Formation of mutational semantic classes of verbs with the prefix "от-" in the Russian language of the pre-national period (11th–17th centuries)

Sereda Dmitrii Mihailovich ORCID: 0009-0003-8674-7008 Senior Lecturer; Institute of Philology, Journalism and Intercultural Communication; Southern Federal University Pushkinskaya str., A, 150, Rostov-on-Don, Rostov region, 344052, Russia dsereda@sfedu.ru Other publications by this author

The study of verbal word formation in the diachronic aspect is one of the key areas of modern derivatology ^[1-4]. The historical approach allows us to rethink the problems of synchronous word formation, explaining the reasons for the appearance of different, seemingly unrelated meanings in one formant. For example, from the point of view of modern Russian, in the verbs break off (chair leg), crush (legs) and keep silent, the prefix ot expresses different meanings that cannot be deduced from each other. Nevertheless, referring to earlier linguistic states makes it possible to discover common semantic components that combine these meanings.

Having arisen on the basis of ancient relational elements, prefixes initially acted as spatial concretisers of the action expressed by the verb ^{[5, p. 355; 6, p. 209]}. Thus, the primary meaning of the prefix from-, dating back to the Proto-Slavic period, was the value of deletion. Combining with the verbs of movement, she clarified their spatial semantics, cf.: For that, you are a weapon, you are a weapon, you are a weapon, you are a weapon, you are a weapon, you are a weapon, you are a weapon, you are a weapon, you are a weapon, you are a weapon, you are a weapon, you are a weapon, you are a weapon, you are a weapon, you are a weapon, you are a weapon, you are a weapon, you are a weapon, you are a weapon, you are a weapon, you are a weapon, you are a weapon, you are a weapon, you are a weapon, you are a weapon. Zlatostr., 31. XII c. ^{[7, p. 181]}.

Subsequently, on the basis of the initial spatial prefixes, figurative meanings are formed, for example: The most necessary and simple brushy food, all the sweet and red fruits of this world. Zh. Amv. Small., 38. XVI century. ~ XIII century. ^{[7, p. 182]}.

The next stage was the appearance of prefixes of values related to the limit and the result of the action.

The development of the limit is due to the fact that "the addition of a prefix to a verb not only spatially marked, but also outlined the limit, the boundaries to which the action extends and stops" ^{[8, p. 115]}, for example, blooming – 'stop blooming, finish blooming': A piece like grass, His name, like the color of the village, is like the color of his aunt (ἐξανθήσει). Psalm. Sim., ps. XIII. 15, until 1280 ^{[9, p. 60]}.

In turn, effectiveness is a special case of the limit, where the achieved result marks the final boundary, indicating the completion of the action. As the researchers note, this process was typical for "evolutionary verbal bases" that were not aimed at achieving a result ^{[10, p. 29]}, cf.: to sing, to sing, to sing: to make a small two–fathom oven. and coming from Berestovoe peyour watch and moles that BU staine. LL 1377, 52 vol. (1051) ^{[11, p. 272]}. The addition of a prefix gave such verbs the meaning of completeness. At the same time, the initial spatial meaning of the prefix itself was lost, due to which new, secondary meanings began to develop in prefixes that were not related to spatial: under the influence of verbal bases and context, "on the basis of the effectiveness of prefixes ... modification and mutation word-formation types are formed" ^{[8, p. 119]}.

The key difference between modification and mutation derivation lies in the role of the prefix. In modification derivation, the prefix acts as a specialized specifier: it clarifies the action, indicating its temporal characteristics, intensity, phases, and result ^{[12, pp. 122-123]}. The derivatives formed in this way characterize various ways of verbal action, for example, a long-term restrictive meaning (to serve a term), completeness (to boil, to color), etc.

In mutational derivation, the semantic center is shifted to the prefix. It is he who radically changes the meaning, giving the action a new perspective, "whereas the motivating basis performs the role of definitions in it" ^{[12, p. 111]}. As a result, the derivative names a situation completely different from the one indicated by the generating verb, for example, to joke – to laugh off someone, to sit - to sit in a shelter, to freeze – to freeze your feet.

Traditionally, in works on derivatology, the term word-formation type is used, which means "a set of derived words united by the identity of the relationship between each other and the commonality of formal and semantic features" ^{[13, p. 133]}.

In studies on the formal description of verb prefixes within the framework of the cognitive model of language, the term "semantic class" is used, denoting a set of derivatives characterized by a single morphemic structure, united by a single meaning and being an element of a broader concept of a semantic network ^{[14, 15]}. In turn, the semantic network is a nonlinear structure that encompasses all the meanings of a prefix, as well as establishes links between them according to the degree of semantic proximity to each other ^{[16, 17]}. It is the entry into a broader structure that defines the connections between all the meanings of a single word-formation formant that distinguishes the term "semantic class" from the term "word-formation type".

