The presented Dictionary of Collocations is the first of its kind in Slovakia. It covers collocational profiles with nouns and is based on a lexical database of collocations in the Slovak language. The Slovak National Corpus of the Ľudovít Štúr Institute of Linguistics at the Slovak Academy of Sciences was used to conduct the research. The database covers collocational profiles of several hundred words of different parts of speech (nouns in the first phase of the project). The Dictionary is aimed at the registration and description of not only multiword lexemes, but also at the registration of the so-called typical collocations having a wide collocability. They are differentiated by frequency, and their number is limited in that way. An innovative approach has been applied for sorting out collocations in the Dictionary. The combinatory of flexional potentials of these elements are the basis for the creation of the so-called collocational templates which serve as the basis for the patterns of collocations.

The problem of Slavic–Finno-Ugric cultural and language contacts is one of the stable scientific dominants of Slavic studies. Though the lexical units remain the basis of etymological and ethnolinguistic reconstructions, phraseology has also recently become increasingly the object of research on Hungarian–Slavic and Slavic–Hungarian language contacts. A special place here is occupied by the analysis of the Finno-Ugric–Russian phraseological interaction. The paper offers a linguistic interpretation of 7 Hungarian–Russian phraseological parallels. The comparison with the Slavic and other Indo-European material helps to clarify their historical and etymological interpretation proposed by the famous Hungarian folklorist and paremiologist Gábor O. Nagy

Proverbs and sayings, which have always been considered the favourite genre of folklore and the representatives of the national mentality proper, have recently attracted particular attention of linguists. These are attempts to objectively establish the so-called “paremiological minimum” of different languages, the desire to measure the cognitive potential of the parеmias, and a broad comparative study of the proverbs and sayings of related and unrelated languages as well as a characteristic of the pragmatic capabilities of the latter. The present paper offers a comparative typological analysis of proverbs and sayings in the Russian and Hungarian languages.

Despite their different genetic origins, it is in paremiology that there is a fairly large number of parallels of different types. The purpose of the paper is to identify such parallels and their classification by origin. The sources of such parallels are different: above all, longterm interaction with the paremiological systems of German and other European languages, including Slavic. Slavic paremiology, on the one hand, was a “donor” of borrowing in the form of tracing, on the other hand, it itself absorbed many Finno-Ugric paremias.

That is why Hungarian paremiology and paremiography are of particular importance for comparative studies. And not only because the Hungarian language has historically absorbed a pan-European (including Slavic) paremiological heritage but also because Hungarian paremiography has long been one of the richest treasures of Hungarian and European small folklore. These collections of Hungarian proverbs and sayings against a broad interlanguage background are one of the most significant paremiological traditions. The rich paremiological collections accumulated by Hungarian researchers provide an opportunity for a detailed comparison of Slavic and Hungarian proverbs and sayings against a common European background and at the same time to trace the traces of direct Slavic-Hungarian contacts.

Of particular importance in such a comparative study is the dialectal material, both in Hungarian and Slavic. When comparing the paremias of Russian and Hungarian languages, linguistic details are especially important, allowing to demonstrate the adaptation of the common European heritage to the Slavic and Finno-Ugric languages and to determine the proportion of similarities and differences between the respective paremias. It is not only genetic inertia but also the field of variation of borrowed proverbs and sayings that forms their national specificity.

A comparative study shows that the Slavic variant proverb series look more compact and almost unchangeable. The variation of the Hungarian proverbs reveals a much wider amplitude, although it also retains the “classical” version as the main one. Some of them can be considered nationally specific despite the universality and globality of the range of some proverbs. The quota of national specificity for each of the options is different but it is the paremiological details that contain the national colour reflected in the language.