Slavic Dialectology

В статье кратко характеризуются избранные словацкие диалектные словари, собранные и изданные не профессиональными филологами, а энтузиастами и любителями родного наречия (учителями, врачами, инженерами, юристами). Обращается внимание на ценность подобных словариков для словацкой и в целом славянской лингвистики.

Видання  присвячене  проблемам  аналізу  семантики  мовних  одиниць. Представлені  у  збірнику  статті  акцентують  на  питаннях,  які  постають  при вивченні  семантичної  історії  різних  лексико-семантичних  груп  у  словнику індоєвропейської  сім’ї  мов,  словотвірної  семантики,  семантики  тексту, особливостей семантики діалектних слів.
Збірник  адресовано  науковим  працівникам,  викладачам,  студентам філологічних факультетів та факультетів іноземних мов університетів

The reasons for writing an introduction to Ukrainian dialectology are multifold. The main motivation was to render available to a wide range of students of Slavic languages, and particularly of Ukrainian, an outline of Ukrainian dialectology.
The lack of consistent introductory accounts of Ukrainian dialects in more accessible western European languages, with some fragmentary exceptions, represents a great limit to all those students of Slavic languages who wish to approach the fascinating world of geographical variation of contemporary Ukrainian.
A basic knowledge of Ukrainian dialects is likewise important to complete the theoretical and practical background of a Slavist, especially if focusing on Ukrainian, Russian and Belarusian.
It is also a valuable aid to a better understanding of diachronic and synchronic language processes, e.g. the Ukrainian-Russian mixed speech “Suržyk” as a few times underlined over the last decade.

The paper presents some observations on the first post-Yugoslav handbook of dialectology focusing on Montenegrin (Čirgić 2017), which sets criteria for identifying the diacritic features of Montenegrin Štokavian. In contrast to Yugoslav-era treatments of the Štokavian dialect (e.g. Ivić 1958, Peco 1985), the new handbook individuates Montenegrin and presents it as an organic whole, rather than examining its relationship to the broader South Slavic dialectological context. The task is challenging, given that there are two distinct dialect areas of Montenegrin. The trend towards describing former-Yugoslav dialect areas in alignment with the new state formations has been noted for Lisac’s handbook (Lisac 2003; Greenberg 2004).

This article deals with the hypothetical connection between the Russian ethnic slur kolbít ‘a Kazakh, especially rural’ used by Russian speakers in Kazakhstan up to the end of the 20th century and the ancient tribe phtheirophagoi ‘lice-eaters’ mentioned by many authors in Antiquity. This tribe was placed by Ptolemy to Asiatic Sarmatia beyond the Lower Volga, the present-day location of the Kazakhstan steppes. Young Russian-speaking respondents have almost forgotten the meaning and connotations of the word kolbit, but their elders remember it as a very derogative term deriving from Kazakh bit ‘a louse’ and even translate it as ‘a lice-eater.’ However, it is impossible to etymologize kolbit as a word of Kazakh origin. It may be of Russian origin connected with root kol(o)b- ‘something round’ or ‘something chopped off’ (in particular ‘a wooden block’) compared with the Russian ethnic slur churka ‘a non-ethnic Russian, especially from Central Asia’ (literally, ‘a chunk of unworked wood’). These slurs could be linked with the rite of circumcision practiced by Muslims. The article also contains an etholinguistic analysis of folk nicknames with louse-components based on lexicographical data and field records gathered in Kazakhstan in 2012–2013.

"SERBIAN AND MONTENEGRIN DIALECT DICTIONARIES AFTER 2000"
After 2000, there has been a dynamic development in the field of Serbian and Montenegrin subdialect dictionaries, which has resulted in the publication of 40 new titles. A very large amount of relevant lexical material has been assembled, the majority of which has been presented with the use of a unified methodology applied by specialized dialectological publishers. These factors have resulted in an increase in the lexical material useful in the comparative studies into dialects and subdialects. The greatest lexicographic achievement has undoubtedly been the 10-volume Rečnik srpskih govora Vojvodine [Dictionary of Serbian Dialects in Vojvodina], edited by Professor Dragoljub Petrović. As far as the territorial distribution of research is concerned, the largest portion of studies covers the area of Montenegro. In Serbia, besides thoroughly researched subdialects of the south-eastern part of the country and, recently, Vojvodina, there are still relatively poorly explored subdialects of Kosovo-Resava and Šumadija. This situation is likely to improve owing the activity of research institutions: Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts, research institutes, as well as journals, especially Srpski dijalektološki zbornik [Serbian Dialectology Collection].

dialectology, subdialect lexicography, dictionaries, Serbian language, Montenegrin
language.

