivations is quite varied; while some derivative forms are found in the BNC (e.g. constructivist, Leninism or post-Stalin), others are not attested (e.g. Abkhasian, de-stalinize, solodization or tsarian). Additionally, the BNC has numerous adjectival forms, yoked by a hyphen, such as Bolshevik-inspired, Bolshevik- style, perestroika-resistant, tundra-like, vodka-based or vodka-clear, yet most of them are low frequency items. In line with our expectations, only the words formed from Soviet – the Russianism with the highest TDF in the corpus texts − are more frequent, e.g. Soviet-built (TDF 10), Soviet-backed (TDF 11), Soviet-designed (TDF 8), Soviet- dominated (TDF 5), Soviet-made (TDF 18) or Soviet-trained (TDF 5). The corpus does reveal some coinages which are not recorded in OED2, but they are not numerous, which means that their status in the lexicon is fairly unstable. In other words, they could as well be nonce creations. Table 24 displays a few examples found in the BNC. These lexical novelties resemble two creative blends recorded in the Longman Reg- ister of New Words (1989), that is, agitpop ‘the use of pop music to put across a political message’ and babushkaphobia ‘dislike of or aversion to grandchildren’.6 Just like agitpop and babushkaphobia, the coinages found in the BNC appear to be linguistic word plays, employed for a humorous effect alluding to the meanings of both com-

5 The spelling variant copek(s) was used, among others, in Johan G. Kohl’s Russia: St . Petersburg, Moscow, Kharkoff, Riga, Odessa, the German provinces… (1842) and baron von Haxthausen’s The Russian Empire: Its people, institutions and resources (1856). 6 The way of establishing the meaning has been somewhat illogical, which Algeo himself admits. To clarify the problem, if arachnophobia is defined as fear of spiders and hydrophobia as aversion to water, then babushkaphobia should analogically denote aversion to babushkas, or grandmothers.

144

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 ponents (e.g. glasnostalgia < glas(nost) + nostalgia, politburo < politburo + (bureau) cracy or shaman < sham(an) + anarchy). Interestingly, despite their low frequency in the BNC, which might imply their being hapax legomena, the World Wide Web shows that most of them have successfully caught on.7

Table 24. Russian-based coinages recorded in the BNC.

Russian loanword BNC coinage TDF agit-prop agit-properly 2 glasnost glasnostalgia 1 Gosplan Gosplanner 1 polibureau politbureaucrat 1 politburo politburocracy 1 shaman shamanarchy 1

4.2.4.3. Other Russianisms Queries in the BNC have revealed that the corpus includes not only unknown variants, but also lemmas which do not appear in OED2. Examples include such items as Bashkir, Chernobyl, guberniia, intelligenty, Karachai, katorga, Kuril, Mansi, maskirovka, MiG, oprichnina, pomeshchik, promyshlenniki, Soyuz, Tungus, Tupolev or uezd. The BNC has also a great deal of proper nouns, generally excluded from OED2, but these are not discussed here. Nevertheless, the list above includes several types of proper names that do occur in OED2, namely ethnic names (Bashkir), trademarks (Tupolev) and lexicalized proper nouns (Chernobyl). I compiled the list based on my intuitive feeling that this or that Russianism should be represented in the corpus. It is easy to see that most of the words (e.g. guberniia or oprichnina) are by no means new, referring to the realia of tsarist Russia, and some seem, subjectively, to be quite frequent (e.g. Chernobyl or Tupolev).8 If one asks why these Russianisms cannot be found in dictionaries, the answer is that, for most of them, their dispersion frequency is markedly different from their raw frequency. To provide a specific example, guberniia (a word allowed into Webster’s First, Second and Third), with as many as 150 occurrences (or tokens in the terminology of corpus linguistics) in the BNC, comes from 3 single sources only, so its TDF equals 3. Four examples have been collected in Table 25.

7 The Word Wide Web can be successfully treated as a gigantic corpus (see e.g. Kilgarriff and Grefenstette 2003). The loanblends in question are fairly frequent in it: agit-properly (RF 87), glasnostalgia (RF 3,300), Gosplanner (RF 270), politbureaucrat (RF 362) and shamanarchy (RF 3,040). In fact, only the frequency of politburocracy (RF 4) does not point to confirmed usage (4 January 2013). 8 Indeed, TDF for Tupolev is 15, whereas for Chernobyl (a lexicalized form) ‒ 59.

145

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 Table 25. Differences between raw and dispersion frequencies.

BNC lemma Spelling variant RF DF TDF

guberniia guberniia 116 1 gubernii 32 2 3 gubernia 1 1 guberniya 1 1

khozraschet khozraschet 10 1 1 pomeshchik pomeshchiks 25 1 pomeschik 2 1 1 pomeschiki 1 1 uezd uezd 15 2 2 uezdy 4 2

To get a list of additional Russian items, I examined a handful of smaller dictionaries. Speaking of Russianisms recorded in New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary on CD-ROM (NSOED, 1996), e.g. Nganasan, papirosa, parma, propiska, skaz, spar- takiad, Spetsnaz, talik or vobla, none has a high frequency in the BNC (TDF > 10). The Browser’s Dictionary of Foreign Words and Phrases (2001) included mafiozy; Le Mot Juste . A Dictionary of Classical and Foreign Words and Phrases (1980) recorded bolshoi, used elliptically to denote the Bolshoi Ballet; A Dictionary of Foreign Words and Phrases (1991) admitted Pravda and zolotaya seredina; Chambers Dictionary of Foreign Words and Phrases (1995) recorded izvestiya and maskirovka; whereas the Oxford Dictionary of Foreign Words and Phrases (1997) admitted narod and nilas.9 Of them all, only the following words appear relatively frequently in the BNC: bolshoi / Bolshoi (TDF 23), Izvestiya (TDF 22) and Pravda (TDF 63). Essentially, as the language reflected in language corpora is highly specific, proper names abound. Summarizing my corpus searches, I can state confidently that any Russianisms in the BNC that are not recorded by the dictionaries under analysis, primarily OED2, must be seen as peripheral from the point of view of contemporary English vocabulary.

4.3. Russianisms in LDOCE

One of the aims of my research was to compare the results obtained from the corpus analysis with a contemporary dictionary of English. For this purpose, I used two subsequent editions of a pedagogical dictionary, Longman Dictionary of Contempo- rary English (1987 and 1995 respectively), to see which Russian borrowings have been considered by the lexicographers (all native speakers of English) to be necessary

9 An article on Russian borrowings in English has been incorporated into the English version of Wikipedia. It is accompanied by a list of words excerpted from a range of dictionaries of foreign words ‹http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/List_of_English_words_of_Russian_origin›.

146

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 for foreign learners of English. This gave me a chance to look at the loanwords from a narrow diachronic perspective, covering almost a decade (1987-1995). This part of the study was all the more interesting that LDOCE 3, unlike LDOCE 2, is claimed to have been based on corpora (cf. Kilgarriff 1997). Although both LDOCE 2 and LDOCE 3 include the same number of Russianisms (28), there are some qualitative differences between the lists, as shown in Table 26. The lack of a corresponding lemma in either LDOCE 2 or LDOCE 3 is marked with an en-dash.

Table 26. Russianisms in LDOCE 2 and LDOCE 3.

LDOCE 2 LDOCE 3 TDF − agitprop 16 apparatchik apparatchik 39 astrakhan astrakhan 8 balaclava balaclava 64 balalaika balalaika 4 Bolshevik Bolshevik 88 borscht / borshcht / borsch − 5 borzoi − 3 caftan / kaftan caftan 31 commissar − 30 cosmonaut cosmonaut 21 − glasnost 76 − gulag 26 intelligentsia intelligentsia 85 Kalashnikov Kalashnikov 32 kopeck / kopek − 9 mammoth (2 meanings) mammoth (2 meanings) 174 parka parka 24 − pavlova 5 − perestroika 92 pogrom pogrom 34 politburo politburo 100 presidium / praesidium presidium 38 rouble / ruble rouble 119 samizdat − 10

147

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 Table 26. cont.

LDOCE 2 LDOCE 3 TDF

samovar samovar 7

shaman shaman 40

soviet / Soviet (2 meanings) soviet / Soviet (2 meanings) >700

steppe steppe 49

troika troika 27

tsar / czar / tzar tsar / czar / tzar 110

tundra tundra 51

vodka vodka 152

As can be seen above, most Russian borrowings in both editions have indeed high frequency in the corpus. One could be prompted to think that the editors of LDOCE 3 based their decisions concerning inclusion / exclusion solely on corpus data (the Long- man Corpus Network and the BNC), particularly as some infrequent items recorded in LDOCE 2 (borsht, borzoi, kopeck and samizdat) were dropped in LDOCE 3. What may be surprising is that four Russianisms in LDOCE 3 − astrakhan, balalaika, pavlova and samovar − are just as infrequent. One is thus confronted with a conclusion that other factors besides frequency must have been at play in dictionary compilation. A question to be answered at this juncture is whether frequency alone should be considered a reliable criterion for inclusion of an item into the dictionary wordlist. For instance, Russianisms such as beluga (TDF 12), Comintern (TDF 17), Cossack (TDF 61), dacha (TDF 23), Duma (TDF 14), Gosplan (TDF 11), kulak (TDF 14), Lubyan- ka (TDF 16), Menshevik (TDF 12), nomenklatura (TDF 24), oblast (TDF 26), sputnik (TDF 30) or TASS (TDF 35) are quite frequent in the BNC, why, then, did LDOCE lexicographers exclude them? Perhaps the connotations of the loans were a deciding factor, as only sputnik seems to have lost its distinct flavour of foreignness, although one has to admit that much of its fame acquired in the 1960s has now been lost. The other borrowings, by naming typically Russian realia, have apparently had little chance to permeate common English vocabulary. In what follows, I will look in greater detail at the corpus evidence for the Russian- isms included in LDOCE 3. The material collected has been broken down into three categories: (1) hyper-adequate documentation, which can contribute to a more adequate description of a given borrowing in the dictionary; (2) adequate documentation, supporting the description found in the dictionary; and (3) inadequate documentation, which is too scanty to be used for describing words. Speaking of the last category, inadequate evidence is indicative of a situation when an item has very low frequency in the corpus (TDF < 10).

148

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 Although all the instances, recorded in a multitude of contexts and expressing various shades of meaning, constitute valuable material for an in-depth linguistic analysis, for brevity and compactness, in each category I will discuss selected words only, namely (1) cosmonaut, Kalashnikov / AK-47, tsar, Soviet; (2) gulag, mammoth, pogrom, vodka; and (3) balalaika, pavlova and samovar.

4.3.1. Hyper-adequate documentation In the entry cosmonaut ‘an astronaut from the former Soviet Union’, the lexicographers of LDOCE 3 stress explicitly the word’s associations with the Soviet Union. Yet there are a few contexts in the BNC which suggest that the word may actually be losing its Russian connotations. This shift in meaning is clear at first sight, since the lemma occurs in such combinations as “French cosmonaut”, “British cosmonaut” or “foreign cosmonauts” . In one of the citations Helen Sharman, a British scientist, is referred to as a cosmonaut rather than an astronaut. Kalashnikov is defined as ‘a kind of long gun (rifle) made in the USSR’ (LDOCE 2), and ‘a type of rifle (= long gun) that can fire very quickly’ (LDOCE 3). The headword has a relatively high frequency in the BNC (TDF 32). The name has been traditionally abbreviated to AK-47, which is well documented in the corpus texts (TDF 29), but this evidence has been omitted in both editions of LDOCE. It should be noticed that the editors of LDOCE 3 no longer associate Kalashnikov with Russia. The reason may be twofold: the exclusion of Russian references can be translated into the word’s full integration into English vocabulary, but it is also likely to be a lexicographic representation of reality, because the USSR no longer existed by 1995. One of the oldest and best-recognizable Russian borrowings, tsar, is quite frequent in the corpus (TDF 110), even though the last Russian tsar − Nicholas II of the Romanov dynasty − died almost a century ago. As indicated duly in both editions of LDOCE, the word occurs in three distinct graphic forms: tsar, czar and tzar, with tsar being predominant in the corpus texts. Defined briefly as ‘a male ruler of Russia before 1917’, the loanword is now associated only with Russian history. Despite this, in the BNC there are citations, however infrequent, which have contemporary associations (e.g. “if America ever needs a banking tsar”, “chosen by Bush to become the country’s first ‘drugs tsar’”, or “domestic policy ‘tsar’”). One would be tempted to think that these uses exemplify a relatively new meaning of tsar, but OED3’s documentation material indicates, beyond all doubt, that the loanword was first used in this meaning as early as 1933.10 Soviet, the most frequent Russian borrowing, occurs 11,362 times in the BNC, which is far too many to allow for an effective manual analysis. Therefore, I decided

10 According to OED3’s draft addition of 2001, this new meaning of tsar ‘person appointed by a government to recommend and coordinate policy in a particular area and to oversee its implementation. Usually with a modifying word denoting the area of responsibility’ originated in American English.

149

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 to work with a randomly selected sample of 200 concordance lines for Soviet and all the 345 occurrences available for Soviets. According to LDOCE 3, Soviet has an adjectival meaning ‘from or connected with the former USSR (Soviet Union) or its people’ and a nominal one ‘an elected council in a Communist country’ (soviet). Yet there is a conspicuous discrepancy between the dictionary and corpus evidence, because Sovi- et as a noun, particularly in the word-type Soviets, denotes also inhabitants of the So- viet Union (TDF > 100), and it can refer metonymically to various groups of people (e.g. sports teams, leaders, officials, armed forces or Soviet citizens), which has been displayed in Tables 27 and 28. Amazingly, this meaning is far more frequent than the chronologically earlier one covered by LDOCE 2 and LDOCE 3.

Table 27. BNC sample documentation for the word-form Soviets (a random query).

Table 28. BNC sample documentation for the omitted meaning of Soviet.

Groups of people referred to as Soviets Illustrative example in the BNC

sports team “The Soviets, who had arrived at Heathrow the previous evening …”

leaders, politicians “The Soviets flexed their muscles over the right to have a missile bases on America’s doorstep …”

150

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 Table 28. cont.

Groups of people referred to as Soviets Illustrative example in the BNC

officials “The Soviets have now transferred him to a Labour Camp …”

armed forces “… a number of United Nations troops had been taken by the Sovi- ets from the Chinese during the Korean War and never returned.”

citizens of the USSR “At a meeting of the Arab League in Baghdad, he attacked America for tightening its own entry policy, forcing the Jews to emigrate to Israel. Up to five hundred Soviets arrive every day ...”

Of all the documented formations based on Soviet, as recorded in OED2, only the compound added in 1993, Soviet bloc (block), is fairly frequent in the BNC (TDF 37).

4.3.2. Adequate documentation Gulag was imported into English thanks to Solzhenitsyn’s harsh critique of totali- tarianism, The Gulag archipelago (1973). LDOCE 3 defines the loanword as ‘one of a group of prison camps in the former USSR, where conditions were very bad’ (TDF 26). In the BNC, the word has also been used figuratively, as in “a gastronomic gulag” or “American Gulag”, but such occurrences are relatively rare. OED2’s sublemmas Gulag camp and Gulag Archipelago are infrequent, of which the latter poses some interpretative problems. Mammoth has been defined in two meanings: ‘extremely large: a mammoth task | a mammoth corporation’ (an adjective) and ‘a large hairy elephant that lived on Earth thousands of years ago’ (a noun). The corpus-derived data make it clear that both meanings are used in contemporary English (TDF 174). As for the collocations admitted into LDOCE 3, both are found in the BNC, but while a mammoth task is fairly noticeable (FTD 24), a mammoth corporation occurs only once. Speaking of other examples attested in the BNC, the compounds mammoth proportions (TDF 5) and mammoth hunters (TDF 1) represent the adjectival meaning, whereas the phrase woolly mammoth(s) (TDF 7) is the most frequent example of the nominal form. There is no evidence in the corpus for three formations recorded by OED2: mammoth tree, mammoth powder and mammoth-wise. In LDOCE 3, pogrom (TDF 34) has been defined as ‘a planned killing of large numbers of people, especially Jews, usually done for reasons of race or religion’. De- spite the first pogroms in tsarist Russia (dating back to the 1880s) having been indeed directed at Jewish communities, corpus evidence shows that in present-day English the borrowing is used with reference to diversified ethnic groups, e.g. the Irish, Gyp- sies, Romanians or various Soviet minorities. None of OED2’s coinages (pogrom situation, pogrom war, pogrom-haunted, pogrom-threatened, etc.) has been supported with the corpus data.

151

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 Vodka, arguably one of the best known words or Russian origin, is described as ‘a strong clear alcoholic drink from Russia, or a glass of this’. Interestingly, when compared to Russianisms with lower rank positions, the frequency of this item (TDF 152) is very high. Nevertheless, it stands in sharp contrast to the frequencies of names of native alcoholic beverages such as brandy (TDF 298), whisky (TDF 478) or wine (TDF 1098). The only relatively frequent phrases in the BNC are vodka and tonic (9), vodka and orange (7) and, traditionally, a bottle of vodka (7). Two compounds treated as sublemmas in OED2, vodka bottle (TDF 3) and vodka flask (TDF 1), are less conspicuous in the BNC, while the other ones are not attested in it at all.

4.3.3. Inadequate documentation Balalaika, the symbol of Russian culture, is defined as ‘a musical instrument with strings on a three-sided box, played especially in Russia’. It is a monosemous word with very low currency in contemporary English: it has only been used in 4 citations in the BNC materials (TDF 4). A newcomer in LDOCE 3, pavlova ‘a light cake made of meringue, cream, and fruit’ is a lexicalized proper noun derived from the name of a famous Russian balle- rina, Anna Pavlova. Although the word can be easily found in recipes, at least those on the World Wide Web, the corpus evidence is scarce (TDF 5), and most occurrences turn out to be homographic forms distinguished by the use of upper-case letters (cf. pavlova / Pavlova). Equally infrequent in the corpus is samovar ‘a large metal container used in Russia to boil water for making tea’. Although the BNC documentation for this culture-specific loanword is relatively modest (TDF 7), the Russianism seems to have been fully assimilated in English, as there are no instances which would be italicized or glossed.

4.4. Conclusions It seems that, in the description of Russian loanwords in contemporary English, the most common source of data available to a linguist and/or lexicographer is the native-speaker intuition, which is the basis for inclusion / exclusion of rare items in a dictionary. Thus, in order to evaluate the treatment of Russianisms, I used pedagogical dictionaries of English as a record of that intuition, a huge corpus which provided objective textual material, as well as my own knowledge of Russian culture and internationalisms of Russian provenance. In order to conduct an analysis of diachronic material on a synchronic corpus, which might seem idiosyncratic at first sight, I worked out a methodological framework for my research and delineated concepts adopted in it, which have been termed diachronic headword, dispersion frequency and textual dispersion frequency. Russian loans selected from the dictionaries under examination, with special emphasis on OED2 as a storehouse of British English vocabulary, were then checked

152

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 against the BNC. The statistics show the well-known pattern: more than half of the lemmas occur only once, and very few items turn out to be really frequent. What was quite unexpected, however, was that lexical items selected on the basis of etymology − random from the point of view of statistics − exhibit the same type of distribution in the corpus texts as items selected on the basis of frequency. I looked more closely at the lemmas which are frequent in the BNC, but have not been admitted into OED2, and it seems that the editors made good use of their intuitive knowledge of the usage of the Russianisms. Only 18 lemmas found in the corpus, most of them with low TDF, are not in OED2. Among them are ethnic names such as Adzhar, Bashkir, Evenki, Petcheneg or Tungus, which must be employed in geographical or anthropological discourses (i.e. specific text-types) only. Yet there are reasons to claim that at least one Russianism not admitted into OED3, psikhushka,11 would deserve more attention on the part of the lexicographers. Basically the same can be said of smaller dictionaries, LDOCE being a case in point, which are supposed to describe common English vocabulary. It comes as a surprise that there are, in fact, insignificant differences between a dictionary which re- lied heavily on native-speaker intuition (LDOCE 2) and a dictionary based on corpora (LDOCE 3), although corpus evidence for three headwords recorded in LDOCE 3 is admittedly scarce (balalaika, pavlova, samovar). Nevertheless, lemmas denoting foreign concepts, particularly those representing object-type words, tend to appear infrequently even if they are easily recognizable to users, so sound decisions of whether or not to include them often involve external factors such as cultural significance. The most striking finding of this study was that LDOCE 3, a corpus-based dictionary, omitted the most frequent nominal sense of the most frequent Russian loanword.

11 A search of Google Books Corpus resulted in 354 hits for psikhushka, 48 for psikhushki, 10 for psikhushkas, 37 for psykhushka, 1 for psykhushkas, 4 for psykhushki, 2 for psyhushka, 5 for psychushka, 1 for psychushkas, 3 for psykushka, 1 for psykushkas, 4 for psikushka and 3 for psikushkas. Taken together, the loanword occurs, in various graphic and morphological variants, more than 470 times in the corpus (1 February 2013).

