Skip to content Skip to navigation
Константинов К. Път през годините. 2nd ed. София: Български писател; 1981.
Резюме:
Резюме:
Georgiev V. Introduction to the History of the Indo-European Languages. 3rd ed. Sofia: Bulgarian Academy of Sciences; 1981. 423 p.
Резюме:
Резюме:
Резюме:
Резюме:
Маринов Д. Народна вяра и религиозни народни обичаи. In Димитър Маринов. Избрани произведения. София: БАН ; Наука и изкуство; 1981.
Резюме:
Ohala JJ. The listener as the source of sound change. In: Masek RAHendric, Miller MFrances. Papers from the parasession on language and behavior. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society; 1981. pp. 178–203.
Резюме:
Резюме:
Резюме:
Иванова К. Монолог и диалог. In: Георгиева Е, Тодорова Н. Знания за езика. София: Народна просвета; 1981. pp. 128–130.
Резюме:
Шилер Ф. Върху наивната и сантименталната поезия. In: Паси И. Естетика: Сборник статии, рецензии, писма. София: Наука и изкуство; 1981. pp. 575–662.
Резюме:
Шëберг А. Славянские пергаменные отрывки в Швеции. Palaeobulgarica / Старобългаристика. 1981;5(4):86–94.
Резюме:
Резюме:

В систематичен ред. Книги и статии, около, 400 названия.

Sternemann R. Aufgaben und Probleme der Konfrontation in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart (Teil II). Съпоставително езикознание / Сопоставительное языкознание / Contrastive linguistics. 1981;6(2):3–11.
Резюме:

The problem of the relationship between foreign language teaching and the comparison of languages, contrastive linguistic studies in particular, is treated in the beginning. Thus, a critical assessment of the positive achievements of contrastive linguistics is given and an attempt is made at studying the reasons for the insufficient application of contrastive linguistics to foreign language teaching. Problems of typological contrastive studies and of contrastive analyses on the basis of translation texts are considered at the end of the article.

Алексова В, Младенова О. Българо-румънски езикови отношения. Съпоставително езикознание / Сопоставительное языкознание / Contrastive linguistics. 1981;6(3–5):161–180.
Резюме:

The article is a review of the linguistic phenomena, common to Bulgarian and Rumanian, which are the result of the centuries-long interference between the two languages. The review consists of two parts with a view to the conditions (oral and cultural contacts) which engendered the common features of the two languages. The first part deals with the phonetic, morphosyntactic, word-formative, lexical, onomastic, semantic and phraseological features of Rumanian, which are considered to be the result of the interaction between the languages of the Slav-Bulgarian and Rumanian population during the long period of their living together north of the Danube. The lexical, onomastic, word-formative, semantic and phraseological features of Bulgarian, which are to be accounted for by the influence of Rumanian, are also considered. The second part deals with elements of the Bulgarian language which penetrated through literary sources into standard Rumanian during the period of its formation as a result of the Bulgarian cultural influence. It also considers the lexical elements borrowed from Rumanian during the period when the lexical norms of modern standard Bulgarian were established.

Асенова П. За мястото на българския език между балканските езици. 2. Съпоставително езикознание / Сопоставительное языкознание / Conrastive linguistics. 1981;6(3–5):145–149.
Резюме:

The features which serve as basis of the Balkan linguistic union are manifested most completely and consistently in Bulgarian: 1. Bulgarian possesses a complete set of Balkanisms, whereas a certain number of them are missing in the other Balkan languages; 2. The Balkanisms, with their uneven territorial distribution, are consistently present in Bulgarian in all its dialects and are manifested in a highly developed and firmly established form, including those which exist in the other Balkan languages as trends only. Bulgarian is thus defined as a Balkan language-standard which unites relevant specific features of the Balkan linguistic union.

Резюме:

Nomina agentis with the -тел(ь) suffix in Russian and Bulgarian can be formed from both perfective and imperfective verbs. The aspectual semantics of the verb is not preserved in the stem of the derived noun. The aspectual nuances in the meaning of the noun (permanent and impermanent characteristics, perfective or imperfective character of the action) do not depend on the aspect of the underlying stem.

Бойтюк А. Наблюдения върху употребата на плусквамперфекта в българския, украинския и полския език. Съпоставително езикознание / Сопоставительное языкознание / Contrastive linguistics. 1981;6(1):31–37.
Резюме:

The use of the pluperfect in Bulgarian, Ukrainian and Polish, representatives respectively of the southern, western and eastern groups of Slavic languages, is compared on the basis of material excerpted from works of fiction (original and translated). It is established that Ukrainian has an intermediate position as regards, on the one hand, languages such as Bulgarian where the pluperfect is a full member of the temporal system, and, on the other hand, as regards languages such as Polish where the pluperfect is an optional member of the temporal system.

Бояджиев Т. Пограничните български говори. Съпоставително езикознание / Сопоставительное языкознание / Contrastive linguistics. 1981;6(3–5):223–227.
Резюме:

Border dialects is the term used for the dialects spoken on both sides of today’s Bulgarian Yugoslav border. The area of these dialects includes in the east the dialects of Belogradčik, Berkovica, Trăn, Breznik, Caribrod and Bosilegrad; in the south those of Tetovo, Skopie, Kumanovo, Kratovo and Kriva Palanka. In the west the border dialects merge into the socalled dialect of TimošMoravia or Prizren. Timoš which, besides the features of the border dialects, also possesses typical all-Bulgarian features which can be found in the remaining Bulgarian dialects. Therefore, the western border of the border dialects coincides with the western border of the dialects of Prizren and Timoš.