The present paper analyses the reflexes of the old contrast */u/ : */uː/ after labials and velars and word-initially in the Kashubian dialect of Jastarnia. According to the descriptions from the the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, the contrast was preserved word-initially and word-internally as a contrast of quantity and quality (with a probable weakening of the first component of the contrast). Word-finally, the contrast was weak and disappearing. Sources from the middle of the 20th century claim that the contrast has been entirely lost in all positions and that all vowel sounds in question are free variants of one phoneme /u/. However, the analysis of the contemporary material shows clearly that the old contrast was preserved word-initially and word-internally with some sparse cases of trivial morphological levelling. Two phonemes, /ʉ/ and /u/, have to be assumed. The current system is strongly correlated with the system documented in the oldest descriptions and could not develop secondarily from a hypothetical system which would merge */u/ and */uː/ to any extent going beyond a free variation in some forms while the morphological levelling acting. It seems that the claims of the publications from the middle of the 20th century (refuting the existence of the contrast) had an irrational (personal and maybe national) background.

to the particular and precipitous degradation of the Russian language in the wake of the free speech (svoboda slova) movement of the Yeltsin years. Inextricably tied to the loosening of government control over communication technologies, the sharp rise in the use of slang, vulgarisms, and loanwords created a Russia marked by "linguistic lawlessness (iazykovoi bezpredel)" (95). Here, Gorham might have made the useful distinction between "profanity" and "obscenity" in describing and identifying the use of Russian mat-a term which embraces both classes of lexicon-since most of his examples are instances of usage of obscenities. With the resurgence in the prominence of the Russian Orthodox Church in post-Soviet society, an examination of the particular use of profanity might produce interesting results. Nonetheless, the evidence provided of uses of foreign loanwords, criminal argot, and vulgarisms in post-Soviet Russian are striking, and Gorham does well to include them as "more 'organic' and authentic expressions of Russianness" that mark a new political and linguistic era (97).

In this article, the author analyzes the terms for ‘woodpecker’ in the dialects of the Slavic languages, using the materials of the General Slavic Linguistic Atlas (OLA). The analysis contains two parts: the fi rst refers to the geographical distribution of the terms for ‘woodpecker’ in the Slavic-speaking area according to the stations covered by the OLA – about 850 settlements in the Slavic-speaking territory; the second part includes etymological and semantic analysis of the individual terms. From the analysis, it can be concluded that there is a great lexical diversity of these terms in the dialects of the Slavic languages, although the term dětьlъ is dominant in the Slavic-speaking area. Lexical diversity largely depended on the surrounding. Other factors, such as the contacts with other linguistic populations, influenced too. Recognizing the origin of the individual terms, we can establish that the forms are most often processed by onomatopoeia. But apart from the audacious perception, the motives for naming the woodpecker arose from the visual perception – the color of the feather, as well as the abilities characteristic of this kind of bird.

PHONETIC DESCRIPTION OF THE UKRAINIAN DIALECT IN
BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
The paper deals with the peculiarities of vocalism, consonantism and some elements of accentuation of the Ukrainian dialect spoken in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Ukrainian language functions mainly in the fields of family and religion, while the Serbo-Croatian language is used for communication outside the community. The material for the analysis was gathered during three field researches in the settlements of Ukrainians. A field study was conducted in Banja Luka, Prnjavor, Jablan, Trnopolje, Potočani, Hrvaćani and Lišnja. The author focuses on systematization of the main phonetic characteristics of the Ukrainian speech. The analyzed phonetic features in the vowel, consonant systems as well as in the prosodic phenomena attest to the belonging
of this dialect to the Upper Dniestrian dialect of southwestern group of the Ukrainian language. The Ukrainians arrived in these areas from different dialect zones, which resulted in the contact of different dialects in new conditions. The development of certain features, in addition to the intra-language trends, also allows suggesting the influence of
the dominant Serbo-Croatian language. The paper compares data collected during the field study with the description of Ukrainian dialects and materials of the Atlas of the Ukrainian language. The Appendix introduces the first publication of dialect texts that displaying main phonetic features of the language of Ukrainians living in Bosnia and
Herzegovina.

