Word-building science in Russia in the XXI century

Cover Page


The article presents a review of scientific papers on word-formation and morphemics written in the beginning of the XXI century. Various aspects of modern word-formation science are examined: the study of morphemic and word-formation systems (derivational affixes, derived words, derivational types, methods of derivation, word-building nests) in structural-semantic, synchronic-diachronic, and dynamic aspects. Particular attention is paid to neology, which studies neologisms in socio-cultural, linguo-culturological and linguo-pragmatic aspects.

Full Text

Russian word-formation of the 21st century as one of the topical areas of Russian linguistics partly reflects the traditional directions of research, partly develops new trends corresponding to the current state of the world science. Word-formation as a language subsystem “occupies an important place in the system of the Russian language. On the one hand, derivational means contribute to the replenishment of the language lexical structure with new words, <...> the formation of the lexical meaning of motivated words<...> On the other hand, derivational means promote attributing the motivated words to certain grammatical classes, categories” (Lopatin, Ulukhanov, 2016: 5). In this regard, traditionally great attention in the works on word-formation and morphology is paid to the issues of derivational semantics and the means of expressing it, to the principles of separation of morphemes and morph identification, the issues of semantic variation of morphemes, morphonological phenomena in the structure of words, word-formative structure of derived words (Volohina, Popova, 2006; Gerd, 2004; Kozinets, 2017; Kotlyarova, Kryukova, Shipitsyna, 2003; Kopot, 2008; Nikolina, Ratsiburskaya, 2013; Ogoltseva, 2006; Ogoltseva, 2007; Ratsiburskaya, 2009; Ulukhanov, 2017, etc.). Appearance of “Dictionary of Word-Formation Affixes of the Modern Russian Language” by V.V. Lopatin and I.S. Ulukhanov in 2016 became a great scientific achievement. “The dictionary gives a complete description of the word-formation system of the modern Russian language”, and in particular word-formation affixes. “The dictionary entries contain information about the values of derivational morphemes, word-formation methods and parts of speech, which employ these morphemes” (Lopatin, Ulukhanov, 2016: 2); specify the productivity degree of affixes, morphonological transformations of the motivating bases. The dictionary value is defined by the fact that derivation “is an important element of the language system, linking vocabulary with grammar, whereas knowledge of derivational means <...> is the vital link in learning the Russian language as a whole, acquiring its riches” (Lopatin, Ulukhanov, 2016: 5). A characteristic feature of the word-building science of the 21st century is a continual approach to the phenomena of language and speech. The foundations of such approach were laid in the 20th century in the works of M.V. Panov, E.A. Zemskaya, and N.A. Janko-Trinitskaya et al. (Zemskaya, 1973; Panov, 1975; Janko-Trinitskaya, 1968), which are devoted to the development of the scale of divisibility of stems (words). Such a scale made it possible to identify the transition zone between the divisible and non-divisible stems (words). At the end of the 20th century, a typology of degrees of word-building motivation (Zemskaya, 1981; Lopatin, 1975; Ulukhanov, 1992; Ulukhanov, 2008; Shirshov, 1995) and derivativeness (Shirshov, 1997) began to be developed, which continued into the 21st century (Ermakova, 2015; Sidorova, 2007). “The study of semantic relations between derivatives and base-words has shown that they are heterogeneous and occupy a strictly defined place on the motivation scale” (Shirshov, 2004: 5). The types of wordbuilding motivation correlate with the types of productivity. “Synchronic productivity is under the pressure of history, it has been developing for a long time, and its different micro-stages have different kinds of consistency. In some word-formative pairs the relations are transparent, have regularity and productivity, in others - the relations are darkened as a result of historical changes, they can be regular (or irregular), but at the synchronic level unproductive. Nevertheless, systemic relations, albeit in a weakened form, are revealed in the modern language” (Shirshov, 2004: 9). The study of the specificity of motivational relations and types of productivity is of great importance for establishing the boundaries of word-building nests. The word-building nest is one of the complex units of the derivational system along with such complex units as word-building type, word-building method, wordbuilding category, word-building chain, word-building paradigm, which are still in the focus of scientists’ attention. At the beginning of the 21st century, derivatologists continued their work on the further development of the theory of words nesting, which appearance occurred in the second half of the 20th century and is reflected in the writings of A.N. Tikhonov (1971, 1985), A.I. Shirshov (1999) and other scholars. The issues of nest typology, boundaries of word-building nests, structure and semantics of word-building nests, establishment of relations of word-building motivation between nest members, formal transformations of bases (words) in the nest, derivational potential of various parts of word-building nests are still relevant (Belyaeva, 2017; Kazak, 2004; Kazak, 2004a; Mikhailova, 2012; Sukhanova, 2005; Fatkhutdinova, Achayeva, 2014; Khodunova, 2010). Emergence of the explanatory word-building dictionary of the Russian language by A.I. Shirshov became a new achievement of the Russian derivational lexicography (Shirshov, 2004), which presents the solution of some problematic issues of the theory of words nesting: criteria for inclusion of words into a nest (Shirshov, 1996), the degree of word-formation motivation of words (Ol’shanskii, 1990; Uluhanov, 1992; Shirshov, 1995), the types of derivativeness of words (Shirshov, 