The article deals with morphology-derivational aspect of analytization tendencies, which are evidenced by the active use of analytical derivation, in particular complex lexemes not typical for the Russian language. Analytical constructions become active in the modern Russian literal language which evidences appearance of a stratum of affix-root word components in the language system with system bounds. It is affirmed that analytical constructions is a significant part of the vocabulary fixed by dictionaries proving Russian lexical innovations. This illustrates a prominent function of analytical constructions in the modern linguistic consciousness: many aspects of the modern Russian life are reflected in affixoids semantics; the displayed cognitive matrix “Russian society” has different cognitive contexts, disclosing language priorities, reflecting the tastes adequate to modern Russia. Active use of analytical word-building models, characterized by significant structural-semantic morpheme discreteness, evidences weakening of traditional morphonologic mechanisms and introduction of a different grammatical system to traditional synthetic performance. The purpose of the article is to determine activity of analytical compounds, study the process of analytization of the Russian language system in the aspect of the national cultural world view. It has been proved that at the modern stage of the Russian language development there is a necessity to study this language phenomenon beyond the traditional system-structural paradigm, which necessitates to pay attention to the character of the contemporary national cultural world view, determine its peculiarities in Russian ethnological linguistic culture.
Keywords: Language systemanalytizmagglutinationaffixoidtypological peculiaritiescultural worldview
It is known that the society dynamics and language progress are closely related. Significant changes in the society are closely related to the changes in the language, its historical dynamics, evolution of its system-structural characteristics.
Vocabulary is the most dynamic part of the language. Grammar is less influenced by the external impact and is structurally and functionally static. Together with that Russian language history evidences that grammar, together with word-building and changing, syntactic units undergo significant changes which demonstrate new tendencies in the development of grammar.
Diachronic transformations in linguistic units functioning precede linguistic registration of a new phenomenon. Here, M.A. Krongauz’s ideas about a special character of the research were aimed at the linguistic shifts; the issue is in bisynchronic approach as a new method of studying synchronous state of language with the account of dynamic processes in it” (Krongauz, 2006 ).
At this stage of the Russian language development we can say that derivation being a formal-semantic unity is the most dynamic part of grammar. Here the statement is fair: word-building language stratum is flexible, as it possesses significant unlimited creative abilities. That is why during active social changes word-building potential shows itself to a total power, nowadays active analytization of the Russian linguistic system takes place.
Analytism of the modern Russian language appeared in the second part of the ХIХ century and was first determined by Jan Ignacy Baudouin de Courtenay. Analytism studies of the Russian language are reflected in the works of V.V. Vinogradov, М.V. Panov, А.А. Polykarpov, М.Ya. Glovinskaya and others. Scientific studies of the analytism in the Russian language became wide-scale after releasing the collection of works “Development of grammar and vocabulary of the Russian language” and the monograph work “Russian language and the Soviet society” (Russkiy yazyk and sovetskoye obshestvo) edited by М.V. Panov (1968) where this tendency was clearly evidenced; in 2001 E. А. Zemskaya stated that analytical tendency of the Russian language takes place at different strata of the language (Zemskaya, 2001). Afterwards, all linguistic research were based the postulates of this collective work (Asten, 2003; Krysin, 2001; Roshina, 2003).
In later works it is stated that the analytical tendency strengthens, becomes diverse, multiplies and non-uniform that proves it to be one of the linguistic evolutions (Bondarevskiy, 2010). Achievements in studying analytization processes of the contemporary Russian language are shown in the collective work “Russian language at the end of XX century” (Zemskaya, 2000).
Some scientists though find statement of the contemporary Russian language analytization wrongful, in this connection it is unreasonable and unjustified to determine analytical elements; moreover their increase does not proof analytical tendency in the contemporary Russian language (Gorbov, 2016). The boundaries of the object determined by this concept are not specified but this evidences its complex, transitional character; together with this we can state that there is a subsystem of affix-root word components, illustrating formed system bounds.
We think analytism process should not be underestimated nowadays; it is necessary to study this phenomenon beyond the limits of the traditional system-structural paradigm.
