Lexical and word-formation innovations in the Russian-language Internet communication: Productive word-formation models

Full Text

Introduction

Internet communication in the modern world is becoming one of the main modes of communication. “Linguists’ interest in online discourse is quite natural: along with the traditional oral and written communication modus operandi, computer-mediated discourse has become the third modus operandi where a significant part of communication is carried out today” (Shilikhina, 2018: 219). Most native Russian speakers communicate in one or another way via the Internet. This undoubtedly affects the language functioning and development. “In the 21st century, one of the decisive sources of new words is the Internet, without which it is impossible to imagine modern life. In the last decade, human linguistic activity takes place in social networks. They have a huge impact on our communicative and informational life. Their role is also actualized in word formation” (Horiguchi, 2019: 46).

“Today, thanks to the development of digital technologies, unprecedented changes are taking place in mass communication. An increasing place in the information field of digital media is occupied by a virtual personality, the average user turns into a communicator, strives to create an information occasion” (Kornilova, Kuznetsov, 2022: 155).

Changes in modern Russian language lexicon, associated with extra-linguistic reasons, are reflected in Internet communication and to some extent supported by it: “... every year more people choose social networks, blogs and forums instead of mass media, and for them the ‘supplier’ of new word-formation models is the language of Internet communication, which is characterized by a number of features” (Shmeleva, 2015: 46).

Scientific interest to Internet communication contributed to the formation of a new linguistic field — Internet linguistics (Crystal, 2006; Kolokoltseva et al., 2018; Russian language in Internet communication... 2021; Khazova, 2023, etc.). At the beginning of the 21st century, Internet linguistics actively investigated the specificity of Internet genres (Ivanov, 2000), Internet as a stylistic space and network functional styles were studied within the framework of Internet stylistics (Klushina, 2020; Tošović, 2015; 2002). New linguistic trends in Internet communication, innovations at each level of the language system when it functions in the network space are studied (Ivanova & Klushina, 2021). “The main subject of Internet word formation is the generation of new words and their functioning online <...>, i.e. the creation of words on the Web with the help of old and new means and techniques” (Tošović, 2016: 423).

Researchers of Internet communication have shown that the mastering of the Internet is accompanied by intensified speech processes reflecting different language subsystems (Trofimova & Barabash, 2020; Samylicheva & Gazda, 2020). Special attention is paid to the sociocultural aspect of Internet innovations, which, in particular, manifested itself in the study of the lexicon of the pandemic epoch (Russian language of the coronavirus epoch, 2021; Zhdanova & Ratsiburskaya, 2022). In recent decades, Internet innovations have been studied not only in sociocultural, but also in linguistic-cognitive and linguopragmatic aspects. In the works of scientists of Nizhny Novgorod Linguistic School, a model for describing active processes in Internet speech in the mentioned aspects has been developed and realized (Sociocultural and linguopragmatic aspects... 2018; Russian language in Internet communication... 2021). Since the language environment of the Internet “represents one of the most dynamic and actively developing communicative systems <...>, a kind of laboratory of linguistic innovations” (Russian language in Internet communication... 2021: 3), interpreting innovations in the speech of Internet communicators seems particularly relevant.

The texts of blogs — Internet diaries, which in many respects converge with mass media and partially replace traditional mass media — deserve close attention. At the same time, as researchers note, “the language of social networks and blogs is close to oral conversation in its spontaneity and freedom of expression, and to the language of fiction in its playful and creative beginning” (Shmeleva, 2015: 46).

The obvious need to identify and study new facts of language and speech, productive word-formation models, and formants in the new sphere of communication is the reason for the relevance of this study.

The aim of this study is to identify productive word-formation types and models in the texts of the Internet in recent years.

