Dutch Loanwords in Russian: A Cultural-Historical Perspective
-
Xin Ai
Abstract
Compared with other loanwords in Russian, the borrowing of Dutch vocabulary has a clear historical and cultural motivation and is closely related to the reforms and westernization during the reign of Peter I (1682–1725) in the late 17th and the early 18th centuries. Dutch loanwords in Russian are mainly distributed in the fields of navigation and construction technology, with some nouns of new objects introduced through business transactions, many of which have become active vocabulary commonly used in modern Russian. Trying to break away from the barriers of traditional linguistic research, this article will analyze the motives, semantic fields, phonetic and grammatical characteristics of Dutch loanwords from the perspective of cultural history to explore and confirm the approaches and characteristics of cultural and technological exchanges between Russia and the Netherlands during the reforms of Peter I, as well as their presence in vocabulary.
1 Introduction
The causes, characteristics, and modes of integration of loanwords or the process of linguistic borrowing, a phenomenon common to almost all human languages, are well explored topics in the field of linguistics, which also provide an important perspective for cultural historians to trace the origin of cultural concepts. In Historical Linguistics—An Introduction, Lyle Campbell attributed the motivation of linguistic borrowing to two main aspects: need and prestige. The former refers to the need for new terms in the process of material and cultural exchanges between different civilizations, i.e. the borrowing of foreign words is the inflow of new concepts;[1] while the latter reveals a kind of “survival of the fittest” concept in the context of evolutionary theory, i.e. civilizations that are relatively “inferior” tend to use “more luxury” foreign terms to replace local vocabulary to highlight the cultural taste of a particular class[2] (Campbell, 2013, p. 58). Obviously, the borrowing of a foreign word motivated by need is the transformation of a linguistic signifier from nonexistence into existence, and the generation of a concept or a signified; while the borrowing with prestige as the starting point is just a way of replacing the old signifier with a new one, and the existing signified remains unaffected. No matter which kind of motivation of borrowing mentioned above, they all reflect the experience of a nation or a country in communicating with others, either actively or passively, at a specific historical stage. Active cross-ethnic exchanges especially reflect the cultural values of a nation or a country, such as openness, tolerance, innovation, and flexibility. The acceptance and reference of new things and new concepts on the one hand increase the volume and depth of the national culture and promote its continuous evolution and development. On the other hand, the loanwords also enrich the language of the nation, making it more colorful, lively, and expressive.
In its process of development for more than a millennium, Russian culture has continuously exchanged and merged with various foreign cultures in Eurasia, and the Russian language has inevitably been affected by the languages of foreign nations. Throughout the history of the Russian nation, major events such as the Baptism of Rus’ at the end of the 10th century and the reforms of Peter I (or the Petrine reforms) at the turn of the 17th and 18th centuries have prompted the Russian language to accept and absorb multiple foreign cultures and foreign words. Among them, the reforms of Peter I can be regarded as a milestone in Russia from the Middle Ages to the modern period, and its influence continues to this day. In Peter I’s comprehensive westernization reforms, especially in the early stages, the Netherlands[3] became one of Russia’s main models for imitation and learning, and numerous Dutch loanwords also entered Russian during this period. A case study of Dutch loanwords as part of the process of large-scale foreign language borrowing in Russia since modern times[4] provides us a perspective to detect the richness and diversity of modern Russian language and culture.
2 Historical and Cultural Motivations for the Borrowing of Dutch Words
For any language, the borrowing of foreign words does not happen overnight, but usually occurs continuously with the process of contact between a nation and other nations. Therefore, we first need to trace back the background of the borrowing of Dutch words.
Although the large-scale borrowing of Dutch vocabulary into Russian occurred mainly during the reign of Peter I (1682–1725), prior to this, the Germanic language group to which Dutch belongs had introduced some common Germanic words into the Old Russian (Old East Slavic) through the geographical contact between the ancient mainland Germans and Nordic Vikings and the East Slavs. Among these loanwords, there are some nouns for everyday things such as стул < stóll / stôl (“chair”, which was derived from the original Germanic word *stōlaz) borrowed from Old Norse (the 8th–14th century) or Middle Low German (the 13th–16th century) (Мартынов, 2004, p. 16; Thörnqvist, 1948). According to the research of George Thomas, from the second half of the 12th century to the 16th century, due to the trade and ship traffic between the Hanseatic League and the northwest cities and regions in Russia (Arkhangelsk, Novgorod, Pskov, Smolensk, Polotsk), some Middle Low German or Middle Dutch[5] (1150–1500) vocabulary had already entered the Old Russian before the Petrine reforms, and many of them are still preserved in modern Russian. These early borrowings were mainly distributed in the field of navigation. For example, the terms expressing the structure of ships: стырь / штырь < stûre (“pivot”, borrowed at the end of the 16th century, modern Dutch: stuur), снур / шнур < snôr (“cord”, borrowed in the 16th century, modern Dutch: snoer), трос < tros (“hawser”, borrowed in the 17th century, modern Dutch: tros); vocabulary related to the types of ships of the Hanseatic League: барка < barke (“flat-bottomed barge”, borrowed in the 16th century, modern Dutch: bark), бот < boot (“boat”, borrowed in the 16th century, modern Dutch: boot), яхта < jacht (“yacht”, borrowed in the 16th century, modern Dutch: jacht); and ship staff: шкипер < schipper (“skipper”, borrowed in the 16th century, modern Dutch: schipper), etc. (Thomas, 1971, pp. 173–188)[6] Thus it is evident that before the 17th century Russian was already in communication with the Germanic languages, absorbing foreign words of certain fields from the Germanic peoples of northern Europe, mainly thanks to the navigation culture of the Hanseatic League and the prosperity of trade across the Baltic Sea. It was after Peter I succeed to the throne that Russia discovered an important way to rapidly promote the rise of the country and the progress of its national culture, i.e., by opening the door to the developed civilization of Western Europe, comprehensively introducing advanced science and technology in various fields. The vigorous development of shipbuilding and navigation technology was an important part of this ambitious plan.