153

The present monograph aimed to describe Russian loanwords taken into English ever since the mid-sixteenth century up to the end of the twentieth century. Under analysis was British and American English vocabulary seen from the perspective of two complementary resources, that is, monolingual dictionaries and a corpus. The dictionaries, whose main selection criterion was their exhaustiveness, provided me with a preliminary list of Russianisms, which were then confronted with a contemporary corpus and a learner’s dictionary to assess their vitality in present-day English. De- signing the empirical framework in this way allowed for the research to be conducted at the crossroads of four interrelated fields: contact linguistics, corpus linguistics, lexicology and lexicography. A detailed lexicographic analysis brings to light shortcomings in the description of lemmas in a single dictionary. Contrasting data from a set of dictionaries is bound to show similarities and differences − of which differences are more illuminating − in the macro- and microstructures of the reference works. As for the former, of primary importance are the wordlists which, at the comparative phase, may point to potential gaps in this or that dictionary (e.g. kulturny, Sovnarkom and terem appear exclusively in OED2, whereas baidak, garnetz and totchka are characteristic of Webster’s Second). In the case of the latter, focus is on the quality of lexicographic information within the entry, including but not limited to the range of graphic variants, the scope of grammatical information, the number of meanings and/or senses, types of definitions and the number of quotations (e.g. babushka in OED2 has only one meaning, but it is defined in two meanings in Webster’s Third). Upon closer examination, it became apparent that many Russian borrowings have been given inconsistent treatment, which results from imperfect methods of English dictionary-making, complexities of Anglo-Russian language contact, as well as formal affinities between lexical items in a range of Slavic languages. The differences observed refer to virtually every component of the entry structure, but they are particularly visible in the etymology section (cf. Part 2, Table 4). Unsurprisingly, for a handful of loanwords (e.g. borsht, czar or voivode) controversies of origin have continued to this day. Thanks to OED2, I looked at the borrowing process from a valuable diachronic angle. As the dated quotations show, Russianisms were taken into English steadily throughout the entire period of Anglo-Russian and Russo-American relations. The first words were introduced in the second half of the sixteenth century by English merchants

155

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 and ambassadors to Russia. In the next century, the number of Russian lexical items dropped, apparently because of intermittent relations between the British and Russian courts. In the eighteenth century, 30 new words appeared in English, primarily in the reign of Peter the Great, which has been dubbed the era of Westernization. The stock of Russian loans increased significantly in the nineteenth century, which can be attributed to immense interest in Russia and things Russian, but most words were imported into English in the twentieth century. The borrowing process was fairly even, rising sharply in the 1920s (the October Revolution and its effects) and the 1960s (the development of astronautics). Somewhat unexpectedly, towards the end of the century interest in Russian concepts seems to have died, which is all the more interesting that, following perestroika, increased communication between Russia and the West should theoretically contribute to more intensive borrowing than ever before. Still, it needs to be kept in mind that the documentation material of OED2, published in 1989, is not reliable for the last two decades of the twentieth century. OED3 will no doubt offer much richer data in this respect. The above facts and figures notwithstanding, the status of Russianisms in English has been admittedly vague. On the one hand, linguists have unanimously regarded Russian lexical influences as insignificant. On the other one, Lehnert (1977), the only scholar who has conducted a comprehensive study of Russian words in English, argues that their number is fairly impressive. How should the impact of Russian be evaluated, then? Looking at the quantitative results of my research, the number of the loanwords identified – more than 500 lexical items – exceeds Lehnert’s count by far. Even if some of them have become obsolete by now, which is indeed the case, it is evident that they could not go unnoticed. Findings from the synchronic part of the study support my hypothesis: as many as 180 Russian loans have been documented in the Brit- ish National Corpus, and approximately 45 are actually quite frequent in it. On top of that, 28 words of Russian origin included in two editions of a learner’s dictionary have been considered as elements of the core English vocabulary. Speaking of the qualitative results, Russian loanwords have been, to some extent, conspicuous in English. In his Twentieth Century Words (1999), Ayto shows convincingly that a handful of Russianisms − apparatchik, Bolshevik, glasnost, intelligentsia, niet, pogrom, Politburo, Soviet, sputnik, etc. − can be seen as keywords for different decades of the twentieth century. Denoting or connoting strongly the Soviet reality, most of the Russian coinages had no ready-made English equivalents that would express the meanings well enough, which facilitated the borrowing process. The tsarist times, too, provided a great deal of Russianisms which were not as peripheral in English as has generally been assumed; semantic extensions (as in mammoth), figu- rative uses (as in Oblomov) and derivatives (e.g. boyardism, pogromist or shamanka) show that the loanwords have been integrated fairly successfully. Moreover, a significant group of the borrowings are scientific terms, whose status legitimized their use in specialist English discourses. A glance at OED3 shows that additional newcomers

156

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 of Russian provenance (e.g. baba-jaga, osetrova or politruk) have now been allowed into its wordlist. As already mentioned, the pool of words under scrutiny encompasses more than 500 lexical items, whose status is not always clear in English (e.g. beg or aul are treated as Russianisms only in Webster’s Third). My calculations show (Part 2, Table 3) that 192 borrowings are recorded in one dictionary only, which is indicative of their marginal importance. By contrast, 61 loanwords have been admitted into all, and 124 have found their way into three of the major dictionaries, so their recognizability index must have been much higher. It is widely known that dictionary material was often borrowed freely in the past, yet there are no reasons to suspect any systematic ‘give- and-take’ practices in this case; the wordlists must have been compared with existing reference works at the compilation stage, but the huge archives of the OED and Mer- riam-Webster’s respectively guarantee that both the British and American editors had sufficient documentation material at their disposal. An overwhelming majority of the Russianisms are nouns, adjectives are less frequent, and other parts of speech, i.e. an adverb (nyet) and two interjections (do svidania and nichevo), account for a miniscule proportion of the items recorded. Nouns are inflected for number in a way typical of English, but some borrowings pluralize with Russian inflectional endings (-i and -y). The plural forms are characterized either by free (sing. chervonets, pl. chervontsi, -sy, -zi) or complementary distribution (sing. pirog, pl. pirogi or pirogs). Four adjectival forms (kulturny, nekulturny, Russki and Si- berski) were introduced into English in their masculine forms, but all adjectives taken into English obviously lose grammatical gender. The only verbs of Russian origin are either semantic extensions (gley, karyotype, knout and pogrom) or loanblends (pod- zolize, Sovietize, Stalinize, etc.). Derivational productivity has been relatively low, but there are exceptions to the rule, because Soviet and Bolshevik have turned out to be prolific sources of derivatives and compounds. The factors underlying problems with recreating Russianisms in English have been both graphemic and phonological in nature. As to the former, Russian loans transferred to English had to be transliterated from the Cyrillic alphabet into the Latin one. Speak- ing of the latter, most of the early importations were phonetic loans, which tended to be transcribed rather than transliterated. In either case, difficulties in expressing Russian characters and/or phonemes in English led to the introduction of a number of variant forms, which included strings of characters entirely alien to the English spelling system. The most problematic Russian consonants were [c], [č], [š], [šč] and [x], which can be illustrated with such examples as borsch (borscht, borsht, bortsch, borshch), droshky (drosky, droitzschka, drojeka, droskcha), chernozem (tchernozem, tschernozem) and barchan (barchane, barkhan). Ways in which more recent Russian loans have been transliterated has been more consistent, yet irregularities can also be found (e.g. matryoshka / matrioshka / matreshka). As far as the phonological adaptation of the Russianisms is concerned, English pronunciations were often patterned closely on Russian models, at least for words bor-

157

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 rowed through speech. Based on OED2’s documentation material, the loanwords can be divided into three groups to reflect different stages of nativization: (1) words with a high degree of similarity in pronunciation, e.g. kibitka /kɪˈbɪtkə/ or troika /ˈtrɔɪkə/; (2) words which developed two variant pronunciations, of which one is patterned on the Russian model, whereas the other one is adapted to English phonological system, e.g. Cheka /ˈtʃɛkə/, /ˈtʃeɪkə/ or pogrom /pəˈgrɒm/, /ˈpɒgrɒm/; (3) words whose pronunciations differ substantially from those of the Russian models, both in terms of stress and the distribution of phonemes, e.g. Tokarev /ˈtɔːkəjɛf/ or ukase /juːˈkeɪs/. One implication of this study is that the degree of assimilation does not seem affected by the length of time the loanwords have been attested. With respect to semantic classification, the Russianisms have been subsumed under seven broad headings: (1) Economy and trade, (2) Science and technology, (3) Man and society, (4) Political life, (5) Art, culture and education, (6) Home and family and (7) Religion. As might be expected, there are significant disproportions between the numbers of words in the particular groups. The category Science and technology is represented most abundantly, and the preponderance of scientific terms casts new light on the role of Russian loans in English vocabulary. The categories Home and family, Po- litical life, and Man in society interchangably rank second, third and fourth. They are followed by the other three groups, of which Art, culture and education and Religion cover fewer than 30 items each. As foreign words are usually imported to name innovative concepts, Russianisms clearly fulfilled lexical needs as they arose. Significant- ly, while a proportion of the loans confined to Russian contexts or applied for stylistic purposes can be treated as foreignisms, others seem to have lost their foreign feel. What deserves mention is that, despite the fact that Russian stems from the Indo- European language family and is classified as a European tongue, many of its loans have been viewed by English speakers as oriental items naming equally exotic denotata. The explanation for this is straightforward. Chronologically speaking, Russian was the language of the tsarist empire and, after 1917, the official language of the Soviet Union, but it coexisted with languages and dialects of five different language fami- lies. Such a complex language contact situation must have led to the cross-fertilization of the lexicons. Given the diversified cultural and linguistic influences, it should only be expected that a huge number of Russianisms in English (araba, balalaika, Cos- sack, karagan, kibitka, purga, shaman, steppe, tarpan, yurt, etc.) would derive from the vernaculars of the various peoples inhabiting the Russian territories of Europe and Asia. Since loanwords are perceived as exponents of native cultures, Russianisms in English have thus been representing influences of the vast Euro-Asiatic cultural area.

158

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 PART TWO

Labels and field Main headword Secondary headword First date markers Abkhaz 1838 Acmeism 1926 Acmeist 1922 adaptogen (A3) Alternative Med. 1969 agit-prop 1934 ║agrogorod 1952 agro-city 1951 agro-town 1951 Aleut 1780 aoul 1828 ║apparat 1950 ║apparatchik 1941 ║araba 1845 ║arsheen 1734 artel 1884 astatki 1885 astrakhan 1766 ataman 1835 babushka N. Amer. 1938 ║badiaga 1753 Balaclava 1881 balalaika 1788 barchan 1888

161

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 Table 1. cont. Labels and field Main headword Secondary headword First date markers barometz 1791 barukhzy 1895 bashlik 1881 †beg Obs. 1686 beglic, -lik, -luk 1614 ║beluga 1591 bidarka 1834 blin 1889 Bolshevik 1917 Bolshevikizm 1919 Bolshevikize 1918 Bolshevism 1917 Bolshevisia 1919 Bolshevy 1921 Bolshevist 1917 Bolshevistic 1920 Bolshevistically 1923 borsch 1884 borzoi 1887 ║boyar 1591 boyardism 1848 buran 1886 Buriat 1836 Buriatic 1902 burka 1916 ║bylina 1886 ║caback 1591 Cadet 1906

162

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 Table 1. cont. Labels and field Main headword Secondary headword First date markers ║caftan 1591 caftaned 1863 ║cantonist 1854 carlock 1768 Cesarewitch 1839 chai Mil. slang 1919 ║chark 1591 Chechen 1814 Cheka 1921 Chekist 1921 Cheremis(s) 1652 Cheremissian 1879 chernozem Geol. 1842 chervonetz 1923 ║chinovnik 1877 choom 1598 Chukchee, Chukchi 1780 Cominform 1947 Cominformist 1955 Comintern 1925 commissar 1918 constructivism 1929 copeck 1698 ║corsac Zool. 1838 cosmodrome 1953 cosmonaut 1959 Cossack 1598 Cossackian Rare 1816

163

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 Table 1. cont. Labels and field Main headword Secondary headword First date markers Cossackic Rare 1824 ║coulibiac 1898 crash 1812 Cubo-Futurism 1936 Cubo-futurist 1962 ║dacha 1896 daggett 1861 Dekabrist 1882 ║dessiatine, desyatin 1799 dolina, doline Geol. 1882 Doukhobor 1876 droog 1962 ║droshky 1808 ║druzhina (A2) Russ. Hist. 1879 druzhinnik (A2) 1963 duma 1870 dumaist 1905 dvornik 1919 dzeren 1834 ethnonym Anthropol. 1964 ║feldscher 1877 Gilyak 1858 ║glasnost 1972 glasnostian (A2) Rare 1987 glasnostic (A2) Rare 1987 gley Soil Science 1927 gleyed 1934 gleying 1949

164

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 Table 1. cont. Labels and field Main headword Secondary headword First date markers gleization 1938 ║gopak 1929 gorbuscha 1792 Gosplan 1926 ║gospodar 1847 GPU 1925 Gulag (A2) 1946 gusli 1897 hadron Physics 1962 holluschickie 1874 ║iconostas East. Church 1833 idiogram Cytol. / Med. 1927 †ikary, icary Obs. 1591 Ingush 1902 intelligentsia 1907 Intourist 1932 ║isba 1784 ║ispravnik Hist. 1886 Ivan 1870 ║kalashnikov 1970 Kalmuck 1613 Kalmuckian 1727 Kamchadal 1764 ║kamish 1902 karagan 1800 karakul 1853 karyotype Biol./Med. 1929 karyotyped 1971

165

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 Table 1. cont. Labels and field Main headword Secondary headword First date markers karyotypic(al) 1931 karyotypically 1965 karyotyping 1963 ║kasha 1808 Katyusha 1955 kazachoc 1928 Kazakh 1832 ║kefir 1884 keta 1824 KGB 1960 Khanty (A3) 1947 Khlist 1856 ║kibitka 1799 Kipchak 1865 Kirghiz 1652 Kirghizian 1888 ║kissel 1924 ║knez 1586 knout 1716 knouted 1851 knouting 1887 kok-saghyz 1932 kolinsky 1851 ║kolkhoz 1921 kolkhoznik 1955 Komsomol 1934 Kondratieff (A3) Econ. 1935 Koryak 1780

166

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 Table 1. cont. Labels and field Main headword Secondary headword First date markers ║koumiss 1598 kovsh 1884 kray 1938 kromesky, -eski 1846 kulak 1877 ║kulturny 1955 kurgan 1889 ║kvass 1553 laika 1905 Lesghian 1854 Lesg(h)ic 1854 ║liman 1858 losh 1583 Lubyanka (A3) 1938 lunik Astronautics 1959 lunokhod Astronautics 1970 magnetoid (A3) Astron. 1966 mahorka 1902 ║malossol (A3) Gastron. 1959 mammoth 1698 manna croup 1855 marsokhod 1970 matryoshka (A3) 1948 mazut 1897 Menshevik 1907 Menshevism 1920 Menshevist 1919 meteoriticist 1952

167

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 Table 1. cont. Labels and field Main headword Secondary headword First date markers MGB 1950 ║mir 1877 ║miryachit Path. 1884 Molotov 1940 Mordvin 1591 Mordva 1883 ║moujik, muzhik Hist. 1568 Mukuzani 1961 MVD 1949 ║nagaika 1842 ║Narodnik 1885 Narodnikism 1969 †nefte Obs. 1698 ║nekulturny 1959 Nenets 1886 nerka 1764 Nesselrode 1845 ║niet (A1) 1925 NIR 1966 NKVD 1942 ║nomenklatura (A1) Pol. 1959 ║obarni Obs. 1631 ║oblast 1886 Oblomov 1902 Oblomovism 1902 Ogpu 1923 Okhrana 1899 ║okrug 1886

168

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 Table 1. cont. Labels and field Main headword Secondary headword First date markers †olen Obs. 1591 omul 1884 ongon 1901 ║osseter Zool. 1887 Ossetian (Ossetan A1) 1814 ║ostrog 1764 Ostyak 1722 ║otriad 1916 ║paranjah 1928 parka 1780 parma Geol. 1888 ║paskha (A1) Cookery 1919 pavlova Austr./N.Z. 1927 ║peach Obs. 1591 ║pelmeny 1943 ║perestroika Pol. 1981 ║pirog 1854 ║piroshki 1912 pivo 1950 planetokhod 1970 ║plet 1864 ║ploshchadka Archaeol. 1913 podzol Soil Science 1906 podzolic 1927 pogrom 1882 pogromist 1907 polaron Physics 1946 polaronic 1978

169

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 Table 1. cont. Labels and field Main headword Secondary headword First date markers Politbureau, -buro 1926 Polovtsy 1799 ║polynya 1853 ║pood 1554 pope 1662 Presidium 1924 ║prikaz 1725 ║prisiadka 1938 ║pristaf 1662 Profintern 1928 proletcult 1921 proletcultist 1921 proletcultural 1922 ║Prospekt 1866 protopope 1662 ║provodnik 1888 Przewalski 1881 ║purga 1889 ║Rabfak 1928 ║Rabkrin 1928 ║raskol 1887 ║Raskolnik 1723 Rasputin 1937 Rasputinism 1918 ║rassolnik (A1) 1924 ║rayon 1936 rendzina Soil science 1927 ║residentura 1963

170

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 Table 1. cont. Labels and field Main headword Secondary headword First date markers ║rezident 1968 ║rezidentsia 1968 ║ribazuba Obs. 1591 riza 1927 ROA 1959 rouble 1554 RSFSR 1923 ║rubashka 1921 Rus 1845 Russ 1567 Russki Slang / Colloq. 1858 Russki-land 1920 saffian 1591 ║sagene 1737 saiga 1801 sambo (A1) 1964 ║samizdat 1967 samizdatchik 1972 ║samogon (A1) 1928 samovar 1830 Samoyed 1589 ║sanitar 1916 ║sarafan 1799 sarlac 1781 sastruga 1840 seecatch 1881 ║sevruga 1591 shaman 1698

171

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 Table 1. cont. Labels and field Main headword Secondary headword First date markers shamanian 1802 shamanic 1899 shamanka 1936 shamaness 1964 shamanin 1955 ║shapka 1945 ║sharashka (A1) Hist. 1968 ║shashlik 1925 ║shchi 1824 ║shefstvo 1937 sheltopusik 1841 shor 1888 ║shuba 1591 Sibiriak 1903 sierozem Soil Science 1934 Siryenian 1851 ║skaz 1926 ║skhod 1877 Skoptsi 1856 Skoptsism 1911 †slude Obs. / Rare 1662 Smersh 1953 smetana 1909 ║sobornost Theol. 1935 solod Soil Science 1925 solodic 1978 solodize 1934 solodization 1925

172

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 Table 1. cont. Labels and field Main headword Secondary headword First date markers solodized 1964 solonchak Soil Science 1925 solonetz Soil Science 1924 solonetzic 1935 ║solyanka 1958 ║sotnia Hist. 1863 ║sotnik Hist. 1799 Soviet 1917 Sovietic 1920 Sovietism 1919 Sovietist 1920 Sovietophile 1957 Sovietophobia 1955 Sovietophobe 1980 ║sovkhoz 1921 ║sovnarkhoz 1958 Sovnarkom 1938 sputnik 1957 sputnik(e)ry Nonce wd. 1960 sputnikitis Nonce wd. 1957 SSR 1926 ║stanitza 1662 ║starets, staretz 1923 ║starosta 1591 ║starover 1861 Stavka 1928 Stechkin 1962 steppe 1670

173

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 Table 1. cont. Labels and field Main headword Secondary headword First date markers steppe-ful Nonce wd. 1857 sterlet 1591 ║stilyaga 1955 Stolichnaya 1966 ║stolovaya 1943 Stolypin 1909 strelitz Hist. 1603 †struse Obs. 1581 ║stukach (A2) Slang 1969 Stundist 1878 ║subbotnik 1920 ║sudak 1799 sulphazin Pharm. / US 1970 Suprematism 1915 Suprematist 1936 ║suslik 1774 Svan 1601 Svanian 1962 taiga 1888 ║tamizdat 1974 ║tarantass 1850 tarbagan 1928 Tass 1925 Tat 1834 Tavgi 1886 ║tchetvert 1814 ║tchin 1861 ║technicum 1932

174

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 Table 1. cont. Labels and field Main headword Secondary headword First date markers ║telega 1558 ║terem Russ. Hist. 1989 theremin 1927 thermokarst 1943 tokamak Physics 1969 Tokarev 1953 ║tolkach 1955 torgsin 1933 tovarish, tovarich 1918 ║troika 1842 tsar = czar 1555 tsarlet 1889 ║tsarevich 1710 ║tsarevna 1880 ║tsaritsa 1698 Tsinandali (A2) 1894 ║tundra 1841 Tungus 1625 tur 1894 turanose Chem. 1890 tvorog 1918 ║udarnik 1931 ║ukase 1729 ║ukha (A2) 1911 Uniat, Uniate 1833 ║uprava 1870 ureilite Geol. 1889 Uzbek 1616

175

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 Table 1. cont. Labels and field Main headword Secondary headword First date markers ║valenki 1943 ║vedro 1753 Vepsian 1859 verst 1555 ║vlast (A2) 1959 vodka 1802 Vogul 1698 †Vogulian 1796 †Vogulic 1813 voivode 1570 ║volost 1889 Votyak 1841 ║vozhd 1940 Yakut 1763 †yam Obs. / Rare 1800 ║yamstchik 1753 yeri 1921 ║yuft 1799 ║yurt 1784 ║zakuska 1885 zek 1968 ║zemni 1785 ║Zemsky Sobor (A2) Hist. 1902 ║zemstvo 1865 zemstvoist 1905 ║zolotnik Hist. 1783 ║zubr 1763 Zyrian 1886

176

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 Table 2. Russianisms in chronological order (OED2)

First date Main headword Secondary headword Labels and field markers 1553 ║kvass 1554 ║pood 1554 rouble 1555 tsar = czar 1555 verst 1558 ║telega 1567 Russ 1568 ║moujik, muzhik Hist. 1570 voivode 1581 †struse Obs. 1583 losh 1586 ║knez 1589 Samoyed 1591 ║beluga 1591 ║boyar 1591 ║caback 1591 ║caftan 1591 ║chark 1591 †ikary, icary Obs. 1591 Mordvin 1591 †olen Obs. 1591 ║peach Obs. 1591 ║ribazuba Obs. 1591 saffian

177

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 Table 2. cont. First date Main headword Secondary headword Labels and field markers 1591 ║sevruga 1591 ║shuba 1591 ║starosta 1591 sterlet 1598 choom 1598 Cossack 1598 ║koumiss 1601 Svan 1603 strelitz Hist. 1613 Kalmuck 1614 beglic, -lik, -luk 1616 Uzbek 1625 Tungus 1631 ║obarni Obs. 1652 Cheremis(s) 1652 Kirghiz 1662 pope 1662 ║pristaf 1662 protopope 1662 †slude Obs. / Rare 1662 ║stanitza 1670 steppe 1686 †beg Obs. 1698 copeck 1698 mammoth 1698 †nefte Obs. 1698 shaman 1698 ║tsaritsa 1698 Vogul

178

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 Table 2. cont. First date Main headword Secondary headword Labels and field markers 1710 ║tsarevich 1716 knout 1722 Ostyak 1723 ║Raskolnik 1725 ║prikaz 1727 Kalmuckian 1729 ║ukase 1734 ║arsheen 1737 ║sagene 1753 ║badiaga 1753 ║vedro 1753 ║yamstchik 1763 Yakut 1763 ║zubr 1764 Kamchadal 1764 nerka 1764 ║ostrog 1766 astrakhan 1768 carlock 1774 ║suslik 1780 Aleut 1780 Chukchee, Chukchi 1780 Koryak 1780 parka 1781 sarlac 1783 ║zolotnik Hist. 1784 ║isba 1784 ║yurt 1785 ║zemni

179

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 Table 2. cont. First date Main headword Secondary headword Labels and field markers 1788 balalaika 1791 barometz 1792 gorbuscha 1796 †Vogulian 1799 ║dessiatine, desyatin 1799 ║kibitka 1799 Polovtsy 1799 ║sarafan 1799 ║sotnik Hist. 1799 ║sudak 1799 ║yuft 1800 karagan 1800 †yam Obs. / Rare 1801 saiga 1802 shamanian 1802 vodka 1808 ║droshky 1808 ║kasha 1812 crash 1813 †Vogulic 1814 Chechen 1814 Ossetian (Ossetan A1) 1814 ║tchetvert 1816 Cossackian Rare 1824 Cossackic Rare 1824 keta 1824 ║shchi 1828 aoul 1830 samovar

180

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 Table 2. cont. First date Main headword Secondary headword Labels and field markers 1832 Kazakh 1833 ║iconostas East. Church 1833 Uniat, Uniate 1834 bidarka 1834 dzeren 1834 Tat 1835 ataman 1836 Buriat 1838 Abkhaz 1838 ║corsac Zool. 1839 Cesarewitch 1840 sastruga 1841 sheltopusik 1841 ║tundra 1841 Votyak 1842 chernozem Geol. 1842 ║nagaika 1842 ║troika 1845 ║araba 1845 Nesselrode 1845 Rus 1846 kromesky, -eski 1847 ║gospodar 1848 boyardism 1850 ║tarantass 1851 knouted 1851 Siryenian 1851 kolinsky 1853 karakul

