Raisa J. Cvetković

Department of Foreign Languages
Faculty of Teachers in Prizren – Leposavic
University of Pristina – Kosovska Mitrovica
Leposavic Serbia
ORCiD: 0000-0002-0238-551X
E-mail: raisa.cvetkovic@pr.ac.rs

https://doi.org/10.53656/for2026-03-06

Резюме. Within the framework of contemporary linguoculturological and lexicological research, this paper presents a comparative analysis of the semantic structure of the lexeme God in the Serbian and Russian languages. The primary objective of the study is focused on identifying, systematizing, and describing linguistic similarities and differences, as well as uncovering specific cultural concepts expressed through the primary and figurative meanings of this word. The results of the contrastive analysis indicate that the secondary meanings and metaphorical extensions of this lexeme in both languages transcend its original, religious core. This semantic layer develops in two distinct directions: on one hand, toward universal human spiritual and moral values, and on the other, within the domain of abstract and material subjectivization (where the meaning shifts to people or concrete objects). The observed semantic diversity points to the need for further empirical and psycholinguistic study of this phenomenon. It can be viewed as an important indicator of a gradual process of linguistic desacralization, namely secularization, which ultimately leads to the weakening of functional links between words of sacred origin and the religious system itself.

Ключови думи: lexeme God; sacred vocabulary; lexicology; Serbian language; dictionaries; Russian language.

1. Introduction. Theoretical framework of the research

Based on the theoretical position that religion is a fundamental component of the spiritual architecture of an ethnic group’s culture – defined as “a reflection of the religious and mythological consciousness of man in language” (Vulovich, 2015, p. 16) and that “the linguistic picture of the world varies from language to language” (Hrnjak, 2007, p. 197), the subject of this research is a synchronic-comparative study of the semantic potential of the lexeme God in the Serbian and Russian language systems. The contrastive investigation into the semantic substrate of this specific lexeme within the Serbian and Russian linguistic frameworks is fundamentally predicatedupon the sharedculturological, historical, spiritual, and confessional paradigms that historically shape both speech communities under observation:

Confessional homogeneity: The Christian worldview of both peoples was formed under the decisive diachronic influence of the Orthodox Church.

Religious syncretism: The persistence and preservation of pagan elements are firmly embedded within the Orthodox substratum of both peoples. Berdyaev (1955) highlights the incorporation of a natural pagan element into Russian Christian Orthodoxy, while in the Serbian Orthodox context, this phenomenon is documented through the preservation of numerous folk customs and rituals (see Petrovich, 1999; Chaikanovich, 1973). Yerotich (2002: 92) also points to the deep, centuries-old connection between Slavic/Serbian paganism and Saint Sava Orthodoxy (Svetosavlje), emphasizing that only through subtle analysis can one differentiate magical actions within Orthodox practice and determine whether they are functionally or dysfunctionally integrated into the authentic religious canon.

The sociopolitical context of the twentieth century: The spiritual ties between the Serbian and Russianpeoples during the twentieth century enduredcomplex socio-political turbulence, largely generated by the activities of two authoritarian atheist regimes. Despite these unfavorable ideological circumstances, their relations were characterized by intense contact, interpenetration, and mutual influence (Jovanovich, 2010, p. 189). 1

These factors serve as causal agents that induced the formation of similar structures in the linguistic worldview of the Serbian and Russian peoples, whose spiritual content is reflected through the use of sacred vocabulary, with the lexeme God at its nucleus.

From a diachronic perspective, the lexeme God belongs to a common Slavic lexical stratum originating from the Proto-Slavic language fund. 2 According to Petar Skok the primary semantic layer of this word denoted share, fortune, or earthly wealth, which is illustrated by the traditional greeting “Pomozi Bog” (“God help [you]”) and the traditional reply “Bog ti pomogao” (“May God grant you a good share/happiness”) (Skok, 1971, p. 179). It was only during the Proto-Slavic era that the lexeme developed its secondary meaning of a deity who willingly distributes happiness and material benefits. In the first Serbian lexicographical work, the Serbian Dictionary (Srpski rječnik) published by Vuk Karadzic in 1818, the following significant realizations are recorded for this lexeme: “1) zao Bog [...] teško zlu Bogu [...] – 2) jaoj meni do Boga miloga! 3) za pravoga Boga” (Stefanovich Karadzic 1818: 37). Such examples reflect remnants of pagan dualism of Iranian origin regarding good and evil deities in ProtoSlavic mythology (Skok, 1971, p. 179).

