This chapter addresses the phenomenon of false cognates in Slavic languages, i.e. words that sound alike but have different meanings, such as Polish brak ‘deficiency’ and Bulgarian brak ‘marriage’. Inter-Slavic false cognates are seen primarily as endpoints of diverging semantic and derivation processes in various Slavic languages. The chapter also discusses Slavic to non-Slavic false cognates, where in most cases diverging processes in lexical borrowing represent generators of this kind of relationship. False cognates thus provide important insights into all major processes of lexical enrichment. Pedagogical implications of false cognates in teaching Slavic languages are also presented.

Section 1 gives an operational definition of loanwords and exemplifies their categories. Section 2, on types of borrowing, distinguishes loanwords, which generally adapt to the recipient language’s system, from foreign words, which do not. There are one-source loanwords and hybrid loanwords (coming from two or more languages). Unlike one-language borrowing, chained borrowing passes through one or more intermediate languages. Borrowing via cultural influence and that due to geographical contacts are defined. Section 3 outlines main sources of borrowing: sources for Proto-Slavic, and sources for individual Slavic languages and their dialects. Section 4 outlines issues of phonological, morphosyntactic, semantic, and register/style adaptation. Section 5 discusses the lexical status of loanwords in Slavic; section 6, their sociolinguistic status. Purism dominated the lexicons of Slavic standard languages, especially those which had been under German-speaking rule. Section 7, on Slavic loanword research, focuses on ‘dictionaries of foreign words’, which are abundant and prominent in all Slavic cultures, while virtually unknown in English and other cultural traditions.

Chapter 4 demonstrates that Korean has deeply influenced its immediate language neighbors: Japanese and Jurchen-Manchu. The Japanese-Korean parallels discussed here have often been presented as proof of their genetic relationship. However, the chapter argues that the overwhelming majority of these parallels are found only in Central Japanese, the Japonic language, with which Korean was in immediate and direct contact. On the other hand, most of the Korean-Jurchen/Manchu comparisons dealt with in this chapter have not previously been discussed. With few exceptions, they are found only in Jurchen and Manchu but not in other Tungusic languages. These exceptions are easily explained as loans from Jurchen or Manchu into the neighboring Southern or Northern Tungusic languages; they are never found in those Northern Tungusic languages, such as Ewenki and Ewen that are located outside of the area.