Let us consider the formation of the mutational semantic classes "Deprivation of functions", "Evasion" and "Self-defense" of verbs with the prefix ot- in the Russian language of the pre-national period based on the material of historical dictionaries.

As E.R. Dobrushina notes, the prefix ot has a transparent meaning of 'loss of connection' ^{[18, p. 33]}. L. V. Tabachenko introduces the term "genetic-prototypical meaning" - the initial meaning that does not depend on the structure of the word and does not always coincide with the subsequent meanings of the prefix. It can be established only with the help of diachronic research, such as separability (from-), etc. ^{[19, p. 26]}. The construction of a semantic network of a verb prefix based on diachronic material makes it possible to establish connections both between its individual meanings and with the original genetic prototype.

Among verbs with the prefix ot, "Russian Grammar 1980" identifies several word-formation types (CT) that can be classified as mutational, for example:

1) "to bring to an undesirable state: to sit out, defend, trample, retreat ^{[13, pp. 362-363]};

2) "get rid of, evade someone-n.: laugh it off, keep silent, unsubscribe ^{[13, pp. 385-386]}. In our opinion, this word-formation type is divided into two narrower classes.: "Evasion" and "Self-defense". The criterion for distinguishing is the nature of the action of the subject seeking to get rid of danger: when evading (dissuading), taking time off) it is hidden, and in self–defense (to fight back, to wave away) it is obvious.

Within the framework of the cognitive approach, the relevant method of studying verbal semantics is the method of polysituative analysis developed by N. B. Lebedeva, which interprets the denotative structure of the verb as a complex of situations united by spatial, temporal or logical connections ^[20].

To identify the specifics of the semantic classes "Deprivation of functions", "Evasion" and "Self-defense", we will analyze their denotative structure, examining it using polysituative analysis at the synchronous-diachronic level.

Let's denote the terms used in such an analysis: a situateme is an open unit of a content plan with complex architectonics, including a number of situations; a subject is an animated participant in a situation; an agent is a doer; a Causer is a creator of a situation; a patient is an object–type actor who exists before the situation occurs and is undergoing change; a Dominant is a higher position in the hierarchy of participants in a situation. status level, Controlled ‒ a participant dependent on the dominant, occupying a lower status level, Effective – an object–type actor who appears as a result of the implementation of the situation, may be in the form of a new "state of affairs", Beneficiary - a person who finds himself in some kind of (psychological, social, informational, etc.) gain as a result actions, the object of Damage is a disinterested addressee who finds himself in some kind of (psychological, social, informative, etc.) loss, the means is an instrumental–type actor, the use of which contributes to the implementation of the situation ^{[20, p. 6, 65-68, 70-71]}.

Let's consider the features of the denotative structure of the semantic classes "Deprivation of functions", "Evasion" and "Self-defense".

Apparently, the beginning of the formation of the semantic class "Deprivation of functions" dates back to the Ancient Russian period, when two lexemes were fixed – to leave and to leave. The lexeme is derived from the base of the other-Russian. the phrase 'to be able, able (to do something), to be healthy' is chronologically the most ancient and was first recorded in the "Izbornik" of 1073: For this reason, there are many sick and sick and dead in you, the essence of many, they are dying and dying. Izb. St. 1073, 52. ^{[7, p. 280]}. This passage from the First Epistle to the Corinthians of the Apostle Paul refers to those "who eat and drink unworthily," as a result of which they become "weak and sick." At the denotative level, an animate Subject has a hidden objectness (physiological side). The component ‘the tool is the cause of the Subject's negative state’ is a kind of internal negative factor (illness, hunger, etc.) that affects his physiological side, which is not lexically expressed. It is the physiological side that is negatively affected that performs the function of the Patient, and the Subject himself becomes the Object of Damage. A new situation is emerging in Iran: with the exhaustion of the Health Resource, illness or death of the Subject occurs.

In the history of the Russian language, there are also similar derivatives without the prefix ot-, which express a certain painful state of the Subject, which does not lead, however, to a complete loss of strength and death, cf. nemagatisia – ‘to weaken’: I drink from the jam of wheat (and) sow, because I am not hungry (ἐκλείπω). (Gen. XXV, 30) Five Books, 25 vol. XIV ^{[21, p. 167]}. It is the addition of the prefix ot- that introduces into the semantics of derivatives the idea of separation from the normal physiological state, as well as the value of effectiveness, which indicates the complete exhaustion of the Subject's forces.

The semantics of a negative physical condition developed in the verb to take away, which has a basis with the meaning of possession, in contexts where the basis marked the subject's connection with a damaged sensory organ or body part. Unlike the situationist verb, the Patient's role is not the physiological side of the Subject as a whole, but the sensory organ or a specific part of his body, cf. The atmosphere is dark and gloomy. and put both a hood and a hood on the main one. and Wyss SVe(t) go and Oum go NS. Pr 1313, 36. ^{[11, p. 265]}.

In the Old Russian period, the semantic class "Deprivation of functions" was formed by 9 derivatives, which are divided into three subclasses depending on the denotative structure and the nature of the negative impact.

1. The subclass "the impact of a negative state" is motivated by the basics with the meaning of damage, the cause or result of a negative state: to detach, freeze, wither and take away (cf.: The same thing is that my legs are frozen up to my ankles and fell away. J. Paul Obn., 97. XVII century. ~ XVI century. ^{[7, p. 241]}. The semantics of these derivatives describes a situation where, as a result of prolonged negative effects, a part of the body representing the patient's side of the Subject is damaged.

In the Old Russian period, the fixed lexeme take away was found in stable phrases, cf.: legs were taken away – ‘legs were taken away’: Legs were taken away from me. H. You. Gag., 8. 1637 ^{[7, p. 285]}. The peculiarity of these situations is that instead of the component ‘the tool is the cause of the negative physical condition of the damaged part of the body’, a lexically expressed purposeful causative agent appears in the form of names. p., cf.: And God took away my mind from me, according to my many sins. Nickname. years. X, 225. ^{[7, p. 285]}.

2. The "causative effect" subclass includes the lexemes hit, hit, take away, trample and kick away, motivated by the basics with the meaning of hitting or pressure. At the denotative level, a Causative agent is an obligatory component, which purposefully damages the Subject, cf.: And that Semen who came taught me to beat the floor and trampled on me with stompers, and broke off my arms and legs, and trampled on my stomach, and with a knife I was stabbed. AHU III, 129. 1632 ^{[9, pp. 50-51]}. It is the presence of a lexicalized Causative agent that is a feature of the situational system of both these derivatives and, subsequently, of the entire semantic class "Deprivation of functions".

3. The subclass "negative impact on oneself" includes verbs motivated by the basics with the meaning of striking (repelling, rejecting), physiological state (repelling), physiological action (repelling). The semantics of these verbs describe a situation in which the Subject harms himself by being an unintelligent Causer: It was [Stepanko] before the winters.<b>I was<I'm Kurochkin and I'm walking with my feet up to my ankles and my nose is cold and fell off.<b>. Yakut. a., map. 4, No. 12, cst. 12. 1642 ^{[7, p. 241]}.

A feature of the semantic classes "Evasion" and "Self-defense" is that a conflict situation arises between its participants and the Agent has to act in conditions of resistance to the threat from the Causer.

Thus, participants in the semantic class "Avoidance" are characterized by a Controlled–Dominant relationship, when the Causer demands that the Agent fulfill his will, thereby imposing an obligation to respond. Unwilling to obey, the Agent, however, does not refuse the Causer directly, but acts covertly, in the mode of an implicit conflict of wills. This creates a situation of substitution: in parallel with the expected event (the fulfillment of the will), the real one unfolds (the search for a way to evade). The outcome of the confrontation depends on the distribution of semantic roles: with successful evasion, the Agent becomes the Beneficiary, and the Causer becomes the Object of Damage; otherwise, the Causer's will is realized.

The value of avoidance in the derivatives under consideration is expressed through three main modes: a) communicative (speech avoidance), b) local (hiding in an unknown place), c) generalized (unspecified avoidance).

1. The speech avoidance subgroup consists of lexemes motivated by verbs of speech: dissuade (dissuade (dissuade)), lie down, keep silent, deny (dissuade, dissuade, dissuade), unsubscribe, deny (dissuade, disown). In situations of these lexemes, the Agent tries to avoid the Causer's influence by using verbal excuses (oral or written).

Probably, the verb-model of both this group and the entire class of "Evasion" is the derivative of negation, known from the Ostrom Gospel (1057): And we begin to negate (παραιτεῖσθαι). (Luke XIV, 18) Acute Heb., 107, 1057 ^{[9, p. 18]}. In this case, the invitees, unwilling to accept the offer, do not openly refuse, but evade under various pretexts.

2. The meaning of ‘hiding in an unknown place' is realized in a subgroup of verbs, which consists of the lexemes to take time off (to take time off) and to escape. Their denotative structure represents a situation in which the Agent hides from the Kaiser in an unknown place, cf.: And how can I not cheat Savushka, and not walk away from the chain [in var.]. The Tale of Priest Savva, 237. XVIII century. ~ XVII century. ^{[7, p. 219]}.

3. The general meaning of ‘avoidance’ is expressed by verbs motivated by the basics of physical actions and states: to withdraw, to delay, to withdraw / to withdraw (including the options to withdraw, etc.) and to withdraw. The meaning of these lexemes usually indicates a variety of circumstances that the Agent refers to in order to evade the demands of the Kaiser, cf.: But we don't want the sovereign to be married, and he won't let us go, let him be taken away by the wedding, and we don't care about his wedding. Shved. d., 151. 1569 ^{[7, p. 282]}.

The criterion for distinguishing subclasses in the semantic class "Self-defense", as well as in the class "Evasion", is the specificity of the ways in which the Agent defends himself from the Causer.

1. The "physical self-defense" subclass is formed by the derivatives of fighting back, fighting back, waving away, fighting back, and stomping away. The denotative structure of this subclass contains the circumstantial mode of "threat resistance", in which the Agent provides physical resistance to the Causer. Probably, it is in the lexeme to fight back as a sample verb that the idea of self-defense begins to form, cf. (1216): and Yarun shut himself up in the city of 100, and they fought back. Novg. I years old, 201 ^{[7, p. 184]}.

2. The derivatives of hiding and defending form a subclass of "defending oneself by waiting out an enemy attack in hiding." The key category for lexemes of this subclass is the temporal category "duration of the threat from the Causer". In response to the threat, the Agent chooses one of two strategies: either he defends himself / hides in a fortified place, waiting for danger, or he builds such a fortification himself, cf.: And sixty people on the tower, whether they sit or stay, whether they don't sit for long and they are led away and so oppressed that they Through the police station , well let down<b>. The Chimes, 189. 1638 ^{[9, p. 29]}; And on May 1, on the day of the Kolonchak, they came to Dig and repair the fishery over the city and drove away to dance and where... the warriors of the people would get water. SGGD IV, 600. 1689 ^{[9, p. 67]}.

3. In situations of the subclass "self-defense by supplication or persuasion", the Agent, in an effort to repel the accusation or attacks of the Causer, uses two main methods: a plea for mercy or the presentation of evidence of innocence (kissing): Neither by prayer from death nor to be cleansed. Verse. Chudn. tsar., 12. XVII c. ^{[7, p. 276]}; And which a foreigner will seek on a foreigner, otherwise the will of the one they are looking for, wants to be kissed, which is not his fault, or at the cross he will put what they are looking for on him, and the plaintiff, having kissed the cross, may the Court rise. Iv. III, 27. 1497 ^{[9, p. 60]}.

Thus, based on the analyzed material within the framework of the method of polysituative analysis, the following conclusions can be drawn.

1. The semantic classes "Deprivation of functions", "Evasion" and "Self-defense" begin to originate in the Old Russian language (to withdraw, to withdraw, to deny, to fight back), however, a larger number of lexemes that make them appear already in the Old Russian period, formed by prefix and confixation. From a diachronic point of view, confixal verbs belong to the category of prefixes, since most confixal derivatives were formed already in the Old Russian period ^{[22, p. 17]}.

2. As can be seen from the analyzed material, many secondary mutational values of the ot prefix are related to its genetic-prototypical separability value. At the morphemic-word-formation level, the prefix means:

a) separation of the Subject from the normal state or the damaged part of the body from the Subject (for the semantic class of "Deprivation of functions");

b) the removal of the Agent-Subject from the Causative Agent's influence. At the same time, the prefix ot- combines both the effective meaning and the values of separativeness, as well as the reciprocal action-reaction (for the semantic classes "Evasion" and "Self-defense").

3. The semantics of the postfix in the verbs under study also varies depending on the class. In the class "Deprivation of functions" he expresses: a) actually, it has a reflexive meaning (the Subject and the Causer coincide in one person, cf. let go of the mind); b) a general reflexive meaning (the negative impact is limited to the sphere of the Subject, cf. the mind is withdrawn). In the classes "Evasion" and "Self–defense", it is an indirect reflexive meaning: the action is performed by the Subject in his own interests (cf. to dissuade, to fight back).

Thus, the formation and development of new meanings of prefixes within the framework of verbal mutation is based on the "infection" (M. Breal's term) of verbal prefixes with new meanings from the basics and context, as well as on the presence of an animate active subject, which can be represented not only in spatiotemporal, but also in animalic, psychological, mental and social plans. As a result, the semantic complexity of the Subject occurs: it highlights aspects that can be perceived as an independent object. Due to this, a number of new effective values are formed, focused specifically on the physiological or social side of the animate participant.

The article is published in the version approved by the reviewers (after receiving a positive review recommending the manuscript for publication) with corrections made by the author (after receiving the editor’s comments, if any).
Read all reviews on this article