Although Russia prior to the Peter I’s ascension had already broken away from the rule of the Mongol-Tatar Golden Horde and made the first steps toward learning from Western civilization with the introduction of the culture and art of Western countries from the times of Ivan III (1440–1505), Russian society and culture remained relatively closed until the 17th century. As Nikolai Berdyaev pointed out in Russian Idea: “The shackles of Tatars and the Asian style of the Grand Duchy of Moscow have put Russia in a closed state. Russia should get out of the closed state and enter the wider world” (Бердяев, 2002, p. 24). Peter I’s massive westernization reforms were launched under this background. The reforms involved politics, military, culture, education, and many other aspects.[7] Among them, one of the most urgent reforms was the modernization of the military, especially the establishment of a strong navy following the examples of Western European countries to compete for the control of the Baltic seaports and maritime navigation, as well as to win the Northern War against Sweden. For this reason, Peter I chose the Netherlands as one of the important examples to learn from, and the purpose was self-evident. The Netherlands in the 17th century was in its “Golden Age” (Dutch: Gouden Eeuw) and was one of the most developed countries in Europe. At this time, during the Dutch Republic period, the feudal system in the country had basically collapsed, and the level of scientific and cultural development had reached its peak. The Dutch East India Company monopolized Asian trade for many years and carried out the colonial slave trade, which brought huge wealth to the home country. The success and prosperity of the Netherlands in the 17th century obviously depended on its advanced shipbuilding and navigation technology. This small Western European country, known as the “sea coachman” by later generations, was extremely attractive to Peter I, who was eager to build a powerful navy.
Interestingly, according to the research of some scholars, the future Peter I once took Dutchmen as his teachers in the “German Quarter” (Немецкая слобода)[8] where Western Europeans gathered in the northeastern suburbs of Moscow, and learned Dutch and European etiquette (Kagarlitsky, 2008). In the top-down cultural reforms implemented after Peter I took power, the import of new ideas and new cultural concepts carried by the Dutch language into Russian has naturally become an unstoppable trend. With the main goal of establishing political, military, cultural, economic, and scientific ties with Western European countries, Peter I initiated the Grand Embassy (Великое посольство) during 1697–1698. This diplomatic mission gave him the opportunity to investigate and study the advanced culture and technology of Western Europe. One of the destinations included a trip to the Netherlands to learn about its shipbuilding techniques. Therefore, Peter I, who went along incognito under the name of Peter Mikhailov, passed through Riga, Königsberg, and Brandenburg with the envoys, finally arriving in the Dutch capital of Amsterdam on August 8, 1697. Peter then went to Zaandam, a small city in the northern suburbs of Amsterdam, disguised as a shipbuilder-carpenter, and worked with the local shipyard craftsmen. During his stay in the Netherlands for four and a half months, Peter spent most of his time on shipbuilding studies, sailing practice and naval observations. In addition, he signed trade agreements with the Dutch sovereign William III, laying the foundation for in-depth cooperation between the two countries. To realize the construction of the Russian navy as soon as possible, Peter I purchased a great deal of new weapons and engineering equipment in the Netherlands, invited and hired more than 700 experts and craftsmen to work in Russia. These moves greatly facilitated the input of plentiful new concepts and new vocabulary in the field of navigation and engineering technology into Russian in quite a short time.
Peter I’s Grand Embassy to Western Europe[9] was very fruitful. After returning to Russia, he immediately founded a shipyard to build warships, and opened one of Russia’s earliest secular schools—the Academy of Mathematics and Nautical Sciences (Школа математических и навигацких наук, founded in 1701). Thus, a large number of nautical terms were borrowed and circulated due to their use in professional education and the introduction of professional literature, and Dutch became one of the main foreign language courses offered at the Academy (Биржакова, Войнова, & Кутина, 1972). In 1703, Peter I founded the new capital Saint Petersburg in a swampy area at the mouth of the Neva River in the Gulf of Finland of the Baltic Sea. There is a view that the original official name of the new capital Сан(к)т-Питер-Бурхъ was derived from the Dutch word formation Sankt-Pieter-Burch, and the model for its urban construction was exactly that of Peter I’s most adored city, Amsterdam (Поспелов, 2002). In the same year, the first cruiser was launched. From 1712 to 1716, Russia constantly purchased ships from the Netherlands to expand the size of its navy. In 1716, Peter I visited the Netherlands again and inspected important seaports such as Amsterdam, The Hague and Rotterdam. By 1724, Russia had 28,000 navy personnel and 48 cruisers, making it the strongest fleet in the Baltic Sea (Li, 2013). Russia’s westernization reforms made great achievements based on its military strength, enabling the country to rapidly grow into a major European power in a very short period of time.
