Security in Slavic

Does the word for ‘security’ mean exactly the same across languages? How can we identify cross-linguistic similarities and differences in word meanings? In this study we carry out a corpus investigation of the words corresponding to English security and safety in the Slavic languages. While our analysis identifies numerous cross-linguistic similarities, we argue that there are differences. Three parameters capture relevant differences: transparent vs. opaque, negative vs. positive, and external vs. internal. With regard to semantic fields and metaphorical uses, we find considerable overlap, but also some differences among the languages under scrutiny. Employing a variety of methods from corpus linguistics, we argue that this “mixed” methodology enables us to avoid the weaknesses of individual methods and to pinpoint both similarities and subtle differences among related languages.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Jezikoslovlje
Published
2025-12-22
DOI
https://doi.org/10.29162/jez.2025.6
Primary Topic
Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Security in Slavic

Tore Nesset, Laura A. Janda, Anastasia Makarova
Jezikoslovlje
Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
article

Security in Slavic

Tore Nesset, Laura A. Janda, Anastasia Makarova
article en

Abstract

Does the word for ‘security’ mean exactly the same across languages? How can we identify cross-linguistic similarities and differences in word meanings? In this study we carry out a corpus investigation of the words corresponding to English security and safety in the Slavic languages. While our analysis identifies numerous cross-linguistic similarities, we argue that there are differences. Three parameters capture relevant differences: transparent vs. opaque, negative vs. positive, and external vs. internal. With regard to semantic fields and metaphorical uses, we find considerable overlap, but also some differences among the languages under scrutiny. Employing a variety of methods from corpus linguistics, we argue that this “mixed” methodology enables us to avoid the weaknesses of individual methods and to pinpoint both similarities and subtle differences among related languages.

JezikoslovljeVol. 26(2)
Uppsala University (SE), Centre for Arctic Gas Hydrate, Environment and Climate (NO), UiT The Arctic University of Norway (NO)
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 15%
Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.