Буюклиев И. Старобългарският език и старите западнославянски книжовни езици. Съпоставително езикознание / Сопоставительное языкознание / Contrastive linguistics. 1981;6(3–5):35–41.
Резюме:

The importance of Old Bulgarian for the formation of the Old Slavonic literary languages during the Middle Ages is considered. Two stages of interaction are pointed out an early stage (9th –10th c.) during which Old Bulgarian actually played the role of a literary language in the West Slavonic countries too, and a late stage (13th–15 th c.), when the West Slavonic languages were formed and developed. During the second stage Old Bulgarian was of little influence – there are only traces or reminiscences mainly in the vocabulary. However, during this period Old Bulgarian was of importance as a language ideology; the fact that there existed old translations in a Slavonic language justified the translation of biblical books into Old Czech and Old Polish.

Гегов Х. Наблюдения върху българския и арабския вокализъм. Съпоставително езикознание / Сопоставительное языкознание / Contrastive linguistics. 1981;VІ(6):25–29.
Резюме:

The aim of the present article is to outline the basic differences between the Bulgarian and Arabic vowel systems. A preliminary brief contrastive analysis of the consonant systems is also made. Primary attention is given to the quantitative-qualitative opposition between the Arabic short vowels [ĭ], [ă], [ŭ] and their corresponding long vowels [ī], [ā], [ū] which is a characteristic feature of Arabic vocalism and differentiates it from Bulgarian. The Arabic vowels are considered in terms of their distribution. Some departures from the accepted norm, made by Arab students who study Bulgarian, are also pointed out.

Гочев Г. Някои наблюдения върху синтагматичната характеристика на антонимите в българския и руския език. Съпоставително езикознание / Сопоставительное языкознание / Contrastive linguistics. 1981;6(2):48–57.
Резюме:

The article is а contrastive analysis of the most typical syntactic constructions with Bulgarian and Russian antonyms. On the basis of the analysis some regularities in the use of antonyms are established. Special attention is paid to the similarities and differences in the formal means with the help of which the semantic relations between the antonymous pairs on the syntagmatic axis are expressed in the two languages.

Гурбиш Й. Символика на названията на животните в славянската паремиология. Съпоставително езикознание / Сопоставительное языкознание / Contrastive linguistics. 1981;6(6):13–16.
Резюме:

The article considers the semantic shifts connected with the functioning of the component which expresses the symbolic meaning of animalistic paremiology.

Данчев А. Англицизмите в българския език. Съпоставително езикознание / Сопоставительное языкознание / Contrastive linguistics. 1981;6(3–5):190–204.
Резюме:

This is а brief review of the study of anglicisms in Bulgarian and of the points that have not been clarified yet. As the influx of English words into Bulgarian is particularly intensive at present, many of them have not been registered in dictionaries yet. That is why the overall number of words of English origin in oral and written usage in modern Bulgarian is still largely unknown. The task is further complicated by the uncertain origin of some words. Closely related problems are those of dating and of tracing the ways of penetration of the anglicisms into the language. The pronunciation and transcription of some words also creates certain problems. It is pointed out that in certain cases a differentiated transcription of proper and common nouns is possible and acceptable. Of particular importance is the further clarification of the typology of the phonological, morphological and semantic adaptation of anglicisms in Bulgarian. It is necessary to distinguish the developments which are common to the adaptation of anglicisms in other languages too, and can therefore be regarded as universal, from the developments that are specific only to the adaptation of anglicisms in Bulgarian. Concerning proper public usage, a reasonable and realistic attitude to the increasing number of anglicisms in Bulgarian is recommended

Деспотова ВГ. Анализ на основния тон Fo при дългата гласна [i:] и при кратката гласна [I]. Съпоставително езикознание / Сопоставительное языкознание / Contrastive linguistics. 1981;6(1):48–53.
Резюме:

The movement of the basic tone Fo is considered by some phoneticians as a significant, though insufficiently investigated field which can account for native language interference and the presence of a foreign accent. The analysis aims at establishing the objective change of that quantity which is registered through its absolute values in the so-called long and short vowels. The object of analysis is a contrastive study of the data obtained from one and the same phonological material, pronounced by English and Bulgarian informants; the ultimate aim is to check M. Durand’s statement about the linguistic significance of the basic tone in the differentiation between the English long and short vowels.

Деянова М. Подчинени обстоятелствени изречения със съюза дa/da в българския и словенския книжовен език. Съпоставително езикознание / Сопоставительное языкознание / Contrastive linguistics. 1981;6(1):21–30.
Резюме:

The contrastive analysis of adverbial clauses introduced with the conjunction да reveals the national characteristics of each language belonging to an old common South-Slavonic area – subordination through да. The similarities between Bulgarian and Slovene in that respect con38 cern, above all, the sphere of application of the да conjunction in substance: it introduces almost identical types of subordinate adverbial clauses with the exception of clauses of time, degree and manner (possible only in Slovene). However, the two languages exhibit more or less considerable differences in the inner structure of complex sentences with subordinate adverbial clauses, which differences also concern the functioning of the temporal and modal forms, the role of the correlative indicative elements in the main clause and the stylistic characteristics of some types of subordinate clauses.

Джонов Б. За прабългарските заемки в немския език. Съпоставително езикознание / Сопоставительное языкознание / Contrastive linguistics. 1981;6(3–5):68–74.
Резюме:

The object of analysis are several words of Proto-Bulgarian origin in modern German. Taking into consideration the results of some recent Turkic studies and personal observations, the following words are reckoned by the author among words of Proto-Bulgarian origin in German: Pеtsсhaft, Dоlmetsсh, the ore-mining term Hund, Säbel, Husar, Kummet. The penetration of these words into German was not the result of direct contacts, but came through Slavonic and Hungarian. Thus, they are the echo of the influence once exercised by the Proto-Bulgarians on the neighbouring Slavs and Magyars.