181

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 Table 2. cont. First date Main headword Secondary headword Labels and field markers 1853 ║polynya 1854 ║cantonist 1854 Lesghian 1854 Lesg(h)ic 1854 ║pirog 1855 manna croup 1856 Khlist 1856 Skoptsi 1857 steppe-ful Nonce wd. 1858 Gilyak 1858 ║liman 1858 Russki Slang / Colloq. 1859 Vepsian 1861 daggett 1861 ║starover 1861 ║tchin 1863 caftaned 1863 ║sotnia Hist. 1864 ║plet 1865 Kipchak 1865 ║zemstvo 1866 ║Prospekt 1870 duma 1870 Ivan 1870 ║uprava 1874 holluschickie 1876 Doukhobor 1877 ║chinovnik 1877 ║feldscher

182

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 Table 2. cont. First date Main headword Secondary headword Labels and field markers 1877 kulak 1877 ║mir 1877 ║skhod 1878 Stundist 1879 Cheremissian 1879 ║druzhina (A2) Russ. Hist. 1880 ║tsarevna 1881 Balaclava 1881 bashlik 1881 Przewalski 1881 seecatch 1882 Dekabrist 1882 dolina, doline Geol. 1882 pogrom 1883 Mordva 1884 artel 1884 borsch 1884 ║kefir 1884 kovsh 1884 ║miryachit Path. 1884 omul 1885 astatki 1885 ║Narodnik 1885 ║zakuska 1886 buran 1886 ║bylina 1886 ║ispravnik Hist. 1886 Nenets 1886 ║oblast

183

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 Table 2. cont. First date Main headword Secondary headword Labels and field markers 1886 ║okrug 1886 Tavgi 1886 Zyrian 1887 borzoi 1887 knouting 1887 ║osseter Zool. 1887 ║raskol 1888 barchan 1888 Kirghizian 1888 parma Geol. 1888 ║provodnik 1888 shor 1888 taiga 1889 blin 1889 kurgan 1889 ║purga 1889 tsarlet 1889 ureilite Geol. 1889 ║volost 1890 turanose Chem. 1894 Tsinandali (A2) 1894 tur 1895 barukhzy 1896 ║dacha 1897 gusli 1897 mazut 1898 ║coulibiac 1899 Okhrana 1899 shamanic

184

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 Table 2. cont. First date Main headword Secondary headword Labels and field markers 1901 ongon 1902 Buriatic 1902 Ingush 1902 ║kamish 1902 mahorka 1902 Oblomov 1902 Oblomovism 1902 ║Zemsky Sobor (A2) Hist. 1903 Sibiriak 1905 dumaist 1905 laika 1905 zemstvoist 1906 Cadet 1906 podzol Soil Science 1907 intelligentsia 1907 Menshevik 1907 pogromist 1909 smetana 1909 Stolypin 1911 Skoptsism 1911 ║ukha (A2) 1912 ║piroshki 1913 ║ploshchadka Archaeol. 1915 Suprematism 1916 burka 1916 ║otriad 1916 ║sanitar 1917 Bolshevik 1917 Bolshevism

185

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 Table 2. cont. First date Main headword Secondary headword Labels and field markers 1917 Bolshevist 1917 Soviet 1918 Bolshevikize 1918 commissar 1918 Rasputinism 1918 tovarish, tovarich 1918 tvorog 1919 Bolshevisia 1919 chai Mil. slang 1919 dvornik 1919 Menshevist 1919 ║paskha (A1) Cookery 1919 Sovietism 1919 Bolshevikizm 1920 Bolshevistic 1920 Menshevism 1920 Russki-land 1920 Sovietic 1920 Sovietist 1920 ║subbotnik 1921 Cheka 1921 Bolshevy 1921 Chekist 1921 ║kolkhoz 1921 proletcult 1921 proletcultist 1921 ║rubashka 1921 ║sovkhoz 1921 yeri

186

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 Table 2. cont. First date Main headword Secondary headword Labels and field markers 1922 Acmeist 1922 proletcultural 1923 Bolshevistically 1923 chervonetz 1923 Ogpu 1923 RSFSR 1923 ║starets, staretz 1924 ║kissel 1924 Presidium 1924 ║rassolnik (A1) 1924 solonetz Soil Science 1925 Comintern 1925 GPU 1925 ║niet (A1) 1925 ║shashlik 1925 solod Soil Science 1925 solodization 1925 solonchak Soil Science 1925 Tass 1926 Acmeism 1926 Gosplan 1926 Politbureau, -buro 1926 ║skaz 1926 SSR 1927 gley Soil Science 1927 idiogram Cytol. / Med. 1927 pavlova Austr./N.Z. 1927 podzolic

187

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 Table 2. cont. First date Main headword Secondary headword Labels and field markers 1927 rendzina Soil science 1927 riza 1927 theremin 1928 kazachoc 1928 ║paranjah 1928 Profintern 1928 ║Rabfak 1928 ║Rabkrin 1928 ║samogon (A1) 1928 Stavka 1928 tarbagan 1929 constructivism 1929 ║gopak 1929 karyotype Biol./Med. 1931 karyotypic(al) 1931 ║udarnik 1932 Intourist 1932 kok-saghyz 1932 ║technicum 1933 torgsin 1934 agit-prop 1934 gleyed 1934 Komsomol 1934 sierozem Soil Science 1934 solodize 1935 Kondratieff (A3) Econ. 1935 ║sobornost Theol. 1935 solonetzic 1936 Cubo-Futurism

188

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 Table 2. cont. First date Main headword Secondary headword Labels and field markers 1936 ║rayon 1936 shamanka 1936 Suprematist 1937 Rasputin 1937 ║shefstvo 1938 babushka N.Amer. 1938 gleization 1938 kray 1938 Lubyanka (A3) 1938 ║prisiadka 1938 Sovnarkom 1940 Molotov 1940 ║vozhd 1941 ║apparatchik 1942 NKVD 1943 ║pelmeny 1943 ║stolovaya 1943 thermokarst 1943 ║valenki 1945 ║shapka 1946 Gulag (A2) 1946 polaron Physics 1947 Cominform 1947 Khanty (A3) 1948 matryoshka (A3) 1949 gleying 1949 MVD 1950 ║apparat

189

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 Table 2. cont. First date Main headword Secondary headword Labels and field markers 1950 MGB 1950 pivo 1951 agro-city 1951 agro-town 1952 ║agrogorod 1952 meteoriticist 1953 cosmodrome 1953 Smersh 1953 Tokarev 1955 Cominformist 1955 Katyusha 1955 kolkhoznik 1955 ║kulturny 1955 shamanin 1955 Sovietophobia 1955 ║stilyaga 1955 ║tolkach 1957 Sovietophile 1957 sputnik 1957 sputnikitis Nonce wd. 1958 ║solyanka 1958 ║sovnarkhoz 1959 cosmonaut 1959 lunik Astronautics 1959 ║malossol (A3) Gastron. 1959 ║nekulturny 1959 ║nomenklatura (A1) Pol. 1959 ROA 1959 ║vlast (A2)

190

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 Table 2. cont. First date Main headword Secondary headword Labels and field markers 1960 KGB 1960 sputnik(e)ry Nonce wd. 1961 Mukuzani 1962 Cubo-futurist 1962 droog 1962 hadron Physics 1962 Stechkin 1962 Svanian 1963 druzhinnik (A2) 1963 karyotyping 1963 ║residentura 1964 ethnonym Anthropol. 1964 sambo (A1) 1964 shamaness 1964 solodized 1965 karyotypically 1966 magnetoid (A3) Astron. 1966 NIR 1966 Stolichnaya 1967 ║samizdat 1968 ║rezident 1968 ║rezidentsia 1968 ║sharashka (A1) Hist. 1968 zek 1969 adaptogen (A3) Alternative Med. 1969 Narodnikism 1969 ║stukach (A2) Slang 1969 tokamak Physics

191

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 Table 2. cont. First date Main headword Secondary headword Labels and field markers 1970 ║kalashnikov 1970 lunokhod Astronautics 1970 marsokhod 1970 planetokhod 1970 sulphazin Pharm. / US 1971 karyotyped 1972 ║glasnost 1972 samizdatchik 1974 ║tamizdat 1978 polaronic 1978 solodic 1980 Sovietophobe 1981 ║perestroika Pol. 1987 glasnostian (A2) Rare 1987 glasnostic (A2) Rare 1989 ║terem Russ. Hist.

192

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 artel arshin dessiatine berkovets Webster’s Third Webster’s dola artel arshin chkalik botchka Gosplan boutylka chetverik berkovets dessiatine Webster’s Second Webster’s arshine Webster’s First Webster’s artel OED2 torgsin arsheen Gosplan Intourist dessiatine Profintern sovnarkhoz Subcategory 1. Economic concepts and organizations 2. Measures and weights Main category 1. Economy and trade Table 3. Semantic classification of Russianisms Table

193

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 pood vedro sagene chetvert Webster’s Third Webster’s pud stoof duim foute fount pajak korec tchast vedro paletz osmin sagene totchka garnetz chetvert krouchka polusomina polugarnetz Webster’s Second Webster’s pood vedro sagene chetvert Webster’s First Webster’s pood vedro OED2 sagene tchetvert Subcategory Main category Table 3. cont. Table

194

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 pul verst ruble kopeck kurgan zolotnik poltinnik cosmonaut chervonets cosmodrome Webster’s Third Webster’s pul altin verst ruble marka kurgan poltina kopeck verchok zolotnik poltinnik chervonets Webster’s Second Webster’s verst ruble copeck Webster’s First Webster’s verst lunik rouble OED2 kurgan copeck zolotnik lunokhod ethnonym cosmonaut chervonetz ploshchadka cosmodrome Subcategory 3. Astronautics and 3. space travels 3. Monetary units Anthropology 1. Archaeology 2. - Main category nology 2. Science and tech Table 3. cont. Table

195

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 proso badan mazut sputnik turanose makhorka tau-saghyz Kondratieff kok-saghyz krym-saghyz Webster’s Third Webster’s proso badan mazut molka aleutite badiaga turanose barometz tau-saghyz kok-saghyz krym-saghyz Webster’s Second Webster’s astatki badiaga barometz Webster’s First Webster’s mazut astatki OED2 kamish sputnik badiaga turanose mahorka barometz marsokhod kok-saghyz Kondratieff planetokhod Subcategory 6. Economy 4. Botany 5. Chemistry and petrology Main category Table 3. cont. Table

196

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 Aleut Balkar Buryat Adzhar Bukeef Chudic Abkhas Bashkir Abashev Chukchi Chorwat Chechen Chuvash Budukha Cherkess Cheremiss (Belorussian) Webster’s Third Webster’s Cherneviye Tatar Cherneviye Aleut Buriat Balkar Bukeef Chudic Abkhas Bashkir Chukchi Chorwat Chechen Chuvash Budukha Cherkess Cheremiss Bielorouss Cherneviye Tatar Cherneviye Webster’s Second Webster’s Webster’s First Webster’s Aleut Buriat OED2 Abkhaz Chechen Chukchee Cheremis(s) (Belorussian) Subcategory 7. Ethnology Main category Table 3. cont. Table

197

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 Mansi Evenk Nentsi Kazak Gilyak Ingush Khanty Kyurin Koryak Kirghiz Cossack Kipchak Karachai Kalmuck Mordvin Kamasin Lezghian Kamchadal Webster’s Third Webster’s Kazak Mordv Ingush Gilyak Kyurin Koryak Kirghiz Cossack Kipchak Kamasin Lezghian Calmucks Kamchadal Webster’s Second Webster’s Cossack Calmucks Webster’s First Webster’s OED2 Ingush Gilyak Nenets Khanty Koryak Kirghiz Kazakh Cossack Kipchak Mordvin Kalmuck Lesghian Kamchadal Subcategory Main category Table 3. cont. Table

198

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 - ian Tat Russ Svan Osset Tavgi Uzbek Ostyak Tungus Siberski Permiak Russene Siberyak Samoyed Petcheneg (Polovtsian) Syryenian/Zyr Webster’s Third Webster’s Tat Rus Russ Svan Osset Rusin Uzbek Zyrian Tavghi Ostyak Tungus Permiak Polovtzy Samoyed Webster’s Second Webster’s Sirian/Syryenian/ Russ Tunguses Samoyedes Webster’s First Webster’s Tat Rus Russ Svan Tavgi Uzbek OED2 Ostyak Tungus Sibiriak Ossetian (Permic) Polovtsy Samoyed Siryenian/Zyrian Subcategory Main category Table 3. cont. Table

199

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 shor taiga Veps liman Yakut Vogul doline steppe tundra urman Variag Votyak polynya barchan Webster’s Third Webster’s shor taiga Veps Yakut Vogul liman dolina urman tundra steppe Variag Votyak barkhan Webster’s Second Webster’s liman tundra steppe polynia Yakoots Webster’s First Webster’s shor taiga slude liman Yakut Vogul parma dolina tundra steppe OED2 Votyak ureilite Vepsian polynya barchan (Varagian) thermokarst Subcategory 8. Geography and geology Main category Table 3. cont. Table

200

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 gley purga buran hadron podzol polaron sastruga tokamak rendzina noosphere chernozem Webster’s Third Webster’s purga buran podsol sastrugi rendzina miryachit chernozem Webster’s Second Webster’s zastrugi Webster’s First Webster’s yeri gley purga buran OED2 podzol hadron polaron sastruga rendzina tokamak idiogram miryachit sulphazin karyotype noosphere magnetoid adaptogen chernozem Subcategory 11. Meteorology 11. 13. Psychology 14. Soil science 9. Linguistics 10. Medicine 12. Physics Main category Table 3. cont. Table

201

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 solod corsac borzoi dzeren beluga beetewk solonetz barukhzy sierozem baronduki solonchak Webster’s Third Webster’s Molotov cocktail solod corsac borzoi dzeren beluga solonetz sierozem solonchak Webster’s Second Webster’s corsak dzeren beluga Webster’s First Webster’s NIR solod corsac borzoi dzeren beluga OED2 Tokarev solonetz Molotov Stechkin sierozem barukhzy Katyusha solonchak gorbuscha kalashnikov Subcategory 16. Zoology 15. Technology 15. Main category Table 3. cont. Table

202

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 keta irbis matka Orloff malma ossetra (horse) kolinsky perwitsky mammoth hollushchick Przhevalski’s Przhevalski’s Webster’s Third Webster’s keta matka (horse) mykiss karagan owtchah kolinsky mammoth hollushchick Przhevalski’s Przhevalski’s Webster’s Second Webster’s nerka mykiss osseter kolinsky karagane mammoth hollushchikie Webster’s First Webster’s keta olen laika omul nerka OED2 osseter karagan kolinsky mammoth Przewalski hollushchikie Subcategory Main category Table 3. cont. Table

203

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 tur saiga suslik zokor sarlak sterlet slepez tarpan taimen zemmi sevruga wachna tarbagan seecatch Romanov scheltopusik Webster’s Third Webster’s tur saiga zokor sarlak sterlet suslik tarpan zemmi taimen slepetz wachna seecatch scheltopusik Webster’s Second Webster’s tur zubr saiga suslik sarlac sterlet zemni tarpan slepez seecatch Webster’s First Webster’s tur zubr saiga sarlac sudak suslik sterlet zemni OED2 sevruga seecatch tarbagan sheltopusik Subcategory Main category Table 3. cont. Table

204

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 mir stanitsa feldsher agronome Webster’s Third Webster’s mir stanitza dvornik feldsher bratstvo izvozchik Webster’s Second Webster’s mir Webster’s First Webster’s mir aoul otriad skhod sanitar OED2 tolkach stanitsa dvornik stilyaga feldsher kulturny Rasputin Oblomov provodnik agronome nekulturny Subcategory 3. Professions 2. Human features 1. Communities Main category 3. Man and society Table 3. cont. Table

205

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 beg Ivan boyar atabeg ataman bogatyr gospodin babushka chinovnik yamstchik cesarevitch intelligentsia Webster’s Third Webster’s beg barin vitch boyar atabeg ataman gospodar gospodin brodyaga babushka yamstchik cesarevitch besprizorni intelligentsia Webster’s Second Webster’s Ivan, Ivan Ivano - beg boyar ataman Webster’s First Webster’s Ivan Ivanovitch beg Ivan boyar droog OED2 ataman cantonist gospodar yamschik chinovnik intelligentsia Subcategory 4. Social class and status Main category Table 3. cont. Table

206

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 czar knez kulak starets Russki shaman muzhik czaritza czarevna czarevitch kolkhoznik promyshlennik Webster’s Third Webster’s czar knez tchin kulak sotnik starets muzhik czaritza shaman starosta czarevna czarevitch pomeshchik Webster’s Second Webster’s czar starost tsaritsa shaman czarevna czarowitz Webster’s First Webster’s

tsar knez tchin kulak sotnik OED2 Russki tsaritsa moujik (deriv.) shaman starosta tsarevna tsarevich kolkhoznik nomenklatura Subcategory Main category Table 3. cont. Table

207

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28

vint buro raion oblast sambo kolkhoz sovkhoz woiwode voivode / agrogorod guberniya Webster’s Third Webster’s okrug oblast uyezd volost kolkhoz voivode zemstvo sovkhoz guberniya Comintern Cesarewitch Webster’s Second Webster’s volost voivode zemstvo Webster’s First Webster’s kray rayon okrug oblast volost sambo OED2 kolkhoz voivode zemstvo sovkhoz agrogorod Comintern Cominform Cesarewitch

Subcategory 2. Agricultural 2. concepts 5. Sports and games Administrative 1. divisions 3. Committees and organisations Main category 4. Political life Table 3. cont. Table

208

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 duma soviet apparat agitprop agitpunkt politburo presidium Bolshevik Bolshevist commissar Komsomol apparatchik Bolshevism Webster’s Third Webster’s duma soviet agitprop selsoviet Politburo presidium Bolshevik Bolshevist commissar Comsomol Bolshevism Zemski Sobor Webster’s Second Webster’s Webster’s First Webster’s Tass duma soviet OED2 apparat Rabkrin Agit-prop Presidium Bolshevik Bolshevist commissar Komsomol Politbureau Sovnarkom apparatchik Bolshevism Zemsky Sobor - Subcategory 4. Political move ments, doctrines and related concepts Main category Table 3. cont. Table

209

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 cheka Cadet chekist chistka glasnost tovarish proletcult Dekabrist perestroika Menshevik Menshevist Menshevism Webster’s Third Webster’s Cadet cheka tovarish proletcult Dekabrist Menshevik Menshevist Menshevism chekist (deriv.) Webster’s Second Webster’s Webster’s First Webster’s niet Cadet cheka vozhd OED2 uprava udarnik tovarish glasnost Narodnik proletcult Dekabrist subbotnik perestroika Menshevik Menshevist Menshevism chekist (deriv.) Subcategory 5. Regime-related concepts Main category Table 3. cont. Table

210

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 knout obrok Gulag nagaika oprichnik commissar Webster’s Third Webster’s plet Ogpu knout MGB obrok MVD NKVD nagaika ispravnik Webster’s Second Webster’s plitt knout obrok opolchenie Webster’s First Webster’s plet GPU KGB Ogpu knout MGB MVD Gulag OED2 NKVD nagaika Okhrana druzhina ispravnik Lubyanka Subcategory Main category Table 3. cont. Table

211

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 ukase pristav pogrom Webster’s Third Webster’s zapas ukase sotnia pristav Strelitz pogrom Webster’s Second Webster’s zapas ukase strelitz Webster’s First Webster’s zek vlast ROA ukase sotnia prikaz pristaf OED2 Stavka sterlitz Smersh stukach pogrom Stolypin sheftstvo sharashka rezidentsia residentura Subcategory Main category Table 3. cont. Table

212

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 gopak trepak rabfak bylina bandura lezginka Kirillitsa prisiadka balalaika technicum chastushka kamarinskaia Webster’s Third Webster’s bylina ziganka Kirillitsa balalaika Webster’s Second Webster’s Webster’s First Webster’s skaz SSR bylina gopak OED2 Rabfak RSFSR balalaika prisiadka kazachoc Acmeism technicum

Subcategory 6. Names of states 1. Dances 4. Musical instruments 3. Language and literature 2. Education Main category 5. Art, culture and 5. education Table 3. cont. Table

213

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28

gusli chum domra gudok theremin barabara Webster’s Third Webster’s lesiy gudok caback balagan barabara szopelka baba jaga Webster’s Second Webster’s Webster’s First Webster’s gusli OED2 choom caback (deriv.) tamizdat theremin samizdat samizdatchik Suprematism constructivism Cubo-futurism Subcategory 1. Buildings, lodgings and facilities 5. Mythology 6. Painting 7. System of publishing 8. Theatre 8. Main category 6. Home and family Table 3. cont. Table

214

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 isba yurt crash burka caftan dacha galyak bashlyk karakul balaclava babushka Astrakhan Webster’s Third Webster’s isba yurt yam crash dacha galyak karakul bashlyk babushka astrakhan Balaklava Webster’s Second Webster’s crash caftan karakul Astrakhan Webster’s First Webster’s isba yurt yam crash terem burka dacha caftan ostrog OED2 bashlik daggett karakul Prospekt babushka astrakhan stolovaya Balaclava

Subcategory materials 2. Clothing and Main category Table 3. cont. Table

215

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 blin yuft shuba kendyr borsch saffian kolinsky peschaniki Webster’s Third Webster’s yuft parka shuba borsch saffian korova sarafan kolinsky Webster’s Second Webster’s yufts parka carlock kolinsky Webster’s First Webster’s blin yuft chai parka shuba borsht OED2 saffian shapka sarafan carlock paranja valenki ribazuba rubashka Subcategory 3. Food and drinks Main category Table 3. cont. Table

216

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 kefir ikary kasha kvass pirogi paskha pavlova pelmeni koumiss kromeski Webster’s Third Webster’s Nesselrode (pie) ikra ikary kvass kasha obarni kumiss kromeski manna croup Webster’s Second Webster’s quass koumiss manna-croup Webster’s First Webster’s kefir icary pirog kvass kasha kissel obarni OED2 paskha pavlova koumiss pelmeny malossol coulibiac kromesky Mukuzani Nesselrode manna-croup Subcategory Main category Table 3. cont. Table

217

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 kovsh vodka zakuska piroshki shashlik samogon Webster’s Third Webster’s stchi chark vodka visney zakuska samogon Webster’s Second Webster’s vodka Webster’s First Webster’s pivo ukha shchi chark kovsh vodka tvorog OED2 zakuska piroshki shashlik smetana solyanka rassolnik samogon Tsinandali matryoshka Stolichnaya Subcategory 4. Household goods Main category Table 3. cont. Table

218

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 bidar araba troika telega kibitka bidarka droshky tarantass samovar iconostas protopope Webster’s Third Webster’s arba pope nefte bidar troika peach telega struse baidak kibitka bidarka droshky samovar tarantass iconostas protopope Webster’s Second Webster’s struse telega drosky kibitka bidarka samovar tarantass archierey protopope Webster’s First Webster’s riza pope nefte araba troika peach struse telega OED2 kibitka bidarka droshky samovar tarantass iconostas protopope Subcategory 1. Orthodox Church 5. Means of transport Main category 7. Religion Table 3. cont. Table