Methods and materials

The material of the study consisted of usual and non-usual word-formation innovations in Internet texts, primarily in blogs, comments to them, comments in social networks. First of all, these were materials of blogs on the platform “Dzen” (dzen.ru)¹ (“Galloping through the movies”², “The Book of Animals”³, “Eh, I’ll take a ride”⁴, “Hand-made furniture”⁵, “Notes of a Bad Waiter”⁶, as well as “Dr. Demkin’s Blog”⁷), Internet media⁸, materials in the social network “VKontakte”⁹ and on the platform “Live Journal”¹⁰. The texts were not limited thematically: there were movie reviews, notes on socio-political or everyday topics, and popular science notes about animals, etc. Novelties were identified not only in the texts of blog authors, but also in the comments to them. Such a broad approach identified general trends in the word-formation mechanism of the modern Russian language.

The innovations were recorded in 2018–2024; at the same time, some innovations described in this article  are of an earlier period. Thus, the material of the study reflects the word-formation processes of the late 2010s — early 2020s. Descriptive and classification methods, structural-semantic, word-formation and contextual analysis were used to characterize word-formation innovations.

 Results

As a result of the study, the factors of neologization were identified: extralinguistic, related to economic, socio-political, cultural, and ideological changes in Russian society, and intralinguistic, related to the tendencies towards internationalization and democratization in the language. The tendency to internationalization is manifested in foreign word-forming affixes and models in derivational processes. The tendency to democratization is manifested in colloquial word-forming affixes and models.

The productive word-formation models and formants, usual and non-usual ways of word-formation in Internet texts are revealed. The productive word-forming means reflecting the tendency to internationalization include the prefixes анти‘anti-‘, супер‘super-‘, мега‘mega-‘, псевдо‘pseudo-‘, etc., suffixes -(из)аци(я)‘-tion’, -гейт‘-gate-‘, etc., agglutination models of forming complex words. Productive word-formation means reflecting the tendency towards democratization include the suffixes -щин (а)‘-shchin(a)’, -к(а) ‘-k(a)’ — the latter in univerbation models. These affixes  often perform expressive-evaluative function connected with the semantic and stylistic characteristics of the derivational bases and the context.

Expressive-evaluative and ludic functions of innovations in Internet texts are characterized.

The results of this study are important not only for the theory of derivatology, neology and Internet linguistics in general, but also for lexicography (Zhdanova, 2020).

Discussion

1. Factors affecting language evolution. The development of language is directly related to the development of the society it serves, and extra-linguistic factors must be considered when characterizing the language of a particular epoch. According to G.O. Vinokur, abrupt changes in social life activate and actualize some language potencies (Vinokur,2006: 87). The scientist’s observations are also confirmed by the latest language and speech material: the abundance of innovations in different spheres of communication, the activation of certain parts and the appearance of new elements in the word-formation mechanism testify to the fact that the most important socio-political upheavals in Russia at the end of the twentieth century have had and are having a great impact on the dynamics of linguistic processes (Sociocultural and linguopragmatic aspects... 2018; Russian language in Internet communication... 2021; Russian language of the coronavirus era, 2021).

As researchers note, “the replenishment of the vocabulary, as well as the evolution of the language as a whole, is regulated by not only external but also internal factors” (Volkov, Senko, 1983: 43–44). Thus, G.P. Neshchimenko draws attention to the significance of the tendency of linguistic economy for “the development of systemic regularities of language” (Neshchimenko, 2010: 118). “The scientist’s observations are also confirmed by Internet texts: derivational universals are often in them — a direct consequence of the law of linguistic economy” (Zhdanova, Ratsiburskaya, 2020: 28).

At the same time, external and internal factors determining language development are closely interrelated and their distinction is somewhat relative: “... autonomous processes occurring within the lexical subsystem of the language and aimed at improving the system of designations are ultimately mediated by an external stimulus, in particular, by the actualization of some social phenomena, concepts” (Volkov, Senko, 1983: 45).

In the Russian language of our time, “despite the increased number of external borrowings, lexical renewal due to lexical and word-formation innovations prevails” (Zhdanova, 2020). As researchers note, “of all the processes supplying new units to the Russian language, the most active is the process of word production” (Marinova, 2008: 439).

In the Russian language of the turn of the 20th — 21st centuries “two vectors of linguistic development can be traced, determining the processes of word production. Firstly, there is an obvious tendency towards internationalization, and secondly, a tendency towards democratization” (Zhdanova, Ratsiburskaya, 2020; see also: Gazda, 1997; Koryakovtseva, 2016; Globalization.... 2006, etc.).