Modern lexicographic material (Речник српскохрватског књижевног и народног језика, 1959; Речник српскога језика, 2011) confirms that this lexeme in modern Serbian is regularly exploited within phrasal and stable syntagmas to exteriorize (express) various emotional states: during blessings, oaths, ritual fraternization, expressions of prospective hope for success in work, the initiation of epic narratives, the articulation of anxiety (fear) before undesirable events, as well as curses (Belich, 1959, pp. 672 – 673; Nikolich, 2011, pp. 91 – 92). Similarly, in modern Russian, the lexeme functions as a formula for connoting happiness, a successful outcome, or the beginning of an activity, which is confirmed by dictionary (Большой толковый словарь русского языка, 2000) entries such as “S bogom!” (“Godspeed!”) and “Slava Bogu!” (“Praise be to God!”) (Kuznetsov, 2000, p. 87).

In modern dogmatic-theological discourse, the lexeme God is defined as “a supreme, supernatural, immortal, and omnipotent being who governs the world and human life” (Kolarich, 2010, p. 44). It represents the supreme object of religious faith, conceptualized as an absolute Person endowed with all perfections (Gubsky, Korableva, Lutchenko, 2009, pp. 48 – 49). Nevertheless, in addition to these denotative definitions present in specialized philosophical and theological lexicons of both languages, the explanatory dictionaries of Serbian and Russian (Филозофско-теолошки лексикон, 2010; Философский энциклопедический словарь, 2009) also register a rich network of secondary, figurative meanings, which opens up space for the study of specific cultural concepts materialized through their use.

Research methodology

The research is based on the application of the comparative method in the analysis of the semantic structure of the lexeme God in Serbian and Russian. The aim is to establish the degree of semantic equivalence (similarities and differences) for the evaluation of the cultural concepts it translates. The research corpus is formed from representative lexicographic sources:

Serbian sources: Rečnik srpskohrvatskog književnog i narodnog jezika [Dictionary of the Serbo-Croatian Literary and Vernacular Language] of the Serbian Academy of Sciences (Belić, ed., 1959); Rečnik srpskohrvatskog književnog jezika [Dictionary of the Serbo-Croatian Literary Language] of Matica Srpska and Matica Hrvatska (Stevanović, ed. et al., 1967); Rečnik srpskoga jezika [Dictionary of the Serbian Language] of Matica Srpska (Nikolić, ed., 2011).

Russian sources: Tolkovy slovar russkogo yazyka [Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language] (Ushakov, ed., 1935); Slovar sovremennogo russkogo literaturnogo yazyka [Dictionary of the Contemporary Russian Literary Language] (Chernyshev, ed., 1950); Tolkovy slovar zhivogo velikorusskogo yazyka [Explanatory Dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language] (Dahl, 1981); Slovar russkogo yazyka [Dictionary of the Russian Language] (Evgenieva ed., 1999); Bolshoy tolkovy slovar russkogo yazyka [The Great Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language] (Kuznetsov, compiled and ed. 2000); Tolkovy slovar russkogo yazyka s vklyucheniem svedeny o proiskhozhdenii slov (82000 slov i frazeologicheskikh vyrazheny) [Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language with the Inclusion of Information on the Origin of Words (82,000 Words and Phraseological Expressions)] (Shvedova ed., 2011).

Results, analysis and discussion

An evaluation of the compiled lexicographical data reveals a substantial level of semantic alignment between the decoded senses of the lexeme God in both Serbian and Russian; however, a primary point of divergence emerges regarding the conceptual boundaries of its denotative core.