1997) within the framework of the new synchronic-diachronic approach to the phenomena of language issued at the end of the 20th century. The dictionary contains the information not only about the synchronic derivational structure of words, but also about their word-building history. For the first time in the domestic lexicography the interpretation of derivative words are constructed in such a way that they correspond to the word-building structure and the history of the interpreted word. At the beginning of the XXI century, the diachronic aspect of word formation was successfully developed. Enlargement of the sources base (the study of fundamental historical, etymological and dialectal dictionaries, discovery and publication of the monuments of the ancient Russian literature) contributed to the new opportunities for historical derivation development. The works on historical wordformation incorporate the analysis of the status and prospects of the study of the historical derivation of the Slavic languages; they also define the foundations of the historical derivation of the Russian language; describe the advantages of synchronic-diachronic study of the interaction of the facts of the history of language and its current state. “The acute task of this description is to specify the features of the organization of the synchronic system of a language, which in the ‘shot form’ reflect the processes of development of language units or, conversely, do not correspond to these processes” (Ulukhanov, 2012: 82-83). In the synchronic-diachronic description of the word-formation system, each synchronic connection receives a diachronic interpretation. This description can “present diachronic causes of weakening or rupture of the connection between the phenomena”, for example, between the words, “composing a large area of ‘semimotivated’ words, interim between motivated and non-motivated words” (Ulukhanov, 2012: 83). According to the scientists, synchronic-diachronic description of the word-formation system “will contribute to the detection of unknown patterns of development and functioning of the word-formation mechanism of the Russian language” (Ulukhanov, 2012: 101). A special attention “is paid to the dynamic aspect of modern word-building, which is reflected in a number of linguistic studies” at the end of the 20th - early 21st centuries (Valgina, 2001; Dmitrieva, 2005; Kad’kalova, 2007; Mineeva, 2017). In the first decades of the 21st century, the Russian language responding to the significant civilization challenges of the modern era, demonstrates a significant potential for dynamic development and renewal which reflexes are manifested in the active processes at all levels of the language system and in all spheres of discursive implementation of the system capabilities of the language (Radbil’, Ratsiburskaya, Shchenikova et al., 2018: 4). “Word formation, which acts as a kind of natural laboratory for the production, testing, selection and implementation of various innovations in the fabric of the language” is at the forefront of rapid innovative trends (Radbil’, Ratsiburskaya, Shchenikova et al., 2018: 4). Accordingly, the study of neologisms, lexical and word-formation innovations in various aspects is still relevant. Traditional structural-semantic aspect is rendered in the research aimed at defining the derivational structure and development of neologisms, the causes of linguistic and socio-cultural factors in the emergence of neologisms, at identifying the specifics of their functioning (Denisova, 2008; Izotov, 2017; Kasyanova, 2006; Namitokova, 2015; Popova, Ratsiburskaya, Gugunava, 2005; Ratsiburskaya, 2015; Ratsiburskaya, Samylicheva, Shumilova, 2015; Sen’ko, 2007; Stakheeva, 2008; Ulukhanov, 2008). The works on neology contain such tendencies manifested in the processes of creation of new words as the tendency to internationalization and the tendency to democratization. The trend towards internationalization reflects the global influence of English on Russian and other European languages, which is manifested in the activation of affixes of an international character, in the use of foreign word-formation models, in the involvement of new borrowed words in the derivational processes. The trend towards democratization reflects the activation of word-formation means, methods and models characteristic of colloquial speech, as well as the active involvement of stylistically degraded words in derivational processes. Neologisms show how the derivational mechanism, the word-formation system respond to the current socio-political processes. According to the scientists, mainly the factors of socio-cultural nature determine growth of productivity of some wordformative types and models and lead to decreasing in the activity of others at this stage of development of the Russian language (Ratsiburskaya, Samylicheva, Shumilova, 2015). Neologisms do not only reveal the essence of word-formation processes, do not only demonstrate what events and facts are relevant for the society, but also serve as “a powerful tool of expressivization of the text, contributing not only to the actualization of its separate fragments, but also to strengthening the subjective, author’s idea in modern mass media” (Ratsiburskaya, 2003; Ratsiburskaya, 2017; Samylicheva, 2011; Ratsiburskaya, Toropkina, 2016). Neologisms are regarded through the prism of linguistic personality in the works of the early 21st century (Plotnikova, 2003). Word creation is considered to be a phenomenon of linguistic personality, one of the manifestations of the creative individuality of the author. In “anthropocentrically-oriented” linguistics, a person is treated as an active creator of the language, where the creative activity is one of the manifestations of his speech activity. “...the creative characteristics of an individual are largely reflected in the choice and creation of words. Lexical neologisms created in a certain speech situation represent valuable material for the researcher, on the basis of which it is possible to judge the linguistic and creative abilities