The semantic interference characteristics of German loanwords in Ukrainian vernaculars of Zakarpattia

The semantic interference characteristics of German loanwords in Ukrainian vernaculars of Zakarpattia Olha Hvozdiak, Ivan Zymomrya (Uzhhorod) ABSTRACT The article addresses the peculiarities of German semantic loans in Ukrainian local dialects of Zakarpattia and their influence on the lexical-semantic system of the latter considering inter-language relations, particularly, semantic interference of languages. The conducted research suggests that this impact leads to internal and structural transformations in alexical-semantic group or semantic field where particular Ukrainian vernaculars of Zakarpattia belong. The analysis focuses on the significance of these transformations since they concern the word form as well as the meaning and word combinability. The authors aim to explore the distinctive structural-semantic features of German loanwords in Ukrainian vernaculars of Zakarpattia. KEYWORDS inter-language contacts (inter-language relations), language interaction, semantic interference, German loanwords, vernaculars of Zakarpattia DOI https://doi.org/10.14712/18059635.2019.1.4 1. INTRODUCTION The comprehensive study of inter-language relations, interaction and interpenetration of both genetically related as well as distantly related languages is one of the crucial issues of the general scientific and theoretical problem of the relationship between alanguage and the development of asociety and its history (Zymomrya 2016: 158). The interference of languages at the lexical-semantic level belongs to the topical aspects of the research of linguistic interaction (Hvozdiak 1999: 405). The famous Ukrainian linguist S.Semchyns’kyy reasonably believes that the semantic interference of languages occurs in three ways: a) the direct borrowing of lexical units from one language and their incorporation into another, b) the calquing of the composition of lexical units, c) semantic loans (Semchyns’kyy 1974: 170). In the paper, the emphasis is placed on the fact that in the case of semantic borrowing as result of the influence of one lexico-semantic system on another one internal and structural transformations can be observed in alexico-semantic group or semantic field to which aword belongs. These transformations are manifested through the change of the word form as well as the meaning and the combinability of words. 68 LINGUISTICA PRAGENSIA 1/2019 2. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND TYPES OF LANGUAGE INTERACTION IN ZAKARPATTIA The issue of inter-language relations has been studied in the works of foreign and Ukrainian linguists, for instance, J.Besters-Dilger, Y.Dzendzelivskyi, E.Haugen, M.Kocherhan, P.Lyzanets’, U.Weinreich, Yu. Zhluktenko. Based on the criterion of territorial distribution of interacting languages two types of interaction are distinguished: 1) marginal interaction, when the interacting languages are in adjacent territories; 2) intra-regional interaction when the interacting languages are in the same territory (Semchyns’kyy 1988: 275). In modern linguistics, there are different criteria for linguistic interaction. In this regard, it should be emphasised that on the territory of the border poly-ethnic Zakarpattia the intra-regional language interaction is especially widespread, which is connected with the fact that Ukrainians, Hungarians, Russians, Romanians, Czechs, Poles, Jewish people, Romani people, descendants of Slovak and German settlers live here. The language situation in Zakarpattia, which has been apart of various states for centuries, is closely connected with the local history. This has affected the development and functioning of vernaculars (local dialects, native dialects) of the Ukrainian, Hungarian, Slovak, Romanian, German and other languages of national minorities in this region. All these languages were in constant