Добрев И. Мястото на българския език сред другите славянски езици. Съпоставително езикознание / Сопоставительное языкознание / Contrastive linguistics. 1981;6(1):3–14.
Резюме:

new method is offered for glottometric evaluation of the proximity between the Slavic languages in terms of morphology, based on the calculation of cumulative intersective quotas. The results are shown in a table and on a dendrogram. The dendrogram shows that with respect to morphology, the East Slavonic and West Slavonic groups are clearly differentiated. These two groups are more closely connected with each other than the South Slavonic group of languages which, with respect to morphology, is not a united group. This is due to the specific and significant development processes in the history of the Bulgarian language.

Дукова У. Двойно заемане при някои християнски понятия в балканските езици (стб. êîë­äà, ð1ñàëèÿ, ïîãàíú). Съпоставително езикознание / Сопоставительное языкознание / Contrastive linguistics. 1981;6(3–5):150–152.
Резюме:

hree basic Christian notions formed in Latin (Lat. calendae, rosālia, pāgānus) and borrowed by the Balkan languages once directly from the Latin and the second time through Slavonic (Old Bulgarian êîë­äà, ð1ñàëèÿ, ïîãàíú [kolęda, rousalíja, роgаnъ]), are discussed. Their phonetic characteristics show that the Old Bulgarian forms were borrowed about 8th–9th c. and penetrated into the Balkan languages after the 10th c. The semantic development of the Old Bulgarian forms in the Balkan languages shows that the Slavonic influence upon the Balkan population which spoke different languages, was exerted not by the official religion but in the sphere of folk rites.

Златева П. Функционални еквиваленти на английското it в българския език. Съпоставително езикознание / Сопоставительное языкознание / Contrastive linguistics. 1981;6(2):39–47.
Резюме:

The functions of it are arranged along a hypothetical ‘cline of delicacy’, starting from its most typical use as a personal pronoun, via its use as a non-emphatic demonstrative pronoun, as a purely grammatical item and, finally, reaching its use as a noun. The shifts in its use correspond to a gradual change in the meaning of its antecedents from the concrete to the abstract. A similar movement can be traced in the use of то. The lack of full functional equivalence between it and то is due to the difference in their status in standard English and standard Bulgarian, which results in a difference in their connotative meaning.

Иванов ЙH. Българските говори в югозападната част на българското езиково землище. Съпоставително езикознание / Сопоставительное языкознание / Contrastive linguistics. 1981;6(3–5):214–222.
Резюме:

The claim that the dialects in the geographical region of Macedonia cannot be considered or classified in isolation, out of their Bulgarian dialect context

Иванова М. Думата ile в системата на турските следлози, нейните функции и съответствията £ в българския език. Съпоставително езикознание / Сопоставительное языкознание / Contrastive linguistics. 1981;6(1):54–60.
Резюме:

The specific characteristics of postpositions in Turkish, considered in terms of a contrastive study with Bulgarian, give the possibility of establishing the typological differences in the two languages and show the ways of teaching them to Bulgarian learners and using them correctly in speech. The concepts of postpositions as grammatical elements are reviewed; their classification and functions are considered. The place of ile, its origin, meaning and functions are treated in the system of Turkish postpositions. When contrasted with Bulgarian the following conclusions are drawn: the word ile corresponds in its meaning and functions with the Bulgarian conjunctions и, въпреки че, щом and with the prepositions с, от, по, през. Unlike the Bulgarian coordinating conjunction и (to which ile corresponds), the latter connects only homogeneous parts of the sentence when it functions as a conjunction.

Иванова Н. Особености на екзистенциалните изречения в българския и сърбохърватския език. Съпоставително езикознание / Сопоставительное языкознание / Contrastive linguistics. 1981;6(2):58–62.
Резюме:

The similarities and differences in general and locally determined existential sentences in Bul47 garian and Serbo-Croatian are discussed. On the basis of concrete data, the interaction between existential and other universals is observed. Some problems of synonymous substitution are treated as well as the status of existential sentences as regards their syntactic and semantic features.

Иванчев С. Класически и екзотичен, българският език – постар от българската държава. Съпоставително езикознание / Сопоставительное языкознание / Contrastive linguistics. 1981;6(3–5):5–9.
Резюме:

In this article entitled „Bulgarian, a language classical and exotic, older than the Bulgarian state“, the author presents his viewpoint on the importance of Bulgarian for the study of Slavic and Balkan languages. He discusses the criteria for establishing the beginnings of a language (the appearance of a literary form as distinct from the pre-literary stage, the foundation of the respective state, the use of a distinct name for the language, the settlement on a given territory, the emergence of specific linguistic characteristics, etc.). He focuses on the beginnings of the language, its specific linguistic features and especially on the development of the Proto-Slavic sound combinations *tj,*dj, *tl, *dl, *pj, *bj, *vj, *mj, *kv, *gv and the expression of possession. The linguistic situation at the time of the establishment of the Bulgarian state 1300 years ago and subsequent language contacts are touched upon and the role of Old Bulgarian as a literary language of the Slavic world is highlighted.

Резюме:

It is established both in German and Bulgarian grammar that subordinate adverbial clauses of time introduced with the conjunctions ehe and bevor in German and преди да in Bulgarian indicate that the action in the subordinate clause is posterior to that in the main clause. With the help of the transformational method this rule is proved to be valid for positive sentences. If, however, the main clause contains a negation which can be optionally introduced into the subordinate clause, the temporal relationship between the main and subordinate clauses are just the reverse, the action in the subordinate clause being anterior to that in the main clause. These sentences are the result of the stylistic transformation of positive into negative sentences with a view to achieving greater expressiveness. They contain a certain element of conditionality.