Miejsce gwary luzińskiej wśród gwar kaszubskich w świetle faktów fonetycznych i fonologicznych 1 Wstęp Pierwszy raz odwiedziłem Luzino w marcu 2012 r., bezpośrednio po intensywnych badaniach terenowych na obszarze gwar centralnokaszubskich okolic Kartuz i Sierakowic 1 . Wykonałem wówczas w Luzinie godzinne nagranie z jednym informatorem. Moje wrażenia z prac poprzedzających pobyt na obszarze gwary luzińskiej były wtedy bardzo świeże. Niemniej jednak nabrałem od razu pełnego przeświadczenia, że nie sposób pod względem fonetycznym i fonologicznym sprowadzić gwary luzińskiej do wspólnego mianownika z gwarami okolic Kartuz i Sierakowic. Nie zmieniły tego przekonania w najmniejszym stopniu późniejsze nagrania uzupełniające na obszarze centralnokaszubskim z sierpnia 2013 r., w których rozszerzyłem obszar zasadniczych moich badań nieco na północ i południowy wschód 2 . Materiału luzińskiego w związku z tym do opisów systemu samogłoskowego, spółgłoskowego oraz akcentowego centralnej kaszubszczyzny nie włączyłem (Jocz 2013, Jocz 2014, Jocz 2015a) 3 . Do gwary luzińskiej wróciłem na krótko w listopadzie 2014 r., wykonując nagrania ankietowe z dwoma informatorami (po jednym z Luzina i Częstkowa). Odwiedziłem wtedy również peryferyjne gwary północnokaszubskie: żarnowiecką (Wierzchucino i Nadole) (Jocz 2015c) oraz dwie bylackie (Chłapowo, Jastarnia; materiały dotychczas nieopublikowane), co dało mi możliwość samodzielnego spojrzenia na gwarę luzińską z perspektywy współczesnej kaszubszczyzny północnej 4 . Do specjalnego zajęcia się zagadnieniem miejsca gwary luzińskiej wśród gwar kaszubskich -które zainteresowało mnie już w 2012 r. -skłoniły mnie

The Vowel System of the Dialect of Dąbrówka Wielkopolska. The aim of the paper is to provide a phonetic and phonological description of the vowel system of the Dąbrówka Wielkopolska dialect. The analysed material revealed the very good retention of the original dialectal phenomena (e.g. the diphthongal pronunciation of *[ɨ], diversity of monophthongal and diphthongal variants of */o/, or two allophones of /u/ conditioned by the preceding consonant). The acoustic analyses provide a precise phonetic description of the dialect's vowels and revisions to the previous descriptions (e.g. the allophone of /u/ after coronal and palatal consonants is not only lowered, but also centralised, the reflexes of */eː, eN, ẽ/ after palatals are distinct from /i/, the reflex of */aː/ is sometimes lower than [ɔ], but never reaches the height of [ɒ]). Farther, the perceptive and acoustic analyses revealed a – hitherto unnoticed – opposition between the reflexes of */eː/ on the one hand, and the reflexes of */e/ before /N/ and the vocalic reflexes of */ẽ/ on the other, and, consequently, made it possible to discover a "new" vowel phoneme.

The papers is devoted to the VOT of stops in the Polish dialect of Dąbrówka Wielkopolska. According to the results, the dialect shows an interesting VOT-pattern with strongly aspirated /p, t, k/ and /b, d, g/ varying between fully voiced, partially voiced and voiceless realisations (generally not overlapingg with the values of /p, t, k/). From the phonological point of view one should assume an opposition fortis-lenes rather than voiced-voiceless in the dialect. It can be a result of the German influence or an archaic trait.