interaction. It resulted in lexical borrowings from different languages. This refers to the words of various origins that have appeared as result of casual or permanent language contacts (Rot 1991: 248). As amatter of fact, casual contacts outline temporary or occasional connections which are characterised by aweak intensity of linguistic interaction; whereas permanent contacts are the evidence of close inter-language contacts that are based on the constant and continuous communication of native speakers of different languages (Matras 2009: 75). The comprehensive analysis revealed that, generally, in Zakarpattia, the following types of language interactions can be observed: 1) marginal; 2) intra-territorial; 3)permanent; 4) casual; 5) contacts between closely related, distantly related and unrelated languages (Melika 2003: 160). All of these represent asignificant groundwork for research, in particular through the prism of approaches of areal linguistics which studies the phenomena of folk language and traditional material and spiritual culture from the point of view of their geographical distribution. The study of German loanwords in the Ukrainian vernaculars of Zakarpattia is also of great importance taking into account the migration processes: since the late 80s of the 20th century, Germans have been leaving for Germany and other Western European countries or the USA. Marginal and intra-territorial interactions of languages are common for Zakarpattia. Marginal contacts are interactions between two languages of two peoples in adjacent territories, for instance, in Zakarpattia the contacts of the population along the Ukrainian-Hungarian ethnic border of Uzhhorod–Mukacheve and Berehove– Vynohradiv–Khust. Marginal contacts are observed in Tiachiv region being reflected in the vernaculars of Ukrainians and Romanians. Intra-territorial interaction occurs when one language group lives in the Sprachraum (language space) of another language and communicates with the surrounding population (Żelichowski 2015: 104). OLHA HVOZDIAK, IVAN ZYMOMRYA 69 Such contacts take place, for example, between the German-speaking population, which has been living in Zakarpattia for nearly three centuries, and the local Ukrainian population of the region. Intra-territorial contacts can be observed either in Hungarian, Slovak and other communities in the Ukrainian environment, or Ukrainian and Slovak communities in Hungarian environment. This category also includes contacts of the Russian language with other languages and their dialects that exist in Zakarpattia. In this context, it is noteworthy that the German population of the town of Mukacheve and the village of Pavshyno creates acombined type of marginal territorial contact. Thus the complex interaction of the three languages occurs; it features marginal and intra-territorial contacts. Consequently, these contacts have an impact on all language levels in the region, and they are most vividly revealed in the lexical-semantic system. In the present paper, the authors make an attempt to investigate the distinctive structural-semantic features of German loanwords in Ukrainian vernaculars of Zakarpattia. The first German settlements in Zakarpattia date back to the 12th–13th centuries. German colonists of those times left traces in the toponyms and anthroponyms of the Ukrainian and Hungarian autochthonous population of the region (Melika 2002: 379). Although Germans settled in Zakarpattia in the 18th–19th centuries, they have preserved their language, customs and traditions. The processes of colonisation took place in various ways. On the land of the Mukacheve-Chynadiievo Dominium, granted to the Schoenborn family, which belonged to Ferenc Rákóczi II, ethnic people from Franconia, South Bohemia, Southern Bavaria and Swabia settled. Germans from Eastern Galicia (Eastern Halychyna) and Hungary formed small German-speaking settlements in Uzhhorod, Mukacheve, Rakhiv