The paper analyzes the issues related to the lexicographic description of typologically different
languages: especially, Russian and the Tungusic languages. It is the need for compiling the
corpora for dictionaries including National indigenous language – Russian and Russian – National
indigenous language that is substantiated. While carrying out the complete word sampling, the
author considers the parameters which are regulating the inventory of lexical units entered into
the dictionaries of both types and the character of the preferable text materials chosen as illustrations
of the semantic component and functional-grammatical characteristics. The inventory structure
determines the dictionary volume scope. The strategies of structuring a vocabulary entry,
selecting a correlative basic form as an entry headword, are proposed. For example, in the Tungusic
languages, the primary stem is presented as a basic form which can not be used as a lexical
unit without temporal and person-number marking etc. The difficulties arising in lexicographic
processing of the materials of typologically different languages are caused by the unavailability
of detailed grammatical descriptions of most Tungusic languages, the vagueness of the issues
concerning the number of parts of speech, the form of presenting an entry head word etc., on the
one hand, and the availability of parts of speech and grammatical categories in the Tungusic languages
corresponding to no adequate Russian equivalents, on the other, and conversely (e. g.
the availability of the noun category of possession (direct and indirect possession), the lack of the
aspect category of the primary stem, the lack of the noun gender category, etc. The necessity
of applying universal criteria for identifying the part-of-speech inventory in typologically different
languages, which will allow for maximally equivalent correlation of lexemes as grammatical
units, is validated. The strategy of maximum authentic correlation of the lexical and grammatical
component of the language unit in typologically different languages, particularly in inflectional
and agglutinating ones is proposed. The ways of solving the problems of equivalently rendering
the lexical component of an indigenous language word (e. g. the semantic equivalent of an indigenous
language lexeme may be not only a Russian lexical unit but also a word phrase – a syntactic
construction), or mapping the Russian word equivalents which are often represented by an
affixal element (a suffix, a suffixal particle, etc.) are considered.
Boldyrev B. V. Morfologiya evenkiyskogo yazyka [Morphology of Evenki language]. Novosibirsk, Nauka, 2007, 746 p.
Kurilov G. N. Yukagirsko-russkiy slovar’ [Yukaghir-Russian dictionary]. Novosibirsk, Nauka, 2001, 606 p.
Ozolinya L. V. O strukturnoy i semanticheskoy sootnosimosti grammaticheskikh edinits yazykov tipologicheski razlichnykh sistem. Ch. 2: Strukturno-semanticheskie modeli (na materiale orokskogo i russkogo yazykov) [On the structural and semantic correlation of grammatical units of the languages in typologically different systems. Pt 2: Structural-semantic models (based on the
material of Orok and Russian languages)]. Siberian Philological Journal. 2015, no. 1, pp. 193–201.
Ozolinya L. V. Sootnositel’nost’ form glagola v russkom i orokskom yazykakh [The correlation of verb forms in Russian and Orok languages]. Siberian Philological Journal. 2016, no. 2, pp. 211–221.
Pevnov A. M. Deeprichastiya na -mi v evenkiyskom yazyke [Adverbial participles with -ми in Evenki]. Abstract of Cand. philol. sci. diss. Leningrad, 1980, 23 p.
Russko-kalmytskiy slovar’ [Russian-Kalmyk dictionary]. Moscow, Sov. entsikl., 1964, 803 p.
Russko-yakutskiy slovar’ [Russian-Sakha dictionary]. Moscow, Sov. entsikl., 1964, 1968, 720 p.
Savelyeva V. N., Taksamy M. N. Russko-nivkhskiy slovar’ [Russian-Nivkh dictionary]. Moscow, Russkiy yazyk, 1965, 304 p.
Yakutsko-russkiy slovar’ [Yakut-Russian dictionary]. Moscow, Sov. entsikl., 1972, 605 p.