COMPOSITION OF BORROWED TURKISH VOCABULARY AND THE PRINCIPLES OF THEIR SELECTION IN EXPLANATORY GERMAN DICTIONARIES LANGUAGE

Abdujabbor Eshkobilovich Baymatov, Abduaziz Abdujabborovich Baymatov, Teachers of Interfaculty Department of Foreign Languages, Faculty of Foreign Languages, Jizzakh State Pedagogical University.   Annotation: In this article, an attempt was made to reveal the principles of adding these Turkish words to the dictionary and their place in the German language dictionaries in the XIX-XX centuries from the Turkish languages ​​, directly and indirectly, entering the German dictionary. This article discusses the mastered Turkish vocabulary in explanatory dictionaries of the German language. An attempt was also made to reveal the place of Turkish borrowed words and the principles of their selection in German explanatory dictionaries of the 19th-20th centuries. In this article turkish lexics in interpretative dictionaries of the German language are looked though. Also, it is tried to .reveal the meaning of turkish borrowing words in German interpretative dictionaries in XIX – XX centuries. Ключевые слова: заимствованные слова, иностранные слова, лексикография, проблема, дискуссия, критерии, желательность, необходимость, отбор, принцип, тюркские слова, противоположность, семантика, освоение, семантика употребление. Key words: borrowing words, foreign words, lexicography, problem, a discussion, criteria, desirability, necessity, selection, principle, turkish words, opposite meaning, mastering, semantics, using. Many aspects of borrowing in German are currently insufficiently studied. So remains until the end of the little-developed Turkism as an object of German lexicography of the XIX-XX centuries. In this regard, the experience of the lexicographic description of Turkish borrowings in the main explanatory dictionaries of the German language is of particular interest. In German linguistic literature, borrowed words are usually divided into Lehnworter i.e. assimilated “one’s own” and Fremdworter “foreign” – words in which their foreign origin is felt, but subjected to partial adaptation [1], as well as foreign inclusions – words and expressions used without translation while preserving their foreign spelling. Such inclusions go back, as a rule, to Western European languages. In addition, on a functional basis, among foreign words, the category of “exoticisms” is distinguished – words used to denote realities. The problem of selecting foreign words for inclusion in the dictionary has been discussed by German lexicographers for a long time. In the pre-Grimmian period, this issue was resolved in two ways: the authors either excluded all foreign words, replacing them with formations of their native language, or all foreign words were included in the dictionary without a critical assessment of their value for the native language. When working on their dictionary, the Brothers Grimm used experience with great care. Predecessors: they limited it to time frames, excluded from the dictionary proper names and foreign words that did not become an integral part of the German language [2]. On the other hand, foreign words assimilated into German in their vocabulary are not supplanted by German counterparts. D. Zandere defends this position more clearly. He believes that borrowed words should not be included in the dictionary, since they are not commonly used and their fixation would turn the explanatory dictionary of the national language into an explanatory dictionary of foreign words [3]. Thus, we can talk about two approaches to solving this issue: the desirability of including borrowed words functioning in the language in the dictionary and the need for such inclusion. In the second case, when including borrowings in dictionaries, their authors are guided by the following features such as the time when borrowings entered the German language, the degree of their semantic independence, activity, vitality of the realities they designate, the degree of assimilation, word-formation and phraseme-formation productivity. Here the question is connected with the usefulness of these words, their “necessity”, in the German language. This approach follows from strictly normalization problems. In the first case, the criterion for the admission of foreign words is the use of the word in the modern language of the author. For a national complete dictionary, this criterion can be considered the main one. German lexicographers of the last century were well aware of this as criteria for admitting foreign words into dictionaries. They did not accept the degree of mastery in the German language or the entry of the word into the vocabulary system, but the usage in the contemporary literary language of the author. At the same time, the duration of the existence of a word in the literary language, the degree of its semantic independence and the nature of the realities it denotes were not taken into account. These were the general principles for the inclusion of foreign words in the explanatory dictionaries of the German language studied by us, which were guided by German lexicographers. It should be noted, however, that this principle was not always followed consistently. In particular, such a criterion is more or less regularly traced on the material of borrowings from Western European and classical languages. As for the Turkisms, they are, as it were, on the periphery of the vocabulary of borrowings, both in terms of the relevance of the realities they designate, and in quantitative terms. If we compare quantitative data on the studied dictionaries (I. O. Adelung, J. G. Kampe, J. Grimm, D. Zandere, K. Berkmann, G. Warig, K. Weigand, R. Klappenbach, Sprach-Brockhaus, K. Duden, JI. Mackensen), it turns out that they differ significantly from each other. More or less consistently, as observations show, Turkish classified as Lehnworter are included. As for Turkish borrowings Fremdworter, there are significant discrepancies from dictionary to dictionary, due to factors that can be qualified as subjective and objective. Let’s explain our idea. As is known, beginning with E. Steinbach [4], in German lexicography, the authors of dictionaries borrow the data of their predecessors to varying degrees, i.e., they include lexical units from previous dictionaries in their dictionary. At the same time, there is often an overestimation of the importance of certain borrowings, which leads to the fact that the temporal difference is not reflected in the dictionary, and the objective data of the new dictionary are opposed to the real functioning of the lexical system of the time when the dictionary was created. On the other hand, the refusal to use previously released dictionaries may lead to a subjective assessment in the description of the vocabulary. This is where fluctuations come from. The first inclusions of Turkish borrowed words in the dictionaries were noted by us in the dictionary of I.S. Adelung [5], although their earlier reflections in the dictionaries of the 11th century are also possible: G. Genish, I. G. Schottel, K. Stieler, E. Steinbach and M. Cramer [6]. However, the bulk of Turkish borrowed words, according to our observations, were recorded in the dictionaries of the 19th-20th centuries: I. G. Campe, J. Grimm, D. Zanders, F. E. Petri, Sprach-Brockhaus, Duden, L. Mackensen and others. In these dictionaries, according to our calculation, more than 506 Turkish borrowed words are recorded. These borrowings are distributed as follows: in the dictionary of I. S. Adelung – 83; I. G. Campe – 103; J. Grimm – 127; D. Sanders – 124; F. E. Petri – 223; K. Weigand – 136; K. Berkmann -105; X. Shevketa – 154; G. Paul – 20; R. Clappenbach – 153; G. Variga-82; Sprach-Brockhaus – 155; Duden – 254; J.I. Mackensen -113 and in the dictionary-reference book of the German language – 104. When comparing these dictionaries (in chronological order) by J.S. Adelung (1774), it turns out that in the dictionary of J. G. Kampe (1807) there are 23 units less than that of I. Adelung. In addition, in the dictionary of J. Grimm (1854) 57 lexemes are repeated, the same as in J. G. Campe. 41 words were not reflected in J. Grimm’s dictionary (rarely used, occasional, exoticisms). J. Grimm includes 50 new units relating to various fields (words attested by written monuments). In the dictionary of D. Zanders (1876), 60 units of the previous dictionary are repeated, 46 words contained in the dictionary of J. Grimm are not reflected in D. Zanders (the motivation is unclear) and 64 new words are introduced (names of persons and some other concepts). Published after the dictionary by D. Zanders, the dictionary by K. Weigand (1909) includes 136 Turkish, 12 lexemes more than D. Zanders. Of these, 99 lexemes are repeated. In the dictionary of K. Weigand, 30 units contained in the dictionary of D. Zanders are not marked. In addition, this dictionary includes 37 new units that were not in the previous dictionary. Dictionary R. Clappenbach (1967) includes 153 Turkish in its corpus. Of these: 46 words are repeated and 108 lexemes of Turkish origin, previous dictionaries, are not marked. New words make up 107 lexemes.