Кочев НЦв.. Гръцки и турски думи в Софрониевия превод на Езоповите басни. Съпоставително езикознание / Сопоставительное языкознание / Contrastive linguistics. 1981;6(2):63–68.
Резюме:

The article is а linguistic, cultural and historical analysis is of the translation of Aesop’s Fables made by Sophronius of Vratsa. The reasons why Sophronius preserved a lot of Greek words and used Turkish words in his translation are pointed out. The problem of the phonetic and morphological changes of foreign words is treated. A list of all Greek and Turkish words in the translation of Aesop’s Fables is given in alphabetical order at the end of the article.

Лашкова Л. За някои структурни особености на сърбохърватския книжовен език в съпоставка с българския език. Съпоставително езикознание / Сопоставительное языкознание / Contrastive linguistics. 1981;6(3–5):51–60.
Резюме:

survey is made of some basic features of the structural characteristics of Standard SerboCroatian which are of some interest to a contrastive study with Standard Bulgarian in terms of its present state and stages of development. The degree of preservation and deviation from the common Slavonic state of the languages is established, interesting typological parallels which, to a certain extent, reflect similar phenomena, are revealed between the two languages. The contrastive analyses of Serbo-Croatian and Bulgarian made up to now, concern mainly the verb, whereas in the study of the noun the emphasis has been laid on the qualitative differences. The advantages of a new approach, which gives the possibility for a more comprehensive and many-sided interpretation of the modern trends of development and processes in Serbo-Croatian, are used with a view to the specific characteristics of the grammatical structure of Bulgarian.

Мемова-Сюлейманова Х. Лексикални заемки в турския език от българския и от другите славянски езици. Съпоставително езикознание / Сопоставительное языкознание / Contrastive linguistics. 1981;6(3–5):105–135.
Резюме:

Besides loan-words from other languages, the vocabulary of Turkish exhibits a considerable number of Bulgarian and other Slavic words which have penetrated into the language through oral and written channels. The registration of some of these words dates back to the past and today they are considered as historisms; others are still used in modern Turkish. The greater part of the Bulgarian and other Slavic loan-words is connected with rural life, agriculture, the animal world and plant life. Semantically these loan-words have undergone certain changes. They have acquired Turkish derivational suffixes. Their changes in the pronunciation are more marked.

Минчева А. Структурните черти на балканския езиков съюз с оглед на съвременния български език. Съпоставително езикознание / Сопоставительное языкознание / Contrastive linguistics. 1981;6(3–5):136–144.
Резюме:

The object of study are the common specific features of the Balkan languages which account for the term ‘Balkan Linguistic Union’ and which are considered to be its structural features: postpositive article; formation of the future tense (from an initial model with an auxiliary verb meaning ‘want’); replacement of the infinitive by a subordinate clause; a common form for the genitive and dative; disappearance or reduction of case inflection; analytical forms of the comparative and superlative of adjectives; doubling of the object. The list of Balkanisms is analysed in terms of typology proceeding from the structure of modern Bulgarian. It is established that the approach used so far has been historical with a view to the processes which brought about common results in the structure of the modern Balkan languages, without using typological criteria. An attempt is made to show the importance of the typological approach which shows not only the isomorphism of the Balkanisms but their systematic relevance and interdependence as well.

Младенов МСл.. Българските диалекти в CP Румъния. Съпоставително езикознание / Сопоставительное языкознание / Contrastive linguistics. 1981;6(3–5):228–236.
Резюме:

The article makes а survey of the studies on the dialects of the Bulgarian immigrants who settled north of the Danube during the 17 th–19th c. Several types of Bulgarian dialects exist on the territory of the Socialist Republic of Rumania: Moesian, North West Bulgarian and Pavlikjan.The problem of the nature of the dialect of the so-called Krašoveni, considered by some scholars as Bulgarians, and by others as Serbians, is also discussed. The contribution of Bulgarian dialectologists and of Rumanian Bulgarian and Slav scholars to a better understanding of the Bulgarian dialects in Rumania is pointed out. Special attention is paid to the studies on the results of Bulgarian-Rumanian bilingualism.

Младенов МСл.. Географско разпределение на прабългарски лексикални елементи. Съпоставително езикознание / Сопоставительное языкознание / Contrastive linguistics. 1981;6(3–5):61–67.
Резюме:

For the first time an attempt is made to outline the areas of 20 words: belčug, băbrek, delva, deliboran, kalina, kalpak, kešir, kovčeg, korem, kraguj, kărčag, oruglica, otava, sukman, sur, haranija, čipak, šavar, šaren, šubrak. These words are assigned by etymologists to the basic Proto-Bulgarian word stock of modern Bulgarian. They belong to different lexico-semantic groups. Their areas form two zones, western and eastern, which correspond to the dialect distribution of the Bulgarian language. The special characteristics of the Proto-Bulgarian elements should, undoubtedly, be taken into consideration in tracing their etymology more accurately and convincingly.

Москов М. Българо-тюркски езикови контакти (езикови остатъци, състояние, проблеми). Съпоставително езикознание / Сопоставительное языкознание / Contrastive linguistics. 1981;6(3–5):80–104.
Резюме:

The article is а survey of the studies on Bulgarian-Turkic language contacts made mainly by Bulgarian scholars during the last hundred years. The general periodization of the BulgarianTurkic contacts is made in four periods: 1) an all-Slav-Turkic period (3rd, 4th–7th c.); 2) Bulgarian-Slav (Proto-Bulgarian period (7th–9th c.); 3) Bulgarian-Turkic (Oguzo-Kipchak) period (11th–14th c.); 4) Bulgarian (Ottoman-Turkish period (14th–19th, 20th c.). The last period is not discussed. The studies concerning each of the first three periods are divided into three basic groups – anthroponyms and ethnonyms, toponyms and hydronyms, appellatives (verbs included). Within the first period the all-Slav early Turkic loan-words are considered. In the second period the following problems are discussed: sources of the Proto-Bulgarian relics; interpretation of the ethnonym българин; anthroponyms of Proto-Bulgarian origin; Proto-Bulgarian hydronyms and toponyms; vocabulary of Proto-Bulgarian origin; indirect superstratum words, words from inscriptions in Proto-Bulgarian, Proto-Bulgarian names for tides, direct superstratum words. The problem of the Pecheneg-Koumanian superstratum concerns the third period – anthroponyms, toponyms, appellatives. For each period, the etymological interpretation of every anthroponym, toponym, hydronym and appellative is given briefly without any critical remarks. Finally the problems of the Proto-Bulgarian and Pecheneg-Koumanian superstratum are treated on an etymological plane following the phonetic, morphological, historical and cultural principles. The problem of the Turkic languages as a source of correspondences of the superstratum words and that of the distinction of the Turkic loan-words, are also posed.

Норман Б. За типологичната специфика на българския език. Съпоставително езикознание / Сопоставительное языкознание / Contrastive linguistics. 1981;6(3–5):10–13.
Резюме:

An original systematization of the specific features of the grammatical structure of’ modern Bulgarian is made on a synchronic plane. The grammatical features are divided into analytical specific features and specific features pertaining to the Balkan linguistic type. By inference it is established that the peculiarities of the typological characteristics of Bulgarian are due to 1) features connected with analyticity and with the Balkan linguistic type; 2) features counteracting the first in the system itself; 3) features which are not directly connected with either analyticity or with the Balkan linguistic type.

Осадник В. Контрастивните граматики и проблемите на превода. Съпоставително езикознание / Сопоставительное языкознание / Contrastive linguistics. 1981;6(1):61–65.
Резюме:

The two modern trends in semantic studies, positivistic and rationalistic, and their possibilities for contrastive studies are considered. In order to meet the needs of translation, contrastive grammar should work out appropriate lexicons and grammar descriptions.

Павлова Р. Вековни езикови взаимодействия между българи и руси. Съпоставително езикознание / Сопоставительное языкознание / Contrastive linguistics. 1981;6(3–5):42–50.
Резюме:

There has been а centuries-long exchange of spiritual values between the Bulgarian and Russian people. The Old Bulgarian literary language which penetrated into the Russia of Kiev together with the spread of Christianity became the first standard language of the Eastern Slavs. The Old Bulgarian (and Middle Bulgarian) language systems were interwoven with Russian language elements, thus creating an interesting genre variety in Russian literature. In spite of the penetration of the vernacular language, the Old Church-Slavonic literary norm remained predominant in standard Russian during the pre-national period. The considerable number of Bulgarisms in modern standard Russian may serve as evidence of that. Russian phonetic features began to appear in Bulgarian written records probably in the 12th с. However the Old Church-Slavonic linguistic penetration actually started during the second half of the 17th c. and lasted through the 17th, 18th and 19th c., the Russian elements (mainly lexical) being added to the Old Church-Slavonic language system. This influence played an important role in the formation of Modern Standard Bulgarian.

Парашкевов Б. Немски, нидерландски и скандинавски заемки в българския език. Съпоставително езикознание / Сопоставительное языкознание / Contrastive linguistics. 1981;6(3–5):181–189.
Резюме:

The article is а survey of the loan-words borrowed from the modern Germanic languages (with the exception of English) which have penetrated into Bulgarian directly or indirectly for the last 100–150 years. The aim is to give a more complete and correct idea of their number and the regions where they are used. A more detailed analysis is made of the German loan-words and terms (over 950 in number) taken from MA theses, Речник на чуждите думи в българския език [Dictionary of Foreign Words in Bulgarian] and other lexicographic reference books. The Dutch loan-words (about 170) are presented after R. Detrez’s paper with certain additions and examples from South African Dutch. The Scandinavian loan-words (about 50) have been excerpted from Речник на чуждите думи в българския език [Dictionary of Foreign Words in Bulgarian] and other sources. Because of the limited size of the present article the meanings and etymons of the loan-words are not discussed.

Петканов И. Българо-романските езикови връзки. Съпоставително езикознание / Сопоставительное языкознание / Contrastive linguistics. 1981;6(3–5):153–160.
Резюме:

The Romance language elements which originate from different peoples and languages show the numerous and varied, direct and indirect links with the Bulgarian language, which have existed in different spheres of life ever since the earliest foundation of the Bulgarian state. Italian and French have left the deepest mark on Bulgarian. From the 12th c. up to the present Italian has uninterruptedly been enriching mainly peripheral areas of Bulgarian with valuable lexical contributions. For two centuries already (19th–20th c.) French has been affecting some peripheral areas of our language. Being most active and beneficial in its influence, French has had an appreciable effect on the national Bulgarian language. The penetration of the nationality name българин in its different forms, variants and meanings into the Romance languages is treated in detail.

Петкова В. За билингвизма и интерференцията в морскотърговската комуникация. Съпоставително езикознание / Сопоставительное языкознание / Contrastive linguistics. 1981;6(6):17–24.
Резюме:

Language contacts between Bulgarian and English in maritime communication are an incontestable fact. Since „there is no bilingualism without interference“ an attempt is made to analyse how the different types of bilingualism interact and to trace the manifestations of interference. When used in Bulgarian, the English term-borrowings are not influenced by the bilingualism of marine specialists because they are accepted as „inherited“ terms. However, under the influence of a higher degree of bilingualism and due to the frequent use of English in maritime communication, some term-borrowings are nowadays transferred in forms closer to those in the source language. On the other hand, there is an ever-growing interfering influence of Bulgarian on English when the latter is used as a „working“ language in overseas ports.