219

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 Uniat sobor Khlyst Stundist Skoptsy Molokan Popovets sobornost Strigolnik Subbotnik Raskolnik Doukhobor Bezpopovets Webster’s Third Webster’s Uniat sobor Khlysti Skopets Popovets Raskolnik Doukhobors Staroobradsi Bezpopovets Webster’s Second Webster’s Stundist Popovtsy Molokane Raskolnik Doukhobors Bezpopovtsy Webster’s First Webster’s Uniat Khlist starets ongon OED2 Raskol Skoptsi Stundist Starover sobornost Raskolnik Doukhobor Subcategory 3. Schism and sects 2. Pagan beliefs Main category Table 3. cont. Table

220

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 9 1 3 16 TDF 1 6 4 25 RF

BNC Aleuts Adzhar Abkhaz Lemma / agit-prop word-form Adzhar agitprop Abashev agitpunkt agrogorod Fr.) (1986) Fr.) Aleut, Aleutian Aleut, Webster’s Third Webster’s Abkhas, Abkhasian Abkhas, agronome (Russ. or agitprop (1953) Aleut (geog. ref.) Webster’s Second Webster’s Abkhas (geog. ref.) Webster’s First Webster’s Aleut OED2 Acmeism agrogorod agronome (Fr.) adaptogen (A3) Abkhaz, Abkhas Abkhaz, (origin unknown) Agit-prop, agit-prop date First 1838 1951 1780 1838 1934 1969 1926 Table 4. Russianisms in dictionaries and corpus Table

221

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 1 8 39 TDF 2 1 16 20 37 RF

BNC apparat Lemma / astrakhan word-form apparatchik apparatchiki apparatchiks aul archine apparat Astrakhan apparatchik (geog. ref.) atabeg, atabek aminazin (B2) Webster’s Third Webster’s araba, aroba, arba arshin, arshine, archin, - shine aleutite (geog. ref.) arba (Russ.) altin, altininck Aoul (cf. Nepali) Webster’s Second Webster’s arshin, arsheen, ar astrakhan, astrachan aroba, araba (Arab.); atabeg, atabek (Turk.) Arshine Archierey Astrakhan (geog. ref.) Astatki (1913) Webster’s First Webster’s OED2 archine apparat astrakhan (geog. ref.) apparatchik araba, aroba (East. Turk.) (East. astatki, ostatki aoul, aoull, aul arsheen, arshine, (Arab. and Pers.) date First 1766 1734 1885 1950 1828 1941 1845 Table 4. cont. Table

222

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 4 1 7 4 64 TDF 6 1 1 7 1 2 69 35 RF

BNC ataman atamans Lemma / balalaika balaclava babushka aulacogen babushkas word-form aulacogens - man badan helmet Balkar balalaika babushka (geog. ref.) aulacogen (B2) Webster’s Third Webster’s balaclava, balaclava ataman (Russ.) = het 1 (Pol.) badan baidak (Slav.) balagan badiaga balalaika babushka (geog. ref.) ataman = hetman Balaklava (1953) Webster’s Second Webster’s Balkar (geog. ref.) baba jaga, babajaga Ataman Badiaga Webster’s First Webster’s has now been entered into OED3, where is treated as a Russian loan dated to 1857. Baba Yaga OED2 hetman badiaga balalaika babushka (geog. ref.) helmet / cap Balaclava, balaclava ataman (Pol) = var. of ataman (Pol) = var. Thanks to new textual evidence Thanks to new textual

1 date First 1938 1753 1788 1881

Table 4. cont. Table

223

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 4 1 TDF 5 6 12 10 RF

BNC Bashkir barchan Bashkirs barchans Lemma / word-form hound Bashkir bandura barkhan beetewk borunduk bashlyk, bashlik Webster’s Third Webster’s barchan, barchane, barabara, barabora barukhzy, barukhzy barukhzy, baronduki, baranduki, barunduki, burunduki; - barin dialect) bashlyk, bashlik Bashkir (no ref.) Webster’s Second Webster’s barabara, barabora barometz, boramez kan (prob. East Turk. Turk. kan (prob. East barkhan, barchan, bar Barometz (cf. Russ) Webster’s First Webster’s OED2 beshlik barometz Afghan people) bashlik, bashluik, barchan, barchane, barkhan (native word) barukhzy (name of an date First 1895 1888 1791 1881 Table 4. cont. Table

224

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 1 2 12 TDF 4 2 31 31 RF

BNC blinis beluga belugas Lemma / word-form bezprizornye - beg bogatyr bidarkee bidar, baidar bidar, blin = blintze Bezpopovets bioplasma (B2) beluga, belouga Webster’s Third Webster’s coenose (also B2) bidarka, baidarka, berkovets, berkovtsi biogeocenose, biogeo bidar beluga besprizorni (East Turki) (East Bezpopovets berkowitz (Ger.) bidarka, bidarkee Webster’s Second Webster’s beg (Turk.), begani beg (Turk.), berkovets (Russ.) = Beluga Beg (Turki) Webster’s First Webster’s Bidarkee (1913) Bezpopovtsy (1913)

OED2 beluga, bellougina blin; blintze (Yid.) = blin (Yid.) bidarka, baidarka, baidarke, bidarkee beg, becg (Osmanli) date First 1889 1686 1591 1834 Table 4. cont. Table

225

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 5 2 5 2 3 6 88 34 TDF 8 2 9 5 6 4 1 10 60 14 RF 219 229

BNC boyar boyars borzoi borscht Lemma / Bogomil Bukharan bolshevik bolshevist Bogomils bolsheviks word-form bolshevists bolshevism - borzoi (geog. ref.) Webster’s Third Webster’s Bukhara, Bokhara Bolshevist (deriv.) Bolshevism (deriv.) Bogomil, Bogomile boyar, boyard, boiar boyar, borsch, borscht, bor sht, bortsch, borshch Bolshevik, bolshevik - borzoi botchka bratstvo boutylka (cf. Russ.) (no etym.) (geog. ref.) boyar, boyard boyar, vism (no etym.) Webster’s Second Webster’s Bokhara, Bukhara Bogomile, Bogomil Bolshevism, bolshe Bolshevik, Bolshevik Bolshevist, bolshevist borsch, borsht, bortsch Boyar Webster’s First Webster’s - OED2 Bolshevist Bolshevism shch, bortsch borzoi, barzoi Bolshevik, -ic bojar, boyaren bojar, Bokhara, Bukhara borsch, borscht, bor Bogomil (Med. Gr.) boyar, boyard, boiaren, boyard, boyar, date First 1574 1913 1591 1917 1917 1917 1884 1887 Table 4. cont. Table

226

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 2 5 5 1 TDF 3 1 5 3 2 10 10 13 25 RF

BNC burka Kadet Buryat Kadets britzka burkas Burkha Buryats Burkhas Lemma / word-form Cadet buran bylina bourkha Bukeyef Budukha Buryat, Buriat burka, burkha, Webster’s Third Webster’s britska, britzska (Ger.) ref.) Cadet bylina caback brodyaga buran, bura britska, britchka, Bukeyef (no ref.) Webster’s Second Webster’s Budukha (no ref.) Buriat, Buryat (geog. britzka, britzska (Pol.) Britzska Webster’s First Webster’s buran bylina OED2 caback britska (Pol.) Cadet, Kadet burqa, boorka, Buriat, Buryat bourkha, burko britzka, britzska, britschka, britzschka, date First 1832 1886 1836 1591 1906 1916 1886 Table 4. cont. Table

227

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 2 9 1 7 11 31 TDF 1 6 2 1 4 14 15 12 15 18 RF

BNC chai caftan kaftan Cheka caftans Chechen Lemma / Chechens cantonists word-form Cesarovitch Cesarewitch cheka Russ.) chekist carburan chastushka caftan, kaftan Webster’s Third Webster’s Chechen (modif. of - chark Cesarewitch tsish (no ref.) Cheka, Tcheka Cheka, Chekist (deriv.) Webster’s Second Webster’s caftan, kaftan (Fr.) Chechen, Tchetchen Chechen, Carlock (Fr.) Caftan (Turk.) Webster’s First Webster’s chai chark OED2 (Turk.) Tcheka carlock cantonist Cesarewitch Chekist (deriv.) caftan, caffetan, caftan, caffetan, Cheka, Chay-ka, Chechen, Tchechene Chechen, cafetan, coftan, kaftan date First 1768 1839 1814 1591 1854 1919 1591 1921 Table 4. cont. Table

228

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 1 1 TDF 1 1 RF

BNC Lemma / word-form chervonets chernozem - sian chistka chinovnik chernozem tchervonetz Webster’s Third Webster’s netz, tchervonets, Chorwat = Croat Chernevyiye Tartar Chernevyiye chervonets, chervo Cherkess = Circas - Cheremis, Cheremiss - - - - sian) Chkalik (no ref.) chervonetz Chorwat = Croat Webster’s Second Webster’s Cheremiss, Cher chervonets, tcher chernozem, tcher Cherneviye Tartar Cherneviye Chermish (no ref.) nozem, tchernozom vonets, tchervonetz, chetverik, tchetverik emissian, Tcheremis, Tcheremis, emissian, Tcherkess (cf. Circas Tcherkess Cherkess, Tscherkess, Tscherkess, Cherkess, Webster’s First Webster’s - - OED2 vonets, tschern- tchervonetz Tcheremiss Cheremis(s), chervonetz, cher chernozem, cherno sem, tchern-, tchorn-, chinovnik, tchinovnik date First 1842 1877 1652 1923 Table 4. cont. Table

229

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 3 1 4 11 17 30 TDF 1 4 1 5 25 19 43 12 RF 144

BNC Chukchi Chuvash Lemma / Chukchis Comintern Comintern commissar word-form Cominform commissars constructivism chum Chudic Chuvash Chukchie commissar (indirect ref.) constructivism Webster’s Third Webster’s Chukchi, Chukchee, ref.) chort Tchudic (no ref.) Comintern commissar (Fr.) Webster’s Second Webster’s constructivism (no Chukchi, Tchukchi Chukchi, Chuvash, Tchuvash Chuvash, Chud, Chude, Tchoud, Tchoud, Chud, Chude, Webster’s First Webster’s OED2 choom Tchuktchi Cominform commissare, commisser(e) constructivism (1 sense Russ.) commissar, comis-, commissar, Chukch, Chukche, Chukchee, Chukchi, Comintern, Komintern date First 1780 1598 1917 1947 1925 1918 1924 Table 4. cont. Table

230

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 9 1 5 60 20 TDF 2 2 2 3 1 6 24 77 19 25 RF 178

BNC copek kopek kopek copecks kopecks Cossack Lemma / Cossacks koulebiaca cosmonaut word-form cosmonauts cosmodrome Russ.) Cossack cosmonaut corsac, corsak Webster’s Third Webster’s cosmodrome (1986) (part. trans. of Russ.) crash (prob. mod. of coulibiac (Fr.) (1986) coulibiac (Fr.) kopeck, kopek, copeck kopek, kopeck, sack corsac, corsak Webster’s Second Webster’s crash (prob. Russ.) Cossack, Casak, Kas - kopeck, kopek, copeck (no ref.) Cossack pec, copeck Crash (Lat.) Corsak, corsac Webster’s First Webster’s Kopeck, kopek, co - OED2 cosmonaut (geog. ref.) (indirect ref.) cosmodrome copeek, kopek copeck, copec, Kozack, Kozak capeck, kapeke, Cosache, -aque, Cossak, Cossac, copeik, copique, Cassok, Kosack, crash (prob. Russ.) Cossack, Cassacke, coulibiac, koulibiac Cossacque, Kossak, corsac, corsak (Turk.) date First 1953 1698 1838 1959 1598 1898 1812 Table 4. cont. Table

231

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 1 1 23 TDF 4 1 1 45 RF

BNC dacha dolina dachas Lemma / word-form Cubo-Futurist - domra Dekabrist Dukhobor droog (B2) Doukhobor, dacha, datcha doline, dolina Webster’s Third Webster’s desiatin, desyatin ya, dosvedanya (B1) dessiatine, dessatine, do svidania, dosvidan dacha (no ref.) deciatine dola, dolya Webster’s Second Webster’s Dukhoborts, Duk - dessiatine, desyatin, dolina, doline (Slav.) Dekabrist, Decabrist hobortsy, Doukhobors hobortsy, - brist (1913) Webster’s First Webster’s Dukhobors (1913) Decembrist, Deka - cha droog OED2 dessjatine czar, see tsar czar, dolina, doline Cubo-Futurism dessiatine, desyatin, dacha, datcha, dats Dekabrist, Decabrist des(s)atine, desaetine, Doukhobor, Dukhobor Doukhobor, daggett, degote, degutt date First 1962 1896 1799 1882 1936 1882 1968 1876 1861 Table 4. cont. Table

232

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 1 2 2 14 TDF 1 1 2 6 4 RF 110

BNC Duma Evenki Evenkis Lemma / droschke druzhinii droshkys word-form 2 dzerin (1986) duma, douma droshky, drosky droshky, druzhinnik (B1) dzeren, dzeron, Webster’s Third Webster’s Evenk = Tungus Evenk = (Ger.) dvornik (Mong.) duim, duime duma, douma Webster’s Second Webster’s . ’ s Third Webster droshky, drosky, dro - drosky, droshky, dzeren, dzeron, dzerin szky (Russ.); droschke droschke Webster’s First Webster’s Dzeren (no ref.) Drosky, droitzschka, Drosky, - was included in the 1986 Supplement to drosky (A2) (A2) golia) OED2 dvornik ethnonym droitzschka, duma, douma droshky, drosky, droshky, druzhina, droujina druzhinnik (deriv.) druzhinnik (deriv.) ki, droska, droskcha (native name in Mon dzeren, dzeron, dzerin drojeka, droshka, -ke,- Only the spelling

2 date First 1808 1964 1870 1834 1879 1963 1919 Table 4. cont. Table

233

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 1 2 1 1 10 76 TDF 3 1 2 2 1 6 15 27 RF 125

BNC gley gleys gopak hopak Gilyak glasnost glasnost Gosplan feldsher Lemma / word-form B3) ref.) feldsher gley, glei gley, (geog. ref.) gopak, hopak Gilyak, Giliak Webster’s Third Webster’s glasnost (1986) (also galyak, galyac (geog. ref.) foute feldsher Gosplan (geog. ref.) fount, founte Giliak, Gilyak garnetz, garnets Webster’s Second Webster’s galyak, galyac (geog. Webster’s First Webster’s OED2 feldsher glasnost Gosplan gopak, hopak Gilyak (no etym.) feldsher, feldschar, feldschar, feldsher, gley, glei (Ukrain.) gley, gorbuscha, garbusche date First 1972 1926 1858 1877 1927 1929 1792 Table 4. cont. Table

234

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 5 1 5 3 26 TDF 2 7 4 6 1 1 18 27 32 RF 116

BNC GPU Gulag Gulags hadron, hadrons gubernii gubernia Lemma / guberniia guberniya gospodars word-form - gudok go (B2) gospodin holluschick gusli, guslee Webster’s Third Webster’s guberniya, gubernia hadron (ISV) (1986) B3); Gulag Archipela B3); Gulag gulag (1986) (also B2, gudok gospodin holluschick Webster’s Second Webster’s guberniya, gubernia gospodar = hospodar Webster’s First Webster’s Holluschickie (1913) - gusli OED2 chickie, in Russ.) (Roman.) gulag (A2) GPU = Ogpu holluschuckie Gulag, GULAG, gospodar = hospodar holluschickie, hollos hadron (Gr., first used hadron (Gr., date First 1962 1925 1946 1847 1897 1874 Table 4. cont. Table

235

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 1 5 9 3 85 TDF 4 3 5 2 3 11 10 RF 256

BNC Ivans Ingush Ingushi Ingushis Intourist Lemma / idiogram word-form intelligentsia intelligentsias - irbis entzia isba, izba ikary = caviar Ivan = Russian idiogram (ISV) Ingush (no ref.) Webster’s Third Webster’s iconostas (Russ.) iconostas is (Gr.); iconostas is (Gr.); inteligentsia, intelig ikra isba ispravnik izvozchik ikary, icary ikary, iconostasion intelligentsia Ingush = Galga (var. of N. Lat.) (var. Webster’s Second Webster’s Ivan, Ivan Ivanovitch iconostasis, iconostas, Webster’s First Webster’s Ivan Ivanovitch - Ivan OED2 Intourist ligentzia ispravnik Ingush, Ingoush isba, isbah, izba iconostasis (Lat.) ikary, icary, ickary icary, ikary, intelligentsia, intel iconostas (Russ.) = idiogram = karyotype date First 1927 1784 1833 1886 1902 1870 1591 1907 1932 Table 4. cont. Table

236

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 1 5 29 32 TDF 1 3 1 5 2 2 3 3 1 44 16 17 17 RF

BNC ak47 ak-47 ak47s ak-47s AK 47 Kamas Kalmyk Kalmyki Lemma / Kalmuck Calmucks Kalmucks word-form Kalashnikov Kalashnikovs - kamarinskaia Webster’s Third Webster’s Kalashnikov (B1) Kamasin, Kamass, dale, Kamchadele Kalmyk, Calmuck Kalmuck, Kalmuk, Kamassian, Kamassin Kamchadal, Kamcha - (Turki) (geog. ref.) Kamtschadale Kalmyk, Kalmuk Webster’s Second Webster’s Kamass (geog. ref.) Kalmuck, Kalmyck, adele, Kamtchadale, Kamasin, Kamassin, Kamchadal, Kamch (geog. ref.) Webster’s First Webster’s Kalmuck, Calmucks 47 OED2 kamish Kamchadal, Kamt(s)chadale -myk, Calmuc(k) Kamtchat(ka)dale, Kalmuck, -muc,-muk, kalashnikov; AK, AK AK, kalashnikov; date First 1970 1902 1613 1764 Table 4. cont. Table

237

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 5 1 1 1 3 TDF 1 3 1 8 5 10 RF

BNC kasha Lemma / Karachai Katyusha karyotype Cossachok word-form karyotypes - 3 - (B2) kasha (Czech) (prob. Fr.) rakteristika (geog. ref.) katyusha (B1) karyotype (ISV) Webster’s Third Webster’s karakul, carakul (geog. ref.); Kara chayevt (f. Russ.) karakteristika, kha Karachai, Karatchai kasha caracul (no ref.) Webster’s Second Webster’s karagan = corsac karakul, karakule, Karagane Webster’s First Webster’s Karakul (1913) is claimed to be of Russian origin. OED2 Katyusha karyotype kasha, casha karagan (Tur.) caracul, karakul karakul, caracul(e), kazachoc, kozatchok Only the variant spelling Karachayevt Only the variant spelling

3 date First 1853 1929 1800 1808 1955 1928

Table 4. cont. Table

238

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 1 1 40 28 112 TDF 5 2 7 1 4 4 11 32 38 69 RF 500

BNC KGB Khlist Kirgiz Kazak Kazaks Khanty Kirghiz Khirgiz Kazakh Khantys Kazakhs Lemma / word-form - - Khlyst Ostyak (Turki) kibitka Kipchak and Turk.) and kefir, kephir kefir, ghiz (Kirghiz) Webster’s Third Webster’s Khanty (no ref.) = Kirghiz, Kirghese, Kirghese, Kirghiz, keta = dog salmon zak); kazakh, quzaq Kazak, Kazakh (Ka kendyr, kendir (Russ. kendyr, Kirghis, Kirgiz, Khir Kirgiz, Kirghis, keta ref.) ref.) kibitka Khlysti (geog. ref.) kefir (Caucas.) Webster’s Second Webster’s Kirghis, Kirgiz (no Kirgiz Kirghis, Kazak, Kazak Kirghiz Kazak, Kazak Kirghiz Kirghiz, Kara Kirghiz, Kara Kirghiz, Kirghiz, Kipchak, Kiptchak (no Kibitka Webster’s First Webster’s KGB OED2 (Caucas.) keta, keth Kazak, Qazaq Kirghis, Kirgiz Kirghis, kibitka, -ki, -ke kefir, kefyr, kephir kefyr, kefir, Kipchak, Qipchak Kirghiz, Khirgese, Khirgese, Kirghiz, Khanty, Khanti (A3) Khanty, Kazakh, K(h)asa(c)k, Khlist, Chlist, Khlyst date First 1652 1824 1960 1856 1799 1865 1832 1884 1947 Table 4. cont. Table

239

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 1 3 1 3 1 8 4 TDF 3 8 3 1 6 2 2 3 5 1 27 RF

BNC knez knout knezes kolkhoz kolinsky Lemma / kolkhozy kolkhozes word-form Komsomol Kondratieff kolkhozniki Komsomols gyz knout Russ.) kolkhos Kirillitsa kolkhoznik knez (Slav.) mol, Consomol Webster’s Third Webster’s kolkhoz, kolkoz, Kondratieff (after Kondratieff kolinsky, kolinski kolinsky, Komsomol, Comso - kok-saghyz, kok-sa - - mol korec knout Kirillitsa hos (1953) Webster’s Second Webster’s Kolinsky, kolinski Kolinsky, knez, kniaz, knyaz kok-saghyz (1953) Comsomol, Komso - kolkhoz; kolhoz, kolk Knout Webster’s First Webster’s Kolinsky (1913) mol knoot (Slav.) OED2 kolkhos kok-saghyz kissel, keessel kolkhoz, kolhoz, knez, knes, knias kolinsky, kolinski kolinsky, kolkhoznik (deriv.) tiev (ind. ref.) (A3) Komsomol, Comso - knout, knoute, knowt, Kondratieff, Kondra - Kondratieff, date First 1924 1586 1851 1935 1716 1932 1921 1955 1934 Table 4. cont. Table

240

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 2 1 2 91 TDF 2 1 7 2 RF 243

BNC kray kumiss Koryak Kremlin Koryaks Lemma / word-form Ger.) (ind. ref.) kovsh (1986) (mod. Russ.) kumys, kumyss Koryak, Koriak Webster’s Third Webster’s koumiss, kumiss, Kremlin (prob. mod. cromeski, cromesqui kromeski, kromesky, kromeski, kromesky, korova (geog. ref.) kremlin (Fr.) Koryak, Koriak kumys, koomiss Webster’s Second Webster’s krouchka, kroushka kromeski, kromesky kumiss, koumiss, kou - mis, koumyss, kumish, Kremlin Webster’s First Webster’s kumish, kumys Koumiss, koumyss, (Pol.) kovsh OED2 kray, krai kray, kumiss, kumis, khoumese (Fr.) Koryak, Koriak, chumis, kumisse, kumish, koumiss, koumis, koomiss, koumiss, cosmos, cosmus, cossmos, Koriac(k), Koriak kumys(s), kimmiz, Kremlin, cremelina, crom-, -esque, -esqui Kromesky, kromeski, Kromesky, kremelin, kremle (Fr.) date First 1938 1780 1598 1884 1662 1846 Table 4. cont. Table

241

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 3 1 14 TDF 3 1 5 13 16 RF

BNC kulak Laika kulaki kulaks Lezghin Lemma / word-form quas kulak liman kurgan saghyz lezginka Webster’s Third Webster’s Kyurin (no ref.) kvass, kvas, quass, Lezghian, Leshgian krym-saghyz, krim- kulak liman (no ref.) lesiy, leshy lesiy, Webster’s Second Webster’s kurgan, Kourgane kurgan, Lesghian (no ref.) kvass, kvas, quass, Lezghian, Lesghin, quas, quasse, quash krym-saghyz (1953) Kyurin, Kurin, Kurine Quass, quas Liman (Fr.) Webster’s First Webster’s laika liman OED2 koulak kurgan kulturny kulak, koolack, quash, kuass, kvas Lesghien, Lesgian, Lezg(h)ian, Lezgin kvass, quass(e), quas, Lesghian, Lesghi(e), date First 1858 1877 1553 1905 1854 1889 1955 Table 4. cont. Table