of a linguistic personality and the peculiarities of the word-making process as a whole” (Plotnikova, 2017: 308). New derivational aspects of modern science comprise linguo-cognitive, linguocultural and pragmatic aspects (Abrosimova, 2015; Vendina, 1998; Kulikova, Svet- lichnaya, 2015; Kubryakova, 2004; Radbil, Ratsiburskaya, 2017; Radbil, Ratsiburskaya, 2018; Radbil et al., 2018). Reflecting the cognitive aspects of modern derivational processes, the researchers note that “innovative phenomena in the Russian language are based on a significant cultural heritage, on the models of language development of reality developed by the Russian language over the centuries of its spiritual evolution” (Radbil’, Ratsiburskaya, Shchenikova et al., 2018: 4). It is “in the new phenomena of modern Russian word formation that cognitive, cultural and value priorities of modern social consciousness, new communicative needs” of society, socio-cultural realities are reflected (Radbil’, Ratsiburskaya, Shchenikova et al., 2018: 4-5). New nominations are the fragments of national and cultural memory of modern Russia that appear in speech and are recorded in a certain part of the language. “They reflect extralinguistic data, correlated with a certain historical period in the life of people, their cultural and social affiliation. They form the content of national identity being significant elements of national mentality” (Ratsiburskaya, Samylicheva, Shumilova, 2015: 4). Conceptual understanding and linguo-culturological interpretation of innovative trends in modern Russian word-formation “as certain formats of knowledge about the world, value orientations and speech-science models in the speech practice of the modern Russian language speakers” are proposed in the research of new lexical and word-formation phenomena (Radbil’, Ratsiburskaya, Shchenikova et al., 2018: 5). The study of lexical and word-formation innovations recorded in live colloquial speech, taking into account the communicative and cognitive aspect, led to the description of the integrative speech-making model of word production - a dynamic model that reveals the mechanisms of a new word formation (Plotnikova, 2017). In recent decades, the pragmalinguistic approach to the facts of language and speech has been updated. Linguistic pragmatics involves the study of language units functioning in speech: “the study of the behavior of language signs in real communication processes” (Norman, 2009: 8), including a variety of techniques of language games. Cognition, communication and culture are included in its field under a broad understanding of pragmatics. This understanding of pragmatics seems to be the most adequate to the current state of linguistics, where the cognitive-discursive paradigm is formed, since pragmalinguistics in this understanding is designed to combine modern research in the field of the theory of speech acts, cognitive linguistics and conceptology, as well as cultural linguistics and communication theory (Abakumova, 2013: 16). The pragmatic function of neologisms is connected with the direct impact on the addressee in order to change his value worldview settings, mental and behavioral acts. The evaluativeness of neologisms is determined by pragmatic attitude to the impact, which is of particular pragmatic importance, since the impact on mass consciousness, the formation of native speakers’ system of values is one of the main goals of modern media. In a number of works, neologisms are also considered as a means of speech aggression, which takes place due to acute social processes and is determined by communicative situation, the relationship between the speaker and the listener. “Aggressive verbal tactics reveal the confrontation of ethnic, religious, social groups and political associations in modern society” (Radbil’, Ratsiburskaya, Shchenikova et al., 2018: 189; Petrova, Ratsiburskaya, 2011; Ratsiburskaya, Toropkina, 2015). The actualization of the human factor in the language, the increase of the personal principle is manifested in strengthening game component in derivational processes. Language game is considered as a particular form of linguistic and creative thinking, “display of creative initiative of the speaker in different types of speech activity” (Gridina, 2013: 23). At the turn of 20-21 centuries, word-formation game, including graphic word-formation, became widespread in different types of speech (Il’yasova, 2002; Il’yasova, 2017; Il’yasova, Amiri, 2009; Popova, 2013; Ratsiburskaya, Samylicheva, Shumilova, 2015; Sannikov, 2002). Much attention in the works on derivatology and neology is still paid to the study of main trends in word creation in artistic speech (Vtorye grigor’evskie chteniya, 2018; Neflyasheva, 2017; Nikolina, 2015; Petrova, 2015). New trends include the use of neologisms in intertextual function, the role of neologisms and word-formation in general in developing figurative parallels in literary texts. Presented in modern derivatology “a multi-aspect approach to the study of lexical neologisms recorded in live colloquial speech, in the texts of newspapers and literary texts, allows us to talk about the multiformity and diversity of their structural and semantic features” (Plotnikova, 2017: 309). The multi-aspect analysis of lexical neologisms of recent decades has led scientists to conclusions about the diversity of derivational models of new words, their functional specificity, the basic laws of the word-formation system of the Russian language. Such an analysis “contributes to the interpretation of certain phenomena of reality” and allows “to say that the semantics and structure of lexical innovations to a certain extent manifest the originality of the national culture of people” (Plotnikova, 2017: 323). Hereby, the Russian word-formation science at the beginning of the 21st century includes not only traditional areas of research, but also develops the synthesis of synchronic and diachronic approaches, cognitive linguistics, cultural linguistics, pragmalinguistics in line with new paradigms of modern scientific knowledge.