The phenomenon of borrowing Dutch into the written Russian language in the Petrine era is closely connected with the translation of books and the creation of dictionaries. According to the research of Ye. E. Birzhakova et al., a considerable number of books in Latin, German, French and Dutch were translated into Russian and published in Russia during the Petrine era. Among them, books in Dutch were mainly devoted to specialized technical fields and related teaching materials, which were the type of books that Peter I primarily considered for introduction into Russia. Translators of Dutch who were active in this period were the Dutch-Russian A. Vinius, M. Shafirov and P. Saltykov (Биржакова, Войнова, & Кутина, 1972). In the field of lexicography, the Russian-Dutch Dictionary (Русско-голландский лексикон) is considered to be one of the most representative of the dynamics of language changes and lexical renewal in the Petrine era. It was completed in 1717 by Jacob Bruce, a Russian-born military man, scholar of Scottish descent, and first rector of the Academy of Mathematics and Nautical Sciences, who was highly favored by Peter I. In the process of drafting the dictionary, Bruce, who was fluent in Russian, Dutch, English and German, mainly referred to the vocabulary section of the second edition of Willem Sewel’s Dutch Grammar (Nederuytsche spraakkonst), issued in Amsterdam in 1712, as well as to other existing dictionaries of the Dutch language. Bruce’s Russian-Dutch Dictionary, with about 3500 entries, was the only Dutch dictionary published in Russia in the 18th century (Биржакова, 2010). Although the number of copies of the dictionary was small (only 42) and the audience was limited to certain categories of people such as diplomats, merchants, and sailors, the knowledge of Dutch was particularly important in the context of Peter’s westernization reforms and the development of maritime technology in Russia at the beginning of the 18th century, therefore the Dutch manuals and dictionaries were highly valued. Particularly noteworthy is the fact that, according to Birzhakova, about 10 % of the entries in Bruce’s Russian-Dutch Dictionary are interpreted with Russian equivalents that are themselves loanwords, and three quarters of these loanwords are of Dutch origin. This suggests that at the time of the compilation of the dictionary by Bruce, many Dutch words had already been absorbed into Russian and became part of the new Russian language of the Petrine era. The process of borrowing was further facilitated by the introduction of new concepts (direct transliteration from Dutch or devising new words based on the grammatical and morphological patterns of Russian) because of the dictionary compilation and their use in practice (Биржакова, 2010).
From the above historical tracing and textual research, we learn that the core areas of exchange between Russia and the Netherlands before Peter I as well as during the period of the Petrine reforms were navigation and related technology and trade. The active acceptance and absorption of this new field is the main reason for the borrowing of the related Dutch words into Russian, which was in full compliance with the principle of need in the theory of motivation of borrowing foreign words and was particularly prominent in the context of Peter I’s westernization reforms. Therefore, we will further summarize and classify the Dutch loanwords that are still present in Russian today and perform semantic analysis on them to explore the way and characteristics of their existence in modern Russian.
3 Sorting and Classification of Dutch Loanwords in Russian
3.1 Classification and Analysis of Semantic Fields
First, specific research on the meaning and origin of Dutch loanwords in modern Russian can be found in the work Nederlandse Woorden in het Russisch (Dutch Words in Russian) by Dutch scholar R. van der Meulen. The work contains more than 420 Dutch words in Russian (including variant forms) in the form of a dictionary and has detailed their provenance in Russian historical texts (van der Meulen, 1959). However, there are few accurate statements and related studies on the number, proportion, and semantic types of Dutch loanwords in Russian. In an omnibus work, The Multi-Dimensional Analysis of Russian Loanwords, by a Chinese scholar, the author selected the New Dictionary of Foreign Words (Новый словарь иностранных слов) published in 2013 to count the amount of various foreign words in Russian from the 4450 words included in the dictionary. The conclusion is that there are 57 Dutch loanwords, accounting for about 1.28 % of the total number of loanwords in the dictionary, ranking 9th after Latin (30.49 %), ancient Greek (30.04 %), French (14.27 %), English (5.42 %), German (4.09 %), Italian (3.64 %), Arabic (1.35 %), and Spanish (1.33 %). Among these Dutch loanwords, there are 51 words related to navigation, accounting for 89.47 % of the total amount (Wang, 2016).
This article selected the Dictionary of Foreign Words (Словарь иностранных слов) as the corpus, which was edited by the famous linguist of Moscow University, Nikolai Komlev, and published in 2000 (Комлев, 2000). By counting and analyzing the Dutch loanwords from about 16,000 words included in the dictionary, this article aims to summarize the semantic fields of these loanwords. Statistics show that there are 243 Dutch loanwords in all, accounting for about 1.52 % of the total foreign words from the corpus. There is no big gap with the above-mentioned previous research data. Among them, there are 192 words related to navigation and shipbuilding terms, accounting for approximately 79.01 %; 19 words are related to urban construction and technology, accounting for approximately 7.82 %; 14 words are related to articles for daily use, accounting for approximately 5.76 %; 10 words are animal and plant names, accounting for approximately 4.12 %; 8 words are related to ethnicity, region and culture, accounting for approximately 3.29 %. We use the following table (Table 1) with examples to present the above data.
Statistics of Dutch loanwords in Komlev’s Dictionary of Foreign Words.
| Realm (semantic field) | Quantity of loanwords | Percentage | Examples of commonly used words |
|---|---|---|---|
| Navigation, shipbuilding | 192 | 79.01 % | адмирал, анкерок, бак, борта, верфь, гавань, галс, грот, диплот, док, каюта, крейсер, матрос, рейс, руль, трюм, флаг, флот, шканцы, ют |
|
|
|||
| Urban construction, technology | 19 | 7.82 % | дамба, дюйм, кабель, кран, лакмус, шкив, шторм |
|
|
|||
| Articles for daily use | 14 | 5.76 % | брюки, галстук, зонт, квитанция, мат, ситец |
|
|
|||
| Flora and fauna | 10 | 4.12 % | абрикос, апельсин, гарпиус, кофе, краб, криль |
|
|
|||
| Ethnicity, region, culture | 8 | 3.29 % | африкаанс, бур, гульден, ювелир |
From these empirical statistics, we find that the semantic field distribution of Dutch loanwords in modern Russian is indeed mainly concentrated in the field of navigation and shipbuilding. This is undoubtedly the result of Russia’s active learning of Dutch navigation, shipbuilding, and naval technology during the period of Peter I. The loanwords of this semantic field can be subdivided into five types.