As evidenced by Table 1 in certain Russian lexicographical sources, the primary semantic volume of the lexeme God simultaneously encompasses both the monotheistic and polytheistic religious concepts, whereas in Serbian dictionary practice, the semantic realizations of this lexeme within monotheistic and polytheistic systems are strictly lexicographically differentiated. On the other hand, it is observed that in both the Serbian and Russian linguistic pictures of the world, the mentioned token regularly evokes the meaning of the cosmological Creator and a sovereign being who constitutes the highest spiritual and ethical axiological systems. Such a cognitive schema is entirely expected from a theological standpoint, given that within the framework of the scholastic tradition, the Deity is doctrinally defined as the absolute value – summum bonum, as well as finis boni (the ultimate purpose/goal of all good) (Kolarich, 2010, p. 44). Thereby assigning Him a teleological and providential function within the cosmos (Pavlovsky, 1994, p. 34). This conceptual proximity is accompanied by a well-developed series of synonyms in both languages:

Serbyan synonyms: Gospod, Svevišnji, Svevideći, Tvorac, Svemogući, Gospodar, Stvoritelj, Višnji, božanstvo, apsolut (Ćosić, 2008, p. 62).

Russian synonyms: Tvorets, Sozdatel’, Vsevyshniy, Vsemogushchiy, Vseveshchiy, Gospod’, Vechnoye Sushchestvo, Tvorets vselennoy [у оригиналу: БОГ м. Творец, Создатель, Вседержитель, Всевышний, Всемогущий, Предвечный, Сущий, Сый, Господь; Предвечное Существо, Создатель вселенной] (Dal, 1981, p. 104).

Lexicographical analysis indicates that the lexeme God develops additional meanings in both language systems (see Table 2).

Based on the empirical evidence delineated in Table 2, the figurative extensions of the lexeme God within the Serbian linguistic paradigm exhibit a distinct anthropocentric orientation. In this context, semantic shifts are mapped onto human agents characterized by specific attributes, namely individuals who:

Wield asymmetrical social power and systemic influence;

Embody an uncontested epistemic or institutional authority;

Assume the societal role of an objective arbitrator or judge;

Personify an exemplar of individual perfection;

Receive ultimate expressions of communal affection and profound respect;

Serve as focal points for secular idolatry and veneration.

Conversely, within the Russian linguistic system, these transferred semantic codes are systematically designated to individuals who:

Exercise absolute dominance and hegemony over subordinate agents;

Become the recipients of hyperbolized admiration and adoration;

Display extraordinary cognitive capacities or creative genius.

From a structural linguistics viewpoint, this directional derivation is mediated by the cognitive apparatus of conceptual metaphor. The cognitive schematization of a highly abstract target domain (God) is operationalized through structural mappings derived from the source domain (Man), functioning as a dominant anthropomorphic projection (Stevanovich, 2021, p. 81). 3

Viewed from a culturological perspective, the aforementioned secondary meanings can be traceably motivated by Biblical narratives, wherein God is conceptualized as the Creator of life and the universe, the supreme authority, and an omnipotent judge possessing absolute power, while simultaneously existing as a perfect being who commands the utmost love, admiration, and veneration. Conversely, within the contemporary culture of the Serbian and Russian peoples as mirrored in their respective languages, the figurative extensions of the lexeme God applied to human agents can acquire a negative semantic nuance in colloquial communication. In such contexts, this token may be utilized to articulate a transient infatuation with an individual, or to convey the speaker’s expressive stance triggered by that individual’s position of authority, material wealth, or social status. Crucially, these external attributes do not necessarily correlate with the intrinsic spiritual and ethical virtues that are fundamentally emphasized within the Eastern Orthodox theological tradition.

In this context, from a linguoculturological perspective, a question arises regarding the mechanisms behind the transformation of rigorous religious theism the fundamental postulate of which is the conceptualization of the living Deity as an absolutely unitary being devoid of any analogy into secondary semantic structures. This phenomenon is particularly indicative when observed within the framework of the Serbian and Russian ethnocultural space, given that both nations, through Orthodox theology, are traditionally oriented toward a specific paradigm of the knowledge of God (theognosis). This paradigm is predicated upon the intrinsic impossibility of comprehending or grasping the divine essence through logical identity and rational categories (Gricanov, ed., 2003, pp. 111 – 112).

The secondary semantics of this lexeme also implies a transition into the domain of abstract conceptuality and material subjectivity. This is reflected in dictionary definitions such as: “what is most important to someone, one’s everything” (Belich 1959: 672), “that which dominates, determines, or constitutes the center of the subject’s consciousness,” “the object of adoration and worship” (Shvedova, 2011, p. 51), and “the most precious thing” (Stevanovich, 1967, p. 230).