as well as in Turia-Bystria, TuriaRemeta, Perechyn, Kobyletska Poliana. During the resettlements Germans used to form closed communities apart from other ethnic groups, for instance, Ukrainians, Hungarians and Romanians, despite the fact that they settled in the already existing villages, which were completely or partially abandoned by natives (Shtefurovskyi 1957: 206–207). More than acentury after the processes of colonisation in Zakarpattia, the Germans mainly remained monolingual. They were only indirectly making contact with the local population. The German colonists predominantly interacted with other ethnic groups in the marketplaces. Due to limited religious, ethno-cultural, economic and commercial contacts in villages, almost no interethnic marriages were concluded. There was the possibility of marriages in cities where several generations of the German population had already assimilated into the local communities and in its cultural development did not differ significantly from the rest of the urban population. In search of sources of income the male populations of different ethnic groups had been working at county plants and factories, in salt mines, logging and so on, thus they interacted more intensively. Additionally, the joint service in the Austro-Hungarian army also facilitated interaction between the multi-ethnic male populations. With the emergence of mechanical transport, the railway vehicles in particular, the self-isolation of ethnic groups started to reduce. Momentous changes in interethnic relations occurred after Zakar- 70 LINGUISTICA PRAGENSIA 1/2019 pattia (then Pidkarpatska Rus) joined the Czechoslovak Republic in 1918. During this period, multilingualism starts to develop not only in towns but also in rural areas, among all ethnic groups and social strata, including the German population. The research is based on the materials of various types of dictionaries, ethnographic works as well as professor Y.Dzendzelivskyi’s significant achievements, particularly, his work “Programs for the collection of materials for the lexical atlas of the Ukrainian language” (Dzendelivskyi 1987). Moreover, there were recorded phonograms where the local Ukrainian population of the region of four age categories spoke about the relevant topics: 1) Generation I: those born in 1920 –1935 when the territory of Zakarpattia became part of the Czechoslovak Republic; 2) Generation II: those born between 1936 and 1955, when the territory of the studied region was part of Hungary. In 1944, Zakarpattian Ukraine was reunited with the Ukrainian SSR; 3) Generation III: those born between 1956 and 1991. During this period the territory of Zakarpattia was part of the Ukrainian SSR, one of the Union republics of the USSR; 4) Generation IV: those born after the proclamation of Ukraine’s independence in 1991. The authors of the article made the records of the materials during 2004–2017. 3. STRUCTURAL-SEMANTIC ANALYSIS OF GERMAN LOANWORDS IN UKRAINIAN VERNACULARS OF ZAKARPATTIA Dialectology, as an integral part of linguistic science, is directly related to dialects, local dialects, interacting in polyethnic areas, Zakarpattia being one of them. Ukrainians, Hungarians, Romanians, descendants of ancient Slovak and German settlers, Russians, Jewish people, Czechs, Poles and other nationalities have been living peacefully here for centuries. Therefore, it is natural that scientists pay considerable attention to the areal linguistics (neolinguistics), the section of ethnolinguistics, which studies the phenomena of the folk language and traditional material and spiritual culture from the point of view of their geographical distribution. Zakarpattia region, in particular its central part with the city of Mukachevo and the surrounding settlements of Palanok, Shenborn, Pavshyno, Verkhnii Koropets, Berezynka, Nove Selo, Drachyno, Kuchava, Lalovo, Borodivka, Syniak, Puzniakivtsi, Hrabovo, Chynadiievo, is