Автор: Ангелина Иванова

Библиографии / Bibliography

ХРУСАНОВА, Весела – Съпоставително изследване на български с други езици. Библиография. 1976 (І), № 4, 3–82.

Съпоставителни изследвания / Contrastive Studies

НИКОВ, Мишел – Лексико-синтактична структура на същинските общи въпроси във френски и български език (Structure lexico-syntaxique des véritables questions totales en français et bulgare). 1976 (І), № 3, 115–134.

L’article reflète les résultats d’une étude sur les moyens lexico-syntaxiques, servant à exprimer les significations communicatives des véritables questions totales (не излиза така!) en français et bulgare. Elle représente l’étape préliminaire d’une autre étude, plus large, portant sur tous les moyens linguistiques qui servent à exprimer ces significations, et avant tout – sur l’intonation.

ПАРАШКЕВОВ, Борис – Функционални еквиваленти на българското възвратно лично местоимение във фински език (Funktionale Äquivalente des bulgarischen Reflexivpronomens im Finnischen). 1976 (І), № 3, 135–145.

Gegenstand der vorliegenden Untersuchung sind die adverbialen Funktionen des Reflexivpronomens (Pronr) ce, cи, ceбe cи und die Ermittlung systemhafter lexikalisch-grammatischer Entsprechungen der bulgarischen Konstruktionen V + Pronr im Finnischen. Analysiert wurden vier Funktionsbereiche des Pronr:

1. Syntaktische Funktionen – Pronr fungiert in der vollen oder elliptischen dreigliedrigen Struktur /S → /P → Pronr als direktes, indirektes, reziprokes oder Präpositionalobjekt.

2. Morphosyntaktische Funktionen – Pronr fungiert in der zweigliedrigen Struktur S ← PPronr und der eingliedrigen Struktur P-Pronr, in denen der Komplex P-Pronr eine bestimmte grammatische Funktion erfüllt (passive Konstruktionen, unpersönliche Konstruktionen, passive und unpersönliche Konstruktionen mit modaler Bedeutung: Konstruktionen mit qualitativer Bedeutung, Konstruktionen mit permissiver, obligativer, prohibitiver Bedeutung, Konstruktionen mit potentieller Bedeutung, Konstruktionen mit voluntativer Bedeutung).

3. Wortbildende Funktionen – Pronr fungiert in der zweigliedrigen Struktur S → P-Pronr und der eingliedrigen Struktur P-Pronr, in denen der Komplex P-Pronr eine lexikalische Einheit bildet (morphosemantische Funktion und lexikalische Funktion).

4. Stilistische Funktion – fakultativer Gebrauch des Pronr als emotionalexpressive Verstärkung.

Im Rahmen der vier Funktionsbereiche wurden insgesamt 17 spezifische Verwendungsweisen des Pronr in Verbindung mit einem Verb beschrieben und geeignete Ausdrucksmittel zu ihrer Wiedergabe im Finnischen aufgeführt. Die auf diese Weise ermittelten funktionalen Äquivalente des bulgarischen Reflexivpronomens können als eine prinzipielle Grundlage für die richtige Interpretation, Differenzierung und Transformation der polyfunktionalen bulgarischen Konstruktionen V + Pronr dienen.

ШАМРАЙ, Татьяна – Към въпроса за идентифицирането на дескриптивното значение на глаголите мисляи myślećв контекста на сложните съставни изречения. 1976 (І), № 3, 78–83.

The article offers an attempt to identify the descriptive meaning of the Bulgarian verb мисля and of Polish myśleć in the context of compound composite sentences.

BOJAR, Bożenna (Warszawa) – Polskiе i bułgarskie czasowniki komunikujące relacje czasowe. 1976 (І), № 3, 65–77.

This article deals with verbs which, in extra-textual reality, link up not only with the denotata of their syntactic elements, but also with the temporal relations existing between them.

HEREJ-SZYMAŃSKA, Krystyna (Kraków) – Kategorie słowotwórcze czasowników denominalnych we współczesnym języku polskim i bułgarskim. 1976 (I), № 3, 35–47.

The article discusses problems of the derivation of denominal verbs in present-day Standard Bulgarian. The Bulgarian material is compared with Polish material from R. Grzegorczykowa’s Finite Verbs in Present day Polish. The results are different despite some common tendencies of word-formation in the two languages.