About the authors

Larisa Viktorovna Ratsiburskaya

Lobachevsky National Research State University of Nizhny Novgorod

Author for correspondence.
Email: racib@yandex.ru
27 Lenina Ave., Nizhny Novgorod, 603140, Russian Federation

Doctor of Philology, Professor, Head of the Department of Modern Russian Language and General Linguistics


  1. Abakumova, O.B. (2013). Poslovichnye koncepty v paremicheskom diskurse [Proverb concepts in paremic discourse]. [Author’s abstr. doct. phil. diss.]. Orel. (In Russ.)
  2. Abrosimova, L.S. (2015). Slovoobrazovanie v yazykovoi kategorizacii mira [Word-building in the language categorization of the world]. Rostov-on-Don: South Federal University Publ. (In Russ.)
  3. Belyaeva, M.Yu. (2017). Uzual’no-okkazional’nye slovoobrazovtael’nye gnezda s vershinamizoonimami [Usual-occasional word-building nests with zoonyms as their tops]. Theory and practice of onomastic and derivatological research (pp. 380–397). Maikop: Magarin O.G. Publ. (In Russ.)
  4. Denisova, E.S. (2008). Osobennosti rechevogo i mental’nogo funktsionirovaniya okkazional’nogo slova (na materiale gazetnogo diskursa) [The peculiarities of speech and mental functioning of an occasional word (on the material of newspaper discourse)]. Tomsk: Tomsk State University Publ. (In Russ.)
  5. Dmitrieva, O.I. (2005). Dinamicheskaya model’ russkoi glagol’noi prefi ksatsii [Dynamic model of Russian verbal prefi xation]. Saratov: SGU Publ. (In Russ.)
  6. Ermakova, O.P. (2015). Uchastie raznykh tipov konnotatsii v raznykh tipakh motivatsii [Different types of connotation in different motivation types]. Osm desyat: Collection of scientifi c articles on the 80th anniversary of I.S. Ulukhanova (pp. 38–45). Moscow: Azbukovnik Publ. (In Russ.)
  7. Fatkhutdinova, V.G., & Achaeva, M.S. (2014). Leksiko-slovoobrazovatel’nye gnezda parametricheskikh prilagatel’nyh v mezh”yazykovom sravnenii [Lexical and word-building nests of parametric adjectives in inter-language comparison]. Kazan: Kazan University Publ. (In Russ.)
  8. Gerd, A.S. (2004). Morfemika [Morphemics]. Saint Petersburg: Saint Petersburg University Publ. (In Russ.)
  9. Gridina, T.A. (2013). Yazykovaya igra v khudozhestvennom tekste [Language game in the artistic text]. Ekaterinburg: Ural State Pedagogical University Publ. (In Russ.)
  10. Il’yasova, S.V. (2002). Slovoobrazovatel’naya igra kak fenomen yazyka sovremennyh SMI [Word-building game as a language phenomenon in modern mass media]. Rostov-on-Don: Rostovsky University Publ. (In Russ.)
  11. Il’yasova, S.V. (2017). Yazykovaya igra s inoyazychnost’yu v yazyke sovremennykh rossiiskikh SMI [Language game with a foreign language word in modern Russian mass media]. Theory and practice of onomastic and derivatological research (pp. 423–439). Maikop: Magarin O.G. Publ. (In Russ.)
  12. Il’yasova, S.V., & Amiri, L.P. (2009). Yazykovaya igra v kommunikativnom prostranstve SMI i reklamy [Language game in the communicative space of mass media and advertising]. Moscow: Flinta: Nauka Publ. (In Russ.)
  13. Izotov, V.P. (2017). Okkazional’nye sposoby i priemy russkogo formoobrazovaniya i slovoobrazovaniya [Occasional methods and means of Russian infl ection and word-building]. The theory and practice of onomastic and derivatological research. Maikop: Magarin O.G. Publ. (In Russ.)
  14. Janko-Trinitskaya, N.A. (1968). Chlenimost’ osnovy russkogo slova [Divisibility of the Russian word stem]. Izvestiya AN SSSR OLYa, 27(6), 532–540. (In Russ.)
  15. Kad’kalova, E.P. (2007). K izucheniyu zakonov slovoproizvodstva. Agentivnye glagoly v russkom yazyke. Glagol’noe slovoobrazovatel’noe gnezdo v sovremennom russkom yazyke [On studying word-building laws: agentive verbs in the Russian language]. Saratov: Nauka Publ. (In Russ.)
  16. Kas’yanova, L.Yu. (2006). Vektory neologizatsii v sovremennom russkom yazyke [Neologization vectors in modern Russian language]. Astrakhan: Astrakhansky University Publ. (In Russ.)
  17. Kazak, M.Yu. (2004). Glagol’noe slovoobrazovatel’noe gnezdo v sovremennom russkom yazyke [Verbal word-building nest in modern Russian language]. Belgorod: Belgorodsky University Publ. (In Russ.)
  18. Kazak, M.Yu. (2004a). Integrativnaya teoriya slovoobrazovatel’nogo gnezda [Intergrative theory of a word-building nest]. Belgorod: Belgorodsky University Publ. (In Russ.)