Such meanings may be reflexes of pre-Christian pagan fetishism and animism (focusing on material objects of worship), but they simultaneously function as a reliable semantic marker of the loss of functional connections between sacred vocabulary and its original religious core. This thesis is further supported by the psycholinguistic research of Ksenia Koncharevich (2017, p. 600), based on the analysis of associative fields in the dictionary of Y. N. Karaulov. The results show that in the minds of modern Russian speakers, the lexeme God activates functional links within the religious domain in only 8.41% of cases. In the remaining instances, due to the semantic extension of the attributes of power, it is identified with secular realities outside the sacred sphere.

An additional feature of the Russian language model is the development of the secondary meaning of image or icon. The example provided by Kogan, “Saint Theodosius – he is a god, look, the icon is standing there (Vlg. Tot)”, demonstrates that saints are also integrated “into the rank of gods through religious attributes” (Kogan, 2017, p. 84). 4 Furthermore, the Dictionary of the Contemporary Russian Literary Language notes that “in certain proverbs and expressions, the lexeme god signifies: a saint, a holy person whom someone venerates” (Chernyshev, ed., 1950, p. 525).

In traditional Russian domestic culture, the icon space (the red corner / krasny ugol) held the status of the sacred center of the home and a symbol of divine blessing (Tsekhanskaya, 2004, p. 8). Ritual behavior upon entering the hut required primary verbal and non-verbal communication with the shrine (praying before the icon) before addressing the household.

The idiom used for banishment or radical expulsion from a house should be interpreted precisely within this context: “A vot tebe Bog, a vot tebe porog” (“Here is God for you, and there is the threshold” / “Here is the icon, and there is the door”) (Chernyshev, 1950, p. 525). The first part of this formula imperatively directs the person to offer a final prayer to the icon before being cast across the threshold. This example illustrates how lost ethnographic and cultural codes of a community can be successfully reconstructed through the semantic structure of sacred lexemes.

Conclusion

A comparative lexico-semantic investigation into the token God in both Serbian and Russian demonstrates that their foundational semantic strata encapsulate congruent culturological and theological paradigms anchored in the Eastern Orthodox Christian worldview. This framework positions the lexeme as an ontological foundation for paramount ethical and spiritual principles.

Nevertheless, both linguistic systems manifest significant semantic drift and derivation toward secondary, non-literal meanings. These conceptual shifts are bifurcated in their motivation: they are partially underpinned by archaic survivals of pre-Christian pagan mythologies, and partially accelerated by contemporary processes of secularization and desacralization. The latter, in particular, erode the functional-semantic cohesion between the sacred lexical inventory and formal dogmatic theology. Consequently, to achieve a comprehensive verification and holistic understanding of this linguistic evolution, it is imperative to undertake further empirical inquiries utilizing an expanded corpus of phraseological units wherein this lexeme operates as a core constituent.

REFERENCES

Belić, A. (Ed.). (1959). Rečnik srpskohrvatskog književnog i narodnog jezika, knjiga I. Srpska akademija nauka – Institut za srpskohrvatski jezik.

Berdyaev, N. A. (1955). Istoki i smysl russkogo kommunizma. Ymca-Press. http://odinblago.ru/russk_kommunizm

Chaikanović, V. (1973). Mit i religija u Srba. Srpska književna zadruga. https://ivoandric.no/biblioteka/Istorija/Veselin%20Cajkanovic%20%20Mit%20i%20religija%20kod%20Srba.pdf

Chernyshov, V. I. (Ed.). (1950). Slovar sovremennogo russkogo literaturnogo yazyka, tom pervyy, A – B. Izdatelstvo Akademii nauk SSSR. https://iling.spb.ru/sites/default/files/2022-12/БАС_01_А_Б.pdf.

Ćosić, P. et al. (2008). Rečnik sinonima. Kornet.

Dahl, V. I. (1981). Tolkovyy slovar zhivogo velikorusskogo yazyka, tom pervyy. Russkiy yazyk. https://www.prlib.ru/item/798123.