Cognitive studies are a necessary part of the contemporary linguistics. They focus their attention on the cognitive function of the language, which is evidenced in reality conceptualization by ethnical cultural linguistics. In its turn cognitive linguistics and cultural linguistics are focused on cultural function of the language, which determines national mentality peculiarities, which corresponds to regularities of anthropocentric paradigm. Here, the cognitive approach which is characterized by anthropocentricity discovers new prospects of the word-building studies: it allows studying word-building processes from their role in the development of cognitive –mental parameters of the national cultural world view.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study is stating the activity of analytical-structures in the contemporary Russian language to study the process of analytization of Russian language system from the aspect of national cultural world view.
The methodological grounds of the study are classical statements about language connection with culture, interrelation of the language and mind, primacy of the human factor in language. The basic methods used in this research are general scientific theoretical methods (descriptive, cognitive analytical review of the scientific sources, observation, comparison, systematization, generalization, typologization); continuous sampling method (in work with lexicographical resources for selecting material for the research), interpretation method. Combining the results of theoretical and practical research the article fulfills methodological reflection of the concept “language analytism”, intellectual grounds are classified and vectors of the future research of the concept are determined; empirical and heuristic methods of research, aimed at analyzing data of the conducted research are the grounds for the hypothesis about interrelation of structural transformations in the language and cultural world view, as joining concepts of language and mind.
History proves that all languages tend to analytism: due to this analytical features gradually increase in every new historical period. English takes the first place among the Indo-European languages, as it is analytical and has only fragments of inclinations and conjugations. Opposite to English are conservative Slavic languages with the synthetic grammar.
Russian is known as synthetic-inflective language which tends to analytism; insignificant at the beginning, it led to gradual accumulation of analytical attributes and proved analytical dynamics of the Russian grammar.
Modern studies show that analytism in grammar is non-uniform, it has particular manifestations: nomenclature analytization, emerging words with analytical features, for example, proliferation of indeclinable nouns (
Analytical constructions is a significant part of the vocabulary in dictionaries registering modern lexical innovations, including a special dictionary “Affixoids of the Russian language” written in the Institute of the Language Studies at Russian Academy of Science by the researchers of New words Dictionaries Group (Kozulina, 2009). So, national neography is a proof of analytism in the Russian language in the last decades.
In this reference affixoids are determined as affix-root elements of the compound words. U.A. Vidanov (2012) states that these formations refer to “analytes components of the compound words evolving from the base to affixes”. The term
Analyte-structures of this type have a significant function in the modern linguistic reflection of reality. Many sides of the Russian life are reflected in the semantics of the prefixoid morphemes. Among lexemes reflecting special conceptual field we can name the following cognitive contexts:
art, culture: art…‘relating to art’ (Kozulina, 2009) (art-rocker), hala…‘festive, magnificent’ (hala-night), glam…‘from glam-rock – festive rock’ (glam-fans), indi…‘from eng. independet, indie’ (indie-group), mantra…‘relating to the holy text in Induism and Buddhism’ (mantr-jockey), folk…‘ relating to folk music of different people’ (folk-rock), hard…‘from hard rock‘ (hard-collective);
hobbies and occupations: whist…‘relating to whist (whist-club), dance…‘relating to dances, dance music’ (dance-generation), info…‘relating to information’ (infoprogram), slang…‘relating to slang’ (slang-club), steb…‘relating to banter’ (steb-club), shaping… ‘relating to shaping (shaping model);
social position: gay…‘relating to homosexualism’ (gay-parade), demo… ‘ relating to democracy’ (demorossy), clepto…‘relating to thieves’ (cleptocrat), crato… ‘relating to authorities’ (cratocracy), lumpen… ‘relating to marginal people’ (lumpen intellegency), maf… ‘relating to mafia’ (mafcom);
business and economy:
Affixoids can go beyond the nominal functions having estimating function, which is manifested with author occasional formations:
light… (eng. light) ‘low calories’: light-beer, light-diet, light-fizzy drink, light contact, light show;
mega… ‘huge, enormous, powerful ’: megamilionier, megahit, megashow, megastar, megaproject, megapopular;
surr… ‘surreal, absurdous ’: surspangle, surdance;
cheap… ( eng. cheap ) ‘cheap’ : cheap-hamburger, chip-hotel, chip-shop;
So, the described cognitive matrix
Compound words components as
Innovations are verbalized fragments of the national cultural heritage of Russia today relating to a certain historical period of the Russian society and constituting national self-awareness. It is not accidental: marked as word-building only significant for the native speakers, that evidences in a newly formed word comparing with non-motivated words interpreting ability of a human.
Analytism shows the trend of the language development in word building which is manifested as agglutinate mechanism of combining important parts of the words that leads to morphemes discreetness at the level of their structure and semantics, demonstrating independence within the derivate.
As any subsystem, analytes interact with other subsystems and language system in general, influencing them, due to this, it is impossible to show explicitly morphology-syntactical relations between the components of the compound word. Deriving new compound words there is no summation as it is. The derived word is created according to the model, derivational process is mechanical “clinging” of the ready word-building formant to a certain lexical unit; see., for example
Incredible increase of analyte-constructions in the Russian language is conditioned by immanent laws of Russian synthetic-flectional language: such constructions do not contradict to Russian word-building system that evidences native words of similar structural types
This extra-linguistic influence is seen in such communicative spheres as mass-media, politics, economy, art, culture, information technology, business and the Internet communication which in their turn influence modern usage.
Here extra linguistic motifs interact fortifying their influence on the grammatical system. Fast tempo of life activates language economy, processes of internationalization and intellectualization widen the corpus of compound lexemes which is conditioned by а) widening of international contacts as analytes class increased by the components of the borrowed words, b) dominating tolerance to innovations and borrowings from the English language; c) laconic nature, content, dynamic nature of analytes, г) noncritical attitude to xeno cultural influence and non-critical assimilation of the word-building models, non common for the Russian language and communication.
Such active word-building model, containing analyte-elements, demonstrates a free character of parts compounding, their autonomy, though relative, unclear grammar bounds and helps as E. А. Zemskaya states “to undoubtful typological influence onto the Russian language vividly evidencing about the reconstruction of a typological character of the Russian language related with possibility to express ideas, feelings, emotions freely” (Zemskaya, 1998).
But the analytical tendency is not only connected with certain transformations in grammar. Synthesis and analytism are two opposite gnoceological mechanisms, in this relation prevailing analytical tendency in grammar relations is connected with transformations in perception of the reality by native speakers. It is evident, as national cultural worldview is demonstrated via “national specific key ideas – some kind of semantic frames which can be expressed by many language means of different manner, including word-building” (Apresyan, 2006).
V.V. Kolesov, analyzing the existing situation in a contemporary Russian language writes: “What are these
The concept analytism is derived from the concept analysis – “ideal or real division of the whole (a thing, quality, process, or relation between things) into components. It is done during the cognitive process or the process of human activity” (Gritsanov, 2003). Synthesis prevailing over analysis determines dominating of figuratively emotional world perception over abstract logical. It is reproducing commonality at the gnoceological level. It results in inseparability, integrity, unity of the idea: as a result, syncreticism of the reality comes to the foreground, but not the structure, that is creating it relations; exactly this fact motivates obvious positivism negation in Russia, confirmation of religious world perception superiority, interest to Eastern teachings, which also confirm the idea of a complex perception of the reality.
Philosophers think that Russian mentality is formed as the perception of the Spiritual harmony of the Universe, its unity, conditioning reality details. Seeking the truth a Russian human comes from the general to particular, not vice versa.
That is why Russians accepted easily a new word created by the first Slavic teachers “collegiality” which corresponds to the Greek lexeme “Catholic” that is “Universal” perceiving its deep meaning. The Orthodox Church is synodical: it is controlled by the Assemblies, meetings of the Church community, clergy and laypeople. Russian mentality prefers synthesis as a basic gnoceological model. Analysis antagonism is explained by different reasons, but the foremost is of moral character, and exactly collegiality as a basic for Russian mentality postulate.
“It is organic inner unity of people based on freely understood quality relation (love) by community genius” (Gritsanov, 2003). Spirit, but not mind, being egocentric, unites, conditions integrity determining the worldview. Analysis, on the contrary leads to detachment, personal apartness; compare: cognition in Russian philosophical tradition is internal free combination, or synthesis.
So, we connect world acquisition with syncretism of reality perception, which depicts the internal nature of something; in reality acquisition we follow from the total to its parts; it is all given in our experience, sensitive perception (contrary to noumenon, which is perceived with mind). In this connection “Russian mentality is neither rational but nor sensualism as well…a particular as a part of total and ideal is preferred to abstracted intellectual, rational” (Kolesov, 1999).
So, active functioning of analytical word-building models, characterized by significant structural-semantic discreetness of morphemes, evidences a clearly seen tendency to weakening traditional morphonologic mechanisms and leads to analytization of the Russian language, different to the traditional synthetic grammar. These tendencies not only loosen, deconstruct the word-building and vocabulary systems of the language but assign non-specific ways of reality conceptualization to the Russian cultural world view. First of all it is necessary to determine the intensity of these changes in traditional national ways of linguistic acquisition of the reality, how significant are the changes of that concept-sphere which is called “Russian cultural world view”. This problem was determined in 1993 by V.V. Kolesov: “Unfortunately, nowadays our cognitive space is distorted by inorganic invasion of foreign cognitive categories. Perhaps, in the future they will penetrate total system of our concepts, replenishing and developing our mentality and language. But rational and critical attitude to this process requires competency and cautiousness” (Rabdil, 2014).
Of course, even at the existing tempos of structural changes, though active, the Russian language will remain synthetic for a long time, but these significant evidences of analytical character make us think.
- Apresyan, Yu.D. (2006). Fundamentals of system lexicography. Cultural world view and system lexicography: (pp. 33 - 163). Moscow: Languages of the Slavonic cultures.
- Asten, Т. B. (2003). Analytism in the system of nominal morphology: Cognitive and pragmatic aspects: thesis synopsis for doctor of philological science degree. Rostov-on- Don.
- Bondarevskiy, D.V. (2010). Analytism phenomenon in the stadiality theory. Bulletin of Chelyabinsk State University, 13, 9-13.
- Gorbov, А.А. (2016). ‛Analytical adjectives’ in the Russian language: are they all adjectives and are they really analytical? Russian Linguistics , 2.
- Gritsanov, A.A. (2003). Newest philosophical dictionary. Minsk, Books House.
- Kolesov, V.V. (1999). “Life originates from a word …». Saint –Petersburg, Zlatoust.
- Kozulina, N.A. (2009). Affixoids in the Russian language, SPb.
- Krongauz, М.А. (2006). From the editor: Changes in language and communication: ХХI century: (pp. 1 - 14). Moscow: RSHU.
- Krysin, L. P. (2001). New analytical adjectives and hiatus. Language life. Moscow: Languages of the Slavonic culture.
- Matveichev, О. А. (2005). М. Epstein. Space mark. About the future of the humanitarian sciences. Philosophy issues, 12, 173 – 177.
- Panov, М.V. (1968). Development of grammar and vocabulary of the Russian language. Moscow.
- Rabdil, Т.B. (2014). Russian Language of the beginning of the XXI century in the issue of language conceptualization of the world. Russian language of the beginning of the XXI century: vocabulary, word-building, grammar, text: (pp. 8 -65). Nizhniy Novgorod: Nizhniy Novgorod University publishing house.
- Roshina, Yu. V. (2003). Analytism tendencies in contemporary Russian morphology (on the example of substantive and characteristic words): thesis synopsis for candidate of philological science degree. Moscow. Vidanov, Ye. Yu. (2012), Analytism development in contemporary Russian word-building. Omsk, Variant-Omsk.
- Vidanov, U.A. (2012). Development of analytism in modern Russian word formation. Omsk: Option Omsk.
- Zemskaya, B. А. (2000). Russian Language of the end of the XX century. Moscow, Russian culture languages.
- Zemskaya, Ye. А. (1998). Active processes in the contemporary Russian language of the last decade of the ХХ century. Russian speech, 7, 121 – 126.
- Zemskaya, Ye. А. (2001). Emigrants speech as the evidence of analytism growth in the Russian language. Language life. Moscow: Languages of the Slavic culture.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
About this article
29 March 2019
Print ISBN (optional)
Sociolinguistics, linguistics, semantics, discourse analysis, science, technology, society
Cite this article as:
Senko*, Y. (2019). Language Analytization As A Transformation Mechanism Of Reality Conceptualization. In & D. K. Bataev (Ed.), Social and Cultural Transformations in the Context of Modern Globalism, vol 58. European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences (pp. 1122-1129). Future Academy. https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2019.03.02.130