Рецензии и анотации / Reviews and Shorter Notices

ЛИНГОРСКА, Благовеста – Руско-полска контрастивна граматика. 1976 (І), № 3, 149–160.

Хроника / Events

* * * – Дискусии по докладите от българо-полската конференция „Глаголът в българския и полския език“. 1976 (І), № 3, 84–107.

* * * – Материали от българо-полската конференция Глаголътвбългарскияиполскияезик. 1976 (І), № 3, 5–6.

Съпоставителни изследвания / Contrastive Studies

ИВАНОВА, Малина – За превода на полските деепричастия на български език. 1976 (І), № 2, 5–9.

The problem of rendering Polish gerunds and constructions with them into Bulgarian is part of the more general problem of variants in translation. The article shows that Polish prefers the closer syntactic connection by means of gerunds and constructions with them, while Bulgarian uses syntactic subordination and coordination. Bulgarian lacks the morphological analogues of the Polish anterior gerund and uses a variety of expressions as its functional equivalents.

ИВАНЧЕВ, Светомир – Един неописан семантико-словообразователен глаголен модел в съвременния български език. 1976 (І), № 2, 19–30.

Bulgarian reflexive verbs have not been researched in great detail. What we find on the subject is scattered in studies on related topics and in various grammar books. Even less attention has been paid to the reflexiva tantum verbs. Polish reflexive verbs were described in a special monograph as early as 1966. The similarities and differences between Polish and Bulgarian in this sphere cannot be exhausted in such a brief text so I will concentrate on a verbal type belonging to the reflexiva tantum, which has no parallel in Polish and has to be rendered descriptively.

ИВАНЧЕВ, Светомир – Един сравнително нов семантико-словообразователен тип глаголи в съвременния български и белоруски език. 1976 (І), № 5, 111–115.

Since ancient times Slavic languages have used nouns, adjectives and adverbs with the prefixed element само-, a calque of Greek auto-. Byelorussian has 8 verbs with this element and almost all of them have correspondences in Russian. Compared to Bulgarian this is a non-productive type in Byelorussian. Various ways of rendering the relevant meanings and functions in the two languages are discussed together with factors determining various choices. Since this verbal type is more economical and convenient in special terminology, we can expect that it will become more widely spread.

КУЦАРОВ, Иван (Пловдив) – Преизказните форми в съвременния книжовен български език и съответствията им в полския език. 1976 (І), № 2, 56–64.

The article deals with the non-evidential [преизказни] verbal forms in Contemporary Standard Bulgarian and their equivalents in Polish.

ЛЕКОВ, Иван – Явна и „скрита“ глаголна съпоставителна проблематика на полския и българския език. 1976 (І), № 2, 65–82.

„Explicit“ and „implicit“ problems in the study of the verb in Polish and Bulgarian are the topic of the present article. Some of the general conclusions reached are as follows. The comparative development of the two genetically related languages is one of differentiation. The growing distance is due to developments of both conjugation and declension. Two types of factors are at work – sociolinguistic and structural-linguistic. In the sphere of the verb Polish shows a combination of inflection, agglutination and analyticity. There are hardly any traces of agglutination in Bulgarian. New hybrid, contextually determined forms, based on verbal components, is appearing in Polish as a result of agglutination.

ЛИНГОРСКА, Благовеста – Към въпроса за функционално-семантичните съответствия на българския плусквамперфект в полския език. 1976 (І), № 2, 83–97.

The article offers a comparison of fragments of the temporal systems of Bulgarian and Polish, Bulgarian serving as the starting point. It presents work in progress, being a stage in the preparation of an overall comparison of the temporal systems of the two languages. Here the goal is to establish the surface structure types of Polish correspondences to the Bulgarian pluperfect. By correspondences we mean all components of the target language text, simple and complex, which appear as a result of the process of translation.

МАЛДЖИЕВА, Вяра – Езиково-семантични функции на глаголните форми за изразяване на понятийните категории „хипотетична възможност и желание“ в полски и български език. 1976 (І), № 2, 98–113.

The article examines the semantic functions of verbal forms expressing hypothetical possibility and wish in Polish and Bulgarian. This is the notional category typically realized by the grammatical forms of the conditional mood. We point out the linguistic semantic functions of the verbal grammatical categories in the two languages which interpret the notional category. It is the latter that serves as the basis for comparison, and more specifically, the notional categories that underlie a complex of synonymic expressions.

