Home → Releases → № 15. 2021 →

NEUTRALIZATION OF THE SEMANTICS OF DEFINITENESS AND ITS CONNECTION WITH THE HISTORY OF FORMS OF ADJECTIVE IN THE RUSSIAN AND LITHUANIAN LANGUAGES

Linguistics , UDC: 81-112 DOI: 2619-0656.2021.15.10

Authors

  • Vlasova Svetlana PhD in Philology

Annotation

The relationship the interplay between the historical development of the adjective in the Russian and Lithuanian languages and the neutralization of the semantics of a definiteness is examined in the article. The paper describes the peculiarities of the use of simple and pronominal forms of adjectives from the functional grammar and the theory of reference (determination) point of view (I.I. Revzin, N.D. Arutunova, A.D. Shmelev, S.A. Krylov, T.M. Nikolaeva). We takes into account the opinion of the linguists V.V. Kolesov, A.M. Kuznetsov, N.S. Trubetskoy. The conclusions of the research are based on the analysis of all contexts with simple and pronominal forms of adjectives contained in word-index to the Uspensky codex of 12th–13th centuries. We are dealing with 1235 adjectives which are used almost 9 thousand times: there are about 4 thousand samples of usage of simple forms and about 5 thousand of pronominal forms. We suppose more than 1500 cases of simple forms of adjectives in the Uspensky codex illustrate their usage for expressing the definiteness in case if it has already been expressed by lexical means (neutralization). Lithuanian material is analyzed according to the grammars of the Lithuanian language and articles on the adjective and the problem of the definiteness/indefiniteness category in the scientific literature in the Lithuanian language (authors Ambrazas V., Valeckienė A., Spraunienė B., Paulauskienė A., Mikulskas R., Holvoet A., Tamulionienė A.). Comparison of Modern Lithuanian and Old Literary Russian language texts allows to make some clarifications regarding the development of member forms of adjectives in the Slavic and Baltic languages. Due to inseparable pronoun-adjective joining, close and complex relations have developed between the meaning of definiteness and the semantics of different groups of adjectives. This is explained by the fact that the lexical meaning of a relative adjective itself, its word-building possibilities single out, identify the object and can present it as well-known. Distinctive semantics of adjectives would often determine sole usage of pronominal or simple forms. In modern Lithuanian, an interrelation is also noticed between the possibility of making pronominal forms and classes of adjectives. It should be noted that this relationship is opposite in Old Russian and Modern Lithuanian. In the Uspensky codex of the 12–13th centuries, the category of definiteness is constantly expressed using pronominal forms in the cases where it has already been previously expressed by other means, i.e. demonstrative pronouns, proper names or lexical word meanings. It is vice versa in Lithuanian: when definiteness is expresses using lexical devices (e.g. relative and compound adjectives), such forms are not used or used inconsistently (with proper names, demonstrative pronouns and appeals). Comparison with the Lithuanian language suggests that in the Old Russian language such a situation was quite possible in the beginning.

Tags:
a category of definiteness/indefiniteness , neutralization. , simple and pronominal forms of adjectives , the category of definiteness / indefiniteness , the Church Slavonic language , the Uspensky codex of the 12-13th centuries , the Uspensky codex of XII–XIII centuries