Vocabulary for the structure and parts of a ship: ахтерпик < achterpiek (“afterpeak”), бак < bak (“forecastle”, “container”), борт < boort (“a collective term used for both sides of a ship”), диплот < dieplood (“a lead or plummet fixed to a sounding line or lead line”), каюта < kajuit (“cabin”), клюз < kluis (“hawse”), руль < roer (“rudder”), стаксель < stagzeil (“staysail”), трюм < ’t ruim (“a cargo hold”), флаг < vlag (“flag”), etc.
Vocabulary for the types of ships: флот < vloot (“fleet”), конвой < konvooi (“convoy”), крейсер < kruiser (“cruiser”), шлюп < sloep (“sloop”), etc.
Vocabulary for sailors or naval personnel: адмирал < admiraal (“admiral”), боцман < bootsman (“boatswain”), матрос < matroos (“seaman”), лоцман < loodsman (“pilot”) etc.
Vocabulary for the physical spaces related to navigation and shipbuilding: верфь < werf (“shipyard”), гавань < haven (“harbor”), док < dok (“dock”), etc.
Vocabulary for the concepts of nautical technology: рейс < reis (“trip”), галс < hals (“reach”), дрейф < drijven (“drift”), etc.
We can see that many nautical-related nouns and concepts borrowed from Dutch have become daily vocabulary frequently used in modern Russian, and some of them have even greatly affected the appearance of modern Russian culture. For example, before Peter I came to power, Russia did not have a flag to represent itself as a unified country. With the borrowing of the word “flag” (флаг < vlag) from Dutch, the prototype of the Russian national flag was also created. Some scholars have verified that the contemporary Russian tricolor flag (white–blue–red) was borrowed or imitated from the flag of the Dutch Republic in the 17th century (red–white–blue, still in use today). It first appeared in June 1694 and was used as the jack (гюйс < geus) of a frigate imported from the Netherlands (Басов, 2004). After the Petrine reforms, the strength of the Russian fleet increased significantly. In the Great Northern War (1700–1721) in the early 18th century, Russia defeated Sweden and became one of the European powers and is still a maritime military power today. These Dutch loanwords that were absorbed in Russian along with the process of westernization reforms have always been the core terms of maritime military, playing an important role in this field. It is worth mentioning that the nautical terms in Russian formed in the early 18th century are almost entirely composed of Dutch and some English words. Russian intellectuals have tried to translate these terms into Russian, but it was unsuccessful, not because Russian “cannot” do so, but because these Dutch words themselves form the basis of international shipbuilding and shipping terms (Krysen, 1974).
Second only to navigation, commonly used Dutch loanwords for urban construction and technology are дамба < dam (“dam”), дюйм < duim (“inch”), кабель < kabel (“cable”), кран < kraan (“crane”, “tap”), лакмус < lakmoes (“litmus”), трос < tros (“hawser”), шкив < schijf (“pulley”), шторм < storm (“storm”), etc. It should be pointed out that the engineering types or scientific concepts included in this part of the vocabulary are relatively broad, and some words can also involve the field of navigation. In this sense, the first two semantic fields partially overlap.
The more interesting etymology of Dutch loanwords and related cultural phenomena appear in the two semantic fields of articles for daily use as well as animal and plant names. With reference to the cultural-historical context of Peter I’s westernization reforms, we can boldly speculate that the borrowing of these new nouns into Russian may be largely due to the maritime trade between Russia and the Netherlands. The input of new materials made up for the lack of some concepts in the Russian language, and thus the corresponding vocabulary entered Russian. This reflects the principle of need in the theory of motivation of borrowing foreign words. It is worth noting that a large proportion of vocabulary in these two semantic fields has now become frequently used words in Russian. However, some of the nouns represent things that are not native to the Netherlands. These Dutch words themselves were also borrowed from other languages. In this case, they are not only the direct etymology of the corresponding words in Russian, but also play the role of “intermediary” for concept transmission. Typical examples are:
абрикос < abrikoos (“apricot”), the original Dutch word came from French abricot < Spanish albaricoque < Arabic اَلْبَرْقُوق, which can be traced back to the ancient Greek πραικόκῐον < Latin praecox.[10] According to legend, this fruit was brought into Europe by Alexander III of Macedon from the Near East (Huxley, 1992).
апельсин < appelsien (“orange”), the original Dutch word is a compound word (appel: “apple” + Sina: “China”, also written as sinaasappel in contemporary Dutch), and is a free translation from French pomme de Chine (“Chinese apple”). According to relevant research, sweet oranges originally produced in China were brought to France by the Portuguese in 1548, then introduced to the Netherlands, and then to Russia in the early 18th century. On March 9, 1700, an official reported to Peter I, “I got some oranges, and you will like to eat them” («достал апельсин … ты их охоч кушать») (Семенов, 2003, p. 45).
