The Project of the Dictionary The World Reflected in the Folk Names of Plants

The article presents the project of the linguacultural dictionary The World Reflected in the Folk Names of Plants. The dictionary will continue a series of dictionaries combining linguistic, cultural, and ethnographic information. In addition, the project expands the number of thematic phytonymic dictionaries (dictionaries by N.I. Annenkov (1878); I.V. Bugaev (2008, 2010); N.I. Konovalova (2000); B G. Aryanova (2006-2008); A.S. Savenko (2012); A.D. Zhakupova (2013). The aim of the study was to develop the concept of an ethnolinguistic dictionary of dialect phytonyms and phytomorphonyms, and to think through its macro- and micro-structure. To achieve the aim, a lexicographic method, through modeling and defining, and the basic method of scientific description with its observation, classification and interpretation techniques were used. The main sources of the material were the Russian dialects of the Middle Ob region, which include all-Russian and dialect names of plants, as well as dialect variants of all-Russian names. In terms of the structure, these nominations are univerbs, two-word names, compounds connected by hyphens, by the instrumental of comparison, by comparative phrases. The dictionary is compiled as differential (thematic) and aspectual (metaphorological) project. Linguistic and cultural information permeates its macro- and micro-structure. The macro-structure of the phytonymic dictionary is built by identifying semantic spheres whose objects and phenomena the realities of the plant world are associated with. The entry includes: (1) the headword zone with the associative source of the figurative nomination and phytonyms with the common source of the metaphorical image; the phytonyms have grammatical, structural-semantic and expressive labels; (2) the interpretation of the figurative meaning that explains the basis of the metaphorical relations of the denotation and the source of the figurative name; (3) illustrative contexts that demonstrate real dialect speech; (4) an ethnolinguistic commentary; (5) photographs. The ethnolinguistic commentary contains: (1) a description of the metaphorical model reflected in phytonyms with a single associative basis; (2) the etymology of the lexical donor unit; (3) paroemias and phraseological units that include the associative image; (5) encyclopedic information from the biological field; (4) encyclopedic information about the role of plants and the realities they are compared with in folk culture (folklore, rituals and rituals, the axiological picture of the world of rural residents). An example of a dictionary entry "PUGOVITSA" [Button] is given.

Keywords

Authors

References