2. The tendency to internationalization in Internet word-formation. This trend as one of the defining ones in Russian word-formation of the newest period has been repeatedly described by researchers (Koryakovtseva, 2016, etc.). It manifests itself, in particular, in a large number of derivational composites with the first indeclinable attributive part (рок-музей ‘rock museum’, рэп-тусовка ‘rap party’, тату-салон ‘tattoo salon’); productive foreign (international) affixes (супер‘super-‘, -(из)аци(я) ‘-(a)tion’); new borrowed affixal elements (мега-, ‘mega-‘, гейт ‘-gate’). Thus, researchers in the sphere of derivatology point to the growth of nominal prefixation in the Russian language at the turn of the 20th–21st centuries, primarily with the help of borrowed morphemes: for example, in the synonymous pair супер‘super’— сверх‘super’ — the foreign prefix is noticeably more productive. Besides, the rapid word-formation adaptation of borrowed neologisms can be pointed out. In some cases, a new borrowing becomes the top of the whole word-formation nest (Zhdanova, Ratsiburskaya, 2020): интернет ‘Internet’ — интернетизация ‘internetization’, интернетчик ‘interneter’, интернетомания ‘internetomania’, etc.; шейминг ‘shaming’ — Bali-sheiming ‘бали-шейминг’, бебишейминг ‘babysheiming’, шеймить ‘to shame’, шеймовер ‘shameover’, etc.

Modern Internet texts reflect the productivity of foreign affixes and word-formation models. Thus, the prefix анти‘anti-‘ with the semantics of negation, absence can be combined with the bases of inanimate and animate nouns, as well as adjectives:

(1) 25 masterpieces from people who would have graduated from the academy of антидизайнеров ‘antidesigners’ with excellent [hereinafter we preserve the spelling and punctuation of the source.

(2) About collective farming and антидизайн ‘antidesign’ of kitchen corners. <....> And now they suddenly start saying that kitchen corners suddenly went out of fashion and became a collective антитренд ‘antitrend’ and антидизайн ‘antidesign’ in one bottle.

(3) So, here are my five антитоповых ‘anti-trend’ phrases.

When the conditions of the word-forming type are violated and the prefix анти‘anti-‘ is combined with the bases of personal proper names, the new formation becomes more expressive:

(4) James Bond is a posh loner, even if he is helped by a variety of people. Анти-Бонд ‘Anti-Bond’ — Gorbunkov — is part of a whole “brigade” with taxi-drivers and other “serious people”.

There is a great expressive effect when this prefix is combined with the names of literary works:

(5) When the admiral learns that the barge has sunk, he takes a boat and goes to rescue his son. He doesn’t find his son, but he rescues a little white dog from the water. That’s how “Антимуму” ‘AntiMumu’ works.

The productive dimensional evaluative prefix супер‘super-‘ indicates a high or higher degree of something (Lopatin, & Ulukhanov, 2016: 229):

(6) ... remember those суперкастрюли ‘super pots’ with red inscriptions on the sides: “Soup”, “The second course”, “Compote”? This neologism indicates the large size of the denotative, as well as in the next example:

(7) THIS looks so unreal and creepy that it has become a Moscow landmark. I had to see THIS with my own eyes. I went and saw it. Супермегачеловейник ‘Supermegahumanhill’!

Many neuter forms not only indicate a high degree of a feature, quality, but also evaluate — positively (супербинокль ‘super binoculars’, супертехнологичный ‘super-technological’) or negatively (супер-разведчик ‘super spy’, супер-стерва ‘super bitch’, супернеловко ‘super awkward’, etc.):

(8) “Volos” dealt mainly with drones. It says there is nothing to do in modern warfare without “birds” — they are the second eyes, or rather, the spy’s супербинокли ‘super binoculars’.

(9) The супертехнологичное ‘super-tech’ future is already reflected in the glass screens of our smartphones.

(10) And this is a супершпион ‘super spy’? And what would the Germans have thought of such a super?

(11) Svetlana Ivanova plays Nikolayev’s wife. You know, the суперстерва ‘super bich’ from “Razvedchitsy”.