кофе < koffie (“coffee”), the original Dutch word came from Italian caffè < Turkish kahve < Arabic قَهْوَة. Coffee beans entered the Arab world from Ethiopia in East Africa in the middle of the 15th century, and later entered Europe (Weinberg and Bealer, 2001).
Other commonly used terms of animals, plants and articles for daily use borrowed from Dutch are: краб < krab (“crab”), макрель < makreel (“mackerel”), сафлор < saffloer (“safflower”), гарпиус < harpius (“rosin”), брюки < broek (“trousers”), галстук < halsdoek (“necktie”), зонт / зонтик < zonnedek (“umbrella”), квитанция < kwitantie (“receipt”), ситец < sits (“chintz”) etc. Through the in-depth exploration of the etymology of the above words, we can see the “journey” of foreign words before finally entering Russian, and we can also understand the channels and routes of business communication of specific goods.
In addition, there are a few Dutch loanwords in Russian that refer to specific ethnic groups, regions, and cultures, such as the Afrikaner ethnicity бур < boer (“Boer”) and its language африкаанс < afrikaans (“Afrikaans”), крааль < kraal (“kraal”), гульден < gulden (“Dutch guilder”), ювелир < juwelier (“jeweler”), etc. Like the situation discussed above, these new cultural concepts with a specific historical background are also most likely to have entered Russia from the Netherlands along with the exchange of maritime science and technology as well as maritime trade.
3.2 Semantic Changes
The borrowing and assimilation of foreign words is a part of the chronological development of the language, and the semantic features of foreign words in the new linguistic environment are formed by the interaction of the giving system and the receiving system of the language. This is already evident in the earliest stage of the functioning of loanwords, i.e. in the process of their entering. With the natural development of the language, any change in the giving or receiving system may also cause a change in the meanings of the loanwords. Generally speaking, the semantic change of the loanwords occurs at the initial stage of their borrowing. When a word is borrowed into a new language, the ambiguity and uncertainty of its boundary of meaning in the new speech context cause unexpected “deviations” in the understanding and use of the word, resulting in a semantic change (Биржакова, Войнова, & Кутина, 1972). Among the foreign words borrowed into Russian in the 18th century, there are also some words that, because of their relatively narrow and well-defined meanings in their source languages, still have semantic stability and consistency after borrowing. These words are usually terms for specialized fields, science and technology, as well as vocabulary for everyday things (Биржакова, Войнова, & Кутина, 1972).
Since the Dutch loanwords in Russian are mainly concentrated in the field of navigation and related technologies, the semantic changes in these loanwords are not common. There is a phenomenon of semantic broadening in some cases, such as лавировать < laveren, the original Dutch word refers specifically to the tacking of the ship on the sea against the wind, or “to trim the sails”. After entering Russian, while retaining this meaning, a new meaning was added: “to maneuver” (more in a derogatory way). Similarly, some of the Dutch loanwords mentioned in this article expanded their semantic scope after entering Russian, retaining not only the specialized semantics related to navigation and technology in their source language, but also developing additional figurative meanings. The details are shown in the following table (Table 2).
Examples of Dutch loanwords that have retained their original meanings and developed figurative meanings.
| Dutch loanwords | Meanings directly from the source word | Figurative meanings in Russian |
|---|---|---|
| борт < boort (modern Dutch: boord) | A collective term used for both sides of a ship | Abandon, repel, reject, get rid of Collocation: выбросить / выкинуть за борт e.g. Нам следует выкинуть за борт все ненужное. Derivative verb: бортануть |
|
|
||
| руль < roer | A rudder, device to steer a vessel | Position, allowing to exercise control over something Collocation: стоять у руля e.g. Партия стоит у руля государства. Derivative verb: рулить, derivative adjective and noun: рулевой |
|
|
||
| гавань < haven | Harbor, a coastal sheltered body of water used as a place for docking ships | Refuge, safe haven Collocation: найти себе тихую гавань |
|
|
||
| лакмус < lakmoes | Litmus, a mixture of different dyes used to test materials for acidity | Verification, a clear indicator of something Collocation: лакмусовая бумага чего-то |
|
|
||
| шторм < storm | Storm, very strong wind | Unrest, turmoil Derivative verb: штормить e.g. После пьянки его штормит. |
|
|
||
| лавировать < laveren | To tack against the wind, to trim the sails | To maneuver; to change behavior, adapting to circumstances, getting out of difficult situations, avoiding conflicts and complications, etc. e.g. Он всю жизнь лавирует между женой и тещей. |
|
|
||
| буксир < boegseren |
|
To give a helping hand Collocation: взять на буксир, идти на буксире у кого e.g. Двойжника взяли на буксир. |
Some examples of semantic narrowing are as follows: рейс < reis, the original Dutch word refers to “travel”, and after entering Russian, it only refers to the specific journey made by a ship or an aircraft; кок < kok, the original Dutch word refers to “cook” in general, and after entering Russian, it only refers to the ship’s cook; гальюн < galjoen, the original Dutch word refers to a “galleon”—a kind of large sailing ship, and after entering Russian, it only refers to the toilet on the ship; каперство < kapen, the original Dutch word means “to hijack”, “to privateer”, and after entering Russian, it only refers to the robbery at sea.
The case of semantic shift mainly occurs in the following vocabulary: грот < groot, the original word in Dutch is an adjective, meaning “big”, while after entering Russian, it refers to the ship component “mainsail”; as to the very often used word зонт / зонтик < zonnedek, the original word in Dutch refers specifically to the “sundeck” of a ship (“sun” zon + “deck” dek), while after entering Russian, it means “umbrella”.