ПОПОВА, Антоанета – Някои полски модaлни конструкции и техните български съответствия. 1976 (І), № 2, 128–148.

With a view to the increasingly wide interpretations of modality we need to delimit this concept. We will have in mind voluntative or dictal modality, which includes possibility, necessity, intention and similar meanings. This article deals with three specific modal constructions in Polish, trying to establish their interrelationship, and their Bulgarian correspondences and functional equivalents.

РАДЕВА, Василка – Структурно-семантична характеристика на глаголите, образувани от съществителни имена (по материали от български и полски език). 1976 (І), № 2, 170–180.

The article investigates denominal derivative verbs in Polish and Bulgarian. They are motivated by nouns with which they enter semantic and word-formative relations. After the concrete analysis of the language material the following general conclusions are reached. The denominal verbs in the two languages share a number of structural-semantic characteristics. They follow from the nature of the motivating base and of the word-formative modification. These peculiarities show the complex interaction between word-formation and the lexicon of the language and between the word-formative and grammatical features of the verbal system.

РАДЕВА, Сабина, Йежи МАЙХРОВСКИ – Полските глаголи за движение с представки od-, wy-, po- и техните български съответствия. 1976 (І), № 2, 149–169.

The article raises some problems connected with the Polish verbs of motion with the prefixes od-, wy- and po- and their Bulgarian equivalents. The main word-formative and functional semantic peculiarities of those verbs are pointed out. We focus on the uses of the verbs based on word-formative, semantic and syntactic features in a contrastive perspective. The synonymy of the verbs, complete or partial, is also examined. The results of the comparison are summarized in conclusion.

KORYTKOWSKA, Małgorzata (Warszawa) – Z semantyki i składni czasowników bułgarskich i polskich: bg. iskam – pol. chcieć. 1976 (І), № 2, 31–44.

This article offers a contrastive analysis of the Bulgarian verb искам and the Polish chcieć, taking into account both the semantic and the syntactic properties of these lexical items. The analysis is carried out within the theoretical framework of transformational generative grammar.

Хроника / Events

* * * – An introduction to the journal issue featuring papers presented at the Third Bulgarian-Polish linguistic conference. 1976 (І), № 2/3, 3.

ДАНЧЕВ, Андрей – За някои страни на съпоставителните изследвания (On some aspects of contrastive linguistic studies). 1976 (І), № 1, 6–26.

The author of this paper examines some of the terminological, methodological and theoretical problems of contrastive linguistics. The generative approach is considered to provide a convenient basis for contrastive analysis, especially if a common deep structure for all languages is assumed. The problem of describing or formalizing this hypothetical deep structure by means of a metalanguage can be circumvented by using one of the two or more contrasted languages as a metalanguage with respect to the other language or languages. New insights into the structure of a given language may thus be gained, because what in one language is part of the deep structure is not infrequently marked explicitly in the surface structure of another language. A case in point is the category of aspect in English and Bulgarian, which is most profitably studied by regarding it as a category of the deep structure.

КАРААНГОВА, Маргарита – Суфикси за емоционална оценка със специална консонантна характеристика в белоруския и българския език. 1976 (І), № 5, 116–125.

The article focuses on Byelorussian and Bulgarian suffixes expressing emotional attitude and diminutives in particular. The study examines the consonants appearing in these suffixes in the two languages in the derivation of words belonging to various word classes (nouns, adjectives, numerals, pronouns, verbs and adverbs). The article shows the comparative picture in the two languages, representatives of two branches of the Slavic family.

КОТОВА, Надежда В., Мирослав ЯНАКИЕВ – Какво е най-удобно да съпоставяме количествено в славянските езици (Что в славянских языках больше всего поддается количественному сопоставлению). 1976 (І), № 1, 27–39.

Рассматриваются некоторые предлагаемые математической статистикой операции, с помощью которых надежность эксплицитно количественных утверждений в свою очередь оценивается количественно, причем учитываются два влияющих на нее фактора – как объективная, так и субъективная флуктуация численной оценки.

МАНЧЕВ, Красимир – Принципи на типологичното изследване на езика (Principes de l’étude typologique du langage). 1976 (І), № 1, 40–57.