1. Variga’s dictionary (1968) contains 82 lexemes of Turkish origin, 71 units less than R. Klappenbach’s. Of these: 37 words are repeated, 111 lexemes were not reflected in G.Variga, and new words make up 43 units.

Sprach-Brockhaus (1976) records 155 words of Turkish origin. 73 words more than G. Varig. Of these: 51 lexemes are repeated, 104 words are included again. Duden’s dictionary (1976) includes 254 lexemes of Turkish origin. 99 units more than in Sprach-Brockhaus, of which: 129 Turkish are repeated, 22 words are not reflected in Duden’s dictionary, 98 new units are noted. In JI dictionary. Mackensen (1979) recorded 113 lexemes of Turkish origin, 141 less than Duden. Of these: 82 words are repeated, 114 units are not marked in the JI dictionary. Mackensen, new words make up 25 lexemes. Of these Turkish, two words (Diwan, Dolmetscher), starting from the dictionary of I. Adelung, are repeated in all dictionaries of the 19th-20th centuries. Five Turkish (Baba, Saffian, Safran, Sofa, Sultan) are found in 12 dictionaries, four words (Arrak, Harem, Karbatsche, Sandale) are repeated in 11 dictionaries, 15 words (Atlas, Baldrian, Fes-Fez, Kantschu, Kaviar, Kiosk, Pallasch, Pascha, Reis, Rose, Sabel, Schabracke, Schah-Schach, Schakal, Serei-Serail) in 10 dictionaries, 16 words (Basar-Bazar, Derwisch, Emir, Ferman, Horde, Janitschar, Jurte, Kadi, Karmesin, Kasack, Lakai, Mais, Mammut(-h), Odaliske, Taffeta, Turban) in 9 dictionaries, 13 words (Bergamotte, Hurra, Juchten, Kaftan, Kermes , Kismet, Mufti, Muselmann, Ottomane, Tulpe, Turkish, Ulan, Zobel), in 8 dictionaries, 5 words , (Aga Babuschen, Kalpak-Kolpak, Kamickel, Kukuruz), in seven, 5 words (Bei-Bey, Chagrin, Kelim-Kilim, Schaschlik, Sorbet), in 6 dictionaries. Thus, a comparative analysis of dictionaries of at least one with period of the 19th or 20th century, reveals a motley, contradictory and inconsistent picture in the reflection of borrowings of Turkish origin both in terms of the coverage of these lexemes and in terms of qualitative completeness. Such fluctuations and other discrepancies in the description of one period are not in the nature of partial digressions and exceptions, but reflect the originality in the functioning of borrowings in the lexicon-semantic system of the German language, as well as the main trends in German lexicography that predetermined the theory and practice of this discipline. As you know, at the beginning of the 19th century, the dictionary of J. G. Campe appeared, which was, as it were, a reaction to the unsatisfactory qualitative and quantitative information of the previous dictionary of J. S. Adelung. The dictionary of J. S. Adelung is the first normative dictionary of the German language. According to J. S. Adelung, the common written language could be the spoken language of the upper circles of the cultural province of Saxony. I. S. Adelung understood the unity of the literary language as the spread of an exemplary dialect in all other regions of Germany and denied the supradialectal nature of the literary language, linking its general norms with a narrow territorial social basis. I. G. Adelung made a selection of vocabulary with an orientation to his Lower Saxon dialect. From here comes the narrowness of the sphere of borrowed words of the dictionary of I. G. Adelung, in particular, Turkish ones. The dictionary contains 83 Turkish. In contrast to I. G. Adelung, I. Kampe establishes general norms based on other positions. For I. Kampe, a common language is the highest form of the literary language in relation to dialects [7]. Therefore, the criterion for the selection and evaluation of words is not the Lower Saxon dialect, but the exemplary works of German literature, the common use of this or that word. This view was more in line with the development of the German national language and the formation of the literary language. The dictionary of I. Kampe can also be called a normative dictionary, which carried out the selection and evaluation of vocabulary with a focus on the national language, on works of German literature. I. Kampe revives the principle of quantitative completeness of coverage of the vocabulary, put forward before him by K. Stieler. The dictionary of I. Kampe is to a large extent individualized than the dictionary of I. Adelung. I. Kampe introduces a large number of new lexemes and borrowed words into the vocabulary of the German language. These words receive the status of full-fledged lexical units and are recorded in