It can be found that the main reason for the semantic changes of the above loanwords is to adapt to the way they are used in a specific context. For this reason, they partly broke away from the semantic category of the etymological vocabulary and became new terms or professional words carrying new meanings, while still associated with the original words to some extent. The motivation for the change is still related to the field of navigation, which shows the dominant role played by this semantic field in Dutch loanwords.
4 The Phonetic, Morphological and Grammatical Changes of Dutch Loanwords in Russian[11]
The borrowing of foreign words is often accompanied by changes in pronunciation, morphological structure and grammar of the vocabulary, and the Dutch loanwords in Russian are no exception, with the changes usually exhibiting a certain pattern. By summarizing and analyzing these changes, we can have a more comprehensive understanding of the various aspects and characteristics of Dutch loanwords in Russian. It is worth noting that, like other loanwords, the Dutch vocabulary entered Russian through a process of coexistence of various word forms until their stabilization. Ye. E. Birzhakova et al. point out that the gradual standardization of the orthography of the written Russian language since the 18th century eventually led to the stabilization of the phonology and forms of loanwords (Биржакова, Войнова, & Кутина, 1972). In this article, we mainly compare the relationship between standardized modern Russian and Dutch-related vocabulary from a realistic point of view, and additionally investigate those parts of the existing phenomenon that can be traced to historical causes.
4.1 Characteristics of Letter Transliteration and Phonetic Changes
Since the Netherlands and Russia use two different alphabet systems, Latin and Cyrillic, the Russian writing of Dutch loanwords involves the problem of letter transliteration. Although the two sets of writing systems and phonetic systems of the two languages cannot fully correspond to each other, the transliteration of letters generally follows the principle of approximation. In some cases where the corresponding pronunciation is lacking, certain phonetic changes often occur in Dutch loanwords, involving both vowels and consonants. Below we will analyze this problem.
Among the five checked vowels in Dutch: [ɑ], [ɛ], [ɪ], [ɔ], [ʏ], the first four and their corresponding letters a, e, i, and o can be replaced by Russian letters а, е (э), и, and о respectively with very similar sound values. However, because Russian lacks [ʏ] sound or approximate pronunciation, the letter u representing [ʏ] sound in Dutch loanwords is often transliterated into the Russian letters ю ([ʉ] sound) and у ([u] sound), such as ют < hut (“quarter-deck”), гульден < gulden (“Dutch guilder”), etc.
In Dutch, there are often free vowels (aa–[aː], ee–[eː], oo–[oː]) with two identical vowels concatenated with a long sound, but Slavic languages lack such a morphological structure. Therefore, the concatenation of two identical vowels in Dutch loanwords is usually replaced by a single vowel letter with corresponding phoneme in Russian, and accented, such as адмирал < admiraal (“admiral”), бизань < bezaan (“mizzenmast”), кноп < knoop (“knot”), etc.
In the free vowel series of Dutch, the combination of two vowels of ui is fixedly pronounced [œy]. Due to the lack of this sound in Russian, the transliteration and phonetic change of ui in Dutch loanwords are more complicated. This sound can be replaced with monophthong letters ю, у, diphthongs оу, ои, or vowel-consonant letter combinations юй, ей and ой, such as ахтерлюк < achterluik (“tail hatch”), утлегарь < uitlegger (“foreyard”), нактоуз < nachthuis (“binnacle”), фертоинг < vertuiing (“moor with two anchors”), дюйм < duim (“inch”), крейсер < kruiser (“cruiser”), брандспойт < brandspuit (“fire pump”), etc.
The Dutch diphthong eu is always pronounced [øː]. This vowel sound is missing in Russian, so eu in Dutch loanwords is replaced by the Russian letter ю, such as люверс < leuvers (“grommet”).
The Dutch diphthong ое is always pronounced [u], and this vowel sound also exists in Russian. Therefore, ое in Dutch loanwords is often replaced by the Russian letter у, such as буй < boei (“buoy”), руль < roer (“rudder”), but sometimes replaced by ю with [u] phoneme, such as гальюн < galjoen (“toilet on the ship”), брюки < broek (“trousers”), etc.
The Dutch diphthong ie is always pronounced [i], and this vowel sound also exists in Russian. Therefore, in Dutch loanwords, ie is often replaced by the Russian letter и, for example, гик < giek (“boom”), криль < kriel (“krill”), etc.
The special Dutch digraph ij is often pronounced [ɛi], and when words with ij are borrowed into Russian, the digraph is replaced by the monophone и or the vowel-consonant combination ей, for example, ликтрос < lijktros (“boltrope”), линь < lijn (“line”), дрейф < drijven (“drift”), etc.
When entering Russian, the changes in the consonants of the original Dutch words mainly happen in g ([ɣ] sound), h ([ɦ] sound) and ch ([x] sound). For the Dutch letters g and h, Russian uses the letter г pronounced [ɡ] to replace, such as шпигат < spiegat (“scupper”), штаг < stag (“mainstay”), гавань < haven (“harbor”), гак < haak (“iron hook”), and the latter case (replacing Dutch h with Russian г) is also in line with the convention of phonetic change when Russian borrowed Middle Low German words with h from the 13th century (Kiparsky, 1959). It is noteworthy that the use of the letter г pronounced [ɡ] as a transcription of both the letter g and h in Western European loanwords originated precisely from the solution to this problem in Russian in Petrine era. This can be compared to loanwords borrowed from other languages, such as г ений < Latin g enius (“genius”), but г онор < Latin h onor (“honor”) (Биржакова, Войнова, & Кутина, 1972). For Dutch ch, Russian partly uses the letter х ([x] sound) with same sound to replace it, while sometimes uses the letter к ([k] sound) with different sound to replace, such as ахтерпик < achterpiek (“afterpeak”), бухта < bocht (“coil”), шкот < schoot (“guy line”), шкив < schijf (“pulley”).