Par cette étude l’auteur soutient la thèse que la définition des caractères spécifiques d’un idiome implique par nécessité naturelle l’existence de caractères génériques de l’ensemble des idiomes.

KOSESKA-TOSZEWA, Violetta (Warszawa) – Informacja o określoności w znaczeniach temporalnych form werbalnych w języku polskim i bułgarskim. 1976 (І), № 2, 45–55.

This is a fairly detailed discussion of the formalism to be used in the description of verbal temporal meanings in Polish and Bulgarian within the Polish-Bulgarian contrastive project. In our choice of methodology we are led by the desire to achieve an explicit and consistent description of verbal forms and their temporal functions.

ORZECHOWSKA, Hanna (Warszawa) – Imiesłowy przysłówkowe we współczesnym języku polskim i bułgarskim (Frekwencja i podstawowe różnice w dystrybucjach). 1976 (І), № 2, 114–127.

The article analyses present active participles (referring to activities simultaneous with the activity demoted by the predicate). The goal is to describe the actual state of affairs rather than illustrate the normative postulates established for the two literary languages under investigation – Bulgarian and Polish.

SZYMAŃSKI, Tadeusz (Kraków) – Główne modele derywacyjne czasowników onomatopeicznych w języku bułgarskim. 1976 (І), № 2, 181–195.

The article is based on part of the author’s study The derivation of onomatopoeic and expressive verbs in Bulgarian. It is an abridged presentation of some of the results contained in the first part of this work, based on material from Standard Bulgarian and some of the Bulgarian dialects.

Рецензии и анотации / Reviews and Shorter Notices

БЪЧВАРОВ, Янко – За някои постижения на съвременните контрастивни проучвания. 1976 (І), № 1, 61–67.

БЪЧВАРОВ, Янко – Югославският сърбохърватско-английски контрастивен проект. 1976 (І), № 1, 81–94.

ЛИНГОРСКА, Благовеста – Граматиката с поглед към нуждите на езиковата практика. 1976 (І), № 1, 68–80.

ПОПОВА, Антоанета – Съпоставително изследване върху вида и времето в немски и полски език. 1976 (І), № 6, 89–96.

Хроника / Events

Б[ЪЧВАРОВ], Я[нко] – Кратък отчет за дейността на Групатазасъпоставителноизследваненабългарскияезиксдругиезиципрез периода от нейното сформиране до края на 1975 година. 1976 (І), № 1, 110–112.

ЛИНГОРСКА, Благовеста – Предстоящи прояви на българските слависти в областта на съпоставителните проучвания на славянските езици. 1976 (І), № 1, 108–109.

МОЛХОВА, Жана – Девета международна конференция по полско-английски контрастивни изследвания. 1976 (І), № 1, 104–107.

ПАВЛОВА, Румяна – Международен симпозиум на русисти за съпоставителни изследвания. 1976 (І), № 1, 95–103.

Списание Съпоставително езикознание / Сопоставительное языкознание / Contrastive Linguistics (списание на Софийския университет „Св. Климент Охридски“) е първото в света периодично издание, посветено на съпоставителни лингвистични изследвания.

Историята на списанието започва през 1976 г. с обнародването на едно уникално периодично издание – Бюлетин за съпоставително изследване на българския език с други езици по идея и под ръководството на проф. Светомир Иванчев.

1976 (І), № 1

1976 (І), № 2

1976 (І), № 3

1976 (І), № 4

1976 (І), № 5

1976 (І), № 6

Валтер, Х. – 1990 (XV), № 6, 84–86; 2008 (ХХХІІІ), № 2, 78–82; вж. още Walter, H.

Васева, Ив. – 1982 (VІІ), № 3, 71–75; 1989 (XIV), № 2, 68–71; 1991 (XVI), № 5, 88–91

Василева, Ст. – 1998 (ХХІІІ), № 1–2, 203–206

Васильева, А. Н. – 1991 (XVI), № 5, 85–88

Васильева, Н. М. – 1982 (VІІ), № 1–2, 159–160

Вачкова, К. – 1999 (ХХІV), № 4, 131–135; 2002 (ХХVІІ), № 3, 150–153; 2005 (ХХХ), № 2, 141–145; 2006 (ХХХІ), № 3, 151–154;

Веденина, Л. – 1991 (XVI), № 2, 67–69

Велева, Б. – 2001 (XXVI), № 2, 124–126

Велчева, Б. – 1982 (VІІ), № 4, 67–69; вж. още Velcheva, B.