242

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 1 16 174 TDF 1 4 18 20 RF 207

BNC Lunik Lemma / Lubianka Lubyanka mammoth word-form mammoths losh Varden makhorka mammoth Lunokhod (B1) (native name in Webster’s Third Webster’s Kamchatka) = Dolly malma (malma trout) mammoth losh, loshe Webster’s Second Webster’s Mammoth Webster’s First Webster’s (A3) OED2 lunokhod losh, losy makhorka mammouth lunik, Lunik malossol (A3) magnetoid (A3) mamant, maman, mamont, mammon, mammot, mammoth, mahorka, makharka, Lubyanka, Lubianka mammoth, mammuth, date First 1959 1966 1583 1938 1902 1618 1959 1970 Table 4. cont. Table

243

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 5 7 3 11 TDF 3 1 1 8 3 8 24 47 10 RF

BNC Mansi Mansis mazurka Lemma / mazurkas matrioshki word-form matrioshka Menshevik matryoshka Mensheviks Mansi masut Menshevik matka, matkah mazut, mazout, marsokhod (B3) Webster’s Third Webster’s mazurka, mazourka - vik (Pol.) mazut marka groats matka, matkah Webster’s Second Webster’s mazurka, mazourka Menshevik, menshe manna croup, (Pol.) Manna croup Webster’s First Webster’s Mazurka, mazourka - khod (Pol.) OED2 Menshevik manna croup mazurka, mizurko, marsokhod, Marso - mazourca, mazourka ka, matrioshka (A3) mazut, masut, mazout matryoshka, matresh date First 1970 1948 1907 1843 1818 1897 Table 4. cont. Table

244

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 1 1 1 10 TDF 1 2 13 31 RF -

BNC mir tail) MGB Lemma / word-form Menshevism Molotov (cock mir ref.) Molokan (geog. ref.) Webster’s Third Webster’s Menshevist (deriv.) Menshevism (deriv.) Mordvin, Mordvinian Molotov cocktail (ind. - - mir ref.) molka miryachit vist (deriv.) vist (deriv.) Mordv, Mordva, Mordv, Webster’s Second Webster’s Mordvin, Mordvian = Mordvinian (geog. Menshevist, menshe Menshevism, menshe Mir Webster’s First Webster’s Molokane (1913) mir MGB OED2 (ind. ref.) Menshevist Menshevism Mordvin, Mordv, Mordvin, Mordv, vine, Mordvinian Mordvinian, Mord - Molotov, Molotoff Molotoff Molotov, miryachit, erron. myri- date First 1950 1877 1940 1920 1919 1884 1591 Table 4. cont. Table

245

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 5 2 4 TDF 2 1 2 1 7 10 RF

BNC MVD Nenet Nenets moujik muzhik muzhiks Lemma / word-form - entsi nagaika jik, moujik Webster’s Third Webster’s nelma = inconnu Nentsi, Nentsy, Ni - Nentsi, Nentsy, muzhik, muzjik, mu - nefte mykiss nagaika Webster’s Second Webster’s muzhik, muzjik, mu jik, mousick, mousike Mykiss (1913) Webster’s First Webster’s - niiy nefte MVD OED2 Nenets nagaika Mukuzani mouzhik, mujik moujik, muzhik, mooshik, -zheek, musick, mousike, mousick, mugike, Narodnik, narodnik nekulturny, nekultur nekulturny, mougik, -jik, muzhik, date First 1886 1959 1568 1842 1885 1698 1949 1961 Table 4. cont. Table

246

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 1 1 6 14 24 TDF 1 1 4 1 2 1 3 24 35 RF

BNC niet nyet niets NKVD Lemma / (pudding) Noosphere word-form Nesselrode nomenclatura nomenclature nomenklatura (1986) noosphere ding) (ind. ref.) Webster’s Third Webster’s (ISV, prob. Russ.) (ISV, Nesselrode (pie, pud - obarni, obarne Webster’s Second Webster’s nichevo, nitchevo Nerka (1913) Webster’s First Webster’s ref.) NIR OED2 NKVD obarni, obarne niet, nyet (A1) origin obscure) noosphere (Fr.) nomenklatura (A1) pie, pudding) (ind. Nesselrode (cream, nerker (native name, nerka, narka, naerka, date First 1845 1942 1953 1966 1764 1925 1959 1631 Table 4. cont. Table

247

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 1 3 1 3 1 25 TDF 1 3 4 6 1 1 3 2 39 RF

BNC omul obrok okrug oblast oblasti okrugs oblasts Okhrana Lemma / oprichniks word-form obrok oblast oprichnic(-k) Webster’s Third Webster’s Orloff (after Russ.) Orloff Ogpu obrok Orloff okrug, okroog Webster’s Second Webster’s oblast (cf. Soviet) Obrok Webster’s First Webster’s Opolchenie (1913) 4 omul okrug ongon oblast OED2 (ind. ref.) olen, ollen Ogpu, OGPU Okhrana, Ochrana Oblomov, Oblomoff Oblomoff Oblomov, In OED3, the lemma should apparently be treated as aRussianisms (“< from Russian Oblomov ...”). should apparently be treated as aRussianisms (“< from Russian In OED3, the lemma

4 date First 1899 1884 1886 1902 1923 1886 1591 1901

Table 4. cont. Table

248

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 1 1 7 24 TDF 1 5 6 3 11 29 12 RF

BNC parka ostrog parkas Ossete ostrogi Ossetes Ostyaks Lemma / word-form (Uzbek) parka (Aleut) Ostyak, Ostiak Webster’s Third Webster’s parandja, paranja Osset, Osete, Ossete osetra, ossetra (1986) pajak paletz (geog. ref.) osmin, osmina setine (no ref.) Ostyak, Ostiak owtchah (Slav.) Webster’s Second Webster’s Osset, Ossete, Os - parka, parkee (Eskim.) Osseter Parka (1913) Webster’s First Webster’s otriad ostrog OED2 osseter (Aleut) paranjah parka, parkha, ack, Ostiak, etc. parma (no etym.) Osset(e), Ossetic Ossetian, Ossetan, parca, parkee, parki Ostyak, Ostiac, Osti - date First 1887 1928 1814 1780 1764 1722 1916 1888 Table 4. cont. Table

249

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 2 1 2 5 92 TDF 1 1 1 1 3 5 RF 199

BNC pirogi pashka pierogi Pavlova Lemma / Pecheneg Pechenegs word-form perestroika (1986) (1986) Pacheneg unknown) paskha (1986) pirogen, pirogi (Yid. and Russ.) (Yid. Webster’s Third Webster’s pelmeni, pelmeny pavlova (ind. ref.) perwitsky (origin perestroika (1986) Permiak, Permyak Petcheneg, Pecheneg, peschaniki, peschanik peach (geog. ref.) Webster’s Second Webster’s Permiak, Permyak perwitsky (no ref.) Webster’s First Webster’s - - ka ref.) OED2 peach, peech pelmeny, -ni pelmeny, pavlova (ind. ref.) ron.) pashka (A1) paskha, paska, (er pirog, piroga, piroque Permic = Permian (no perestroika, perestroy date First 1919 1981 1943 1927 1591 1921 1854 Table 4. cont. Table

250

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 7 1 34 TDF 1 2 6 4 20 34 29 RF

BNC podsol podzol podzol podsols pogrom piroshky pogroms Lemma / word-form Russ.) pogrom (Yid.) piroshki, pirojki (Yid. and Russ.) (Yid. Webster’s Third Webster’s soil, podsol soil (f. Planetokhod (B1, B3) podzol, podsol, podzol pogrom plet, plete podsol, podzol Webster’s Second Webster’s Plitt Webster’s First Webster’s - 5 6 OED2 tokhod pirozsok pogrom pivo (Slav.) ploshchadka plet, plete, plitt podzol, podsol in sing. piroshok, piroshki, pirotchki, pirozhki, pyrochki, planetokhod, Plane , treated as a Russianism in OED3, has been antedated from 1950 to 1873. Pivo and its Russian etymon”). in OED3 (“Yiddish This is one of a few Russian words given the so-called ‘mixed etymology’

5 6 date First 1864 1970 1913 1906 1912 1950 1882

Table 4. cont. Table

251

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 2 1 5 2 100 TDF 2 6 1 6 6 1 2 1 25 RF 418

BNC Polaron polynya Lemma / polynyas Politburo politburos Polovtsian word-form Politbureau pomeshchik pomeshchiki pomeshchiki Russ.) Russ.) (f. Russ.) Webster’s Third Webster’s polynya, polynia poltinnik, poltina (f. Polovtsian = Cuman politburo, politbureau polaron (ISV) (orig. f. poltina poltinnik poluosmina polugarnetz pomeshchik Webster’s Second Webster’s Polovtzy = Kuman Politburo, Politbureau Polynia Webster’s First Webster’s OED2 polaron Politburo, Politbureau, polynya, polynia Polovtzi, Polovzi Polovtsy, Polovtsi, Polovtsy, politbureau, politburo date First 1853 1946 1926 1799 Table 4. cont. Table

252

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 1 2 4 1 38 TDF 3 1 2 9 1 2 15 13 RF 157

BNC pudy prikaz prikazi Lemma / Presidium Profintern word-form presidiums praesidium Praesidiums promyshlenniki Popovets pope (M. E.) promyshlennik pristav, pristaw pristav, pood, poud, pud Webster’s Third Webster’s prisiadka, prisjadka proletcult, proletkult presidum, praesidium pope popovets pristav, pristaw pristav, pood, poud, pud Webster’s Second Webster’s proletcult, proletkult presidium, praesidium Pood Webster’s First Webster’s Popovtsy (1913) - poud dium OED2 proletcult prisyadka Profintern pope (Fr., Ger.) pope (Fr., pood, pode, poude, Presidium, Praesi prisiadka, prisjádka, poad(e), pud, pudde, tav, pristaw, prestave pristaw, tav, pristaf, pristaffe, pros - pristaf, pristaffe, prikaz, pricasse, prikas date First 1662 1928 1924 1554 1662 1725 1938 1921 Table 4. cont. Table

253

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 1 1 9 3 TDF 4 1 5 6 14 RF

BNC Rabkrin Prospekt Lemma / word-form psikhushka przewalskii Przewalski’s pul purga (ind. ref.) protopope rabfak, rabfac Webster’s Third Webster’s psikhushka (B2) prospect (no ref.) Prjevalsky’s horse Prjevalsky’s Przewalski’s horse, Przewalski’s proso, proso millet Przhevalski’s horse, Przhevalski’s horse, Prejevalsky’s purga Russ.) Ukrain.) pul, poul (ind. ref.) protopope prospect (1 sense Webster’s Second Webster’s proso, proso millet (Russ. Czech, Pol., Prjevalsky’s (horse) Prjevalsky’s alski’s, Prejevalsky’s, Prejevalsky’s, alski’s, Przhevalski’s, Przew - Przhevalski’s, pe) Webster’s First Webster’s Protopope (proto+po - - purga OED2 Rabkrin protopope provodnik pul (Pashto) Rabfak, rabfac sky, Przevalsky sky, Prospekt, prospekt Przewalski, Prejeval date First 1928 1866 1888 1881 1889 1928 1662 1927 Table 4. cont. Table

254

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 2 2 1 3 1 TDF 5 3 3 5 29 RF

BNC ROA raion raskol Rasputin Lemma / rendzinas word-form raion Raskolnik rendzina (Pol.) Webster’s Third Webster’s - nik, Rasckolnik ribazuba, ribzuba Webster’s Second Webster’s Raskolnik, Raschol rendzina (Pol.) (1953) Webster’s First Webster’s Raskolnik, Rascolnik - - - tura riza tura (A1) ROA OED2 rendzina rayon, raion raskol, rascol nick, Rascholnik ribazuba, ribzuba rassolnik, rasolnik, Rasputin (ind. ref.) rezident = resident Raskolnik, Rasckol residentura, reziden rassolnick, razsolnik rezidentsia = residen date First 1968 1937 1968 1591 1927 1959 1936 1887 1723 1924 1927 1963 Table 4. cont. Table

255

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 8 4 11 22 119 TDF 1 2 1 4 1 5 1 87 28 19 17 RF 196 314

7 BNC Rus ruble rubles Ruski rouble Ruskis roubles RSFSR Ruskies Lemma / Russkies Rooskies Romanov word-form Romanovs Russ (ind. ref.) ruble, rouble Russene, Rusin Webster’s Third Webster’s . Third Webster’s Romanov (sheep) Russki, Russky, Ruski Russki, Russky, (ind. ref.) Russ (Fr.) ruble, rouble Rus (geog. ref.) Rusin (no etym.) Webster’s Second Webster’s Romanov (dynasty) Ruble, rouble Webster’s First Webster’s Russ (no etym.) OED2 RSFSR rubashka Rus, Russ Russ, Rows(s)e, ski, Rusky, Russky ski, Rusky, ruble, rubel, rooble rubble, roble, robell, Russki, Roosky, Ru - Russki, Roosky, Rousse, Russe, Rush rouble, rubble, rubbell, All citations in the corpus pertain to the Romanov dynasty, none refering to the sense recorded in none refering to the corpus pertain to the Romanov dynasty, All citations in the

7 date First 1858 1845 1554 1923 1921 1567

Table 4. cont. Table

256

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 4 1 7 1 3 10 TDF 4 2 2 1 1 2 4 10 10 10 RF

BNC saiga sazhen sazhens Samoed samovar samizdat Lemma / Samoeds Samoyed samovars samogon word-form saiga sagene saffian samovar Webster’s Third Webster’s Samoyedic (deriv.) sambo (also B2, B3) Samoyed, Samoyede samogon, samogonka samizdat (B1, B2, B3) samizdatchik (B2, B3) saiga saffian samovar Samojed Samoyedic sagene, sajene Webster’s Second Webster’s Samoed, Samoid, Samoyed, Samoyede, Samoyed, Samoyede, samogon, samogonka Saiga Sagene Samovar (geog. ref.) Samoyedes Webster’s First Webster’s - - saiga OED2 (deriv.) samovar samizdat sambo (A1) samogon (A1) jedic, Samoiedic sagene, sajen, sa Samoed, Samoid, Samoyed, Samoit, Samoyedic, Samo Samoied, Samojede, saffian, saphian, -ion saffian, samizdatchik (deriv.) Samoiede, Samoyede chine, sashen, sashine, sajene, sazhen, sarshan date First 1967 1928 1737 1591 1801 1964 1830 1589 Table 4. cont. Table

257

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 1 2 40 TDF 1 2 1 81 RF 145

BNC shapka shaman shaman shapkas shashlik Lemma / word-form shaslik Tungus) seecatch sarlak, sarlyk sevruga (1986) Webster’s Third Webster’s shaman (Russ. or sastruga, zastruga shashlik, shashlick, sarafan shaman selsoviet Webster’s Second Webster’s sastrugi, zastrugi seecatch, seecatchie sarlak, sarlyk (Mong.) name) Webster’s First Webster’s Zastrugi (1913) Sarlac (Mong.) Seecatch (1913) Shaman (from native - (Ger.) OED2 shapka sanitar shashlik sewruga (Calmuck) dian, Russ. pl.) sharashka (A1) schaman, shuman sastruga, zastruga sevruga, severiga, shaman, schamane, seecatch (Aleut. In sarlac, sarlik, sarlyk sarafan, saraphan(e) date First 1698 1916 1799 1781 1840 1881 1591 1925 1945 1968 Table 4. cont. Table

258

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 1 1 TDF 4 1 RF

BNC shchi shefstvo Lemma / word-form - shor shuba Siberski Siberski Webster’s Third Webster’s pusic, sheltopusick Siberyak, Siberiak, sierozem, serozem Sibiryak, Sibiriak = scheltopusik, schelto shuba shor (Turk.) scheltopusik stoof, stof, stoff sierozem (1953) Webster’s Second Webster’s stchi, shchi, shtchee Webster’s First Webster’s - pusik OED2 shtshi etc. shub, shoub shor (Turki) Sibiriak, Sibiryak shefstvo, chefstvo shchi, tschee, stchi, sierozem, serozem sheltopusik, schelto stchie, stchee, shtchi, shuba, shooba, shube, shoube, shub, shoobe, date First 1903 1934 1591 1888 1824 1937 1841 Table 4. cont. Table

259

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 1 2 2 2 TDF 4 4 2 9 RF

BNC sobor skhod smetana Lemma / SMERSH word-form Sobor slepez Skoptsy sobornost solonchak solod, soloth Webster’s Third Webster’s Russ.) = Zyrian solonetz, solonets Syryenian, Syryan (f. - slepez Skopets (geog. ref.) solonetz (1953) Webster’s Second Webster’s solonchak (1953) solod, soloth (1953) anian, Zyrian, Zyryan sobor = Zemski Sobor Syryenian, Sirian, Siri Slepez Webster’s First Webster’s skaz slude OED2 Skopzy sobornost solod, soloth Skoptsi, Skoptzi, smetana, smitane SMERSH, Smersh Ziranian, Zyrenian (Mod. L.) = Zyrian Siryenian, Sirenian, solonetz, -nez, -nietz skhod, selskii skhod Syrianian, Syrjenian, solonchak, solontschak solonchak, date First 1925 1925 1851 1926 1877 1662 1953 1924 1856 1909 1935 Table 4. cont. Table

260

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 4 1 1 30 TDF >700 >300 5 4 1 1 39 RF 345 11,362

BNC Sots SSR Soviet Soviets Sputnik sovkhoz sputniks Lemma / Sputniks / word-form soviet sputnik sots (B2) SSR (abbrev.) Webster’s Third Webster’s stanitsa, stanitza sovkhoz, sovkhos sotnia soviet sotnik sovkhos stanitsa, stanitza Webster’s Second Webster’s sovkhoz, sovkhose, Webster’s First Webster’s hoz SSR nick sotnia OED2 sovkhos Sovnarkom Soviet, soviet stanitza, staniza sputnik, Sputnik sovkhoz, sovhoz, solyanka, soljanka sotnik, ssotnik, sod - sovnarkhoz, Sovnark - date First 1938 1799 1958 1863 1957 1917 1921 1958 1926 1662 Table 4. cont. Table

261

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 2 1 3 2 1 2 49 TDF 1 2 8 1 5 4 42 46 63 RF -

BNC riage) steppe Sterlet Stavka streltsy steppes Sterlets starosta Lemma / word-form Stolichnaya Stolypin (car sterlet starets steppe Webster’s Third Webster’s sterlet steppe starets Strelitz rost (Pol.) Starovertsi Staroobradsi, Webster’s Second Webster’s starosta (Russ.); sta - Sterlet Steppe Strelitz Starost (Pol.) Webster’s First Webster’s - - - liever OED2 Stavka stolovaya Stolichnaya steppe, stepp rost, starost(e) starets, staretz stilyaga, stilyag starover = Old Be Stechkin (ind. ref.) Stolypin (ind. ref.) ledy, starlett, sterled, ledy, starosta, starust, stah sterlet, sterledey, ster sterlet, sterledey, -ett, -id, sterlit, sterelet strelitz, strelits, strelitz date First 1928 1670 1923 1591 1909 1966 1861 1962 1591 1955 1943 1603 Table 4. cont. Table

262

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 6 1 1 4 TDF 9 2 2 15 RF

BNC taiga Svan sousliks Lemma / word-form Suprematist - ian (B2) taiga Stundist strigolnik Stundism suslik, souslik Webster’s Third Webster’s sulfazin, sulphazin Svan, Svane, Swan suprematism (no ref.) Subbotnik = Sabbatar taiga suslik szopelka Svan, Svane Stundist (Ger.) struse (OSlav.) Stundism (deriv.) Webster’s Second Webster’s Struse Suslik Webster’s First Webster’s Stundist (1913) - taiga suslic sudak OED2 matism Stundist Swanian subbotnik stukach (A2) struse, strusse Svan, Svanian, Stundism (deriv.) sulphazin, sulfazin suslik, souslik, -lic, Suprematism, supre date First 1915 1799 1581 1888 1969 1888 1878 1920 1970 1774 1601 Table 4. cont. Table

263

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 1 35 TDF 3 RF 120

BNC Tavgi Lemma / word-form Tass / TASS / Tass Tat tarpan taimen tarbagan tarantass tau-saghyz Tavgi (no ref.) Tavgi (Russ. or Ger.) Webster’s Third Webster’s chetvert, tchetvert technicum, technikum technicum, technikum tchin tchast tarpan taimen Tat (no ref.) Tat Webster’s Second Webster’s tarantass, tarantas tau-saghyz (1953) chetvert, tchetverte Tavghi, Tavgi (no ref.) Tavgi Tavghi, name) Chetvert Tarantass Webster’s First Webster’s Tarpan (from native Tarpan tchin Tavgy OED2 Tat, Tât Tat, tamizdat Tass, TASS Tass, tarantass, -as tchetvert, chetvert tarbagan, tarabagan technicum, tekhnikum Tavgi, Tavghi, Tavghy, Tavghy, Tavghi, Tavgi, date First 1814 1974 1850 1928 1925 1886 1861 1932 1834 Table 4. cont. Table

264

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 1 8 8 1 1 2 TDF 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 11 16 35 22 RF

BNC telega Tokarev tovarish tovarich tokamak Lemma / tovaritch tokamaks tovarisch Theremin theremins tavarishch word-form tovarishch thermokarst telega Webster’s Third Webster’s tovarich, tovarish theremin (after Russ.) tokamak (also B1, B3) telega totchka Webster’s Second Webster’s tovarish, tovarich Telega (1913) Telega Webster’s First Webster’s -itch terem OED2 tolkach tokamak thermokarst teljèga, telegue torgsin, Torgsin torgsin, Tokarev (ind. ref.) Tokarev theremin, thérémin , -isch, -ishch, -istch, telega, telego, telegga, tovarish, tovarich, tav- date First 1933 1918 1558 1989 1927 1969 1953 1955 Table 4. cont. Table

265

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 5 16 27 110 TDF 9 4 9 1 16 41 52 40 RF 520

BNC tsar tzar czar tsars tzars czars Tsarina Lemma / Tsarevich word-form Troika / troika Troika trepak (2000) of Ger.) Russ.) (1986) / troika (also B3) czaritza, tsaritza Webster’s Third Webster’s tzar, tsar (f. Russ.) tzar, czar (obsolete Pol. czarevna, tsarevna f. Russ); tzar, tsar (f. f. Russ); tzar, czarina (prob. modif. czarevitch, tsarevitch czar (N. Lat. f. Russ.); - troika tsesarevitch czaritza, tsaritza Webster’s Second Webster’s witz, cesarevitch, czarevna, tsarevna czar, tsar, tzar, ksar tzar, tsar, czar, czarowitch, czaro czarina, tsarina (Ger.) czarevitch, tsarevitch, czarina Czarevna Czarowitz Czar, tsar, tzar tsar, Czar, Webster’s First Webster’s Tsaritsa, tzaritsa Tsaritsa, Tsarina, Tzarina, Tsarina, - - (A2) troika OED2 czarissa czarr, ksar, tzar ksar, czarr, tsaritsa, czaritza, tsarevna, czarevna itz, czarowitch etc. resp. to It., Sp. Pg.) tsarevich, czarevich, tsarina, czarina (cor tsar, czar, zarr, czaar, czaar, zarr, czar, tsar, Tsinandali, tsinandali Tsinandali, czarewi(t)ch, czarow date First 1894 1555 1717 1842 1710 1880 1698 Table 4. cont. Table