(12) ... and once he kicked my chair — I turned around, and there he was, with the tooth! Once again, it was супернеловко ‘super awkward’.

The evaluation — positive or negative — is determined by semantic and stylistic features of the motivating word, as well as by the context.

The deviation from the word-forming type (model), in particular the combination of the prefix супер‘super-‘ with personal proper names (anthroponyms), increases the expressiveness of the new word:

(13) And for the next two episodes the viewer, impatiently awaiting the images of the uprising and the feat of our prisoners, will watch Суперниколаев ‘Super Nikolaev’ preparing for the operation, infiltrating the territory of Pakistan and scouting the situation.

The stringing of dimensional-evaluative prefixes also intensifies the qualitative-evaluative potential of a new formation:

(14) It turns out that the Germans are hiding in the castle for a reason: there is a супермегаракета ‘super mega missile’ in the basement!

Borrowed from English at the end of the 20th century, the prefix мега‘mega-‘ primarily indicates the large size of the denotate (Kozulina et al., 2009: 143), as well as the possession of attributes, qualities much more than usual:

(15) If someone wants to encourage the author for a мегаобзор ‘mega review’ of “The Laws of War 1–6”, I won’t object!

Quantitative semantics can be complicated by evaluative semantics — positive (мегаподборка ‘mega collection’) or negative (мегасарай ‘mega shed’):

(16) Also, I strictly recommend the Defense Department’s excellent new project “Victory Commanders: On Parade”. This is a мегаподборка ‘mega-collection’ of rare photos of Victory Marshals and Generals at various post-war parades;

(17) Note the glazed shopping мегасарай ‘mega-shed’ — it was built not too long ago.

Expressive negative evaluation can be shown in the productive prefix псевдо‘pseudo-‘ with the semantics of untruthfulness, falsity:

(18) Tretyakovka is a place exquisite and intended for “white people”, who understand in “elitism” and “style”. Plebs can pass by. They have nothing to do here. Such a wonderful псевдоинтеллектуальный ‘pseudo-intellectual’ fascism.

(19) Evil tongues again say that all this псевдо-интрига ‘pseudo-intrigue’ and псевдо-борьба ‘pseudo-struggle’ are aimed at increasing turnout and in 2–3 weeks no one will remember about these “types of war”.

(20) The supporters of псевдоЗОЖ ‘pseudo-healthy lifestyle’ and antivaccinators, knowing that childhood infections are worse in adults than in children, instead of vaccination, deliberately take healthy children to sick children.

(21) Poor children, what they are drugged with at псевдопредметы ‘lessons on pseudo subjects’.

A really striking feature of modern word-formation processes is the high productivity of the nominal model with the suffix -(из)ациj‘-tion’ meaning “sphere of occupation, property, action, state, in accordance with the meaning of the motivating noun” (Lopatin, Ulukhanov, 2016):

(22) If so far the «киборгизация» ‘cyborgization’ of most Russians is limited to fillings in their teeth, then in 15–20 years we should expect the mass appearance of artificial arms, legs, kidneys and eyes.

(23) World Лоскутизация ‘patchworkization’ Creative ideas about patchwork.

(24) Ногаизация ‘Nogaisization’ and черкесизация Circassianization of the Crimean war (for the sake of which, logically, the tsar married a second time) failed.

The evaluative character of such new words is usually related to the motivating semantics and/or context.

To create a negative image of the politician or the public figure, journalists use a new suffixoid -гейт ‘-gate’ borrowed from English with the meaning of 'political scandal’ (Koryakovtseva, 2016). It usually joins the base of proper names, but can be combined with the base of common nouns, including colloquial ones:

(25) “Байденгейт” ‘Bidengate’ is just beginning.

(26) For the whole week, телкагейт ‘chick gate’ has been brewing in the media and blogs: hot discussion of the issue on <...> if it is acceptable or not to call any young woman “chick” (or gently “little chick”) and to be called Western and liberal at the same time.