apolyethnic area where the majority of the German population of the region lives. The vocabulary of Ukrainian vernaculars of Zakarpattia, which is connected with German borrowings, is rich, unique and diverse since it vividly reflects the life of the population and its culture (Hvozdiak 2010: 98). German borrowings in the Ukrainian local dialects of Zakarpattia are found in the lexis related to agriculture; handicrafts; utensils and other household items; clothes, footwear, accessories; cooking; trade, money, measurements; characteristics of people by their relationships as well as OLHA HVOZDIAK, IVAN ZYMOMRYA 71 qualities; the flora and fauna; military; socio-political concepts; features and actions. The number of German loanwords in Ukrainian vernaculars of the region that have been analysed covers 820 words, which have been collected during dialectological expeditions according to the specially designed programme for 256 respondents of four age categories: 1) over 60 years old; 2) 40–60 years; 3) 20–40 years; 4) younger than 20 years, residing in 87 localities of Zakarpattia, have been interviewed. In the course of analyzing German loanwords we used „The Etymological Dictionary of the Ukrainian language: in 7 volumes”1, Ukrainian Language Dictionary of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine2, Dictionary of the Ukrainian Language of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR3, The Dictionary of Transcarpathian Dialects of the Village of Sokyrnytsia4, Duden. Deutsches Universalwörterbuch5; Linguistic Atlas of Ukrainian dialects of the Zakarpattian region of the Ukrainian SSR (Ukraine)6, Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Deutschen7, Kluge Fr. Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache8, Der Sprach-Brockhaus: dt. Bildwörterbuch von A-Z9, Wörterbuch der deutschen Umgangssprache10, Deutsches Wörterbuch by Lutz Mackensen11, Österreichisches Wörterbuch. Neubearbeitung mit den neuen amtlichen Regeln12 as well as other existing etymological, historical and dialectological dictionaries of the Ukrainian and German (Bavarian-Austrian) dialects, which enabled us to solve the problems posed in our article. 3.1. SUBTYPES OF GERMAN LOANWORDS IN THE UKRAINIAN VERNACULARS OF ZAKARPATTIA Asemantic loan is the result of the process of borrowing lexical meaning under the influence of the polysemy of another word, which, at the same time is related to bilingualism. It is important to distinguish between monosemic and polysemic loanwords. 1 Melnichuk O.S. et al. (eds) (1982–2012) The etymological dictionary of the Ukrainian language. Kyjiv: Scientific Thought— Academy of Sciences of the USSR, Institute of Linguistics. Volumes І-VI. 2 Ukrainian language dictionary (2010) Kyjiv: Scientific Thought— National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Ukrainian Language Information Foundation. 3 Bilodid, I.K. (ed.) (1970–1980) Dictionary of the Ukrainian language. Kyjiv: Scientific Thought— Academy of Sciences of the USSR, Institute of Linguistics. 4 Sabadosh I. (2008) The Dictionary of Transcarpathian Dialects of the Village of Sokyrnytsia, Khust region. Uzhhorod: Lira, p.480. 5 Deutsches Universalwörterbuch (2007) Mannheim / Leipzig / Wien / Zürich: Dudenverlag 6 Dzendzelivskyi, Y.O. (1958–1993) Linguistic atlas of Ukrainian dialects of the Transcarpathian region of the Ukrainian SSR (Ukraine). Uzhhorod: Lexica. Part. I-III. 7 Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Deutschen (2003) München : GmbH & Co.KG. 8 Kluge, F. (2002) Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache. Berlin: De Greyter. 9 Der Sprach-Brockhaus: dt. Bildwörterbuch von A-Z. (1984) Wiesbaden : Brockhaus 10 Küpper , H. (1990) Wörterbuch der deutschen Umgangssprache. Stuttgart : Klett 11 Mackensen, L. (1986) Deutsches Wörterbuch. München: Südwest Verlag. 