The Universal Structure of a Dictionary Article as a Step towards Formalizing the Lexicographical Description of Archeological Terminology

Tyumen State University Herald. Humanities Research. Humanitates


2020, Vol. 6. № 3 (23)

The Universal Structure of a Dictionary Article as a Step towards Formalizing the Lexicographical Description of Archeological Terminology

For citation: Tabanakova V. D., Kokorina Ju. G. 2020. “The Universal Structure of a Dictionary Article as a Step towards Formalizing the Lexicographical Description of Archeological Terminology”. Tyumen State University Herald. Humanities Research. Humanitates, vol. 6, no. 3 (23), pp. 22-37. DOI: 10.21684/2411-197X-2020-6-3-22-37

About the authors:

Vera D. Tabanakova, Dr. Sci. (Philol.), Professor, Department of English Philology and Translation, University of Tyumen,; ORCID: 0000-0001-5458-3510

Julia G. Kokorina, Dr. Sci. (Philol.), Cand. Sci. (Hist.), Moscow Polytechnic University;; ORCID: 0000-0002-2496-3958


This article studies the formalized lexicographic description of the archaeological terminology and aims to develop its basis — the universal dictionary entry structure. The authors prove the need for the unified description of an archaeological term in dictionaries and terminological databases.

The comparative analysis of the dictionary entry structures of contemporary archaeological dictionaries and term databases has shown that the unified principles for the formalized description of an archaeological object have not yet been developed. Thus, the archaeological dictionaries, as well as the term databases, do not have the unified structure of the dictionary entry. This paper describes the systematic development of the universal structure of the dictionary entry for the archaeological term. The source of the term material was the most complete contemporary terminological dictionary — “The Dictionary of Archaeological Ceramics” by Yu. G. Kokorina (2017).

As a result of the logical-conceptual and definitional analysis of the archaeological term descriptions, the authors have proposed 15 linguistic and conceptual parameters: etymology, synonyms, pragmatic parameter, shape, function, constructive parameter, obligatory structural elements, metric parameter, degree of the metric parameter manifestation, proportions, quantitative parameter, cultural-geographical parameter, and construction material.

The universal character of these parameters is supposed to ensure the development of the formalized dictionary entry structure of the archaeological term. The proposed all inclusive dictionary entry structure of the archaeological term can become the foundation for the formalized lexicographic description of archaeological terminology both in dictionaries and in automated databases.


  1. Alekseeva O. E., Savvonidi N. F. 1993. Russian-English Historical and Archaeological Dictionary. 8,000 words and terms, 10,000 translations. Saint Petersburg. 111 pp. [In Russian]

  2. Brey U., Tramp D. 1990. Archaeological Dictionary. Translated from English. Moscow: Progress. 368 pp. [In Russian]

  3. Vasilyev S. A., Bozinski G., Bredli B. A. 2007. Four-Language (Russian-English-­French-German) Referential Dictionary on Paleolithic Archaeology. Saint Petersburg: Peterburgskoe Vostokovedenie. 264 pp. [In Russian]

  4. Gulyaev V. I. 1996. “Introduction”. In: Anthology of Soviet Archaeology in 3 vols. Vol. 3. 1941–1956, pp. 3-14. Moscow: Archeological Institute of the Russian Academy of Science. [In Russian]

  5. Antiquities of the Novgorod Land: electronic database of archaeological findings. Accessed 17 September 2020. [In Russian]

  6. Ivanishcheva A. A., Ivanishcheva E. A., Ivanishcheva M. V., Ivanishchev A. M. 2011. “Database of archaeological monuments of the Mariinsky-Volga-Baltic water system”. Uspekhi sovremennogo estestvoznaniya, no. 7, pp. 24-25. Accessed 17 September 2020. [In Russian]

  7. Kekeev E. A, Burataev E. G. 2015. “Database of archaeological collections from the excavations of the East Manych Kurgan group”. Vestnik Kalmytskogo instituta gumanitarnykh issledovaniy RAN. Accessed 17 September 2020.­kurgannoy-gru... [In Russian]

  8. Classification in Archeology: Terminological Referential Dictionary. 1990. Moscow: Archeological Institute of the Russian Academy of Science. 156 pp. [In Russian]

  9. Kleyn L. S.2011. History of Archaeological Thought in 2 vols. Saint Petersburg: Saint Petersburg State University. 628 pp. + 624 pp. [In Russian]

  10. Kokorina Yu. G. 2017. Dictionary of Archaeological Material Science. Moscow: Novyy khronograf. 544 pp. [In Russian]

  11. Lebedeva T. I. 1986. “On Samarkand tahona”. In: Istoriya materialnoy kultury Uzbekistana. Vol. 20, pp. 136-146. Tashkent. [In Russian]

  12. Lipnitskaya O. L., Popova E. E. 2001. Educational and Methodological Complex in Historical Computer Science. Basic Course. Processing and Analysis of Statistical and Structured Historical Sources Using Spreadsheets and Database Management Systems. Minsk: BSU. [In Russian]

  13. Likhter Yu. A. 2015. Real Source and Database — Principles of Interaction. Moscow: TM Prodakshn. 414 pp. [In Russian]

  14. Nikitina S. E. 1978. Thesaurus on Theoretical and Applied Linguistics. Moscow: Nauka. 372 pp. [In Russian]

  15. Savvonidi N. F. 1995. The Archaeological Picture Dictionary (English-Russian). Saint Petersburg: Peterburgkomstat. 64 pp. [In Russian]

  16. Tabanakova V. D., Kokorina Yu. G. 2020. “Linguistic modeling of archaeological terminology — from the archaeological description to the parametric one”. Vestnik SPbGU. Yazyk i literatura, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 323-342. [In Russian]

  17. Fasmer M. 2004. Etymological Dictionary of the Russian Language. Vols. 1-4. Moscow: Astrel. [In Russian]

  18. Chernykh P. Ya. 1999. Historical and Etymological Dictionary of the Contemporary Russian Language. Vol. 1. Moscow: Russkiy yazyk. 621 pp. [In Russian]

  19. Shchapova Yu. L. 2000. Introduction to the Science “Things”. Moscow: MSU. 204 pp. [In Russian]

  20. Shchapova Yu. L. 1988. Natural Science Methods in Archaeology. Moscow: MSU. [In Russian]

  21. Childe V. G. 1925. The Dawn of European Civilization. London: K. Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co.; New York: A.A. Knopf. 367 pp.

  22. Dauzat A., Dubois J., Mitterand H.1982. Nouveau dictionnaire étymologique et historique du français. Paris: Larousse.

  23. Déchelette J. 1908-1934 Manuel d’archéologie préhistorique celtique et gallo-romain. Vols. 1-6. Paris: A. Picard et fils. 804 pp.

  24. Dictionnaire des Antiquités Grecques et Romaines d’après les textes et les monuments, rédigé par une société d’ecrivains spéciux, d’archéologues et de professeurs sous la direction de mm. Ch. Daremberg et Edm. Saglio. 1877-1919. Vols. 1-5. Paris: Hachette.

  25. Ebert M. 1924-1932. Reallexikon der Vorgeschichte. Bd. 1-15. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

  26. Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Deutschen. 1989. Bd. 1-3. Berlin, Akademie-Verlag.

  27. Graudonis J. 1994. Arheoloģijas terminu vārdnicā. Rīga: Zinātne. 450 pp.

  28. Onions C. T. 1996. Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1025 pp.