Also, Dutch words beginning with the consonantal letter s ([s] sound) are partially transcribed as ш ([ʂ] sound) when borrowed into Russian, e.g. шторм < storm (“storm”), шпигат < spiegat (“scupper”). There are also words that still maintain the [s] sound, transcribed with the homophonic Russian letter с, e.g. стеньга < steng (“topmast”). Scholars such as Ye. E. Birzhakova argue that the phonetic change in the transcription of the letter s into Russian is related to the dialectal influence of the source language, which is more evident in Germanic languages (e.g. influenced by the German letter s with the [ʃ] sound in the same position) (Биржакова, Войнова, & Кутина, 1972).
4.2 Changes of Morphology and Parts of Speech
When entering Russian, the morphology of some original Dutch words changed significantly. For example, анкерок < anker (“small bucket”) added the Slavic diminutive suffix -ок to the original word to emphasize the meaning of “small”. Besides, the word анкер, which has the same form as the Dutch anker, was borrowed from the German Anker, meaning “anchor”). And the word трюм < ’t ruim (“a cargo hold”) is a combination of a noun (ruim) with a definite article (het, abbreviated as ’t). The combination was borrowed together, and the two elements were integrated into one word based on the pronunciation.
In the case зонт / зонтик < zonnedek (“umbrella”) analyzed above, there is not only a semantic shift, but also, morphologically, a back-formation phenomenon. The word зонтик, which was borrowed from the original word form in Dutch, removed the ending -ик and became зонт. There is no semantic difference between the two words зонт and зонтик in modern Russian.[12]
Sometimes the morphological change of a loanword is also accompanied by the change of the part of speech. Some words that were originally verbs in Dutch turned into nouns after entering Russian. The strategy was to discard the Dutch verb ending -en and sometimes add a Russian noun ending -ство, such as буксир < boegseren (“tugboat” or “towrope”, while the original meaning in Dutch is “to tug”, and the related derivative Russian verb is буксировать). Similar examples include дрейф < drijven (“drift”), крен < krengen (“careen”), каперство < kapen (“robbery at sea”), etc. The word грот < groot has changed from the original Dutch adjective (“big”) to a noun (“mainsail”).
In addition, there are some Dutch verbs that still retain the part of speech of their verbs after entering Russian. In this case, the Dutch verb ending -en was changed to the common Russian verb ending -ть, such as драить < draaien (“to burnish”) and лавировать < laveren (“to tack against the wind”, “to trim the sails”).
4.3 Changes in Gender and Grammatical Number
The gender of modern Dutch nouns is divided into two categories: neuter and common (masculine and feminine),[13] while Russian has three genders: masculine, feminine and neuter. In the process of borrowing some Dutch words into Russian, the gender of nouns changed. Some words were originally common gender (masculine) nouns in Dutch, but became feminine after entering Russian, such as мортира < mortier (“mortar”), верфь < werf (“shipyard”). Some words were originally common gender (feminine) nouns in Dutch, but became masculine after entering Russian, such as флаг < vlag (“flag”). There are also some borrowed words that still follow their original feminine gender (of common gender) in Dutch, thus a Slavic feminine ending -а was added, such as вахта < wacht (“watch”, “duty”), каюта < kajuit (“cabin”), крюйт-камера < kruit-kamer (“ammunition cabin”), etc.
In Dutch loanwords, some words change their grammatical number, that is, some words were originally singular in Dutch, but change to plural form after entering Russian, adding the Russian plural ending -ы or -и, and the singular form is no longer commonly used. For example, брюки < broek (“trousers”, the original plural is brokenen), ванты < want (“shroud”, the original plural is wanten), шканцы < schans (“quarterdeck”, the original plural is schansen), etc.
It can be seen that a large number of words borrowed from Dutch and their derivatives are fully adapted to Russian pronunciation and word formation and occupy a permanent position in the Russian grammar and vocabulary system.
5 Conclusions
Words contain concepts, and concepts constitute a culture. That is to say, the history of vocabulary and the history of culture are interdependent. For researchers in these two fields, there is often the possibility of mutual learning and cross-validation. The generation of loanwords is always accompanied by the collision of civilizations and the input of new ideas. The essence of loanwords is the vivid symbolic relic of the history of cultural exchange between different countries or civilizations. As Birzhakova emphasizes, the emergence of new semantic units in a language that absorbed loanwords is not the result of mechanical transfer of lexical ready-made meanings. Rather, loanwords first constitute certain contextual meanings in a specific, concrete historical linguistic environment, and later, through a certain frequency of repeated use and the process of typification, they are finally recognized and understood as independent semantic units (Биржакова, Войнова, & Кутина, 1972). The phenomenon of borrowing European vocabulary, including Dutch, during the Petrine era was not always due to pure imitation or fashion; its main motivation was usually a cultural need for language in the face of new things and concepts, i.e. the need to perceive and acquire new practical information in a macroscopic pan-European vision of social life (Биржакова, Войнова, & Кутина, 1972). It can be argued that in the course of language contact and cultural exchange, as foreign words travel, spread, being used and standardized, these new cultural concepts are slowly absorbed and internalized into the contextual meanings that the speakers of another language are accustomed to, and are organically integrated into the broader culture and reality behind the language.
