The object of the current paper is related to lexical borrowings of European languages. The aim of the article is to discuss the most significant theoretical approaches to the integration of borrowings and to show the types of their assimilation on the example of Lithuanian and Russian. The research work aims at analysing lexical borrowings from different lingua franca, to determine their etymology, to show their integration types in the Lithuanian and Russian languages, as well as to establish differences between lexical borrowings and their standardized equivalents in both languages.

This article examines the use of borrowings in Lithuanian from the linguistic perspective. The aim of the article is to discuss the most significant theoretical approaches to the integration of borrowings, to analyze new borrowings taken from different lingua franca, to determine the etymology of them, as well as to analyze the types of their integration taking into account the degree of their assimilation. The research work is based on the examples drawn from the list of borrowings, made by the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language in 2010-2015. This study establishes the differences between lexical borrowings and their Lithuanian standardised and non-standardised equivalents and shows what types of them are gradually becoming a norm in Lithuanian.

The three editions of the Statutes of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (1529, 1566, 1588) belong to the legal codes of universal importance and are called the phenomena of the historical epoch. The Code of feudal law is written in “Russian” (Belorussian and Ukrainian), which was used as the office language in the country. This document is of great importance for the investigation of the lexis and other linguistic aspects of the literary Belorussian and Ukrainian languages of the 16th century. The Statutes reflect the process of the development of the social and political changes of the state. Being a monument of juridical writing, they extensively reflect the social lexis. In the article, the comparative method has been applied for the analysis of the following subgroups of lexis dealing with: a) social layers and different occupations; b) duties, obligations, tributes, customs, income taxes; c) territorial-administrative items and propriety names. The article focuses attention on the common features and differences in the three editions of the Statutes. The analysis allows us to draw conclusions that in the lexis of the Statutes there are many words widely reflecting the above-mentioned thematic groups. In the second (1566), and especially in the third (1588) edition, as they became more voluminous due to new or supplementing articles, the thematic lexical group is enriched by new terms, most often loanwords which are Polonisms or Polonism-Germanisms, Polonism-Latinisms and others. A great many of those words were known in the Old Russian language and some of them had undergone semantic changes. In the titles denoting professions and occupations there were more borrowings, while in the titles concerning courtiers and artisans there were words from Eastern Slavonic. Very peculiar neologisms from Old Belorussian and Ukrainian are rather rare. Due to the different origins of the words, the synonymy of some terms has been registered.

The process of globalization and changing political and economic benchmarks leads to the undoubted need for borrowings, which are observed in many languages of the world. We are talking about the process of borrowing from English, which has become modern in our society. Lingua franca languages such as Latin, Greek, or French dominated in Europe at different times and do not represent a new phenomenon in linguistics. However, nowadays borrowings from English into other languages, according to many European linguists, go far beyond the objective process of linguistic borrowing. The influence of other lingua franca languages was limited to some particular areas of vocabulary, or borrowings were used only by certain social strata of the population. The influence of the English language today is limitless. Therefore, not only linguists but also ordinary citizens of many countries are concerned about the expansion of the English language that has spread around the world. This provides grounds to discuss the further spread and development of English borrowings in the lexicons of European languages. This article discusses borrowings into Russian. The aim of the paper is to consider the main reasons for borrowings. I also present the types of new English loanwords based on Russian newspaper texts. The article also addresses the following questions: How should we relate to the fact that borrowings often push native words out of use? Do we need restrictive measures to prevent journalists or TV presenters from using borrowings when there are equivalent words in Russian?