12 Leitner, A. (1997) Österreichisches Wörterbuch. Neubearbeitung mit den neuen amtlichen Regeln. Wien : Jugend und Volk Verlag. 72 LINGUISTICA PRAGENSIA 1/2019 3.1.1. MONOSEMIC LOANWORDS IN THE UKRAINIAN VERNACULARS OF ZAKARPATTIA Monosemic loanwords are borrowed lexemes which in German have only one meaning, that is, they are monosemic. Depending on the shades of meaning or meaning extension that these loanwords have acquired in the Ukrainian vernaculars of Zakarpattia, the following subtypes of loanwords are distinguished: 1. Loanwords that have preserved their original meaning in the Ukrainian vernaculars of Zakarpattia without any substitutions within the conceptual content (288 words, 35.2% of the analyzed words). This group mainly includes terminological vocabulary and aconsiderable number of everyday words. For instance, rasp < Ger. Raspel < in Zakarpattia (hereinafter Z.) рашпіль [rashpil] < Ukr. рашпіль [rashpil], bubble level < Ger. Wasserwaage < Z. васервага [vaservaha] < Ukr. ватерпас [vaterpas], screw (tool) < Ger. Mutter < Z. мутерка [muterka] < Ukr. гайка [haika], centimetre < Ger. Zentimeter < Z. центіметер [tsentimeter] < Ukr. сантиметр [santymetr], carpenter’s folding rule < Ger. Zollstock < Z. цолшток [tsolshtok] < Ukr. дюймова лінійка [diuymova liniyka], hand plane (tool) < Ger. Hobel < Z. гоблик [hoblyk] < Ukr. рубанок [rubanok], three-legged stool < Ger. Dreifuß < Z. драйфус [draifus] < Ukr. триніжка [trynizhka], drill < Ger. Bohrmaschine < Z. бормашина [bormashyna] < Ukr. бормашина [bormashyna], emery (rock) < Ger. Schmirgel < шмірґлі [shmirgli] < Ukr. наждак [nazhdak], tongs, pliers < Ger. Zange < Z. цанґлі [tsangli] < Ukr. кліщі [klishchi], щипці [ shchyptsi], milling cutter < Ger. Friesen < Z. фреза [freza] < Ukr. фреза [freza], tripod < Ger. Stativ < Z. штатев [shtatev] < Ukr. штатив [shtatyv], tinplate, sheet metal < Ger. Blech < Z. бляха [bliakha] < Ukr. бляха [bliakha], листове залізо [lystove zalizo], tailor < Ger. Schneider < Z. шнайдер [shnaider] < Ukr. кравець [kravets], hairpin < Ger. Haarnadel < Z. горноґлі [hornogli] < Ukr. шпилька для волосся [shpylka dlia volossia], pantry < Ger. Speisekammer < Z. шпайз [shpaiz] < Ukr. комора [komora], veil < Ger. Schleier < Z. шлаєр [shlaier] < Ukr. фата [fata], bag < Ger. Tasche < Z. ташка [tashka] < Ukr. сумка [sumka], ink < Ger. Tinte < Z. тинта [tynta] < Ukr. чорнило [chornylo], frying pan < Ger. Bratpfanne < Z. бротванка [brotvanka] < Ukr. сковорода [skovoroda] and so on. 2. Loanwords which had several meanings in the German language, however, denote acertain object or phenomenon in the Ukrainian vernaculars of Zakarpattia. In fact, these loanwords specify the meaning. The point is that this is, in particular, the monosemization (Ger. Monosemierung) of the extent of meaning (101 words, 12.3%). It OLHA HVOZDIAK, IVAN ZYMOMRYA 73 can be exemplified by the German noun Zug which in the source language has the following meanings: 1.Movement, transition, bird migration (migration of birds); 2.Procession, column, platoon; 3.Flock (of birds), shoaling (of fish); 4.Train; 5.Flow (of air), draught (acurrent of air); 6.Swallow; 7.Breath, inhaling; 8.Trait (of character); feature (of aface); 9.Disposition, aspiration. This noun came into use in Ukrainian vernaculars of Zakarpattia with one meaning— draught (acurrent of air). 3. Loanwords with generalizing meaning. As opposed to the group of borrowings with the specific meaning, in this group of borrowings, the extent of meaning is wider than in the German language. The main seme is identical; however, the Ukrainian vernaculars of Zakarpattia have several additional meanings which retain the connection with the primary meaning (115 examples, 14 %). For instance, scoundrel < Ger. Lump < Z. лумп [lump] Ukr. 1.обідранець [obidranets], босяк [bosiak] (ragamuffin, stiff); 2.