How to link insert

Vlasova, S. . (2021). NEUTRALIZATION OF THE SEMANTICS OF DEFINITENESS AND ITS CONNECTION WITH THE HISTORY OF FORMS OF ADJECTIVE IN THE RUSSIAN AND LITHUANIAN LANGUAGES Bulletin of the Moscow City Pedagogical University. Series "Pedagogy and Psychology", № 15. 2021, 163-181. https://doi.org/2619-0656.2021.15.10
References
1. Vlasova S. (2006). Rol‘ kategorii opredelennosti/neopredelennosti v razvitii prilagatel‘nogo v drevnerusskom i litovskom jazykah [The Role of the Definiteness/Indefiniteness Category in the Development of Adjectives in Old Russian and Lithuanian]. Acta Baltico Slavica. Warszawa: Instytut Slawistyki Polskiej Akademii Nauk. № 30. Pp.181–198. (In Russ.).
2. Vlasova S. (2011). Kategorija opredelennosti/neopredelennosti i formy prilagatel‘nyh, nazyvajushhih material, v cerkovnoslavjanskom i litovskom jazykah (istoricheskij aspekt). [Category of definiteness/indefiniteness and the form of the adjectives naming a material in the Church Slavonic and Lithuanian languages (historical aspect)]. Rusistika i komparativistika. Sbornik nauchnyh statej [Russian Philology and Comparative Studies. Collection of scientific articles]. Rel. VI. Vilnius–Moscow: Edukologija. Pp. 180–190. (In Russ.).
3. Vlasova S.V. (2015). Prilagatel‘nye s suffiksom -‘sk- i kategorija opredelennosti/ neopredelennosti v cerkovnoslavjanskom jazyke (v sopostavlenii s prilagatel‘nymi s suffiksom -iškas v litovskom jazyke) [Adjectives with the suffix -sk- and category of definiteness/indefiniteness in the Church Slavonic language (in comparison with adjectives with the suffix -iškas in Lithuanian)]. Rusistika i komparativistika. Sbornik nauchnyh statej [Russian Philology and Comparative Studies. Collection of scientific articles]. Vil‘njus — Moscow: Lietuvos edukologijos universiteto leidykla. Rel. X. Pp. 7–27. (In Russ.).
4. Vlasova S. (2016). Formy prilagatel‘nyh i opredelennost‘ unikal‘nogo objekta v cerkovnoslavjanskom tekste XII–XIII vv. [Forms of adjectives and the definiteness of a unique object in the Church Slavonic text of the 12–13th]. Kalba ir kontekstai: mokslo darbai. T. 7 (1), D. 1. Pp. 164–172. (In Russ.).
5. Istoricheskaja grammatika drevnerusskogo jazyka [Historical grammar of the Old Russian language]. Pod red. V.B. Krys‘ko. Moscow: Azbukovnik, 2006. T. 3. 496 p. (In Russ.).
6. Kolesov V.V. (2010). Istoricheskaja grammatika russkogo jazyka [Historical grammar of the Russian language]. Saint Petersburg.: SPbGU. 512 p. (In Russ.).
7. Krylov S.A. (1984). Determinacija imeni v russkom jazyke: Teoreticheskie problemy [Determination of Nominal in Russian: Theoretical problems.]. Semiotika i informatika [Semiotics and Informatics]. Rel. Pp. 124–154. (In Russ.).
8. Musteikis K. (1972). Sopostavitel‘naja morfologija russkogo i litovskogo jazykov [Contrastive morphology of the Russian and Lithuanian languages]. Vil‘njus: Mintis. 286 p. (In Russ.).
9. Musteikis K. (2012). Funkcional‘naja grammatika russkogo i litovskogo jazykov [Functional grammar of Russian and Lithuanian languages]. Vilnius: Edukologija. 466 p. (In Russ.).
10. Revzin I.I. (1978). Struktura jazyka kak modelirujushhej sistemy. [The structure of the language as a modeling system] Moscow: Nauka, 287 p. (In Russ.).
11. Tolstoj N.I. (1957). Znachenie kratkih i polnyh form prilagatel‘nyh v staroslavjanskom jazyke [The meaning of short and full forms of adjectives in the Old Church Slavonic]. Voprosy slavjanskogo jazykoznanija [Issues of Slavic Linguistics]. Rel. 2. Moscow. Pp. 43–122. (In Russ.).
12. Trubeckoj N.S. (1987). Otnoshenie mezhdu opredeljaemym, opredeleniem i opredelennost‘ju [The relationship between determinable, definition and definiteness]. Izbrannye trudy po filologii [Selected Works on Philology]. Moscow: Progress. Pp. 37–43. URL: http://www.philology.ru/linguistics1/trubetskoy-87c. htm (accessed:) (In Russ.).
13. Uspenskij sbornik XII–XIII vv. [The Uspensky codex of XII–XIII centuries] Izd. podg. O.A. Knjazevskaja i dr. Moscow: Nauka, 1971. 751 p. (In Russ.).
14. Filimonova Ju.V. (2000). Sistemnoe issledovanie nejtralizacii kak javlenija jazykovoj normy v sovremennom russkom jazyke: dissertacija ... kandidata filologicheskih nauk: [A systemic study of neutralization as a phenomenon of linguistic norms in modern Russian: dissertation ... of a candidate of philological sciences] 10.02.01. Jaroslavl‘. 210 p. (In Russ.).
15. Jakubinskij L.P. (1953). Istorija drevnerusskogo jazyka [History of the Old Russian language] Moscow: Uchpedgiz. 368 p. (In Russ.).
16. Shmelev A.D. (2002). Russkij jazyk i vnejazykovaja dejstvitel‘nost‘. [Russian language and non-linguistic reality]. Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskoj kul‘tury. 496 p.
17. Ambrazas V. (1997). Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatika. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. 742 p
18. Holvoet A. (2006). Tamulionienė A. Apibrėžtumo kategorija. Daiktavardinio junginio tyrimai. (Red. A. Holvoet, R. Mikulskas). Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Pp. 11–32.
19. Mikulskas R. (2006). Apibrėžiamųjų būdvardžių aprašo perspektyva. Daiktavardinio junginio tyrimai. (Red. A. Holvoet, R. Mikulskas). Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Pp. 33–65.
20. Paulauskienė A. (2008). Opozicijos ir jų neutralizacija gramatinių kategorijų paradigmose. Kalbų studijos. (Studies about Languages). No. 13. Pp. 5–14.
21. Roszko R. (2002). Semantinė apibrėžtumo. Neapibrėžtumo kategorija (lietuvių ir lenkų kalbose). Respectus philologicus. No. 1. Pp. 13–20.
22. Spraunienė B. (2008). Paprastųjų ir įvardžiuotinių būdvardžių opozicija lietuvių kalboje kaip apibrėžtumo sistema. Acta Linguistica Lithuanica. Vol. 59. Pp. 109–139.
23. Valeckienė A. (1957). Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos įvardžiuotinių būdvardžių vartojimas. Literatūra ir kalba. Vol. 2. Pp. 159–355.
24. Valeckienė A. (1986). Apibrėžtumo/neapibrėžtumo kategorija ir pirminė įvardžiuotinių būdvardžių reikšmė. Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai XXV: Lietuvių kalbos sintaksės tyrinėjimai. Vilnius. Pp.168–189.
25. Valeckienė A. (1998). Funkcinė lietuvių kalbos gramatika. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. 416 p.
Download file .pdf 128.66 kb