266

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 1 1 1 51 TDF 4 4 1 20 RF 244

BNC ukaz tundra Tungus tundras ureilites Lemma / word-form tur Russ.) tundra Uniate, Uniat urman = taiga turanose (Ger.) Tungus, Tunguz Tungus, Webster’s Third Webster’s ukase, ukaz (Fr. and ukase, ukaz (Fr. tur ukase tundra urman (no ref.) Uniat, Uniate turanose (Ger.) Tungus, Tunguz Tungus, Webster’s Second Webster’s ref.) Tundra (no ref.) Tur (Pol.) Tur Ukase (Fr.) Webster’s First Webster’s Uniat, Uniate (no Tunguses, Tongooses Tongooses Tunguses, - tur (A2) OED2 tvorog uprava ureilite (Yakut) udarnik turanose dra (Lap.) Uniat, Uniate Tungus, Tingus, Tingus, Tungus, ukause, (o)ukaz ukase, oukauze, ukha, ouha, oukha Tongu(e)se, Toongus Toongus Tongu(e)se, tundra, toondra, toun date First 1833 1841 1890 1918 1931 1729 1870 1889 1911 1625 1894 Table 4. cont. Table

267

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 2 4 30 TDF 4 1 8 11 15 77 RF

BNC uezd verst versts uezdy versta Uzbek Lemma / word-form vint vedro vertep (no ref.) and Ger.) (ind. ref.) Uzbek, Uzbeg, Webster’s Third Webster’s Variag = Varangian = Variag Veps, Vepse, Vepsian Vepsian Vepse, Veps, Uzbak, Usbek, Usbeg verst, verste, werst (Fr. (Fr. werst verste, verst, vedro uyezd Russ.) (geog. ref.) Veps, Vepse Veps, vint (no ref.) verchok, verchoc Webster’s Second Webster’s Variag (no etym.) Variag werst (Fr., Ger. and Ger. werst (Fr., verst, versta, verste, Uzbek, Uzbeg, Usbek, Usbeg, Uzbak (no ref.) Verst Vedro Webster’s First Webster’s Lat.) OED2 valinky vedro, wedro beg, Uzbeg, etc. valenki, valinki, vorst, verse, ferse Varangian (Mod. Varangian sic, Vesp, Wepsian Vesp, sic, verst, werste, werst, Uzbek, Usbeck, Us - - Vep Veps, Vepsian, worst, wurste, verste, date First 1753 1616 1788 1943 1859 1555 Table 4. cont. Table

268

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 3 1 152 TDF 5 8 1 3 6 1 30 15 RF 301

BNC vlast volost vodka volost ′ volosti vodkas voivode voevoda voevody Lemma / word-form vodka Vogul (f. Russ) Votyak, Votiak Votyak, Webster’s Third Webster’s vaivode, voivode, voivod, waywode (N. Lat. and It.); woiwode vodka volost visney (geog. ref.) Votyak, Votiak Votyak, Vogul (no ref.) Vogul voivode, voivod, Webster’s Second Webster’s voevoda, woiwode, waywode (Russ., Pol.) Vodka and woiwode Volost (1913) Volost Webster’s First Webster’s voivode, waiwode, Waywode, vaivode, Waywode, volost vozhd OED2 Vogule vaivode vlast (A2) Votyak, Votiak Votyak, visney (Turk.) voivode, voy-, -wode, woywod uoiuod, voyvode, voivode, woivode, voiuuoda, voivoda, (Bulg. and Serb.) = - Wou Vogoul, Vogul, wodky, votku, votky wodky, goul, Wogul, Wogule, Wogule, Wogul, goul, vodka, vodki, vodky, vodka, vodki, vodky, date First 1940 1733 1802 1570 1959 1698 1889 1841 Table 4. cont. Table

269

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 7 3 1 TDF 4 7 5 24 30 14 RF

BNC zek yurt zeks yurts Yakut Yakuts Lemma / word-form yurt, yurta zek (B2, B3) Yakut (no ref.) Yakut zemmi, zemni Webster’s Third Webster’s zakuska, zakooska wachna, wachna cod yuft = Russia leather yuft yam zapas Russ.) zakuska (no ref.) yemschik Yakut, Yakoot Yakut, zemmi, zemni Webster’s Second Webster’s yurt, yurta (Ger. and yurt, yurta (Ger. yamstchik, yamshik, wachna, wachna cod Yufts (no ref.) Zapas (1913) Webster’s First Webster’s Zemni (no ref.) Yakoots, Yakuts Yakoots, zek yeri yam yourt OED2 zemni-rat ty, Yakute ty, juff, juft, youft juff, zakuska, zakouska yurt, jourt, jurt, y(o) yamstchik, yamsheek, urte, yurta, yuert, yort, yuft, youghten, jucten, yems(t)chick, yamshik zemni, ziemni, zemmi, - Yaku Yakouti, Yakut, date First 1763 1799 1784 1968 1785 1921 1753 1800 1885 Table 4. cont. Table

270

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 5 1 TDF 8 8 18 31 RF

BNC zemstva zemstvo Lemma / zemstvos word-form Zemsky sobor zolotnik zveno (B1, B3) Webster’s Third Webster’s Komi; Ziryen (Fr.) Zyrian (geog. ref.) = zokor (native name) zokor Zyrian ziganka zemstvo Zemski Sobor Zyrian, Zyryan, Webster’s Second Webster’s zolotnik, zolotink Syryenian, Syryan = Zyrenian = Syryenian; Zubr (Pol.) Webster’s First Webster’s Zemstvo (1913) - OED2 zveno)] sobor (A2) zubr, zuber zubr, Zemsky Sobor, Zemsky Sobor, [link (calque of solotnik, solotnick zolotnik, solothnic, Zyrian, Zyryan, Sy zemstvo, zem(p)stwo Zemski Sobor, zemski Zemski Sobor, rian, Syryane, Syryen date First 1902 1865 1783 1763 1939 1886 Table 4. cont. Table

271

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 Explanations to Tables

(1) Words in Table 1 are listed chronologically, whereas words in Tables 2-4 are listed alphabetically; (2) Tables 1 and 2 are based on OED2 only. Table 3 is based on data derived from four major dictionaries under analysis, i.e. OED2 and the Oxford Additions Se- ries; Webster’s First and the 1913 supplement to it; Webster’s Second and the 1953 addenda to it; and Webster’s Third and the 1986 supplement to it. Table 4 is based on the same sources, but it also takes into account three Barnhart dictionaries of new words, as well as the British National Corpus (BNC); (3) Tables 1 and 2 list main and secondary headwords. The headwords are accompanied by graphic symbols, i.e. tramlines (║), signifying the so-called denizens and aliens, and the dagger (†), sygnifying words that have already gone out of use. Status labels and field markers are indicated in a separate column. Tables 3 and 4 list the main headwords only; (4) Table 3 displays the Russianims divided into semantic categories and subcate- gories (each word is given one line); words in parentheses are not considered as Russianisms; (5) Table 4 is a collection of headwords (all variant spellings included regardless of their position in the dictionary wordlist) which have been described as Russian- isms in at least one of the major dictionaries; an exception is made for words perceived as Russianisms by myself (e.g . astrakhan). In the case of spellings which start with different letters of the alphabet (e.g. czar / tsar), the British English variant has been treated as the main one. Lemmas capitalized or described as capitalized (as in Webster’s Third) are spelled with an upper-case letter; in all other cases they are spelled with a lower-case letter. Words treated as Russian loans are unmarked; if another etymology has been provided, it is noted accordingly. Sub- sequent volumes of the Oxford Additions Series are abbreviated as A1, A2 and A3, whereas the Barnhart dictionaries are abbreviated as B1, B2 and B3. Lem- mas excerpted from the 1913 supplement to Webster’s First are indicated by 1913, those from the 1953 addenda to Webster’s Second – by 1953, and those from the 1986 supplement to Webster’s Third – by 1986.

272

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 Bibliography

A) Dictionaries1 An American Dictionary of the English Language… (1828). Noah Webster. Vols. 1-2. New York: S. Converse. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (1969). Ed. William Morris. New York: Houghton Mifflin. First Barnhart = The Barnhart Dictionary of New English 1963-72 (1973). Ed. Clarence L. Barnhart, Sol Stein- metz and Robert K. Barnhart. Bronxville, NY: Barnhart. The Browser’s Dictionary of Foreign Words and Phrases (2001). Mary Varchauver and Frank L. Moore. New York: John Wiley. The Century Dictionary: An Encyclopedic Lexicon of the English Language (1889-1891). Ed. William D. Whitney. New York: The Century. Online at ‹http://www.global-language.com/century/›. Chambers Dictionary of Etymology (1999). Ed. Robert K. Barnhart. Edinburgh-New York: Chambers. Chambers Dictionary of Foreign Words and Phrases (1995). Ed. Rosalind Fergusson. Edinburgh: Chambers. A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the English Language (1966). Ernest Klein. Amsterdam-London- New York: Elsevier. Critical Pronouncing Dictionary and Expositor of the English Language… (1791). John Walker. London: Rob- inson and Cadell. A Dictionary of Canadianisms on Historical Principles (1967). Eds. Walter S. Avis et al. Toronto: W. J. Gage. A Dictionary of the English Language, in Which the Words are Deduced from their Originals and Illustrated in their Different Significations… (1755). Samuel Johnson. Vols. 1-2. London: Printed by W. Strahan, For J. and P. Knapton, etc. A Dictionary of the English Language on CD-ROM (1996). Samuel Johnson. Ed. Anne McDermott. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. A Dictionary of Foreign Words and Phrases in Current English (1972). Alan J. Bliss. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Dictionary of Foreign Words and Phrases (1950). Maxim Newmark. New York: Philosophical Library. A Dictionary of Foreign Words and Phrases (1991). Tad Tuleja. London: Robert Hale. Dictionary of Lexicography (2001). R.R.K. Hartmann and Gregory James. London-New York: Routledge. The Dictionary of New Zealand English: A Dictionary of New Zealandisms on Historical Principles (1997). Ed. H. W. Orsman. Auckland-Oxford: Oxford UP. A Dictionary of the Older Scottish Tongue (1937-2002). Ed. William Craige. Chicago-London: University of Chicago Press / Humphrey Milford: Oxford UP. Dictionary of Russian Historical Terms from the Eleventh Century to 1917 (1970). Eds. George Vernadsky and Ralph T. Fisher, comp. Sergei Pushkarev. New Haven-London: Yale UP. Les Dictionnaires de l’Académie Française (1694-1798). Text archive. Online at ‹http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/ efts/ARTFL/projects/dicos/›.

1 The definite and indefinite articles (Eng. a, an, the; Fr. le, les) in the titles listed below do not influence the alphabetical order.

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 An Etymological Dictionary of the English Language, Arranged on an Historical Basis (1879-1882). Walter W. Skeat. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Etimologičeskij slovar′ russkogo jazyka [An Etymological Dictionary of the Russian Language] (1986). Maks Vasmer. Trans. from German and corrected by O. N. Trubačev. Edited and prefaced by B. A. Larin. Second edition. Moskva: “Progress”. Etymologiczny słownik języka polskiego [An Etymological Dictionary of the Polish Language] (1952-1975). Franciszek Sławski. Vols. 1-5 [A-Ł]. Kraków: Nakładem Miłośników Języka Polskiego. Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache (1883). Friedrich Kluge. Second edition. Strassburg: K. J. Trübner. LDOCE 1 = Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (1978). Ed. Paul Procter. Harlow: Longman. LDOCE 2 = Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (1987). Ed. Della Summers. Second edition. Harlow: Longman. LDOCE 3 = Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (1995). Ed. Michael Rundell. Third edition. Harlow: Longman. Le Mot Juste . A Dictionary of Classical and Foreign Words and Phrases (1980). Eds. John Buchanan-Brown et al. London-Basingstoke: Macmillan Press. Loanwords Index (1983). Ed. Laurence Urdang. Detroit: Gale Research. Longman Pronunciation Dictionary (2000). John Wells. Harlow: Pearson Education. The Longman Register of New Words (1989). John Ayto. Vol. 1. Harlow, Essex: Longman. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (1993). Ed. Frederick C. Mish. Tenth edition. Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster. A New Dictionary of the English Language (1837). Charles Richardson. London: William Pickering. NSOED = The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1993). Ed. Lesley Brown. Fourth edition. Oxford: Oxford UP. OED1 = The Oxford English Dictionary . The New English Dictionary on Historical Principles (1884-1928). Eds. James Murray et al. First edition. Vols. 1-12. Supplement (1933). Ed. William Craigie. Vol. 1. Supplement (1972-1986). Ed. Robert Burchfield. Vols. 1-4. Oxford: Clarendon Press. OED2 = The Oxford English Dictionary (1989). Eds. John Simpson and Edmund Weiner. Second edition. Vols. 1-20. Oxford: Clarendon Press / Oxford UP. The Oxford English Dictionary on CD-ROM (1994). Second edition. Oxford: Oxford UP. OED3 = OED Online. The Oxford English Dictionary (2000-). Ed. John Simpson. Third edition. Oxford: Oxford UP. Online at ‹http://www.oed.com/›. Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology (1996). Ed. Charles Onions. Oxford: Clarendon Press. The Oxford Dictionary of Foreign Words and Phrases (1997). Ed. Jennifer Speake. Oxford-New York: Oxford UP. Oxford English Dictionary Additions Series (1993). Eds. John Simpson and Edmund Weiner. Vols. 1-2. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Oxford English Dictionary Additions Series (1997). Ed. Michael Proffitt and John Simpson. Vol. 3. Oxford: Clarendon Press. The Random House Dictionary of the English Language (1987). Ed. Stuart B. Flexner. Second Ed. New York: Random House. Second Barnhart = Second Barnhart Dictionary of New English (1980). Ed. Clarence L. Barnhart, Sol Steinmetz and Robert K. Barnhart. Bronxville, NY: Barnhart Books. Slovar′ russkogo jazyka [A Dictionary of the Russian Language] (1978). Ed. Sergej Ožegov. Moskwa: Izdatel′stvo “Russkij jazyk”. Slovar′ russkogo jazyka [A Dictionary of the Russian Language] (1984). Ed. A. Evgen′eva. Vols. 1-4. Moskva: Izdatel′stvo “Russkij Jazyk”. Słownik etymologiczny języka polskiego [An Etymological Dictionary of the Polish Language] (1927). Aleksander Brűckner. Kraków: Krakowska Spółka Wydawnicza.

274

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 Słownik polszczyzny XVI wieku [A Dictionary of the Sixteenth-Century Polish Language] (1966–1994). Eds. M. R. Mayenowa and F. Pepłowski, vols. 1–34; Eds. K. Mrowcewicz and P. Potoniec, vol. 35 to ROWNY. Wrocław: Ossolineum / Warszawa: IBL PAN. (1995–). Online at ‹http://kpbc.umk.pl/publication/17781›. Słownik prasłowiański [A Dictionary of Proto-Slavic] (1974-). Ed. Franciszek Sławski. Kraków: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, Wydawnictwo PAN. The Stanford Dictionary of Anglicised Words and Phrases (1892). Charles A. M. Fennel. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. Third Barnhart = Third Barnhart Dictionary of New English (1990). Ed. Robert K. Barnhart, Sol Steinmetz and Clarence L. Barnhart. Bronxville, NY: H. W.Wilson. Tolkovyj slovar′ jazyka Sovdepii [An Explanatory Dictionary of the Language of Sovdepia] (1998). Eds. Valerij M. Mokijenko and T. G. Nikitina. Sankt-Peterburg: “Folio-Press”. Tolkovyj slovar′ živogo velikorusskogo jazyka [An Explanatory Language of the Live Great Russian Language] (1998) [1880-1882]. Vladimir I. Dal′. Second edition on CD-ROM. Moskva: ETS. Twentieth Century Words (1999). John Ayto. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Universal Dictionary of the English Language… (1956). Ed. Henry C. Wyld. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. An Universal Etymological English Dictionary… (1747). Nathan Bailey. London: Printed for R. Ware, A. Ward, J. and P. Knapton, T. Longman and T. Shewell. Webster’s First = Webster’s New International Dictionary of the English Language… (1909). Ed. W. T. Harris and F. Sturges Allen. First edition. London: G. & C. Merriam. Webster’s First = Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language… (1913). Ed. Noah Porter. First edition. Online at ‹http: //uiarchive.cso.uiuc.edu/pub/etext/gutenberg/websters/›. Webster’s International Dictionary of the English Language… (1890). Ed. Noah Porter. Springfield, MA: G. and C. Merriam and Co. Webster’s Second = Webster’s New International Dictionary of the English Language… (1934). Ed. William Allan Neilson and Thomas A. Knott. Second edition. London: G. Bell / Springfield: G. and C. Merriam. Webster’s Second = Webster’s New International Dictionary of the English Language… (1953). Ed. William Allan Neilson and Thomas A. Knott. Second edition. London: G. Bell / Springfield: G. and C. Merriam. Webster’s Third = Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of English Unabridged… (1961). Ed. Philip B. Gove. Third edition. London: G. Bell / Springfield, MA: Merriam. Webster’s Third = Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of English (2000). Ed. Philip B. Gove. Third edition. CD-ROM. Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster. Webster’s II New College Dictionary (2005). Third edition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Wielki słownik etymologiczno-historyczny języka polskiego [A Great Etymological and Historical Dictionary of the Polish Language] (2008). Krystyna Długosz-Kurczabowa. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.

B) Other works Ackerman, Louise M. (1958). “Facetious variations of ‘sputnik’”. American Speech 33(2): 154-156. Algeo, John (1994). “Problems in new-word lexicography”. Dictionaries 15. 39-46. ———. (1999). “Vocabulary”. In Suzanne Romaine (ed), Cambridge history of the English language. Vol. 4. Cambridge-New York: Cambridge UP. 57-91. ANC = The American National Corpus (1990-). Online at ‹http://www.americannationalcorpus.org/›. Anderson, Matthew S. (1954a). “English views of Russia in the age of Peter the Great”. American Slavic and East European Review 13. 200-214. ———. (1954b) “English views of Russia in the 17th century”. Slavonic Review 33(80): 140-160. Archer, John M. (2001). Old Worlds: Egypt, Southwest Asia, India, and Russia in Early Modern English writing. Stanford: Stanford UP.

275

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 Aristova, Valentina M. (1978). Anglo-russkie jazykovye kontakty: anglizmy v russkom jazyke [Anglo-Russian language contacts: Anglicisms in the Russian language]. Leningrad: Izdatel′stvo Leningradskogo Universiteta. ———. (1985). Anglijskie slova v russkom jazyke: učobnoje posobie [English words in the Russian language: A handbook]. Kaliningrad: Kaliningradskij Gosudarstvennyj Universitet. Ash, Eric H. (2004). Power, knowledge, and expertise in Elizabethan England. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP. Aston, Guy and Lou Burnard (1998). The BNC handbook . Exploring the British National Corpus with SARA . Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP. Bailey, Thomas A. (1950). America faces Russia: Russian-American relations from early times to our day. Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP. Baker, Colin (2011). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism. Fifth ed. Bristol-Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters. Bańko, Mirosław (2001). Z pogranicza leksykografii i językoznawstwa [From the borderline of lexicography and linguistics]. Warszawa: Wydział Polonistyki UW. Baron, Samuel H. (1978). “Ivan the Terrible, Giles Fletcher and the Muscovite merchantry: A reconsideration”. Slavonic and East European Review 56(4): 563-585. Bauer, Laurie (1983). English word-formation. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. Baugh, Alfred C. and Thomas Cable (1981). A history of the English language. London-Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Béjoint, Henri (2000). Modern lexicography . An introduction . Oxford-New York: Oxford UP. Benson, Morton (1957). “American influence on the immigrant Russian press”. American Speech 32(4): 257-263. ———. (1958). “English loan words in Russian sport terminology”. American Speech 33(4): 252-259. ———. (1959). “English loanwords in Russian”. The Slavic and East European Journal 3(3): 248-267. ———. (1960). “American-Russian speech”. American Speech 35(3): 163-168. ———. (1962). “Russianisms in the American press”. American Speech 37(1): 41-47. Benson, Phil (2001). Ethnocentrism and the English dictionary. London-New York: Routledge. Berg, Donna L. (1993). A guide to the Oxford English Dictionary . Oxford-New York: Oxford UP. Berkov, Pavel N. (1962). “Tomas Konsett, kapellan anglijskoj faktorii v Rosii” [Thomas Consett, a chaplain to the English factory in Russia]. In B. G. Reizov (ed), Problemy meždunarodnyx literaturnyx svjazej. Leningrad: Izdatel′stvo Leningradskogo Universiteta. 3-26. Bermel, Neil (1997). Context and the lexicon in the development of Russian aspect. University of California Publications in Linguistics 129. Berkeley-Los Angeles: University of California Press. Berry, Lloyd E. and Robert O. Crummey (eds) (1968). Rude and barbarous kingdom: Russia in the accounts of sixteenth-century English voyagers. Madison-Milwaukee-London: University of Wisconsin Press. Bloomfield, Leonard (1933). Language. London: George Allen and Unwin. BNC = The British National Corpus (2000). Second Edition. Online at ‹http: //www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/›. Bobrick, Benson (1987). Fearful majesty . The life and reign of Ivan the Terrible. New York: G.P. Putnam’s. Brewer, Charlotte (2004). “The electronification of the Oxford English Dictionary”. Dictionaries: Journal of the Dictionary Society of North America 25. 1-43. Online at ‹http://oed.hertford.ox.ac.uk/main/images/stories/ articles/brewer2004.pdf›. ———. (2007). Treasure-house of the English language . The living OED. New Haven-London: Yale UP. ———. (2010). “Prescriptivism and descriptivism in the first, second and third editions of OED”. English Today 26. 24-33. ———. (2012). “OED3: How a Victorian dictionary has morphed into a 21st century one”. A paper given at the Sixth International Conference on Historical Lexicography and Lexicology held on 25-28 July 2012 at Jena (Germany). Bulgakov, Mikhail (1997). The master and Margarita. Trans. Diana Burgin and Katherine T. O’Connor. London- Basingstoke: Picador.