One of the most important monuments of juridical-legal literature in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania is the Statute (its three editions: 1529, 1566, 1588), the code of feudal law written in the “Rusian” language, which for several centuries was used as the chancery/office language in the country. This document is very important for research on the lexis and other linguistic aspects of 16th-century literary Belorussian and Ukrainian, because the lexical layer best reflects the GDL’s political, economic and cultural relations with other countries. The lexis of the Statute is thematically quite diverse, but the legal-juridical vocabulary in this code of feudal law is the richest. In the article, using the comparative method, the thematic-lexical cluster of words denoting or defining crimes, criminals and forms of punishment is analysed. The common features of this lexis, its specific traits and loanwords in the three editions are identified. The analysis shows that the Statute contains both common and specific words and terms naming various life situations, crimes, offenders and punishments. In the second (1566) and especially the third (1588) edition, which became more extensive due to new or supplementary articles, this thematic-lexical cluster was enriched with new terms, most often loanwords. From the point of view of origin, the lexis shows items inherited from Old Russian (often polysemous), from Old Belorussian and Ukrainian (with specific word-formation), as well as borrowings – mostly Polonisms, but also Polonism–Germanisms and Polonism–Latinisms. A distinctive feature of this lexical cluster is polysemy: the same words can denote both crimes and types of punishment. There are also pairs of short words for crimes and criminals, synonymic doublets of different roots expressing the same concept, and word-formation variants. The analysis confirms that in the 16th century terminology in this field had not yet been standardised, and the three editions of the Statute reflect particular stages in the formation of legal-juridical terminology. Thus, besides its legal value, the Statute is a unique linguistic phenomenon of its time.

Words of Slavonic origin are both characteristic literal language phenomena (Laua, 1981) as well as phenomena of Latvian language sub-dialects. Especially frequent they are in Latgalian sub-dialects and they are only sporadically met in other places in Latvia (Laumane, 1977, 55). The aim of this article is to analyze words of Slavonic origin in one of Latvia’s South West sub-dialects – Rucava sub-dialect, their frequency in the neighboring sub-dialects of Rucava, to analyze them from the point of view of word class as well as to look at thematic groups of words of Slavonic origin. There are not observed a large number of words of Slavonic origin in Rucava’s sub dialect. It is also problematic to define their origin since many of them might have been borrowed in through Lithuanian language from the Polish or Russian languages (Lau mane, 1977, 55–56) One of the important issues connected to words of Slavonic origin is the problem of chronology. For example, part of these words used in Latgalia has ancient roots (Laumane, 1977, 50-51, 55-56). Whereas part of Slavonic words used in South West Kurland’s sub-dia lects might be of newer origin because there are no direct historical contacts with Slavonic languages or sub-dialects. Thus the question: are they direct or indirect borrowings? Sometimes it is difficult to trace from which language or even from which language group the lexemes have been borrowed: From Russian or Polish: for example irka – “decorative embroidery on the sleeves of a shirt”; kuds – “slim, thin, skinny”; slīve - ”plum” and others; From Slavonic or Germanic languages, for example, gruce – “borridge made of barley, pearl-barley”; jāmarks/jāmarka – “fair”. From the aspect of geographical distribution a few lexemes have been observed only in Rucava and neighboring sub-dialects (such as lexemes gvazdiks, jāmarks); part of lexemes are mostly spread in Latgalia, sometimes also in other places of Latvia (for ex ample, durns, kavat, kuska). In the collected material there are 74,4% nouns, 15,4% verbs, 7,7 % adjectives and 2,6% adverbs. 144 Thematically 15,4% lexemes denote actions and names of plants, 12,8% lexemes are connected to clothing, 10,3 % lexemes are connected to household life andothers. As to the territorial aspect – some lexemes so far have been observed only in Rucava and the neighboring sub-dialects (suc as lexemes gvazdiks, jāmarks, piegrazāt); some lexemes typical for Rucava most often are observed in Latgalia, sometimes in other places of Latvia (for example, durns, kavāt, kuska). Rucava’s sub- dialect words of Slavonic origin have been actively used in the late 20th century and at the beginning of the 21st century. Some of the Slavonic borrowings still have phonetical and morphological variants as well as various derivatives (for example, kuds//kuts; riedīt//izriedīt//pieriedīt), thus proving their vitality also in the future.

Dėl globalizacijos lietuvių kalboje atsirado naujų turėti konstrukcijų, pavyzdžiui, turėti gerą laiką, turėti pietus, turėti poilsį ir kitų, kurios būdingos anglų kalbai. Straipsnio tikslas išanalizuoti turėti konstrukcijų su nesuskaičiuojamais daiktavardžiais ypatybes, kuriomis remiantis būtų patvirtinta ar paneigta tokių skolinių iš anglų kalbos vartojimo galimybė lietuvių kalboje. Surinkta medžiaga rodo, kad, skirtingai nei anglų kalboje, lietuvių kalbai nėra būdingos su veiksmu siejamos turėti konstrukcijos. Tokias konstrukcijas iš anglų kalbos reikėtų versti pavartojant veiksmažodžius.