The life cycles of the suffix -ost’- in Russian

The research summarises the general framework of N. M. Shansky’s PhD thesis which initiated a range of historical lexicological and synchronic linguistic studies. The paper provides arguments and examples showing the development of the scientist’s ideas on the lexical material of the 19th century. An example is N. M. Shansky’s concept of "semantic centres" in the process of filling in important socio-cultural lacunae. Involving a range of lexemes in structuring the concept "Social Environment" through the formation of relevant connotative components in them (kazarmennost’ – salonnost’ – kabinetnost’ – berlozhnost’ – keleinost’ / Engl. barrackness – salonness – cabinetness or officeness – denness – secrecy) provides a good illustration of the scientist’s idea. The average (relative) number of derivatives with ­ost’­ in the modern language is 3 500 – 4 000 lexemes. The paper examines the lexical and word-formation innovations that expand the field of derivational bases (foreign vocabulary, calques or loan translations, and semi-calques as well as low colloquial vocabulary). Additionally, the study analyses the mechanisms of interaction between the formal and the semantic criteria with the supremacy of the latter as it contributes to the removal of the previous morphonological limitations (derivation from relative adjectives ending in ­skiy). Deriving lexemes with the double ­ost’ suffix has become possible within the word-formation pattern ending in ­ost’: one suffix is in the derivational base, the other – in the stem of the derived word (skorostnost’, lichnostnost’ / Engl. high­speedness, personhood). The paper also outlines the chronological dissonance in the formation of adjectival nouns ending in ­skost’ in Russian abroad half a century ahead of the time they appeared in the language of the metropole. The ­skost’ pattern expands the nominative field by means of including surname derivatives (dostoevskost’, chekhovskost’, stalinskost’, khrushchevskost’, and others). The semantic-motivational stimulus is the "semantic increment" formed in relative adjectives due to the strong pragmatic connotation of particular precedent surnames. Thus, lexemes with the derivational suffix ­ost’­ in the modern language show ample opportunities for development both on the basis of intralingual potentials and as a result of fo reign language influence. The research employed critical-analytical, constructive-synthetic methods, definitional analy sis, the method of distinguishing between synchronic and diachronic word-formation, multiple motivation, the method of analysing usual and occasional words.

1. Alekseev A. A. Essays and studies on the history of the literary language in Russia. Saint­Petersburg: Petersburg Linguistic Society, 2013. 476 p. (In Russ.)

2. Valgina N. S. Active processes in the modern Russian language: a textbook. Moscow: Logos, 2001. 304 p. (In Russ.)

3. Veselitsky V. V. Abstract vocabulary in the Russian literary language of the 18th–early 19th centuries. Moscow: Science, 1972. 318 p. (In Russ.)

4. Vinogradov V. V. On new research on the history of the Russian literary language. Izbrannye trudy: istoriya russkogo literaturnogo yazyka = Selected works: the history of the Russian literary language. Moscow: Science, 1978. P. 237–253. (In Russ.)

5. Vinokur G. O. On the language of fiction / comp. T. G. Vinokur; foreword V. Grigoriev. Moscow: Higher school, 1991. 448 p. (In Russ.)

6. Gorshkova K. V. The history of Slavic numerical paradigms as a complex interaction of inflection and word formation. Moscow: MSU Publ., 1978. 68 p. (In Russ.)

7. Dal V. I. One and a half words about the current Russian language. Moskvityanin = Muscovite. 1842;1(2):532–556. (In Russ.)

8. Zakharova Yu. G. The epistolary legacy of Russian writers as a source for the study of neology in the second half of the 19th century. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta. Yazyk i literatura = Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Language and Literature. 2021;18(4):713–735. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu09.2021.405.

9. Zelenin A. The language of the Russian émigré press (1919–1939). Saint­Petersburg: Zlatoust, 2007. 380 p. (In Russ.)

10. Zemskaya E. A. Word formation as an activity. Moscow: Science, 1992. 221 p. (In Russ.)

11. Zemskaya E. A. Contemporary Russian language: word formation. Moscow: Flinta, 2011. 328 p. (In Russ.)

12. Levina S. D. From observations on the names of non­traditional sexual orientations in modern Russian. Neologiya i neografiya: sovremennoe sostoyanie i perspektivy (k 50-letiyu nauchnogo napravleniya) = Neology and neography: current state and prospects (on the 50th anniversary of the scientific direction). Saint­Petersburg: Nestor­History, 2015. P. 106–113. (In Russ.)

13. Lukicheva-Navros E. V. Nouns with the meaning of an abstract quality in Russian (on the basis of names with ­ost). Vesnіk Vіtsebskaga dzyarzhaўnaga ўnіversіteta = Bulletin of Vitebsk State University. 2005;2(36):75–80. (In Russ.)

14. Maltseva I., Molotkov A., Petrova Z. Lexical innovations in the Russian language of the 18th century. Leningrad: Science, 1975. 372 p. (In Russ.)

15. Obnorsky S. P. Russian literary language of the oldest age: linguistic analysis of monuments of ancient Russian literature (2nd ed). Moscow: Book house «LIBROKOM», 2010. 200 p. (In Russ.)

16. Radbil T. B. Basics of studying language mentality. Moscow: Flinta: Science, 2010. 328 p. (In Russ.)

17. Sorokin Yu. S. The development of the vocabulary of the Russian literary language in the 30s–90s of the 20th century. Moscow; Leningrad: Science, 1965. 565 p. (In Russ.)

18. Filin F. P. The origins and destiny of the Russian literary language. Moscow: Science, 1981. 326 p. (In Russ.)

19. Hutl Worth G. The role of the Church Slavonic language in the development of the Russian literary language. To historical analysis and classification of Slavicisms. American contributions to the Sixth International Congress of Slavists, Prague, 1968, August 7–13, Vol. 1: Linguistic contributions / Henry Kucera (ed). De Gruyter Mouton, 2018. P. 95–124 [reprint]. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111610979006.

20. Tseitlin R. M. Vocabulary of the Old Slavic language. Moscow: Science, 1977. 336 p. (In Russ.)

21. Shansky N. M. To the history of some words ending in -ost’. Uchenye zapiski = Scientific notes of Ryazan State Pedagogical Institute. 1949;8:143–156. (In Russ.)

22. Shansky N. M. About the origin and productivity of the suffix -ost’ in the Russian language. Voprosy istorii russkogo yazyka = Questions of history of the Russian language. Moscow: Moscow State University, 1959. P 104–131. (In Russ.)

23. Shuchun Zh. Semantic characteristic of nouns formed with the suffix -ost’ in the modern Russian literary language. Vestnik Samarskogo universiteta. Istoriya, pedagogika, filologiya = Vestnik of Samara University. History, pedagogics, philology. 2020;26(4);101–108. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.18287/2542­0445­2020­26­4­101­108.

24. Breal М. Essai de sémantique. Introduction de Simone Delesalle, Limoges, & Michel Bréal: Mélanges de mythologie et de linguistique (1882). Introduction de Gabriel Bergounioux, Limoges, 2005. 216 p. [стереотип. переизд. 1897.] (In French)

25. Indeks a tergo do Materiałow do ś łownika jezyka staroruskiego I.̨ I. Srezniewskiego. Dulewiczowa I., Grek­Pabisowa I., Maryniak I., Obrebska­Jabłonska ́ A. Warszawa: Panstwowe ́ Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1968. 386 s. (In Pol.)

26. Schumann K. Die griechischen Lehnbildungen und Lehnbedeutungen im Altbulga rischen. (Phil. Diss. FU Berlin] (Slavist. Veröff. Osteuropa­Inst. Berlin. Bd. 16.). Berlin­Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz i. Komm. 66 s. (In Germ.)

27. Worth G. H. Review: Beiträge zur Geschichte der internationalen Bildungssuffixe des Russischen: Von den Anfängen bis zur Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts by Miklós Fogarasi // Language. Vol. 42(3),1:690–694. (In Germ.)