Риков Г. Основа и флексия в индоевропейската и праславянската глаголна система. Съпоставително езикознание / Сопоставительное языкознание / Contrastive linguistics. 1981;6(3–5):14–18.
Резюме:

Due to the appearance of the new imperfective formation *-ěax- in Proto-Slavonic, the verb system became the basic medium for expressing temporal relations. That is why the old opposition between primary and secondary inflexions became redundant, the result being a partial neutralization of that opposition; cf. the Old Bulgarian inflexions for the third person singular, the first, second and third person plural and the dual.

Селимски Л. Българският език и другите славянски езици. Съпоставително езикознание / Сопоставительное языкознание / Contrastive linguistics. 1981;6(3–5):19–34.
Резюме:

With respect to some of its features, Bulgarian is considered as South Slavonic, with respect to others, as East Slavonic. The similarities with West Slavonic languages are more incidental. In phonology it shows similarities with the South and East Slavonic languages, thus forming with Ukrainian a link between the two branches. With respect to the analyticity in noun morphology it holds a place apart. Here it is to be treated under the South Slavonic languages with regard to the pronoun and the -ове ending for the plural; it has common features with the East Slavonic languages with respect to the generalization of the hard stems; common features with only Serbo-Croatian and some West Slavonic languages with respect to the k : с, etc. alternation in front of -i for the masculine plural and common features with Upper Lusatian with re99 spect to the vocative o-ending. Bulgarian holds a place apart in verb morphology. With respect to the presence of the aorist, the imperfect and pluperfect, it is marked by archaism. With respect to the complex future tenses it remains isolated. Among its distinctive features are the newly introduced citational mood and the new conditional. With respect to the bi-aspectual nature of the verbs it is the main representative of the South Slavonic languages, diametrically opposed to Czech and the other northern languages (without the Lusatian languages). In connection with analyticity, it exhibits stronger grammaticalization of prepositions. Owing to contacts with other Balkan languages (Albanian, Rumanian, Greek) several structural features have been formed in Bulgarian which do not exist even in the neighbouring Serbo-Croatian: the replacement of the infinitive by да-construction, the formation of the future, the use of the short dative pronoun as genitive (existing in Serbo-Croatian too), and the doubling of the object. The closeness between Bulgarian and Serbo-Croatian confirms the dichotomy north/south and the classification in terms of geographical territory and socio-historical development. The closeness of Bulgarian with East Slavonic languages confirms the west/east dichotomy; the seconddary Bulgarian-Russian closeness is the result of ten centuries of cultural and historical relations.

Симеонов Б. Самсисът. Съпоставително езикознание / Сопоставительное языкознание / Contrastive linguistics. 1981;6(3–5):75–79.
Резюме:

The word самсис / samsis, а title of obscure origin and meaning, dating back to the First Bulgarian State, is given a first successful interpretation through similar or related words of the eastern branch of the Altaic languages. In them the word sam/samà means ‘line, letter, sign’, sis/siz/cis/ciz/čis/čiz/sizmak ‘draw, write and guess and read’. Because of these meanings the word as a whole means ‘drawing and guessing the signs’, i. e. it corresponds exactly to the well-known expression used by Černorizec Hrabăr which says that the old Bulgarians „with lines and notches used to read and guess like real pagans“. The people who bore this title were probably court annalists who were able to understand and write Greek and Huns’ runic characters.

Резюме:

The problem of the complex relations existing in bi-nominal combinations in French and their correspondences in Bulgarian is treated in conformity with the principles of operational linguistics. The analysis of the structural variants is made on the basis of criteria of universal character which are reduced to verbal ideas expressed with the verbs of motion included in the lexical set aller → (être) // venire → (être), and the basic verbs of the trinomial être – avoir – faire.

Стоянов ИА. Българските говори на територията на Съветския съюз. Съпоставително езикознание / Сопоставительное языкознание / Contrastive linguistics. 1981;6(3–5):237–247.
Резюме:

The history of the Bulgarian settlers (361 thousand in number) in the southern Ukraine and Moldavia during the 18th and 19th c. is briefly traced. Despite the presence of different kinds of bilingualism, a certain stability of the dialects is established on different levels of the language structure. At present several types of Bulgarian dialects exist in the USSR: Moesian, Balkan, Thracian, Eastern Rhodope, and North-West Bulgarian, all of which have preserved their characteristics fairly well. Problems of theoretical interest related to the mixture of the different dialect types are also considered. The results of the studies, devoted to a contrastive historical analysis with the dialects of the metropolis, are pointed out. They contain extremely interesting data about the trends of development of the Bulgarian dialects detached from the metropolis for a period of 150–180 years. The studies of the numerous lexical loanwords (under the conditions of active bilingualism and multilingualism, especially among the young generation) reveal very specific transformations in the semantic structure of the home lexical basic word stock. The history of the studies of the Bulgarian dialects in the USSR is outlined. The immediate aim of the forthcoming studies is the creation of a Dictionary of the Bulgarian Dialects in the USSR.

Терзийска Л. Иван Билодид (1906–1981). Съпоставително езикознание / Сопоставительное языкознание / Contrastive linguistics. 1981;6(6):86–87.
Резюме:
Флорин С. Дължината на думата в английския, немския, руския и българския език. Съпоставително езикознание / Сопоставительное языкознание / Contrastive linguistics. 1981;6(2):12–30.
Резюме:

Speaking of inequality of the word length in different languages and its importance for the translation of poetry, films, etc., most authors do not consider the length of the original and the translated texts. In the present paper, studying the average word length in the English, German, Russian and Bulgarian languages, besides the traditional comparison of the mean number of syllables, the ratio of the notional and functional length of words is compared along with the information they convey. Consequently, decisive is not only the number of the short and the long words in a given pair of languages, but the average word length, the semantic content they carry and the total number of syllables in the given text. All that leads to certain principles applicable in translation from a more verbose language with shorter words into one with longer words, or vice-versa.