other dictionaries without indicating the source of the borrowing. However, the central issue in the linguistic concept of I. Kampe is the problem of not only enriching the vocabulary, but at the same time the problem of purification from foreign language elements. These two opposing tendencies leave their mark on the inclusion of Turkish borrowed words in the dictionary. The purity of the language, according to I. Kampe, is the presence in the language of such borrowed words that do not contradict the norms of the language. Foreign words should be replaced with native language words. Naturally, such a concept significantly narrowed the scope of borrowings, including Turkish. Among the reasons that caused the appearance of the dictionary of the brothers J. Grimm, in contrast to previously published dictionaries, one should indicate not only subjective reasons caused by the dissatisfaction of the authors with the previous dictionary, but also linguistic and non-linguistic, objective and subjective reasons. The authors of the dictionary set three main tasks: 1. Give a picture of the historical development of vocabulary composition of the German language. 2. Exhaust the vocabulary of written monuments from the 21st century to the second half of the 19th century. 3. Give normative guidelines in spelling and the use of words. The combination of historical, normative and etymological settings has led to the fact that the dictionary entry here turned out to be overloaded. D. Zandere [8] in his critical articles on the dictionary J. and V. Grimm reveals the contradiction between the principle of the dictionary and its actual data. He comes to the conclusion that it is impossible to exhaust the vocabulary of the German language. Having revealed the contradiction of the grimmian dictionary, D. Zandere proposes the principle of the nested arrangement of words. He says that it is enough to give a word-building model, to reveal the semantics of the main component of this model, to give only words that have a figurative meaning, the meaning of which is not derived from the constituent parts. In order to resolve the contradiction between the impossibility of full coverage of the vocabulary, on the one hand, and the need to describe the vocabulary, on the other hand, as required by lexicographic practice, D. Zandere puts forward the thesis about the need to limit the volume of the dictionary, offers a nested method descriptions and limits the nomenclature. He includes words in his vocabulary that the Brothers Grimm do not have. D. Zandere shows great inconsistency when describing foreign words. In the preface to the dictionary he writes, “Aufgenommen sind alle Worter der heutigen hochdeutschen Schrift- und Umgangssprache, somit auch die allgemeinublichen Fremdworter, die jedoch durch einen vorgesetzten Stem von dem echtdeutschen Sprachschatz geschieden sind” [9]. The compared analysis of the studied dictionaries shows that the practice of lexicography of the 20th century experiences the same. Contradictions, as the experience of the previous century: the desire for a quantitative coverage of the vocabulary, on the one hand, and the impossibility: its reflection, on the other. The proof of this phenomenon is the data on the comparison of Turkish in the analyzed dictionaries of J. Grimm, D. Zanders with dictionaries of the XX century, given by us above. Thus, the selection of borrowings for a dictionary is not a simple matter, and it cannot be done mechanically, based on certain rules. When including any borrowing in the dictionary, its author is apparently guided not only by the general principles of the dictionary he compiles, the nature of the sources used, but also by the place of these borrowed words in the social practice of the time in which the dictionary was compiled, by the significance of this or that borrowing, by the degree of his mastery of the literary language, but mainly by its use. The studied dictionaries, especially of the beginning and middle of the 19th century, reflect the process of formation of the language norm of the German language, including vocabulary. However, during this period there was still no solid, well-formed system of the German literary languages. This task was only set by the authors of the dictionaries (I. Kampe, J. and V. Grimm, D. Zandere), therefore, those language units (despite the tendencies of purism) that are borrowed from other languages, in particular Turkish, are introduced into them. Literature.