негідник [nehidnyk] (miscreant, scamp, vagabond). In the Ukrainian vernaculars of Zakarpattia this word acquired additional meanings: an alcoholic; dull-witted, not serious, frivolous. Another example is the word spy, provocateur < Ger. Spitzel < Z. шпіцлик [shpitslyk] < Ukr. шпиг [shpyh], провокатор [provokator]. In the Ukrainian vernaculars of Zakarpattia this borrowing is also used while describing pupils who report to the teacher. The borrowing файний (fainyi) < Ger. fein (Ukr. 1.тонкий [tonkyi] (thin); 2.дрібний [dribnyi] (small); 3.точний [tochnyi] (exact); 4.делікатний [delikatnyi] (sensitive/delicate); 5.вишуканий [vyshukanyi] (recherche/exquisite); 6.гарний [harnyi] (nice/fine, wonderful); 7.багатий [bahatyi] (rich); 8.тихий [tykhyi] (weak, fragile); 9.спритний [sprytnyi] (cunning, clever/sharp). In the Ukrainian vernaculars of Zakarpattia this word is used in the following meanings: 1.Good/nice (boy); 2.Cunning (’as cunning as afox’ is used in the settlements of the valley of the Uzh River). This loanword obtains new meaning as well: 1.Qualitative (work); 2.Suitable by size (asuit); 3.Useable/fit for use. In this group of loanwords the difference between meanings is not discussed since the new meaning in relation to the primary meaning is not developed. The difference in this case lies in the semantic field of usage. The examples suggested above justify S.Semchyns’kyy’s opinion, according to which the borrowing of meaning is akind of ascertaining absolute interlingual synonymy when the word of one language assimilates the same lexical-semantic structure as the word of another language with which it has apartial coincidence in meaning (Semchyns’kyy 1974: 207). 3.1.2. POLYSEMIC GERMAN LOANWORDS IN THE UKRAINIAN VERNACULARS OF ZAKARPATTIA Polysemic loanwords are borrowings which have several meanings in the German language. Polysemic words with borrowed meaning, possess the lexical meanings that are more implicit.Semantic borrowings lead to the development of polysemy and the emergence of homonyms. Calquing cannot cause homonymy, because in this case the very way of forming anew word is borrowed (Yench 2003: 118). 74 LINGUISTICA PRAGENSIA 1/2019 The ambiguity of German loanwords in the Ukrainian vernaculars of Zakarpattia proves their semantic substitution. Depending on the number of meanings of variants presented in the local dialects of Zakarpattia the studied examples can be classified as follows: 1. The borrowing of one meaning of the variant (172 examples, 21 %), for instance, ґешефт [gesheft] < Ger. Geschäft (in Ukr. it denotes: 1.Trade operation; bargain; 2.Business; work/occupation; 3.Firm, enterprise, trading house, shop/store); троу(в)ґер [trou(v)ger] < Ger. Träger (in Ukr. it denotes: 1.Porter; 2.Carrier; tech. girder; 3.gun carriage); гийбер [hyiber] < Ger. Heber (Ukr.: 1.tech. Lifting jack; 2.phys. Siphon; 3.colloq. Weightlifter). In the Ukrainian vernaculars of Zakarpattia, these and other loanwords are used in the primary meaning of the variant. 2. The borrowing of two or more meanings of the variant (93 examples, 11.3 %). For instance, капут [kaput] < Ger. kaputt is borrowed with the meanings 1.Broken; 2.Tired/exhausted; карта [karta] < Ger. Karte has eight meanings in the German language, and in the Ukrainian vernaculars of Zakarpattia, it is used only in two of them: 1.Map; 2.Playing card. 3. The extension of meaning: to these belong borrowings which have exactly the same meaning of the word as in the German language and, have developed additional meanings in the Ukrainian vernaculars of Zakarpattia. The number of these borrowings is insignificant (51 examples, 6.2%). For example: фрайир [fraiyr] < Ger. Freier in the German language has the meaning “fiancé; the one who is asking in marriage”, and in the Ukrainian vernaculars of Zakarpattia this word acquired another meaning— “an arrogant person”; шайта [shaita] < Ger. Scheit (Ukr.: log). The meaning of this word has extended, and in the local dialect the word шайта [shaita] denotes a“clumsy person”; шнобель [shnobel] < Ger. Schnabel (in Ukr. denotes 1.Beak; 2.Mouth. Based on the similarity the first meaning is transferred from animals to humans; шпіндель [shpindel] < Ger. Spindel (Ukr. 1.