Холиолчев Х. Българските говори от Беломорска Тракия и Мала Азия. Съпоставително езикознание / Сопоставительное языкознание / Contrastive linguistics. 1981;6(3–5):205–213.
Резюме:

A survey is made of the studies on the Bulgarian dialects of Aegean Thrace and Asia Minor which constitute the southernmost outlying parts of the Bulgarian and Slavonic ethnolinguistic area. In terms of their history, structure and typology, these dialects belong to the Rupski dialect group of Bulgarian and are related to the dialects of Aegean Macedonia, the Rhodope area, the Thracian valley and the regions of the Strandzha and Sakar mountains in South-eastern Bulgaria. The study of these dialects is connected with the names of Bulgarian linguists of the old and new generations: St. Mladenov, Hr. Kodov, T. Bojadžiev, etc.

Христов П. За въпросителните и относителните думи в българския и френския език. Съпоставително езикознание / Сопоставительное языкознание / Contrastive linguistics. 1981;6(1):42–47.
Резюме:

The interrogative and relative words in Bulgarian and French are grouped into morpho-syntactic systems, differing in their contextual realizations. The peculiar structure of each language has made it necessary for the grammatical characteristics (gender, number, sentence function), in the two languages to be distributed dissimilarly. For the most part the interrogative words in both languages have the function of relative words as well, with the context shaping them more definitely. The bearer of definiteness appears to be the article. In Bulgarian it is invariable and it can be attached to every interrogative word. The system of relative words thus formed is completely symmetrical to the system of interrogative words. In French such symmetry can be traced only with quellequel. In all other cases the same word or two different words function both as interrogative and relative words. At the same time the relative words do not have the article as the bearer of the anaphorical link.