1. Die Deutsche Sprache: Kleine Enzyklopedie.-Leipzig: VEB Bibliographisches Institut, 1983,- 2.665; Hellerk K. Das Fremdwort in der deutschen Sprache der Gegenwart.- Leipzig, 1966; Schippen T. Lexikologie der deutschen Gegenwartssprache.-Leipzig: VEB Bibliographisches Institut, 1984.- S. 275 – 282; Schmidt W. Deutsche Sprachkunde.- Berlin: Volk und Wissen Volkseigener Verlag.- 1968,- S. 75 ff, 145 ff.
2. Гаммермайстер Р.Г. Сопоставительной анализ словаря братьев Гримм и Зандерса // Вопросы филологии и методики преподавания ин. яз.- Тюмень, 1964.-Сб. 29,-Вып. 1.
3. Sanders D. Grimmisches Wortebuch (kritisch beleuchtet). Hamburg,

1852-1853

4. Steinbach E. Vollstandiges Deutsches Worterbuch. // Vol Lexikon Germanico- Latiniciumn.- Breslau, 1734.

C-

5. Adelung J.Chr. Versuch eines vollstandigen grammatiseh-kritischen Worterbuches der Hochideutschen Mundart mit bestandiger Vergleichung der

iibrigen Mundarten, besonders aber der Oberdeutsehen,- Leipzig, 1774-1786,- Bd, 1-5.

6. Henisch G. Teutsche Spraach und Weibheit // Thesaurus linquae et sapieniae

С germanicae,- Ausburg, 1616 S с h о tt e 1 J. G. Ausfuhrliche Arbeit von der Teutschen Hauptspracghe.-Braunschweig, 1663.- S. 148;

7. Гухман М. М. От языка немецкой народности к немецкому национальному языку. -М.: 1959.- Часть 11.-С. 178-181.
8. Sanders D. Programm eines neuen Worterbuches der deutschen Sprache.- Leipzig, 1854 .
9. Sanders D. Worterbuch der deutschen Sprache // Mit Belegen von Luther bis auf die Gegenwart – Leipzig, 1876.