Венедиктов, Г. / Венедиктов, Г. К. – 1983 (VІІІ), № 3, 88–90; 1992 (XVII), № 2, 57–61; 1993 (XVIII), № 2, 51–57

Венелин, Ю. И. – 1998 (ХХІІІ), № 3–4, 161–166

Веселинов, Д. – 2007 (ХХХІІ), № 3, 179–182; 2008 (ХХХІІІ), № 1, 217–220

Виденов, М. – 1998 (ХХІІІ), № 1–2, 220–221; 2000 (ХХV), № 2, 176–177; 2001 (XXVI), № 1, 107–109

Виноградов, В. А. – 1986 (XI), № 6, 78–81

Виноградов, В. В. – 1980 (V), № 5, 97–99

Виноградова, В. И. – 1985 (Х), № 4, 109–111

Винокур, Т. Г. – 1986 (XI), № 1, 82–85

Влахов, К. – 1980 (V), № 4, 72–74

Влахов, С. – 1981 (VІ), № 6, 45–49; 1983 (VІІІ), № 1, 100–102; 1991 (XVI), № 5, 91–94; 1995 (XX), № 4–5, 75–78; 2005 (ХХХ), № 2, 145–150

Волкова, З. Н. – 1985 (Х), № 3, 84–85

Володин, А. П. – 1987 (XII), № 6, 65–66

Вольф, Е. М. – 1986 (XI), № 6, 62–65; 1991 (XVI), № 2, 71–74

Воронин, С. В. – 1985 (Х), № 1, 83–85

Вуковиħ, Г. – 1988 (XIII), № 1, 113–114

Вучева, Е. – 1996 (ХХІ), № 3, 88–90

Вълчанова, М. – 2005 (ХХХ), № 1, 181–183

Вълчев, Б. – 2009 (ХХХІV), № 3, 131–135

Бабов, К. – 1979 (ІV), № 2, 93–94

Бадмаева, Л. Д. – 1996 (ХХІ), № 3, 92–93

Байрамова, Л. К. – 1998 (ХХІІІ), № 1–2, 214–218

Баранов, А. Г. – 1994 (XIX), № 3–4, 98–100

Баскаков, А. Н. – 1987 (XII), № 1, 97–99

Баскаков, Н. А. – 1980 (V), № 3, 55–56

Белл, Р. Т. – 1983 (VІІІ), № 4, 93–96

Белошапкова, В. А. – 1979 (ІV), № 1, 101–102

Бернар, Р. – 1986 (XI), № l, 58–62

Бернштейн, С. Б. – 1991 (XVI), № 1, 111–113; 2001 (XXVI), № 1, 95–99

Бидерман, Х. – 2005 (ХХХ), № 2, 150–151

Благоева, Д. – 2002 (ХХVІІ), № 3, 163–166

Блажев, Б. / Блажев, Бл. – 1994 (XIX), № 3–4, 131–135; 1996 (ХХІ), № 1, 94–95;

Блинова, О. И. – 1987 (XII), № 89–91

Блох, М. Я. – 1987 (XII), № 4, 58–60

Богданов, В. В. – 1980 (V), № 1, 73–75

Богуславский, И. М. – 1988 (XIII), № 4–5, 158–161

Бозова, С. – 1998 (ХХІІІ), № 1–2, 193–198

Бондарко, А. В. – 1987 (XII), № 2, 66–71; 1985 (Х) № 4, 87–93; 1980 (V), № 6, 90–93;

Борковский, В. И. – 1986 (XI), № 2, 78–79

Бородина, М. А. – 1983 (VІІІ), № 3, 101–102

Борщ, В. М. – 1987 (XII), № 3, 107–108

Бошковиħ, Р. – 1980 (V), № 5, 70–73

Бошњаковиħ, Ж. – 1988 (XIII), № 1, 113–114

Бояджиев, Ж. – 1978 (ІІІ), № 5, 67; 1982 (VІІ), № 4, 70–73; 1992 (XVII), № 5, 67–74; 2001 (XXVI), № 1, 86–89; 2005 (ХХХ), № 2, 122–123