The tendency to internationalization is also observed in compound words. Under the influence of the English language, word-formation models of agglutinative compound word formation without connective vowels have recently become widespread. Thus, the ubiquity of the Internet and deep immersion of native speakers in Internet communication contribute to the increase of new words with the first part интернет‘Internet-’:

(27) I honestly thought of burying the hatchet between интернет-лучниками ‘Internet archers’ and интернет-мушкетерами ‘Internet musketeers’, but it didn’t happen.

(28) Интернет-тролли ‘Internet trolls’ do their dirty work in online communities (such as newsgroups, forums, chat rooms, blogs, and social networks).

(29) Интернет-эльфы ‘Internet elves’ are on the warpath.

(30) Интернет-пташки ‘Internet birds’ brought this wonderful photo of a menu from a restaurant “Genatsvali on Sportivnaya”.

3. The tendency to democratization in word formation in Internet communication. Another direction of linguistic development is the tendency to democratization, where low colloquial, vernacular affixes and models are productive.

“New words on the basis of proper names have bright expression, usually negative, in those cases when the derivational bases are combined with Russian low colloquial suffixes” (Zhdanova, Ratsiburskaya, 2020: 34), in particular with the suffix -щин(а) ‘-ism’ denoting “an everyday or social phenomenon, an ideological or political trend characterized by a feature named in the motivating word (mostly with a disapproving evaluation)” (Lopatin, Ulukhanov, 2016: 700):

(31) He made no scientific discoveries, no global conclusions, and even the stated goal to “lightly launder шекспировщину ‘Shakespeareanism’” was recalled only in the end.

(32) The main news of the day, if you are not aware of it — the most awful star couple of comedians, who have been annoying you for years on the channel “Rossiya 1” in “Crooked mirror” and other петросянщина ‘Petrosyanism’ — actually Yevgeny Petrosyan and his wife Elena Stepanenko... are getting divorced.

(33) ... Zoo schiziness in our country harmonizes with the growing alienation between people, the scarcity of smiles on the street, the constant readiness for conflict, соколовщина “Sokolovism” — from dirty words in Vienna to diving into the Moika.

(34) My friends whom I hadn’t seen for a long time invited me to the performance, so I went. I was really worried about the pattern «богомоловщина» ‘Bogomolovism’.

Along with colloquial suffixes, colloquial word-formation models are active in derivational processes. Here we can refer to the univerbation models with the suffix -к(а) ‘-k(a)’:

(35) The detector is still silent, we are just leaving Yasinovataya, but at once we find ourselves in the so-called Промка ‘Promka — univerbation from industrial zone’. The industrial zone between the two satellite towns is one of the hottest parts of Donetsk’s defence before and after the Special Military Operation.

(36) Basically, nothing good was expected there anyway, so no great loss. As soon as the пиратка ‘piratka — univerbation from pirated version’ comes out, we’ll see the film. — about the pirated (illegal) version of the movie.

(37) ... not to blame everything on the teacher, who is quite entitled to say короночку ‘univerbation from catchphrase’ of postal workers: There are too many of you and I am alone!

The considered new words also reflect the tendency to economy of linguistic means.

A peculiar manifestation of the democratism in word formation is the activation of contamination, when formally identical parts of the original words are combined. Contaminated new words as a vivid manifestation of the author’s element in Internet communication are quite often in Internet comments:

(38) It’s маябрь ‘contamination of May + November’, but we’ve already bought sunglasses. They look good with a hat and a scarf ← May + November — with the initial part of the second initial word cut off.

(39) My овчаровашка ‘contamination of sheepdog + charming’ does this when I talk to him, and he hears familiar words ← sheepdog + charming — with the final part of the first initial word cut off.

(40) Oh, how sweet and affectionate you are, my Patagonian, my скало-ласка ‘contamination of rock climber + weasel’! [the article is about a South American animal — Patagonian weasel] ← rock climber + weasel.

The last example is also interesting because the author plays with the word sounding, uses graphoderivation (hyphenation) and refers the reader to the famous song by V. Vysotsky.

As a result of contamination, the semantic volume of new words increases, including the semantics of both source words and situation.