276

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 Burchfield, Robert (1985). The English language. Oxford-New York: Oxford UP. ———. (1989). Unlocking the English language. London-Boston: Faber and Faber. Burgess, Anthony (1972). A clockwork orange. London-New York: Penguin Books. Cannon, Garland (1987). Historical change and English word-formation . Recent vocabulary. New York-Bern: Peter Lang. Chan, Mimi, and Helen Kwok (1985). A study of lexical borrowing from Chinese into English with special reference to Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Hong Kong UP. Chase, G. D. (1913-1917). “Russian words in Kansas”. Dialect Notes 4(1-7): 161-162. Chyz, Yaroslav Y. and Joseph S. Roucek. (1938/1939). “The Russians in the United State”. Slavonic and East European Review 17. 638-658. Cienkowski, Witold (1964). “Ogólne założenia metodologiczne badania zapożyczeń leksykalnych” [General methodological assumptions of studying lexical borrowings]. Poradnik Językowy 10. 417-429. (The) circulator of useful knowledge, amusement, literature, science, and general information: An original work with seventy-five wood engravings . Complete in one volume (1825). London: Printed for Thomas Boys. Clyne, Michael (2003). Dynamics of language contact: English and immigrant languages. Cambridge: Cam- bridge UP. Coetsem, van Frans (1988). Loan phonology and the two transfer types in language contact . Dordrecht-Providence: Foris Publications. Collison, Robert L. (1971). Dictionaries of English and foreign languages . New York: Hafner Publishing. Comrie, Bernard, Gerald Stone and Maria Polinsky (1990). The Russian language in the twentieth century. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Conklin, Nancy F. and Margaret A. Lourie (1983). A host of tongues . Language communities in the United States . London-New York: Collier Macmillan / Free Press. Crankshaw, Edward (1976). The shadow of the winter palace. New York: The Viking Press. Cross, A.G. (1971). Russia under Western eyes 1517-1825. London: Elek Books. ———. (1983). “Russian perceptions of England, and Russian national awareness at the end of the eighteenth and the beginning of the nineteenth centuries”. Slavonic and East European Review 61(1): 89-106. ———. (1985). The Russian theme in English literature from the 16th century to 1980 . Oxford: Willem A. Meeuws. ———. (1993). Anglo-Russica: Aspects of cultural relations between Great Britain and Russia in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Oxford: Berg. ———. (2000). Peter the Great through British eyes: Perceptions and representations of the Tsar since 1698. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. Curzan, Anne (2000). “The compass of the vocabulary”. In Lynda Mugglestone (ed), Lexicography and the OED . Pioneers in the untrodden forest. Oxford-New York: Oxford UP. 96-109. Custred, Glynn (1997). “Language boundaries”. In W. Wölch and A. De Houwer (eds), Plurilingua . Recent studies in contact linguistics . Bonn: Dümmler. 45-121. Cutler, Charles (1994). O brave new words: Native American loanwords in current English. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Davies, Norman (1997). Europe . A history. London: Pimlico. Dean, Leonard and Kenneth G. Wilson (eds) (1963). Essays on language and usage . New York: Oxford UP. DeMaria, Robert (1986). Johnson’s dictionary and the language of learning. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Dmitrieva, Olga and Natalya Abramova (eds) (2006). Britannia & Muscovy: English silver at the court of the tsars. Yale: Yale UP. Doster, William C. (ed) (1963). First perspectives on language . New York: American Book Company. Dostoyevsky, Fyodor (1997). Crime and punishment. London-New York: Penguin Books. Draper, John W. (1927). ”Shakespeare and Muscovy”. Slavonic and East European Review 6(16): 217-221.

277

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 Dulewiczowa, Irena (1989). “Paralelizmy leksykalne a problem zapożyczeń” [Lexical parallels and the problem of borrowing]. In Paralele w rozwoju słownictwa języków słowiańskich. Prace Slawistyczne 71. 65-75. Dunn, J. A. (1993). “What was Ludolf writing about?” Slavonic and East European Review 71(2): 201-216. Dunning, Chester (1989). “James I, the Russia Company, and the plan to establish a protectorate over north Rus- sia”. Albion: A Quarterly Journal Concerned with British Studies 21(2): 206-226. Durkin, Philip (2002). “‘Mixed’ etymologies of Middle English items in OED3: Some questions of methodology and policy”. Dictionaries: Journal of the Dictionary Society of North America 23. 142-155. ———. (2004). “Loanword etymologies in the third edition of the OED: Some questions of classification”. In Christian Kay, Carole Hough and Irené Wotherspoon (eds), New perspectives on English historical linguistics: Selected papers from 12 ICEH, Glasgow, 21-26 August 2002. Vol. 2. Lexis and transmission. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 79–90. ———. 2006. “Lexical borrowing in present-day English: A preliminary investigation based on the Oxford Eng- lish Dictionary”. In Daniel Kölligan and Ranjan Sen (eds), Oxford University working papers in linguistics, philology & phonetics 11.26–42. Online at ‹http://www.ling-phil.ox.ac.uk/download/OWP2006.pdf›. ———. 2009. The Oxford guide to etymology. Oxford-New York: Oxford UP. Eden, Richard (1555). The decades of the newe worlde or west India. London: Guilhelmi Powell. EEBO = Early English Books Online (2008). Text archive. Online at ‹http://eebo.chadwyck.com/home›. Eichhoff, Jürgen (1980). “Aspects of German borrowing into American English”. In Peter H. Nelde (ed), Sprachkontakt und Sprachkonflikt. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag. 63-68. Engelstein, Laura (1997). “From heresy to harm: Self-castrators in the civic discourse of late Tsarist Russia”. In Teruyuki Hara and Kimitaka Matsuzato (eds), Empire and society: New approaches to Russian history. Sapporo: Slavic Research Centre. 1–22. Online at ‹http://src-home.slav.hokudai.ac.jp/sympo/94summer/ chapter1.pdf›. Fadeev, V. I. (1969). “Russkije slova v anglijskom jazyke” [Russian words in the English language]. Russkaja reč 3(91-93). 1-119.. Filipović, Rudolf (1960). “The phonemic analysis of English loan-words in Croatian”. Studia Romanica et Anglica 9-10. 17-89. ———. (1961). “The morphological adaptation of English loan-words in Serbo-Croat”. Studia Romanica et Anglica Zagrabiensia 11. 91-103. ———. (1988). “Contact linguistics: Retrospect – prospect”. In Josef Klegraf and Dietrich Nehls (eds), Essays on the English language on applied linguistics on the occasion of Gerhard Nickel’s 60th birthday . Heidelberg: Groos. 342-356. ———. (1997). “Meaning transferred and adapted – semantic problems in contact linguistics”. In W. Wölch and A. De Houwer (eds), Plurilingua . Recent studies in contact linguistics . Bonn: Dümmler. 122-128. Finkenstaedt, Thomas and Dieter Wolff (1973). Ordered profusion . Studies in dictionaries and the English lexicon . Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag. Fletcher, Giles (1591). Of the Russe Commonwealth… [Of the Rvsse Common Wealth, Or maner of gouernement by the Russe Emperour, (commonly called the Emperour of Moskouia) with the manners, and fashions of the people of the countrey]. London: Printed by T.D. for Thomas Charde. Ford, Skeel E. E. (ed) (1912). Notes on the life of Noah Webster. Comp. E.E. Fowler Ford. Vol.2. New York: Privately printed. Foster, Brian (1968). The changing English language . London: Macmillan / New York: St Martin’s Press. Fowler, Henry W. and Francis G. Fowler (1993). The king’s English . The definitive reference and infallible guide to English usage. Ware: Wordsworth Reference. Francatelli, Charles E. (1846). A modern cook, a practical guide to the culinary art in all its branches. London: Richard Bentley. Francis, Winthrop N. (1965). The English language . An introduction. New York: W.W. Norton. Freeborn, Dennis (1988). From Old English to standard English. Basingstoke-London: Macmillan Press. Fur Trade Review (1929). [An American weekly]. 57(1). New York.

278

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 Fürst, Juliane (2008). “Between salvation and liquidation: Homeless and vagrant children and the reconstruction of Soviet society”. The Slavonic and East European Review 86(2): 232-258. [Georgi, Johan G.] (1780). Russia: Or, a compleat historical account of all the nations which compose that empire. Vol. 2. Trans. W. Tooke. London: Printed for J. Nichols et al. Gilliver, Peter (2005). “Materials and methodologies for the new Oxford English Dictionary”. In Henrik Gottlieb, Jens Erik Mogensen and Arne Zettersen (eds), Symposium on Lexicography XI: Proceedings of the Eleventh International Symposium on Lexicography May 2-4, 2002 at the University of Copenhagen. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. 241-248. Glazier, Ira A. (ed) (1995) Migration from the Russian Empire . Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Company. Gleason, John H. (1950). The genesis of Russophobia in Great Britain . A study of the interaction of policy and opinion. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP. Gomez Capuz, Juan (1997). “Towards a typological classification of linguistic borrowing (illustrated with Angli- cisms in Romance languages)”. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 10. 81-94 Google Books Corpus (2011). Online at ‹http://googlebooks.byu.edu/›. Gottlieb, Henrik (2002). “Four Germanic dictionaries of Anglicisms: When definitions speak louder than words”. In Henrik Gottlieb, Jens Erik Mogensen and Arne Zettersten (eds), Lexicographica. Series Maior 109. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 125-143. Green, Jonathon (1996). Chasing the sun . Dictionary-makers and the dictionaries they made . London: Jonatan Cape. Hakluyt, Richard (1598-1600). The principal navigations: Voyages, traffiques and discoveries of the English nation, made by sea or ouerland, to the remote and farthest distant quarters of the Earth, at any time within the compasse of these 1600 yeres. Vols. 1-3. London: George Bishop, Ralph Newberie, and Robert Barker. Perseus Digital Library, Tufts University. Online at ‹http: //www.perseus.tufts.edu›. Halperin, Charles J. (1975). “Sixteenth-century foreign travel accounts to Muscovy”. Sixteenth Century Journal 6(2): 99-107. ———. (2007). “The Russian and Slavonic languages in sixteenth-century Muscovy”. The Slavonic and East European Review 85(1): 1-24. Haspelmath, Martin (2009). “Lexical borrowing: Concepts and issues”. In Martin Haspelmath and Uri Tadmor (eds), Loanwords in the world’s languages: A comparative handbook. Berlin: De Gruyter. 35-54. ———, and Uri Tadmor (eds) (2009). Loanwords in the world’s languages: A comparative handbook. Berlin: De Gruyter. Haugen, Einar (1950). “The analysis of linguistic borrowing”. Language 26(2): 210-231. Haxthausen, von August (1856). The Russian Empire: Its people, institutions and resources. Vol. 2. Trans. Robert Farie. London: Chapman and Hall. Heine, Bernd and Tania Kuteva (2005). Language contact and grammatical change. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. Herberstein, von Sigismund (1549). Rerum Moscoviticarum commentarii . Vienna: Egydius Aquila. ———. (1851-1852). Notes upon Russia (Rerum Moscoviticarum commentarii). Vols. 1-2. Trans. R. H. Major. London: Hakluyt Society. ———. (1866). Zapiski o Moskovii barona Gerberšteina (Rerum Moscoviticarum commentarii). Trans. A. Anonimov′′. Sankt-Peterburg′′. Hickey, Raymond (ed) (2010). The handbook of language contact. Malden-Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Hill, Birkbeck G. (ed) (1799). Boswell’s life of Johnson. Vols. 1-6. New York: Harper and Brothers. Hoare, Michael R. and Vivian Salmon (2000). “The vocabulary of science”. In Lynda Mugglestone (ed), Lexicog- raphy and the OED . Pioneers in the untrodden forest . Oxford-New York: Oxford UP. 156-171. Hock, Hans H. (1991). Principles of historical linguistics. Berlin-New York: Mouton de Gruyter. ———, and Brian D. Joseph (1996). Language history, language change, and language relationship . An introduction to historical and comparative linguistics. Berlin-New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Hockett, Charles F. (1953). A course in modern linguistics. New York: Macmillan Company.

279

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 Hoffmann, Sebastian (2004). “Using the OED quotations database as a corpus – a linguistic appraisal”. ICAME Journal 28. 17-30. Holden, Kyril T. (1980). “Russian borrowing of English [æ]”. The Slavic and East European Journal 24(4): 387-399. Hope, T. E. (1962). “Loan-words as cultural and lexical symbols”. Archivum Linguisticum 14(2): 111-121. ———. (1963). “Loan-words as cultural and lexical symbols”. Archivum Linguisticum 15(1): 29-42. Hughes, Geoffrey (2000). A history of English words . Oxford-Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers. Hunt, N. C. (1954). “The Russia Company and the government, 1730-42”. Oxford Slavonic Papers 5. 27-53. Ilson, Robert F. (1986a). Lexicography: An emerging international profession. Manchester: Manchester UP. ———. (1986b). “Lexicographic archaeology: Comparing dictionaries of the same family”. In R. R. K. Hartmann (ed), The history of lexicography . Papers from the Dictionary Research Centre Seminary at Exeter, March 1986. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 127-136. Isaev, Magomet I. (1978). O jazykax narodov SSSR [On languages of the peoples of the USSR]. Moskva: Izdatel′stvo “Nauka”. Ivir, Vladimir and Damir Kalogjera (eds) (1991) Languages in contact and contrast . Essays in contact linguistics . Berlin-New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Jespersen, Otto (1964). Language . Its nature, development and origin. London: George Allen and Unwin. Johnson, Samuel and Arthur Murphy (ed) (1823). The works of Samuel Johnson . With an essay on his life and genius. A new edition, in twelve volumes. Vol. 1. London: Printed for Thomas Tegg, etc. Kabakchi, Viktor V. (1997). “Russianisms in modern English. Loans and calques”. Journal of English Linguistics 25(1): 8-49. ———. (2012). “Formation of Russian-culture-orientated English”. Journal of Siberian Federal University. Humanities and Social Sciences 6(5): 812-822. ———, and Ronald R. Butters (1989). “Are permafrost and vernalization loan translations from Russian?” American Speech 64. 287-288. ———, and Charles C. Doyle (1990). “Of sputniks, beatniks, and nogoodniks”. American Speech 65(3): 275-278. Kastovsky, Dieter (2000). “Word and word-formation: Morphology in OED”. In Lynda Mugglestone (ed), Lexi- cography and the OED . Pioneers in the untrodden forest. Oxford-New York: Oxford UP. 110-125. Kennan, George (1891) . Siberia and the exile system. London: J. R. Osgood, McIlvaine. Kennan, George F. (1989). Russia leaves the war: Soviet-American relations, 1917-1920. Vol. 1. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP. Kennedy, Graeme (1998). An introduction to corpus linguistics. London-New York: Longman. Kilgarriff, Adam (1997). “Putting frequencies in the dictionary”. International Journal of Lexicography 10(2): 135-155. ———, and Gregory Grefenstette (2003). “Introduction to the special issue of Web as corpus”. Computational Linguistics 29(3): 333-348. Kiparsky, Valentin (1975). Russische historische Grammatik . Vols.1- 3. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag. Kirchner, Walther (1975). Studies in Russian-American commerce 1820-1860. Leiden: Brill. Klöhn, Gottfried (1981). “Entstehung und Entfaltung des Suffixes “-nik” im Amerikanischen Englisch”. In Peter Erlebach, Wolfgang G. Müller and Klaus Reuter (eds), Geschichtlichkeit und Neuanfang im Sprachlichen Kunstwerk . Studien zur englischen Philologie zu Ehren von Fritz W . Schulze. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. 247-256. Kochman, Stanisław (1967). Polsko-rosyjskie kontakty językowe w zakresie słownictwa w XVII wieku [Polish- Russian language contacts with reference to seventeenth-century vocabulary]. Wrocław-Warszawa-Kraków: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich. ———. (1975). Polsko-rosyjskie stosunki językowe od XVI do XVIII w. [Polish-Russian language relations from the sixteenth to the eighteenth centuries]. Opole: Opolskie Towarzystwo Przyjaciół Nauk.

280

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 ———. (1988). “Pol. inteligencja, ros. intelligencija „warstwa społeczna ludzi wykształconych, zajmujących się zawodowo pracą umysłową” – nazwy rodzime czy zapożyczone (z badań nad słowiańskim słownictwem kulturowym)” [Pol . inteligencja, Rus . intelligencija ‘a social stratum of educated people, professionally involved in intellectual labour’ ‒ native or borrowed names (from studies on Slavic culture-specific vocabulary)]. In Wokół języka . Rozprawy i studia poświęcone pamięci Profesora M . Szymczaka . Warszawa: Ossolineum. 211-220. Kohl, Georg H. (1842). Russia: St . Petersburg, Moscow, Kharkoff, Riga, Odessa, the German provinces… Lon- don: Chapman and Hall. Konovalov, Serge (1950). “Anglo-Russian relations, 1617-18”. Oxford Slavonic Papers 1. 64-103. Krawczyk, Antoni (2010. “Szkocki arystokrata Patrick Gordon (1635-1699) w służbie wojennej Szwecji, Polski oraz Rosji – jego pamiętnik” [The Scottish nobleman Patrick Gordon (1635-1699) in the military service of Sweden, Poland and Russia ‒ his diary]. In Stanisław Achremczyk (ed.) Między Barokiem a Oświeceniem . Wielkie bitwy. Olsztyn: Ośrodek Badań Naukowych im. Wojciecha Kętrzyńskiego. 218‒250. Kroll, Douglas C. (2007). “Friends in peace and war”: The Russian navy’s landmark visit to civil war San Francisco. Washington, DC: Potomac Books. Lancashire, Ian (2010). “Why did Tudor England have no monolingual English dictionary?” In John Considine (ed), Webs of words . New studies in historical lexicology. Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Landau, Sidney I. (2001). Dictionaries . The art and craft of lexicography. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. ———. (2005). “Johnson’s influence on Webster and Worcester in early American lexicography”. International Journal of Lexicography 18(2): 217-229. ———. (2009). “Major American dictionaries”. In A. P. Cowie (ed), The Oxford history of English lexicography. Vol. 1. Oxford-New York: Clarendon Press. 182-229. Leeming, Henry (1968). “Russian words in sixteenth-century English sources”. Slavonic and East-European Review 46(106): 1-10. ———. (1969). “Russian words in sixteenth-century English sources”. Slavonic and East-European Review 47(108): 11-36. Lehiste, Ilse (1988). Lectures on language contact. Cambridge, MA-London: MIT Press. Lehnert, Martin (1977). “Slawisches Wortgut im Englischen”. In Slawistik in der DDR. Dem Wirken Hans Holm Bielfeldts gewidmet 8. 17-61. Libbey, James K. (1999). Russian-American economic relations, 1763-1999. Gulf Breeze, FL: Academic Inter- national Press. Liberman, Anatoly (1998). “An annotated survey of English etymological dictionaries and glossaries”. Diction- aries 19. 21-96. ———. (2002). “The length and breadth of an entry in an etymological dictionary”. In Henrik Gottlieb, Jens Erik Mogensen and Arne Zettersen (eds), Proceedings of the Tenth International Symposium on Lexicog- raphy May 4-6, 2000 at the University of Copenhagen. Lexicographica Series Maior 109. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. 199-209. Light, Margot (1990). “Anglo-Soviet relations: political and diplomatic”. In Alex Pravda and Peter J. S. Duncan (eds), Soviet-British relations since the 1970s. Cambridge: Cambridge UP in association with the Royal Institute of International Affairs. Littlejohn, David (1971). Dr Johnson and Noah Webster . Two men and their dictionaries . San Francisco: Book Club of California. Lubimenko, Inna (1927-1928). “England’s part in the discovery of Russia”. Slavonic Review 6. 104-118. Ludolf, Heinrich W. (1696). Grammatica Russica quae continet non tantum praecipua fundamenta Russicae Ling- uae, verum etiam manuductionem quandam ad grammaticam Slavonicam . Additi sunt in forma dialogorum… Oxonii [Oxford]: E Theatro Sheldoniano [Sheldonian Theatre]. Lyons, John (1997). Language semantics . An introduction. Cambridge-New York: Cambridge UP. MacDonald, Dwight (1963). “The string untuned”. In Leonard Dean and Kenneth W. Wilson (eds), Essays on language and usage. New York: Oxford UP. 70-92.

281

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 Maćkiewicz, Jolanta (1984). “Co to są tzw. internacjonalizmy?” [What are the so-called internationalisms?]. Język Polski 64(3): 176-184. Malaxovskij, L.V. and L.T. Mikulina (1982). “Russkaja kul′turno-konnotirovannaja leksika v dopelnenii k Bol′šomy Oksfordskomu Slovarju” [Russian culture-specific vocabulary in the supplement to the Oxford English Diction- ary]. In E. M. Vereščagina (ed), Slovari i lingvostranovedenie. Moskva: Izdatel′stvo “Russkij jazyk”. 53-62. Malkiel, Yakov (1976). Etymological dictionaries . A tentative typology . Chicago-London: University of Chicago Press. Malone, Kemp (1966). “Pronunciation in Webster’s Third”. In Studies in language and literature in honour of Margaret Schlauch. PWN: Warszawa. 233-244. Marckwardt, Albert H. (1977). “Dictionaries and the English language”. In Virginia P. Clark, Paul A. Escholz, and Alfred F. Rosa (eds), Language . Introductory readings. New York: St. Martin’s Press. 187-199. Matras, Yaron (2009). Language contact . Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. Matthews, William K. (1947). “The language pattern of the USSR”. Slavonic and East European Review 25(65): 427-451. Maynard, Herbert J. (1942). The Russian peasant: And other studies. London: Victor Gollancz. McArthur, Tom (ed) (1992). The Oxford companion to the English language. Oxford-New York: Oxford UP. McConchie, R. W. (1997). Lexicography and physicke . The record of sixteenth-century English medical terminology. Oxford-New York: Oxford UP. McDermott, Anne (2002) “Early dictionaries of English and historical corpora: In search for hard words”. In Javier E. Díaz Vera (ed), A Changing world of words: Studies in English historical lexicography, lexicology and semantics. Amsterdam: Rodopi. ———, and Rosamund Moon (2005). “Introduction: Johnson in context”. International Journal of Lexicography 18(2): 153-155. Mencken, Henry L. (1982). The American language . An inquiry into the development of English in the United States . New York: Alfred. A. Knopf . Meyendorff, Aleksandr F. (1946). “Anglo-Russian trade in the 16th century”. Slavonic Review 25(64): 109-121. Meyers-Scotton, Carol (2002). Contact linguistics . Bilingual encounters and grammatical outcomes. Oxford- New York: Oxford UP. Micklethwait, David (2000). Noah Webster and the American dictionary . Jefferson, NC: McFarland. Minkova, D. and Robert P. Stockwell (eds) (2003). Studies in the history of the English language . A millennial perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Miyoshi, Kusujiro (2007). Johnson’s and Webster’s verbal examples: With special reference to exemplifying usage in dictionary entries. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. Milton, John (1682). A brief history of Moscovia, and other less known countries lying eastward of Russia as far as Cathay… London: Printed by M. Flesher, for Brabazon Aylmer, etc. Mok, Michel (1931). “Is New Russia, built by Americans, a world menace?” Popular Science 118(4): 19-22, 125-128. Morton, Herbert C. (1994). The story of Webster’s Third . Philip Gove’s controversial dictionary and its critics . New York-Melbourne: Cambridge UP. Mosely, Philip E. (1948). “Aspects of Russian expansion”. American Slavic and East European Review 7(3): 197-213. Mugglestone, Lynda (ed) (2000). Lexicography and the OED . Pioneers in the untrodden forest. Oxford-New York: Oxford UP. Murray, K. M. Elisabeth (1995). Caught in the web of words . James Murray and the Oxford English Dictionary . New Haven-London: Yale UP. Nevalainen, Terttu (1999). “Early Modern English lexis and semantics”. In Roger Lass (ed), Cambridge history of the English language. Vol. 3. Cambridge-New York: Cambridge UP. 332-458. Ogilvie, Sarah (2008). “The mysterious case of vanishing tramlines: James Murray’s legacy and the 1933 OED Supplement”. Dictionaries: Journal of the Dictionary Society of North America 29. 1-22.