Бояджиев, Т. – 1978 (ІІІ), № 2, 74–76; 1980 (V), № 5, 83–86; 1988 (XIII), № 1, 100–101; 1993 (XVIII), № 2, 38–42

Брызгунова, Е. А. – 1979 (ІV), № 2, 96–98

Будагов, Р. А. – 1988 (XIII), № 3, 102–105; 1990 (XV), № 2, 80–82;

Будаев, Ц. Б. – 1994 (XIX), № 5, 100–102

Булахов, М. Г. – 1980 (V), № 5, 75–79; 1983 (VІІІ), № 2, 84–86

Булыка, А. М. – 1983 (VІІІ), № 5, 105–106

Буров, Ст. – 1988 (XIII), № 4–5, 181–182; 1997 (ХХІІ), № 2, 101–104

Бурячок, А. А. – 1982 (VІІ), № 6, 46–47

Буюклиев, Ив. – 1992 (XVII), № 4, 90–91; 1993 (XVIII), № 5, 74–76

Бъркалова, П. – 1999 (ХХІV), № 1, 158–160

Бъчваров, Я. – 1997 (ХХІІ), № 3, 140–141

Публикации през периода 1976-2009

Абабурка, М. В. – 1980 (V), № 5, 79–80

Аветян, Э. Г. – 1983 (VІІІ), № 6, 72–74

Авилова, Н. С. – 1979 (ІV), № 1, 102–104

Аврамова, С. – 1980 (V), № 5, 100–101

Аврамова, Цв. – 2005 (ХХХ), № 1, 184–190

Агаян, Э. Р. – 1981 (VІ), № 6, 36–39

Адуцкевич, Л. Б. – 1989 (XIV), № 2, 71–72

Азарова, А. – 1999 (ХХІV), № 2–3, 180–186

Александрова, М. – 2008 (ХХХІІІ), № 3, 45–56

Алексеев, Г. П. – 1988 (XIII), № 1, 110–112

Алексеев, Д. И. – 1980 (V), № 4, 86–88

Алексиева, Б. – 1989 (XIV), № 2, 68–71

Алексић, М. / Алексич, М. – 2000 (ХХV), № 1, 151–154; 2008 (ХХХІІІ), № 1, 220–222

Алексова, В. – 2009 (ХХХІV), № 1, 135–142

Алексова, Кр. – 2001 (XXVI), № 1, 111–114

Алехина, А. И. – 1983 (VІІІ), № 2, 106–107

Алмалех, М. – 2003 (ХХVІІІ), № 1, 127–128; 2006 (ХХХІ), № 1, 146–149; вж. още Almalech, M.

Ананьева, Н. Е. – 1989 (XIV), № 3, 62–64

Ангелов, А. / Ангелов, А. Г. – 2000 (ХХV), № 1, 154; 1999 (ХХІV), № 2–3, 186–188

Ангелов, Ангел Ил. – 2003 (ХХVІІІ), № 3, 172–174

Ангелов, Б. Ст. – 1979 (ІV), № 5, 71–72

Ангелова, А. – 2007 (ХХХІІ), № 2, 109– 111

Андерш, Й. Ф. – 1991 (XVI), № 1, 71–73

Андрейчин, Л. – 1978 (III), № 5, 62–63; 1981 (VІ), № 3–5, 264– 268

Андрейчина, К. – 1983 (VІІІ), № 1, 100–102

Аниченко, В. В. – 1979 (ІV), № 2, 84–86

Антелава, Г. И. – 1987 (XII), № 5, 114–115

Антонова, Ю. – 1983 (VІІІ), № 4, 91–93; 1983 (VІІІ), № 5, 100–104

Аракин, Д. А. – 1984 (ІХ), № 1, 74–77

Армянов, Г. – 1991 (XVI), № 3, 98–100

Арутюнов, А. Р. – 1984 (ІХ), № 5, 112–115

Арутюнова, Н. Д. – 1978 (III), № 5, 71–73

Асенова, П. – 1991 (XVI), № 4, 60–63; 2008 (ХХХІІІ), № 3, 45–56; 2009 (ХХХІV), № 2, 86–90

Астрахан, Е. Б. – 1988 (XIII), № 2, 108–110

Атанасов, П. – 2006 (ХХХІ), № 3, 140–142

Ахметьянов, Р. Г. – 1981 (VІ), № 3–5, 282– 284