  19. Khodunova, T.N. (2010). Slovoobrazovatel’noe gnezdo s vershinoi dvigat’: istoriya i sovremennoe sostoyanie [Word-building nest with the top “to move”: history and present state]. (Doctoral dissertation, Moscow). (In Russ.)
  20. Kopot’, L.V. (2008). Univerby v russkoi razgovornoi rechi: struktura i semantika [Univerbs in Russian colloquial speech: structure and semantics]. Maikop: Adyghe State University Publ. (In Russ.)
  21. Kotlyarova, E.N., Kryukova, S.V., & Shipitsyna, G.M. (2003). Otnositel’nye prilagatel’nye russkogo yazyka v semantiko-derivatsionnom i funktsional’nom aspektakh [Relative adjectives of the Russian language in semnatico-derivational and functional aspects]. Belgorod: Belgorodsky University Publ. (In Russ.)
  22. Kozinets, S.B. (2017). Slovar’ slovoobrazovatel’nykh metafor russkogo yazyka [The dictionary of word-building metaphors of the Russian language]. Moscow: Flinta Publ. (In Russ.)
  23. Krongauz, M.A. (2010). Igrovoi mekhanizm obrazovaniya slov [Game mechanism of word-building]. New phenomena in Slavic word formation: system and operation: Reports of the XI International Scientifi c Conference of the Commission on Slavic Word Formation at the International Committee of Slavists (pp. 364–375). Moscow: Moscow University Publ. (In Russ.)
  24. Kubryakova, E.S. (2004). Rol’ slovoobrazovaniya i proizvodnogo slova v obrabotke znanii [The role of word-building and a derived word in knowledge processing]. Language and knowledge. Moscow: Yazyki slavyanskoi kul’tury Publ. (In Russ.)
  25. Kulikova, E.G., & Svetlichnaya, N.O. (2015). Lingvopragmatika sovremennogo russkogo slovoobrazovaniya. Abbreviatsiya i dezabbreviatsiya [Linguopragmatics of modern Russian word-building. Abbreviation and disabbreviation]. Moscow: Flinta Publ. (In Russ.)
  26. Lopatin, V.V. (1975). Metaforicheskaya motivatsiya v russkom slovoobrazovanii [Metaphoric motivation in Russian word-building]. Actual problems of Russian word formation. I. Scientifi c notes. Tashkent: Ukituvchi Publ. (In Russ.)
  27. Lopatin, V.V., & Ulukhanov, I.S. (2016). Slovar’ slovoobrazovatel’nykh affi ksov sovremennogo russkogo yazyka [The dictionary of word-building affi xes of modern Russian language]. Moscow: Azbukovnik Publ. (In Russ.)
  28. Marinova, E.V. (2005). Visual neologisms: a new graphics of “old” words. Vestnik of Lobachevsky University of Nizhni Novgorod, 1(6), 127–132. (In Russ.)
  29. Mikhailova, I.D. (2012). Slovoobrazovatel’nye gnezda so svyazannymi vershinami i ikh prezentatsiya v slovaryakh [Word-building nests with bound words at the tops and their presentation in dictionaries]. Russian language and the problems of modern education: a collection of scientifi c articles (pp. 262–275). Arkhangelsk: IPU SAFU Publ. (In Russ.)
  30. Miloslavskii, I.G. (2018). On linguistic sources providing speech production. The Moscow University Herald, 4, 21–36. (In Russ.)
  31. Mineeva, Z.I. (2017). Aktivnye protsessy v derivatsii neoagentivov v sovremennom russkom yazyke (1960–2016 gg.): strukturno-semanticheskii i pragmaticheskii aspekty [Active processes in deriving neoagentives in modern Russian word-building (1960–2016): structuralsemantic and pragmatic aspects]. (Doctoral dissertation, Nizhniy Novgorod). (In Russ.)
  32. Namitokova, R.Yu. (2015). Avtorskie novoobrazovaniya: struktura i funktsionirovanie (na materiale russkoi poezii vtoroi poloviny XX veka) [Author’s neologisms: structure and functioning (on the material of Russian poetry of the second half of the XX century)]. Maikop: AGU Publ. (In Russ.)
  33. Nefl yasheva, I.A. (2017). Okkazional’noe slovo kak yavlenie postmodernistskoi ehstetiki [Occasional word as a phenomenon of postmodern aesthetics]. Theory and practice of onomastic and derivatological research (pp. 324–345). Maikop: Magarin O.G. Publ. (In Russ.)
  34. Nemchenko, V.N. (2008). Vvedenie v yazykoznanie: uchebnik dlya vuzov [Introduction to linguistics: textbook for higher educational establishments]. Moscow: Drofa Publ. (In Russ.)
  35. Nikolaev, G.A. (2015). Aktivnye protsessy v russkom slovoobrazovanii (na rubezhe XX–XXI vekov) [Active processes in Russian word-building (at the turn of XX–XXI centuries)]. New phenomena in Slavic word formation: system and operation: Reports of the XI International Scientifi c Conference of the Commission on Slavic Word Formation at the International Committee of Slavists (pp. 220–227). Moscow: Moscow University Publ. (In Russ.)