In addition to contamination, there are other processes of occasional word formation in Internet communication: substitutional derivation and holophrasis. In substitutional derivation (partly similar to contamination), one of the parts of the derivative is replaced, and the original word can be playfully reinterpreted as in false etymology:

(41) Comment A: Well, somehow I doubt that ancient humans with sticks and stones could slaughter all mammoths, including папонтов ‘the word from mammoth with papinstead of mam-’.

Comment B: <...> yes, they killed all of them. Even дядентов ‘the word from mammoth with uncleinstead of mam-’ and тетентов ‘the word from mammoth with auntinstead of mam-’. And who can resist a hundred spears in the side or a pit of stakes?

In Russian Internet communication, there are many cases of holophrasis when a new word is a fusion of word combinations or a sentence. Both hyphenated and fused spellings are possible:

(42) Zinochka handed Mikhail an ineptly made mold and told him to make a key to the safe containing the «та-самая-печать» ‘that-same-stamp’.

(43) Igor contacts тем-самым-неподкупным-генералом ‘that same incorruptible general’, and they make up one more cunning plan.

(44) Once again about “иганебыло” ‘there was no Tatar-Mongol yoke’ [about the Tatar-Mongol yoke and its assessment in the works of historians and pseudo-historians].

Thus, the analysis of Internet communication identified word-formation processes, models, and formants actual in the Russian language of the early 21st century.

Conclusion

Avalanche word formation and a rapid flow of borrowings — the processes that were most active at the end of the twentieth century — continue at the beginning of the twenty-first century, including Internet communication. The Russian language of our days functions under the conditions of linguistic-creative freedom characteristic of Internet communication (blogs, comments to them, comments in social networks).

The word-forming potential of the language is realized in lexical and word-forming new words, which need linguistic-cognitive, linguistic-pragmatic, and socio-cultural research.

The social conditionality of new forms is manifested in the choice of word-formation formants and models, as well as in the nature of initial words naming actual, socially important realities characterizing new social relations.

As the research has shown, the word-formation tendencies in the texts of Internet communication mainly reflect the tendencies characteristic of the modern word-formation mechanism.

 

_{¹ Retrieved from https://dzen.ru/articles (acsessed: 03.03.2024)}

_{² Retrieved from https://dzen.ru/id/612b443efc5995741e8f22ae (acsessed: 03.03.2024)}

_{³ Retrieved from https://dzen.ru/knigajivotnih (acsessed: 03.03.2024)}

_{⁴ Retrieved from https://dzen.ru/zina_korzina (acsessed: 03.03.2024)}

_{⁵ Retrieved from https://zen.yandex.ru/media/sdelay_mebel/pro-kolhoznost-i-antidizain-kuhonnyh-ugolkov-mojet-li-stat-neaktualnym-udobstvo-i-uiut (acsessed: 29.08.2024)}

_{⁶ Retrieved from https://dzen.ru/bad_waiter (acsessed: 03.03.2024)}

_{⁷ Retrieved from https://onkto.ru/blog/psychometry/troll (acsessed: 03.03.2024)}

_{⁸ Retrieved from https://womanadvice.ru; https://dzen.ru/tsargrad.tv; https://adme.media/; http://inforos.ru/; https://lenta.ru; https://www.afisha.ru/; https://cont.ws/ (acsessed: 29.08.2024)}

_{⁹ Retrieved from https://vk.com/ (acsessed: 29.08.2024)}

_{¹⁰ Retrieved from https://www.livejournal.com/ (acsessed: 29.08.2024)}

About the authors

Larisa V. Ratsiburskaya

National Research Lobachevsky State University of Nizhny Novgorod

Email: e-a-zhdanova@inbox.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-3700-0613
SPIN-code: 6525-9121

Candidate of Philology, Senior Lecturer of the Department of Modern Russian Language and General Linguistics

23 Gagarin Ave, Nizhny Novgorod, 603022, Russian Federation

Elena A. Zhdanova

National Research Lobachevsky State University of Nizhny Novgorod

Author for correspondence.
Email: racib@yandex.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-9332-050X
SPIN-code: 7032-5608

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

23 Gagarin Ave, Nizhny Novgorod, 603022, Russian Federation

References