282

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 ———. (2010). “The OED and Stanford dictionary controversy: Plagiarism or paranoia?” In Michael Adams (ed), “Cunning passages, contrived corridors”: Unexpected essays in the history of lexicography. Monza (Italy): Polimetrica Publishers. 85-109. ———. (2013). Words of the world . A global history of the Oxford English Dictionary. Cambridge-New York: Cambridge UP. Olearius, Adam (1662). The voyages and travels of the ambassadors from the duke of Holstein, to the great duke of Muscovy, and the king of Persia… Trans. John Davies. London: Thomas Dring and John Starkey, etc. ———. (1967). The travels of Olearius in seventeenth-century Russia. Trans. and edited by Samuel H. Baron. Stanford: Stanford UP. Ooi, Vincent B. (1998). Computer corpus lexicography . Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP. Osselton, N.E. (1995). Chosen words . Past and present problems for dictionary makers. Exeter: University of Exeter Press. Ostler, Rosemarie (2005). Dewdroppers, waldos, and slackers: A decade-by-decade guide to the vanishing vocabulary of the 20th century. Oxford-New York: Oxford UP. Papers relating to the foreign relations of the United States, with the address of the president to Congress, De- cember 1917 (1926). Washington: Government Printing Office. Paradis, Carole and Darlene LaCharité (1997). “Preservation and minimality in loanword adaptation”. Journal of Linguistics 33(2): 379-430. Phipps, Geraldine M. (1990). “The Russian embassy to London of 1645-46 and the abrogation of the Muscovy Company’s charter”. Slavonic and East European Review 68(2): 257-276. Pinnavaia, Laura (2001). The Italian borrowings in the Oxford English Dictionary: A lexicographical, linguistic and cultural analysis. Rome: Bulzoni. Piotrowski, Tadeusz (1994). Z zagadnień leksykografii [On issues of lexicography]. Warszawa: PWN. ———. (1999). “When etymologists dance the mazurka”. Acta Universitatis Wratislaviensis 2127, Anglica Wratislaviensia 35. 97-107. Pipes, Richard (1971). “‘Intelligentsia’ from the German ‘Intelligenz’? A note”. Slavic Review 30(3): 615-618. Podhajecka, Mirosława (2002). “Zapożyczenia polskie w języku angielskim na materiale Oxford English Dic- tionary (OED)” [Polish borrowings in the English language on the basis of the Oxford English Dictionary (OED)]. Język Polski 82(5): 330-337. ———. (2004). “Remarks on the etymologies of borsht and pirogi in English dictionaries”. In Mixajlo Kočergan (ed), Problemy zistavnoj semantiki . Sbornik naukovyx statej. Kiev: KNLU. 213-218. ———. (2006a). “Language contact: Problems of metalinguistic description”. In Anna Duszak and Urszula Okulska (eds), Bridges and barriers in metalinguistic discourse. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. 287-301. ———. (2006b). “Russian borrowings in English: Similarities and differences in lexicographic description.” In R. W. McConchie, Olga Timofeeva, Heli Tissari and Tanja Säily (eds), Selected Proceedings of the 2005 Symposium on New Approaches in English Historical Lexis (HEL-LEX) . Sommerville, MA: Cascadilla Pro- ceedings Project. 123-134. Online at ‹http://www.lingref.com/cpp/hel-lex/2005/paper1353.pdf›. ———. (2009). “Loanwords in English and national stereotypes: A dictionary and corpus study”. In Jan Zalewski (ed), Language, cognition and society. Opole: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Opolskiego. 105-125. ———. (2010). “The third edition of the OED and lexical transmission: Towards a consistent research methodology”. In John Considine (ed), Webs of words . New studies in historical lexicology. Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. 141-190. ———, and Tadeusz Piotrowski (2004). “Russian borrowings in English (OED – BNC–LDOCE)”. In Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (ed), Practical applications in language and computers. PALC 3. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. 241-252. Poe, Marshall (2000). A people born to slavery: Russian in early modern European ethnography. Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP. Porter, Keith (n. d.). “The relationship of the United States with Russia”. Online at ‹http://usforeignpolicy.about. com/od/countryprofile1/p/usrussia.htm›.

283

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 Pound, Louise (1913-1917). “Domestication of a suffix”. Dialect Notes 4(1-7): 304. Purchas, Samuel (1613). Purchas his pilgrimage, or relations of the world . . London: Printed by William Stansby for Henrie Fetherstone, and are to be sold at his shoppe in Pauls Church-yard at the signe of the Rose. ———. (1625). Hakluytus posthumus, or Purchas his pilgrimes, contayning a history of the world in sea voyages and lande travells, by Englishmen and others. Vols. 1-4. London: Imprinted for H. Fetherston. Rayevska, N. M. (1979). English lexicology. Kiev: Vidavnictvo “Višča Škola”. Reed, John (1919). Ten days that shook the world. New York: Boni and Liveright. Reed, Joseph W. (1962). “Noah Webster’s debt to Samuel Johnson”. American Speech 37(2): 95-105. Rogalski, Aleksander (1960). Rosja − Europa . Wzajemne związki, wpływy i zależności kulturalno-literackie [Rus- sia ‒ Europe . Mutual relations and cultural and literary influences]. Warszawa: Instytut Wydawniczy Pax. Rogers, Pat (2009). “Johnson, Samuel (1709–1784)”. In Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Online edition. Oxford: Oxford UP. Online at ‹http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/14918›. Rot, Sandor (1991). Language contact . Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Rundell, Michael (2002). “Good old-fashioned lexicography: Human judgement and the limits of automation”. In Marie-Hélène Corréard (ed), Lexicography and natural language processing . A Festschrift in honour of B . S . T . Atkins. EURALEX 2002: Göteborg University. 138-155. ———, and Penny Stock (1992). “The corpus revolution”. English Today 32. 45-51. Russel, Willis and W.W. Boyett (1958). “Among the new words”. American Speech 33(2): 129. Sapir, Edward (1921). Language . An introduction to the study of speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World. Schäfer, Jűrgen (1980). Documentation in the OED: Shakespeare and Nashe as test cases . Oxford: Clarendon Press. ———. (1989). Early Modern English lexicography . Additions and corrections to the OED. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Seeger, Murray (2005). Studies in Russian-American commerce 1820-1860. Bloomington, IN: AuthorHouse. Serjeantson, Mary S. (1935). A history of foreign words in English . London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Silva, Penny (2000). “Time and meaning: Sense and definition in the OED”. In Lynda Mugglestone (ed), Lexi- cography and the OED . Pioneers in the untrodden forest. Oxford-New York: Oxford UP. 77-95. ———. (2005). “Johnson and the OED”. International Journal of Lexicography 18(2): 231-242. Simmons, John S. G. (1950). “H.W. Ludolf and the printing of his Grammatica Russica at Oxford in 1696”. Oxford Slavonic Papers 1. 104-129. ———, and B.O. Unbegaun (1951). “Slavonic manuscript vocabularies in the Bodleian Library”. Oxford Slavonic Papers 2. 119-127. Simpson, David (2008). “American English to 1865”. In Haruko Momma and Michael Matto (eds), A companion to the history of the English language. Blackwell Companions to Literature and Culture. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons. Simpson, John (2004). “The OED and collaborative research into the history of English.” Anglia 122.2: 185-208. ———, Edmund S. C. Weiner and Philip Durkin. (2004). “The Oxford English Dictionary today”. Transactions of the Philological Society 102(3): 335-381. Sinclair, John (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation . Oxford-New York: Oxford UP. Sledd, James and Wilma R. Ebbitt (eds) (1962). Dictionaries and THAT dictionary . Chicago-Atlanta: Scott, Foresman and Company. Solzhenitsyn, Aleksandr (2000). Cancer ward. Trans. Nicholas Bethell and David Burg. London-New York: Penguin Books. ———. (1973). The Gulag archipelago. Vols. 1-3. Paris: YMCA Press / (1974). New York: Harper and Row. Stacy, Robert H. (1961). “A note on the Russian words in an American dictionary”. Slavic and East European Journal 5(2): 132-138. Stanley, K. P. (1985). Slavonic loanwords in English, Celtic and pre-classical Greek. Iffley Village, Oxford: [K.P. Stanley].

284

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 Starnes, de Witt T. and Gertrude E. Noyes (1991). The English dictionary from Cawdrey to Johnson 1604–1755. New edition with an introduction and select bibliography by Gabriele Stein. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Stone, Gerald (ed) (1996). A dictionarie of the vulgar Russe tongue . Attributed to Mark Riddley . Edited from the late sixteenth-century manuscripts and with an introduction. Köln-Weimar-Vienn: Böhlau Verlag. ———. (2005). Slavonic studies at Oxford: A brief history. Oxford: [Oxford University]. Online at ‹http://www. modlangs.ox.ac.uk/files/docs/russian/slavonic_studies.pdf›. Sumner, Benedict H. (1948). Anglo-Russian relations . Sixth Burton lecture on international relations . University of Leeds. Svensen, Bo (1993). Practical lexicography . Principles and methods of dictionary-making . Trans. John Sykes and Kerstin Schofield. Oxford-New York: Oxford UP. Sweetland, James H. (2001). Fundamental reference sources. Third edition. Chicago: The American Library Association. Thomason, Sarah G. (2001). Language contact . An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP. Tooke, William (1799). View of the Russian Empire during the reign of Catharine the Second. Vol. 1. London: Longman. Trask, R . L . (1999) . Key concepts in language and linguistics. London-New York: Routledge. Trench, Richard C. (1857). On some deficiencies in our English dictionaries . Being the substance of two papers read before the Philological Society . London: John W. Parker. Trubetzkoy, Nikolay S. (1923). “Vavilonskaja bašnja i smešenie jazykov” [The Tower of Babel and the mixing of languages]. Evrazijskij vremennik 3. Berlin: Evrazijskoe Knigoizdatel′stvo. 107-124. Online at ‹http://www2. unil.ch/slav/ling/textes/TRUBECKOJ23/txt.html›. Unbegaun, B.O. (1960). “The language of Muscovite Russia in Oxford vocabularies” . Oxford Slavonic Papers 9. 46-59. Vinay, Jean-Paul and Jean L. Darbelnet (1995) . Comparative stylistics of French and English: A metodology for translation. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Vočadlo, Otokar (1966). “Shakespeare and the Slavs”. Slavonic and East European Review 44(102): 36-50. Vogt, Hans (1954). “Language contacts”. Word 10. 365-74. Waddington, Patrick (1995). Ivan Turgenev and Britain . Oxford-Providence: Berg Publishers. Wade, Terence (1997). “Russian words in English”. Linguist 36(4): 102-104. Wagner, John A. and Susan W. Schmid (eds) (2011). Encyclopedia of Tudor England. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC- CLIO. Walczak, Bogdan (1989). “Objaśnienia etymologiczne w powojennych słownikach polskich” [Etymological references in post-war dictionaries of Polish]. In Zygmunt Saloni (ed), Studia z polskiej leksykografii współczesnej. Vol. 3. Białystok: Dział Wydawnictw Filii UW. 73-98. Wallis, John E. (1945). Dr . Johnson and his English dictionary. Presidential Address. Lichfield Johnson Society. Walton, Harry (1960). “It’s tough to buy a car in Russia”. Popular Science 177(2). 81-83, 186-187. Wang, Yinquan (1999). “Loanwords or foreignisms”. English Today 15(4): 55-57. Watson, George (ed) (1974). The new Cambridge bibliography of English literature. Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cam- bridge UP. Weinreich, Uriel (1970). Languages in contact . Findings and problems. The Hague-Paris: Mouton. Wells, Ronald A. (1973). Dictionaries and the authoritarian tradition . A study in English usage and lexicography . The Hague-Paris: Mouton. White, Brian (1992). Britain, détente and changing East-West relations. London: Routledge. White, William (1958). “Sputnik and its satellites”. American Speech 33(2): 153-154. Whitehall, Harold (1963). “The development of the English dictionary”. In Leonard Dean and Kenneth G. Wilson (eds), Essays on language and usage. New York: Oxford UP. Willan, Thomas S. (1956). The early history of the Russia Company 1553-1603. Manchester: Manchester UP.

285

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 Willinsky, John (1994). Empire of words . The reign of the OED . Princeton: Princeton UP. Wilson, Francesca (1970). Muscovy . Russia through foreign eyes . New York: Praeger Publishers. Winchester, Simon (2003). The meaning of everything . The story of the Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford-New York: Oxford UP. Winford, Donald (2003). An introduction to contact linguistics. Oxford-New York: Blackwell. ———. (2010). “Contact and borrowing”. In Raymond Hickey (ed), The handbook of language contact. Malden- Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Wójtowicz, Marian (1984). Xarakteristika zaimstvovannyx iz anglijskogo jazyka imën suščestvitel′nyx [A survey of nouns borrowed from the English language]. Seria Filologia Rosyjska 18. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Nau- kowe UAM. Wrenn, Charles L . (1945) . “Linguistic relations between England and Russia”. The Slavonic and East European Review 23(62): 118-125. ———. (1954). The English language. London: Methuen. Yakobson, S. (1935). “Early Anglo-Russian relations”. Slavonic and East European Review 13(39): 597-610. Zabotkina, V. I. (1989). Novaja leksika sovremennogo anglijskogo jazyka [New vocabulary of the contemporary English language]. Moskva: “Vysšaja Škola”. Zgusta, Ladislav (1971). Manual of lexicography . Praha: Academia Publishing House. ———. (1989). “The Oxford English Dictionary and other dictionaries”. International Language of Lexicography 2(3): 200-227

286

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 Summary in Polish

Przedstawiona monografia pt. Russian borrowings in English: A dictionary and corpus study poświęcona jest zapożyczeniom rosyjskim zarejestrowanym w jednoję- zycznych słownikach brytyjskiej i amerykańskiej odmiany angielszczyzny. Pracę po- dzielono na dwie zasadnicze części. Część pierwsza wprowadza metodologię badaw- czą, nakreśla historię stosunków anglo-rosyjskich i rosyjsko-amerykańskich oraz za- wiera analizę wybranych źródeł (słowników oraz korpusu językowego). Część druga, w postaci kilku tabel, stanowi obszerny materiał dokumentacyjny. Celem badań była próba oceny, jaki wpływ wywarła leksyka rosyjska na słownic- two angielskie, do tej pory podjęta w sposób syntetyczny przez zaledwie jednego ję- zykoznawcę. Z moich obliczeń wynika, że liczba pożyczek rosyjskich jest znacząca, ponieważ obejmuje 369 wyrazów w II wydaniu słownika Oxford English Dictionary (1989) oraz 295 w III wydaniu Webster’s New International Dictionary of the English Language (1961). Choć większość z nich to wyrazy hasłowe określające elementy kul- tury rosyjskiej, a więc ograniczone w użyciu do rosyjskich kontekstów językowych, badania przeprowadzone na materiale współczesnego korpusu języka angielskiego (British National Corpus) wykazały, że około 180 zapożyczeń rosyjskich funkcjonuje we współczesnej leksyce angielskiej, a prawie 30 z nich zostało uznanych za istotne elementy w dwóch wydaniach popularnego anglojęzycznego słownika pedagogiczne- go (LDOCE 2 oraz LDOCE 3). Jak wynika z przeprowadzonej analizy leksykograficznej, zapożyczenia rosyjskie są na ogół spójnie zdefiniowane, charakteryzuje je natomiast różnorodność form gra- ficznych oraz nierzadko odmienna etymologia. Jak wynika z przeprowadzonych ba- dań, nie zawsze można określić, czy rosyjski był bezpośrednim językiem-dawcą. Wo- bec braku wystarczających dowodów historyczno-językowych, czynnik kulturowy miał czasem podstawowe znaczenie. Pożyczki zarejestrowane w słownikach zostały zaklasyfikowane do 7 kategorii te- matycznych, które odzwierciedlają zainteresowania leksykalne użytkowników języka angielskiego. Najwięcej pożyczek obejmuje kategoria ‘Nauka i technologia’, ‘Życie polityczne’ oraz ‘Dom i rodzina’, natomiast najmniej liczne zapożyczenia odnoszą się do kategorii ‘Sztuka i kultura’ oraz ‘Religia’.

Abramova, N. Burrough, S. Ackerman, L. M. Butters, R. R. Adams, C. Adams, J. Q. Cable, T. Alexander I (tsar) Cannon, G. Alexander II (tsar) Catherine the Great (tsarina) Alexis (tsar) Chan, M. Algeo, J. Chancellor, R. Allen, F. S. Charles I (king) Anderson, M. S. Chase, G. D. Andropov, J. Chaucer, G. Archer, J. M. Chernenko, K. Aristova, V. M. Churchill, W. Ash, E. H. Chyz, Y. Y. Aston, G. Cienkowski, W. Clyne, M. Bailey, N. Coetsem, F. van Bailey, T. A. Collison, R. L. Baker, C. Columbus, C. Bańko, M. Comrie, B. Barnhart, C. L. Conklin, N. F. Barnhart, R. K. Consett, T. Baron, S. H. Craigie, W. Basil III (tsar) Crankshaw, E. Bauer, L. Cross, A. G. Baugh, A. C. Crummey, R. O. Béjoint, H. Curzan, A. Benson, M. Custred, G. Benson, P. Cutler, C. Berg, D. L. Berkov, P. N. Dal′, V. Bermel, N. Darbelnet, J. L. Berry, L. E. Dashkova, J. Bliss, A. J. Davies, N. Bloomfield. L. Dawes, T. Bobrick, B. Dee, J. Boyett, W. W. Dean, L. Brewer, C. Dekker, T. Brodsky, J. DeMaria, R. Brückner, A. Diller, K. C. Bulgakov, M. Długosz-Kurczabowa, K. Burchfield, R. Dmitrieva, O. Burgess, A. Doster, W. C. Burnard, L. Dostoyevsky, F.

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 Draper, J. W. Hickey, R. Dryden, J. Hill, B. G. Dulewiczowa, I. Hoare, M. R. Dunn, J. A. Hock, H. H. Dunning, C. Hockett, C. F. Durforth, C. Hoffmann, S. Durkin, P. Holden, K. T. Hope, T. E. Ebbitt, W. R. Horsey, J. Eden, R. Hughes, G. Eichhoff, J. Hunt, N. C. Elizabeth I (queen) Engelstein, L. Ilson, R. F. Evgen′eva, A. Isaev, M. I. Ivan the Terrible (tsar) Fadeev, V. I. Ivir, V. Fennel, C. A. M. Filipović, R. James, G. Finkenstaedt, T. James, R. Fletcher, G. Jenkinson, A. Ford Skeel, E. E. Jespersen, O. Foster, B. Johnson, S. Fowler, F. G. Joseph, B. D. Fowler, H. W. Francatelli, C. E. Kabakchi, V. V. Francis, W. N. Kalogjera, D. Freeborn, D. Karamzin, N. Kastovsky, D. Gagarin, J. Kennan, G. Garnett, C. Kennan, G. F. George III (king) Kennedy, G. Gilliver, P. Khrushchev, N. Glazier, I. A. Kilgarriff, A. Gleason, J. H. Kiparsky, V. Gomez Capuz, J. Kirchner, W. Gorbachev, M. Klein, E. Gottlieb, H. Klöhn, G. Green, J. Kluge, F. Gove, P. B. Knott, T. A. Grefenstette, G. Kochman, S. Grimm, J. Kohl, G. H. Grimm, W. Konovalov, S. Kroll, D. C. Hakluyt, R. Kučera, H. Halperin, C. J. Kuteva, T. Harold II (king) Kwok, H. Harris, W. T. Hartmann, R. R. K. LaCharité, D. Haspelmath, M. Lancashire, I. Hasse, J. Landau, S. Hastings, M. Leeming, H. Haugen, E. Lehiste, I. Haxthausen, A. von Lehnert, M. Heine, B. Lenin, V. I. Herberstein, S. von Levshin, P. Hess, G. H. Libbey, J. K.

290

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 Liberman, A. Ooi, V. B. Light, M. Osselton, N. E. Lincoln, A. Ostler, R. Littlejohn, D. Ožegov, S. Lourie, M. A. Lubimenko, I. Paradis, C. Ludolf, H. W. Pasternak, B. Lyons, J. Paul I (tsar) Pavlova, A. MacDonald, D. Perry, J. MacMahon, A. Peter the Great (tsar) Maćkiewicz, J. Phipps, G. M. Major, R. H. Pinnavaia, L. Malaxovskij, L. V. Piotrowski, T. Malinowski, E. Pipes, R. Malkiel, Y. Podhajecka, M. Malone, K. Poe, M. Mahn, T. Polinsky, M. Marckwardt, A, H. Porter, K. Marx, K. Porter, N. Mary I (queen) Pound, L. Matthews, W. K. Prokopovich, F. Matras, Y. Purchas, S. Maynard, H. J. Pushkin, A. McArthur, T. McConchie, R. W. Quirk, R. McDermott, A. Mencken, H. L. Randolf, T. Meyendorff, A. F. Rayevska, N. M. Meyers-Scotton, C. Reagan, R. Michael I (tsar) Reed, J. Micklethwait, D. Reed, J. W. Mikulina, L. T. Richardson, C. Miller, P. Ridley, M. Milton, J. Rogalski, A. Minkova, D. Rogers, P. Miyoshi, K. Rot, S. Mok, M. Roucek, J. S. Moon, R. Rundell, M. Morton, H. C. Russel, W. Moseley, P. E. Mugglestone, L. Salmon, V. Murphy, A. Samarski, M. von Murray, J. A. H. Sapir, E. Murray, K. M. E. Saxo Grammaticus Schäfer, J. Napoleon I (emperour) Schmid, S. W. Nevalainen, T. Scott, W. Newman, J. H. Seeger, M. Neilson, W. A. Serjeantson, M. S. Newmark, M. Shakespeare, W. Nicholas II (tsar) Sharman, H. Noyes, G. E. Silva, P. Simmons, J. S. G. Ogilvie, S. Simpson, D. Olearius, A. Simpson, J.

291

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28 Sholokov, M. White, W. Skeat, W. W. Whitehall, H. Sinclair, J. Whitney, W. D. Sledd, J. Willan, T. S. Sławski, F. Willoughby, H. Solzhenitsyn, A. Wilson, F. Stacy, R. H. Wilson, K. G. Stalin, J. V. Willinsky, J. Stanley, K. P. Winchester, S. Starnes, T. de Witte Winford, D. Steinmetz, S. Wolff, D. Stock, P. Wójtowicz, M. Stockwell, R. P. Wrenn, C. L. Stone, G. Wyld, H. C. Sumner, B. H. Svensen, B. Yakobson, S. Sweetland, J. H. Yeltsin, B.

Tadmor, U. Zabotkina, V. I. Thatcher, M. Zgusta, L. Thomason, S. G. Tolstoy, L. N. Tooke, W. Trask, R. L. Trench, R. C. Trubetzkoy, N. S. Turberville, G. Turgenev, I. S.

Unbegaun, B. O. Urdang, L. Uvarov, S. S.

Vasmer, M. Vinay, J.-P. Vladimir Monomakh (grand prince) Vočadlo, O. Vogt, H.

Wade, T. Waddington, P. Wagner, J. A. Walczak, B. Waldemar (grand prince) Walker, J. Wallis, J. E. Walpole, H. Walton, H. Wang, Y. Watson, G. Webster, N. Weiner, E. Weinreich, U. Wells, J. Wells, R. A. White, B.

292

Pobrano z https://repo.uni.opole.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Opole University 2021-09-28