We can see that although Dutch loanwords only account for a small proportion of the total foreign vocabulary in Russian, the historical and cultural motivations and semantic field distribution of their borrowing are relatively clear and have distinct characteristics. These loanwords undoubtedly testify to the achievements of Peter I’s westernization reforms and confirm the ways and characteristics of cultural exchange between Russia and the Netherlands at the end of the 17th century and the beginning of the 18th century. That is, in the process of learning from the Netherlands, the borrowing of navigation technology and terminology has led to the inflow and reappearance of other related new things and new concepts into Russian language, society and culture. As the tsar entitled “the Great” (Великий) said, “If God gives me enough lifetime and health, Petersburg will become a second Amsterdam.” Now together with the handprint of Peter I, the Russian-Dutch bilingual version[14] of this famous saying is engraved on the wall of the Amsterdam branch of the Hermitage Museum of Saint Petersburg. And the Dutch loanwords in Russian are also like an imprint rich in culture and history, which have become an inseparable part of modern Russian itself.
-
Research funding: Double First-Class major project of Beijing Foreign Studies University: Social and Cultural Studies on Slavic Countries (grant number: 2022SYLZD041).
References
Campbell, L. (2013). Historical linguistics—An introduction. Edinburgh University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Huxley, A. (Ed.). (1992). New RHS dictionary of gardening (Vol. 1). Macmillan.Search in Google Scholar
Kagarlitsky, B. (2008). Empire of the periphery: Russia and the world system. Pluto Press.Search in Google Scholar
Kiparsky, V. (1959). Foreign h in Russian. The Slavonic and East European Review, 90(38), 82–94.Search in Google Scholar
Krysen, L. (1974). Nederlandse woorden in de Russische taal. Onze Taal, 43(6), 42–44.Search in Google Scholar
Li, M. B. (2013). History of Russian culture. Peking University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Nicholas, D. (2009). The northern lands: Germanic Europe, c.1270–c.1500. Wiley-Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar
Ren, G. X. (2007). Fifteen lectures on Russian culture. Peking University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Thomas, G. (1971). Russian naval terms from Middle Low German. The Slavonic and East European Review, 115(49), 173–188.Search in Google Scholar
Thörnqvist, C. (1948). Studien über die nordischen Lehnwörter im Russischen. Almqvist & Wiksell.Search in Google Scholar
van der Meulen, R. (1959). Nederlandse woorden in het Russisch. N.V. Noord-Hollandsche Uitgevers Maatschappij.Search in Google Scholar
Wang, X. (2016). The multi-dimensional analysis of Russian loanwords [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Northeast Forestry University, Harbin, China.Search in Google Scholar
Weinberg, B. A., & Bealer, B. K. (2001). The world of caffeine: The science and culture of the world’s most popular drug. Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Басов, А.Н. (2004). История военно-морских флагов. АСТ, Полигон.Search in Google Scholar
Бердяев, Н.А. (2002). Русская идея. АСТ.Search in Google Scholar
Биржакова, Е.Э. (2010). Русская лексикография XVIII века. Нестор-История.Search in Google Scholar
Биржакова, Е.Э., Войнова, Л.А., & Кутина, Л.Л. (1972). Очерки по исторической лексикологии русского языка XVIII века. Наука.Search in Google Scholar
Довгополый, Я. (2012). Допетровские лексические заимствования из нидерландского языка. Acta Neophilologica, 14(1), 19–30.Search in Google Scholar
Ковригина, В.А. (1998). Немецкая слобода Москвы и ее жители в конце XVII–первой четверти XVIII вв. Археографический центр.Search in Google Scholar
Комлев, Н.Г. (2000). Словарь иностранных слов. Эксмо-Пресс.Search in Google Scholar
Мартынов, В.В. (2004). Язык в пространстве и времени. УРСС.Search in Google Scholar
Поспелов, Е.М. (2002). Географические названия мира. Топонимический словарь. Русские словари, Астрель, АСТ.Search in Google Scholar
Семенов, А.В. (2003). Этимологический словарь русского языка. ЮНВЕС.Search in Google Scholar
© 2023 the author(s), published by De Gruyter, Berlin/Boston
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Research Articles
- Rehabilitation of Formalism or “A Monument to the Scientific Error 2.0”: Viktor Shklovsky’s Zhili-byli
- Western Studies on the Sovietization of Eastern Europe
- Контекстуальный анализ в практике медленного чтения (на материале русских стихотворных текстов)
- Семантические горизонты понятия «смех» в русской культуре
- Русский язык в доминантной коммуникативной сфере образования Казахстана
- A Study of Russian Artifacts in the Collection of Imperial Palace in the Qing Dynasty
- Dutch Loanwords in Russian: A Cultural-Historical Perspective
- Demographic Transition and Population Development in Belarus: Theory and Reality
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Research Articles
- Rehabilitation of Formalism or “A Monument to the Scientific Error 2.0”: Viktor Shklovsky’s Zhili-byli
- Western Studies on the Sovietization of Eastern Europe
- Контекстуальный анализ в практике медленного чтения (на материале русских стихотворных текстов)
- Семантические горизонты понятия «смех» в русской культуре
- Русский язык в доминантной коммуникативной сфере образования Казахстана
- A Study of Russian Artifacts in the Collection of Imperial Palace in the Qing Dynasty
- Dutch Loanwords in Russian: A Cultural-Historical Perspective
- Demographic Transition and Population Development in Belarus: Theory and Reality