Angelov D. L’Etat médiéval bulgare, facteur de formation de „Mémoire historique“. Palaeobulgarica / Старобългаристика. 1981;5(1):3–20.
Резюме:
Boba I. The Monastery of Sázava: Methodian Continuity North of the Danube?. Palaeobulgarica / Старобългаристика. 1981;5(1):84–87.
Резюме:
Dogramadžieva E. Die Verbreitung der altbulgarischen Schriftsprache. Palaeobulgarica / Старобългаристика. 1981;5(4):45–49.
Резюме:
Döpmann H-D. Zum Streit zwischen Rom und Byzanz um die Christianisierung Bulgariens. Palaeobulgarica / Старобългаристика. 1981;5(1):62–73.
Резюме:
Filipova G, Kabakčiev J. Ein internationales Treffen der Historiker in Pamporovo. Palaeobulgarica / Старобългаристика. 1981;V(2):124–126.
Резюме:
Резюме:
Georgiev E. The Great Beginnings of Bulgarian Literature. Palaeobulgarica / Старобългаристика. 1981;5(1):21–26.
Резюме:
Georgiev V. The Genesis of the Bulgarian People and the Origin of the Bulgarian Language. Palaeobulgarica / Старобългаристика. 1981;5(4):16–20.
Резюме:
Mircea I-R. Un manuscrit inconnu de 1360. Palaeobulgarica / Старобългаристика. 1981;5(3):10–39.
Резюме:
Paraškevov B. Zur ursprünglichen Bedeutung von slaw. *sočiti. Palaeobulgarica / Старобългаристика. 1981;5(2):86–90.
Резюме:
Penkov S. Bulgaro-Byzantine Treaties during the Early Middle Ages. Palaeobulgarica / Старобългаристика. 1981;5(3):40–52.
Резюме:
Резюме:
Smjadovski T. La liturgie de Saint Pierre et son application chez les Slaves. Palaeobulgarica / Старобългаристика. 1981;5(3):68–77.
Резюме:
Stefanov P. Un scriptorium inconnu de la région de Teteven au XVIIe s. Palaeobulgarica / Старобългаристика. 1981;5(2):103–112.
Резюме:
Smjadovski T. La liturgie de Saint Pierre et son application chez les Slaves. Palaeobulgarica / Старобългаристика. 1981;5(3):68–77.
Резюме:
Stefanov P. Un scriptorium inconnu de la région de Teteven au XVIIe s. Palaeobulgarica / Старобългаристика. 1981;5(2):103–112.
Резюме:
Teodorov E. Ein wahrscheinlicher alter Prototyp im bulgarischen epischen Volkslied. Palaeobulgarica / Старобългаристика. 1981;5(3):53–67.
Резюме:
Георгиев П. За един надгробен надпис от Плиска. Palaeobulgarica / Старобългаристика. 1981;5(1):88–93.
Резюме:
Димитров Б. Една история на Охрид от 1655 година. Palaeobulgarica / Старобългаристика. 1981;5(3):117–131.
Резюме:
Златанова Р. Творчески юбилей на Линда Садник. Palaeobulgarica / Старобългаристика. 1981;5:120–123.
Резюме:
Ирмшер Й. Византинистика и българистика. Palaeobulgarica / Старобългаристика. 1981;5(4):41–44.
Резюме:
Русек Й. За езика на Битолския триод. Palaeobulgarica / Старобългаристика. 1981;5(2):72–78.
Резюме:
Сечковски А. Професор д-р Станислав Слонски. Palaeobulgarica / Старобългаристика. 1981;5:129–132.
Резюме:
Симеонов Б. Булгари и пугури. Palaeobulgarica / Старобългаристика. 1981;5(3):112–116.
Резюме:
Симеонов Б. Булгари и пугури. Palaeobulgarica / Старобългаристика. 1981;5(3):112–116.
Резюме:
Тот И. Константин-Кирил като философ. Palaeobulgarica / Старобългаристика. 1981;5(4):33–35.
Резюме:
Хоргоши Э. Serdica–Sredec–Sоfia. Palaeobulgarica / Старобългаристика. 1981;5(1):94–99.
Резюме:
Хоргоши Э. Serdica–Sredec–Sоfia. Palaeobulgarica / Старобългаристика. 1981;5(1):94–99.
Резюме:
Хоргоши Э. Serdica–Sredec–Sоfia. Palaeobulgarica / Старобългаристика. 1981;5(1):94–99.
Резюме:
Шëберг А. Славянские пергаменные отрывки в Швеции. Palaeobulgarica / Старобългаристика. 1981;5(4):86–94.
Резюме:
Парашкевов Б. Професор доктор Юка Хюркянен (1942–1981). Съпоставително езикознание / Сопоставительное языкознание / Contrastive linguistics. 1981;6(6):85–86.
Резюме:
Парашкевов Б. Constantini Gălăbov professoris in memoriam (1892–1980). Съпоставително езикознание / Сопоставительное языкознание / Contrastive linguistics. 1981;6(6):84–85.
Резюме:
Терзийска Л. Иван Билодид (1906–1981). Съпоставително езикознание / Сопоставительное языкознание / Contrastive linguistics. 1981;6(6):86–87.
Резюме:
Донкова П. Библиография на трудовете на доц. Здравка Мечкова-Атанасова (1973–1980). Съпоставително езикознание / Сопоставительное языкознание / Contrastive linguistics. 1981;6(6):61.
Резюме:
Милойкова Р. Съдържание на год. VI (1981) на списание Съпоставително езикознание. Съпоставително езикознание / Сопоставительное языкознание / Contrastive linguistics. 1981;6(6):101–107.
Резюме:
Младенов МСл.. Научни трудове по езикознание на д-р Кирил Костов (1952–1980). Съпоставително езикознание / Сопоставительное языкознание / Contrastive linguistics. 1981;6(6):64–72.
Резюме:
Паскалева Е. Библиография на трудовете на д-р Александър Людсканов. Съпоставително езикознание / Сопоставительное языкознание / Contrastive linguistics. 1981;6(2):127–133.
Резюме:
Хрусанова В. Съпоставително изследване на български с други езици. Библиография за 1980 година. Съпоставително езикознание / Сопоставительное языкознание / Contrastive linguistics. 1981;6(6):88–100.
Резюме:
Чаушев А. Библиография на трудовете на проф. Йосиф Симеонов (1972–1980). Съпоставително езикознание / Сопоставительное языкознание / Contrastive linguistics. 1981;6(6):161–164.
Резюме:
Бъчваров Я. Българистична конференция в Прага. Съпоставително езикознание / Сопоставительное языкознание / Contrastive linguistics. 1981;6(3–5):308–309.
Резюме:
Бъчваров Я. Първи международен конгрес по българистика. Съпоставително езикознание / Сопоставительное языкознание / Contrastive linguistics. 1981;6(3–5):313–320.
Резюме:
Васева И. Лятна школа по теория и критика на превода. Съпоставително езикознание / Сопоставительное языкознание / Contrastive linguistics. 1981;6(1):139–140.
Резюме:
Ковачева М. Международна конференция по исторически синтаксис в Познан. Съпоставително езикознание / Сопоставительное языкознание / Contrastive linguistics. 1981;6(6):82–83.
Резюме:
Младенов МСл.. Научна сесия за академик Стефан Младенов във Видин и Ново село (Видинско). Съпоставително езикознание / Сопоставительное языкознание / Contrastive linguistics. 1981;6(6):81.
Резюме:
Младенова М. Кирило-Методиева сесия в Гданск. Съпоставително езикознание / Сопоставительное языкознание / Contrastive linguistics. 1981;6(6):81–82.
Резюме:
Младенова О. Втори българо-румънски симпозиум. Секция лингвистика. Съпоставително езикознание / Сопоставительное языкознание / Contrastive linguistics. 1981;6(1):137–139.
Резюме:
Резюме:
Петрова С. Висш педагогически институт за чужди езици „Пол Лафарг“. Съпоставително езикознание / Сопоставительное языкознание / Contrastive linguistics. 1981;6(2):138–140.
Резюме:
Селимски Л. Григорий Цамблак. Живот и творчество (Трети международен симпозиум Търновска книжовна школа). Съпоставително езикознание / Сопоставительное языкознание / Contrastive linguistics. 1981;6(3–5):303–306.
Резюме:
Смядовски С. Втори летен колоквиум по старобългаристика. Съпоставително езикознание / Сопоставительное языкознание / Contrastive linguistics. 1981;6(1):136.
Резюме:
Щернеман Р. Втори международен семинар на лингвистите от катедрите по германистика в ГДР. Съпоставително езикознание / Сопоставительное языкознание / Contrastive linguistics. 1981;6(2):136–137.
Резюме:
Попов Г. Климент Охридски и Константин Преславски. Новооткрити химнографски произведения. Антени. 1981;:13.
Публикация в съкратен вариант на първата част на доклада, изнесен на Международната научна конференция на тема "Преславска книжовна школа", Шумен, септември 1981
Резюме:
Попов Г. Климент Охридски и Константин Преславски. Новооткрити химнографски произведения. Антени. 45(565)th ed. 1981;:13.
Публикация в съкратен вариант на първата част на доклада, изнесен на Международната научна конференция на тема "Преславска книжовна школа", Шумен, септември 1981
Резюме:
Манкова Й. Традиционни предсватбени обреди във Врачанско. Известия на музеите в Северозападна България. 1981;6:125–144.
Резюме:
Halporn JW. Methods of Reference in Cassiodorus. Journal of Library History. 1981;16:71–91.
Резюме: