ON THE SO-CALLED “VINOKUR CRITERION”
https://doi.org/10.21603/2078-8975-2016-3-150-154
Abstract
The paper is devoted to the problem of direction of lexical derivation. The system methodology was used to describe the “Vinokur criterion”; it turned out that the criterion can not be used to identify the derivation direction. Also the existence of morphemes apocope technique in Russian derivation is refuted and the term interfix is replaced by epenthesis. It is suggested to use the quantity of morphemes instead of the “Vinokur criterion”: the derived stem is different from the stem of the same root in one additional terminal affix. As a result the morphemic analysis is defined as the first stage and the obligatory condition of the derivative analysis. If the “Vinokur criterion” is interpreted correctly, it can be used in lexicography to describe the semantics of derived words. It may also be the indicator of derived word de-etymologization. The problem of the direction of lexical derivation is also connected with the problem of words existence-inexistence in language and speech, with the problem of synchrony and diachrony of word-formation system and also with the necessity for differentiation of the systems of onims and appellatives and for consideration of each derivative as an element of the whole language system.
References
1. Bol'shoi tolkovyi slovar' russkogo iazyka [Great Dictionary of the Russian language]. Ed. Kuznetsov S. A. 2010.
2. Vinokur G. O. Zametki po russkomu slovoobrazovaniiu [Notes on Russian word formation]. Izbrannye raboty po russkomu iazyku [Notes on the Russian word formation]. Moscow: Uchpedgiz, 1959, 419 – 442.
3. Efremova T. F. Bol'shoi sovremennyi tolkovyi slovar' russkogo iazyka [Large modern dictionary of Russian language]. 2006.
4. Dal' V. I. Tolkovyi slovar' zhivogo velikorusskogo iazyka [Explanatory Dictionary of Russian language in 4 volumes. 2nd edition]. 2nd ed. 1880 – 1882.
5. Isachenko A. V. K voprosu o strukturnoi tipologii slovarnogo sostava slavianskikh literaturnykh iazykov [On the question of the structural typology of the vocabulary of the Slavic literary languages]. Slavia, no. 3 (1958).
6. Zemskaia E. A. Sovremennyi russkii iazyk. Slovoobrazovanie [Modern Russian language. Word formation]. Moscow: Prosveshchenie, 1973, 304.
7. Mel'chuk I. A. Opyt teorii lingvisticheskikh modelei «Smysl – Tekst» [Experience of linguistic models of the theory of "The Meaning – Text"]. 2nd ed. Moscow: Shkola «Iazyki russkoi kul'tury», 1999, 346.
8. Morkovkin V. V., Morkovkina A. V. Russkie agnonimy (slova, kotorye my ne znaem) [Russian agnonimy (words that we do not know)]. Moscow: AO «Astra sem'», 1997.
9. Riabitsev V. K. Ptitsy tundry [Tundra birds]. Sverdlovsk: Sredne-Ural'skoe knizhnoe izdatel'stvo, 1986.
10. Slovarnye agnonimy russkogo iazyka [Vocabulary agnonimy Russian language]. Ed. Vavzhinchik Ia. Warszawa, 2007, Iss. 1. (Semiosis lexicographica. Vol. XLIII).
11. Fasmer M. Etimologicheskii slovar' russkogo iazyka [Etymological dictionary of the Russian language]. Transl. Trubachev O. N. 4th ed. Moscow: OOO «Izd-vo Astrel'»; OOO «Izd-vo AST», 2004.
Review
For citations:
Kretov A.A. ON THE SO-CALLED “VINOKUR CRITERION”. The Bulletin of Kemerovo State University. 2016;(3):150-154. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.21603/2078-8975-2016-3-150-154
Views:
1276
Email this article 