  36. Nikolina, N.A. (2015). Neologisms-intertextemes in modern artistic speech. Vestnik of Lobachevsky University of Nizhni Novgorod, 2, 493–495. (In Russ.)
  37. Nikolina, N.A. (2016). Aktivnye processy v sfere usecheniya [Active processes in word abridgement]. B.N. Golovin’s scientifi c heritage in the light of actual problems of modern linguistics (on the 100th anniversary of the birth of B.N. Golovin): Collection of articles on the materials of the International Scientifi c Conference (pp. 336–339). Nizhniy Novgorod: DEKOM Publ. (In Russ.)
  38. Nikolina, N.A., & Raciburskaya L.V. (2013). Sovremennyi russkii yazyk. Morfemika [Modern Russian language. Morphemics]. Moscow: Flinta Nauka Publ. (In Russ.)
  39. Nikolina, N.A., Frolova, E.A., & Litvinova, M.M. (2005). Slovoobrazovanie sovremennogo russkogo yazyka: uchebnoe posobie [Word-building of modern Russian language: textbook]. Moscow: Akademiya Publ. (In Russ.)
  40. Norman, B.Yu. (2009). Lingvisticheskaya pragmatika (na materiale russkogo i drugikh slavyanskikh yazykov) [Linguistic pragmatics (on the material of Russian and other Slavic languages]. Minsk: BGU Publ. (In Russ.)
  41. Ogol’tseva, E.V. (2006). Obraznoe znachenie v sisteme otsubstantivnoi derivatsii (strukturnosemanticheskii aspekt) [Figurative meaning in the system of substantival derivation (structural-semantic aspect)]. Moscow: Prometei Publ. (In Russ.)
  42. Ogol’tseva, E.V. (2007). Obraznyi potentsial russkogo otsubstantivnogo slovoobrazovaniya (funktsional’no-pragmaticheskii aspekt) [Figurative potential of Russian denominative word-building (functional-pragmatic aspect)]. Moscow: Prometei Publ. (In Russ.)
  43. Ol’shanskii, O.E. (1990). Simplifi cation phases in the Russian language. Philological sciences, 3, 63–69. (In Russ.)
  44. Panov, M.V. (1975). O stepenyakh chlenimosti slova [On the degrees of word divisibility]. The development of modern Russian language. 1972. Word-formation. Word splitting. Moscow. (In Russ.)
  45. Petrova, N.E., & Ratsiburskaya, L.V. (2011). Yazyk sovremennykh SMI: sredstva rechevoi agressii [The language of modern mass media: means of speech aggression]. Moscow: Flinta: Nauka Publ. (In Russ.)
  46. Petrova, Z.Yu. (2015). Rol’ slovoobrazovaniya v razvitii obraznykh parallelei v yazyke khudozhestvennoi literatury [The role of word-building in the development of fi gurative parallels in the language of artistic texts]. Osm desyat: Collection of scientifi c articles on the 80th anniversary of I.S. Ulukhanova (pp. 155–177). Moscow: Azbukovnik Publ. (In Russ.)
  47. Petrukhina, E.V. (2010). Vozmozhnosti, funktsii i konkurenty slovoproizvodstva v sovremennom russkom yazyke [Possibilities, functions and competitors of word-building in modern Russian language]. New phenomena in Slavic word formation: system and operation: Reports of the XI International Scientifi c Conference of the Commission on Slavic Word Formation at the International Committee of Slavists (pp. 424–443). Moscow: Moscow University Publ. (In Russ.)
  48. Plotnikova, L.I. (2003). Slovotvorchestvo kak fenomen yazykovoi lichnosti [Word creativity as a phenomenon of linguistic personality]. Belgorod: Belgorodsky University Publ. (In Russ.)
  49. Plotnikova, L.I. (2017). Leksicheskie novoobrazovaniya v russkom yazyke: raznoaspektnyi analiz [Lexical neologisms in the Russian language: multifarious analysis]. Theory and practice of onomastic and derivatological research (pp. 304–323). Maikop: Magarin O.G. Publ. (In Russ.)
  50. Popova, T.V. (2013). Kreolizovannye derivaty kak element russkoi pis’mennoi kommunikatsii rubezha XX–XXI vv. [Creolized derivatives as elements of Russian written communication on the turn of XX–XXI centuries]. Lingvistika kreativa – 1 [Linguistic creativity – 1]. Ekaterinburg: Ural State Pedagogical University Publ. (In Russ.)
  51. Popova, T.V., Ratsiburskaya, L.V., & Gugunava, D.V. (2005). Neologiya i neografi ya sovremennogo russkogo yazyka [Neology and neography of modern Russian language]. Moscow: Flinta: Nauka Publ. (In Russ.)
  52. Radbil’, T.B., & Ratsiburskaya, L.V. (2017). Word-building innovations based on borrowed elements in modern Russian language: linguo-culturological aspect. The World of Russian Word, 2, 33–39. (In Russ.)