Evgenieva, A. P. (Ed.). (1999). Slovar russkogo yazyka: V chetyrekh tomakh, tom I, A – Y (4th ed.). Russkiy yazyk – Poligrafresursy. https://www.klex.ru/25jy.

Fasmer, M. (1986). Etimologicheskiy slovar russkogo yazyka, tom 1, A – D. Progress. https://www.slovorod.ru/etym-vasmer/_pdf/vasmer-etymologic-dict1.pdf.

Gricanov, A. A. (Ed.). (2003). Noveyshiy filosofskiy slovar (3rd ed.). Knizhnyy Dom. http://read.newlibrary.ru/read/red__gricanov/page0/noveishii_filosofskii_slovar.html.

Gubsky, E. F., Korableva, G. V., & Lutchenko, V. A. (Eds.). (2009). Filosofskiy entsiklopedicheskiy slovar. INFRA-M. https://www.rubricon.com/fes_1.asp.

Hrnjak, A. (2007). Kulinarski elementi u hrvatskoj i ruskoj frazeologiji. Rasprave Instituta za hrvatski jezik i jezikoslovlje, 33, 197 – 216. https://hrcak.srce.hr/18797.

Jerotić, V. (2002). Individualizacija i (ili) oboženje. Ars Libri / Kremen.

Jovanović, M. (2010). U senci gasa i politike: Kulturni i duhovni kontakti, veza i saradnja Srbije i Rusije. In Ž. N. Petrović (Ed.). Odnosi Rusije i Srbije na početku XXI veka (pp. 183 – 191). IC Fond – International and Security Affairs Centre. https://www.isac-fund.org/download/Odnosi-Rusije-i-Srbije-na-pocetku-XXI-veka.pdf.

Kogan, E. S. (2017). Dusha, Bog, grekh i zagrobnayazhizn vzerkale dialektnogo diskursa Volgo-Dvinskogo Mezhdurechya. Nauchnyy dialog, (11), 77 – 92. https://doi.org/10.24224/2227-1295-2017-11-77-92.

Kolarich, I. (2010). Filozofsko-teološki leksikon. Legenda.

Koncharević, K. (2017). Sovremennaya i traditsionnaya religioznost russkogo naroda cherez prizmu kognitivnoy lingvistiki. Tserkovne studije, (14), 595 – 608. http://centarbi.edu.rs/izdanja/crkvene-studije-14-2017/.

Kuznetsov, S. A. (Ed.). (2000). Bolshoy tolkovyy slovar russkogo yazyka. Norint.

Nikolić, M. (Ed.). (2011). Rečnik srpskoga jezika (Izmenjeno i popravljeno izdanje). Matica srpska.

Pavlovsky, A. I. (1994). Populyarnyy bibleyskiy slovar. Panorama.

Petrović, S. (1999). Srpska mitologija: Sistem srpske mitologije, I knjiga. Prosveta. https://slobadidi.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/sreten-petrovic-sistem-srpske-mitologije.pdf.

Skok, P. (1971). Etimologijski rječnik hrvatskoga ili srpskoga jezika, A – J, knjiga prva. Jugoslavenska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti.

Stefanović Karadžić, V. (1818). Srpski rječnik istolkovan njemačkim i latinskim riječima. Štamparija Jermenskog manastira. http://digital.bms.rs/ebiblioteka/publications/view/1216.

Stevanović, K. (2021). Metaforička konceptualizacija boga u srpskom jeziku. Baština, 51, 77 – 86. https://doi.org/10.5937/bastina31-31464.

Stevanović, M. et al. (Eds.). (1967). Rečnik srpskohrvatskoga književnog jezika, knjiga prva, A – E. Matica srpska / Matica hrvatska.

Ushakov, D. N. (Ed.). (1935). Tolkovyy slovar russkogo yazyka, tom I. Gosudarstvennyy institut “Sovetskaya entsiklopediya”. https://povto.ru/russkie/slovari/tolkovie/ushakova/tom-1/ushakov-tom-1_0001.htm.

Vulović, N. (2015). Srpska frazeologija i religija: Lingvokulturološka istraživanja. Institut za srpski jezik SANU. https://dais.sanu.ac.rs/bitstream/handle/123456789/1313/23_Vulovic_Srpska_frazeologija.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.