Informative potential of dialect phytonymy explanatory dictionaries

The article reviews the informative potential of Russian dialect phytonym dictionaries for linguistic research in different aspects. Peasants harmoniously existed in the world of wild nature, which is under their active consideration in the frames of a naive worldview. A big fragment of this worldview is a complex of knowledge and beliefs connected with the world of plants, which is represented in dialect phytonymy. The lexical-semantic group of plant names is an interesting material for linguistic research in different aspects because of its variety, ricgness and connection with folk culture. Explanatory dictionaries of phytonyms that function in dictionaries are a valuable material for such research. Today, there are two explanatory dictionaries of dialect plant names in Russia: Slovar' narodnykh nazvaniy rasteniy Urala [Dictionary of folk Urals plant names] (publ. in 2000, more than 1,000 names of wild plants) and Slovar' fitonimov Srednego Priob'ya [Dictionary of the Middle Ob phytonyms] (publ. in 2006-2008, 3,780 plant names). The article reviews in detail the informative potential of these dictionaries as a source for linguistic research on the macro- (general structure) and micro-level (structure of a vocabulary entry) of the dictionaries. The article marks that these dictionaries present the lexical-semantic group of plant names in a big volume and in many paradigmatic relations: variations, synonymy and polysemy. Thus, the dictionaries give substantial material for researchin dialect lexicology. Each lexical unit is characterised phonetically, lexically, gramatically and stylistically. The marks include representative material for research connected with the connotative aspects of lexical meaning. Generally, the dictionaries have similar structures, but different principles of organising an entry. In the article the advantages and restrictions of both types of structure are discussed. The vocabulary entry in both dictionaries consists of three zones: the headword zone, the definition zone and the illustrative zone. All zones are described in the article, their informative potential is characterised. Summarising the results of the overview of these dictionaries as source for research, the author notes that the headword zone is maximally useful for the research of dialect phytonymy as a lexical paradigm. The definition zone is useful for onomasiological and motivological research. The illustrative zone completes the definition zone with information about connection between the object (plant) and the naming word; it also gives broad opportunities for linguocultural, ethnolinguistic and cognitive research. Definitely, both dictionaries are useful for multidisciplinary research as a voluminous source of cultural and ethnographic material.

Keywords

Authors

References