  53. Radbil’, T.B., & Ratsiburskaya, L.V. (2018). Linguoculturological peculiarities of derivational processes in the Russian language. Russian language abroad, 3, 43–50. (In Russ.)
  54. Radbil’, T.B., Ratsiburskaya, L.V., & Bakich, N.A. (2018). Socio-cultural, linguo-cognitive and linguo-pragmatic aspects of modern word-building processes. Moscow State University Bulletin. Series 9. Philology, 2, 127–155. (In Russ.)
  55. Radbil’, T.B., Ratsiburskaya, L.V., Shchenikova, E.V., Bakich, N.A., Toropkina V.A., & Zhdanova E.A. (2018). Sotsiokul’turnye i lingvopragmaticheskie aspekty sovremennykh slovoobrazovatel’nykh protsessov [Socio-cultural and linguo-pragmatic aspects of modern wordformation processes]. Moscow: Flinta: Nauka Publ. (In Russ.)
  56. Ratsiburskaya, L.V. (2003). Novoobrazovaniya kak sredstvo ekspressivizatsii tekstov nizhegorodskikh SMI [Neologisms as a means of expressivization in Nizhny Novgorod mass media texts]. Province life as a phenomenon of Russian spirituality. Nizhny Novgorod: Vektor-TiS Publ. (In Russ.)
  57. Ratsiburskaya, L.V. (2009). Slovar’ unikal’nykh morfem [The dictionary of unique morphemes]. Moscow: Flinta Publ. (In Russ.)
  58. Ratsiburskaya, L.V. (2015). Okkazional’nye sposoby derivatsii v tekstakh sovremennykh rossiiskikh SMI [Occasional derivational methods in the texts of modern Russian mass media]. Osm desyat: Collection of scientifi c articles on the 80th anniversary of I.S. Ulukhanova (pp. 175–185). Moscow: Azbukovnik Publ. (In Russ.)
  59. Ratsiburskaya, L.V. (2017). Ekspressivnye sposoby slovoobrazovaniya v sovremennom mediinom slovotvorchestve [Expressive methods of word-building in modern media wordcreation]. Theory and practice of onomastic and derivatological research (pp. 414–422). Maikop: Magarin O.G. Publ. (In Russ.)
  60. Ratsiburskaya, L.V., & Toropkina, V.A. (2015). Language and speech means of negative evaluation of political events in media texts. Journalist. Social communications, 1–2 (17–18), 115–125. (In Russ.)
  61. Ratsiburskaya, L.V., & Toropkina, V.A. (2016). Derivational means of impact on a reader in publicistic discourse. Bulletin of Chelyabinsk State university, 12(394), 78–81. (In Russ.)
  62. Ratsiburskaya, L.V., Samylicheva, N.A., & Shumilova, A.V. (2015). Spetsifi ka sovremennogo mediinogo slovotvorchestva: uchebnoe posobie [The specifi city of modern media word-creation: manual]. Moscow: Flinta: Nauka Publ. (In Russ.)
  63. Samylicheva, N.A. (2011). Expressiveness as a basic feature of occasional words. Vestnik of Lobachevsky University of Nizhni Novgorod, 4(1), 354–360. (In Russ.)
  64. Sannikov, V.Z. (2002). Russkii yazyk v zerkale yazykovoi igry [The Rissian language in the mirror of language game]. Moscow: Yazyki slavyanskoi kul’tury Publ. (In Russ.)
  65. Sen’ko, E.V. (2007). Neologizatsiya v sovremennom russkom yazyke kontsa KhKh veka: mezhurovnevyi aspekt [Neologization in modern Russian language at the end of the XXI century: interlevel aspect]. Saint Petersburg: Nauka Publ. (In Russ.)
  66. Shirshov, I.A. (1995). The types of word-building motivation. Philological sciences, 1, 41–54. (In Russ.)
  67. Shirshov, I.A. (1996). The boundaries of the word-building nest. Philological sciences, 5, 43–55. (In Russ.)
  68. Shirshov, I.A. (1997). The types of word derivation in the Russian language. Philological sciences, 5, 55–66. (In Russ.)
  69. Shirshov, I.A. (1999). Teoreticheskie problemy gnezdovaniya [The theoretical problems of nestbuilding]. Moscow: Prometei Publ. (In Russ.)
  70. Shirshov, I.A. (2004). Tolkovyi slovoobrazovatel’nyi slovar’ russkogo yazyka: kompleksnoe opisanie russkoi leksiki i slovoobrazovaniya [Explanatory word-building dictionary of the Russian language: Complex description of the Russian lexis and word-building]. Moscow: AST Publ., Astrel’ Publ., Russkie slovari Publ., Ermak Publ. (In Russ.)
  71. Sidorova, T.A. (2007). Problema motivirovannosti slov frazeologizirovannoi morfemnoi struktury v sovremennom russkom yazyke: sistemno-funktsional’nyi i kognitivnyi aspekty [The problem of motivation of words with phraseological morphemic structure in modern Russian language: systemic-functional and cognitive aspects]. (Doctoral dissertation, Nizhny Novgorod). (In Russ.)