веретено [vereteno] (spindle; skewer; shank; shaft); 2.tech. шпиндель [shpyndel] (spindle, arbor). In the Ukrainian vernaculars of Zakarpattia this borrowing is used to denote asmall restless boy; ґріфлик [griflyk] < Ger. Griffel (in Ukr. it denotes: 1.Slate pencil; 2.bot. pistil). The elderly use this borrowing to designate chalk; гандляр(ь) [handliar] < Ger. Händler (in Ukr. it denotes: retail dealer). In the Ukrainian vernaculars of the region this loanword obtained anegative connotation: asly person; гоноровий [honorovyi] < Ger. (arch.) honorig (in Ukr. it denotes: respectable, honourable). In the Ukrainian vernaculars of Zakarpattia this borrowing is also used to denote ahaughty/supercilious person. OLHA HVOZDIAK, IVAN ZYMOMRYA 75 It is worth noting that not all meanings of polysemic German semantic loanwords are widespread in all local dialects in Zakarpattia, that is, they have various distribution areas. Some of the analysed words are used only in the settlements where Ukrainians and Germans of Zakarpattia interact directly with each other. For instance, the German borrowing фрішний [frishnyi] < Ger. frisch in the source language has six meanings, and in the Ukrainian local dialects it has three meanings: 1.Fresh, pure; 2.Neat, clean, tidy; 3.Cool, cooling/refreshing. All the three borrowed meanings are prevalent in the destrict of Mukacheve, and only the third meaning is common on the whole territory of Zakarpattia (Melika and Hvozdiak 1993: 235). At the same time, the German loanword цапфа [tsapfa] < Ger. Zapfen in the investigated vernaculars has two meanings: 1.spigot; 2.stopper. The first meaning, of this word is widespread in the district of Mukacheve. The second meaning is commonly used in the local dialects of the districts of Khust and Mukacheve. The word клямбра [kliambra] < Ger. Klammer < Ukr. 1.скоба [skoba] (staple, clamp); 2.скріпка [skripka] (paper clip; in the Ukrainian vernaculars of Zakarpattia is only used in the first meaning). This loanword is common for the districts of Mukacheve, Rakhiv and Tiachiv. In the district of Uzhhorod older adults also tend to use this word. Additionally, the German borrowing штабель [shtabel] (mooring (watercraft); pile, stack; warehouse) is used predominantly throughout Zakarpattia with the second meaning (pile, stack). In the course of conducting this research the analysis of semantic borrowings in diachrony plays asignificant role taking into account the fact that some of the borrowings remain in usage for along time, while other loanwords only characterize the language of acertain period of time. To the latter, for example, belong such German loanwords as cupboard < Ger. Kredenz < Z. креденц [kredents] < Ukr. низький буфет [nyzkyi bufet]; lining (in sewing, tailoring) < Ger. Futter < Z. футро [futro] < Ukr. підкладка [pidkladka]; 1. Bolt, bar, 2.Cross-beam < Ger. Riegel < Z. ріґлик [riglyk] < Ukr. 1.засувка [zasuvka], засув [zasuv], фіксатор [fiksator]; 2.поперечна балка [poperechna balka]; ready < Ger. fertig < Z. фертік(ґ) [fertik(g)] < Ukr. готовий [hotovyi]; shine, glance, gloss < Ger. Glanz < Z. ґланц [glants] < Ukr. блиск [blysk], сіяння [siiannia]. The social use of semantic borrowings is significant in the Ukrainian local dialects of Zakarpattia. On the one hand, there are the loanwords used by all age groups and social strata in their in everyday vocabulary. For instance, tinplate, sheet metal < Ger. Blech < Z. бляха [bliakha] < Ukr. бляха [bliakha]; tile < Ger. Kachel < Z. кальга [kalha] < Ukr. кахля [kakhlia]; vase < Ger. Vase < Z. ваза [vaza] < Ukr. ваза [vaza]; scarf < Ger. Schal < Z. шал [shal] < Ukr. шарф [sharf]; bag < Ger. Tasche < Z. ташка [tashka] < Ukr. сумка [sumka]; lamp < Ger. Lampe < Z. лампа [lampa] < Ukr. лампа [lampa].