  72. Stakheeva, A.V. (2008). Abbreviatsiya: slovoproizvodstvo i slovotvorchestvo: na materiale russkogo yazyka kontsa XX – nachala XXI veka. [Abbreviation: word-building and wordcreation: on the material of the Russian language at the end of the XX – the beginning of the XXI centuries]. [Candidate dissertation, Rostov-na-Donu]. (In Russ.)
  73. Sukhanova, I.Yu. (2005). Slovoobrazovatel’nye gnezda s vershinoi-inoyazychnym slovom: na materiale russkoi leksiki rubezha XX–XXI vv. [Word-building nests with foreign words in the top: on the material of Russian lexis at the turn of the XX–XXI centuries]. [Candidate dissertation, Samara]. (In Russ.)
  74. Tikhonov, A.N. (1971). Problemy sostavleniya gnezdovogo slovoobrazovatel’nogo slovarya russkogo yazyka [The problems of compiling a nest-based word-building dictionary of the Russian language]. Samarkand Publ. (In Russ.)
  75. Tikhonov, A.N. (1985). Slovoobrazovatel’nyi slovar’ russkogo yazyka: v 2 t. [Word-building dictionary of the Russian language: in 2 vols]. Moscow: AST Publ. (In Russ.)
  76. Ulukhanov, I.S. (1992). O stepenyakh slovoobrazovatel’noi motivirovannosti slov [On the degrees of word-building motivation of the words]. The issues of linguistics, 5, 74–90. (In Russ.)
  77. Ulukhanov, I.S. (2008). Edinitsy slovoobrazovatel’noi sistemy russkogo yazyka i ikh leksicheskaya realizatsiya [The units of the word-building system of the Russian language and their lexical realization]. Moscow: LESI Publ. (In Russ.)
  78. Ulukhanov, I.S. (2012). Istoricheskoe slovoobrazovanie. Istoricheskaya leksikologiya [Historical word-building. Historical lexicology]. Moscow: LEKRUS Publ. (In Russ.)
  79. Ulukhanov, I.S. (2017). Glagol’noe slovoobrazovanie sovremennogo russkogo yazyka [Verb word-building of modern Russian language]. Moscow: Azbukovnik Publ. (In Russ.)
  80. Valgina, N.S. (2001). Aktivnye processy v sovremennom russkom yazyke [Active processes in modern Russian language]. Moscow: Logos Publ. (In Russ.)
  81. Vendina, T.I. (1998). Russkaya yazykovaya kartina mira skvoz’ prizmu slovoobrazovaniya (makrokosm) [Russian language worldview in the aspect of word-building (macrospace)]. Moscow: Indrik Publ. (In Russ.)
  82. Vinogradova, V.N. (2010). Poeticheskoe slovoobrazovanie kak faktor poyavleniya innovatsii v yazyke [Poetic word-building as a factor of innovation in the language]. New phenomena in Slavic word formation: system and operation: Reports of the XI International Scientifi c Conference of the Commission on Slavic Word Formation at the International Committee of Slavists (pp. 142–147). Moscow: Moscow University Publ. (In Russ.)
  83. Volokhina, G.A., & Popova, Z.D. (2006). Russkie glagol’nye suffi ksy: semantika, funktsii [Russian verb suffi xes: semantics, functions]. Voronezh: Istoki Publ. (In Russ.)
  84. Vtorye grigor’evskie chteniya. Neologiya kak problema lingvisticheskoi poehtiki: tezisy dokladov mezhdunarodnoi nauchnoi konferencii (14–16 marta 2018 g.) [Second Grigoriev readings. Neology as a problem of linguistic poetics: International scientifi c conference abstracts]. (2018). Moscow: Azbukovnik Publ. (In Russ.)
  85. Zemskaya, E.A. (1973). Sovremennyi russkii yazyk. Slovoobrazovanie [Modern Russian language. Word-building]. Moscow: Prosveshchenie Publ. (In Russ.)
  86. Zemskaya, E.A. (1981). Slovoobrazovanie [Word-building]. Modern Russian language. Moscow: Vysshaya shkola Publ. (In Russ.)
  87. Zemskaya, E.A. (2004). Yazyk kak deyatel’nost’. Morfema. Slovo. Rech’ [Language as activity. Morpheme. Word. Speech]. Moscow: Yazyki slavyanskoi kul’tury Publ. (In Russ.)
  88. Zemskaya, E.A., & Rudnik-Karvatova, E.H. (2010). Novye yavleniya v slovoobrazovanii russkogo i pol’skogo yazykov na rubezhe XX–XXI vekov [New phenomena in word-building of Russian and Polish languages at the turn of XX–XXI centuries]. New phenomena in Slavic word formation: system and operation: Reports of the XI International Scientifi c Conference of the Commission on Slavic Word Formation at the International Committee of Slavists. Moscow: Moscow University Publ. (In Russ.)



Abstract - 192

PDF (Mlt) - 296




Copyright (c) 2019 Ratsiburskaya L.V.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies