Morphemic Structure of Adverbs in the Russian Dialects of the Amur Region

Sadchenko Valentina Tarasovna Doctor of Philology Professor, the department of Russian Language and Publishing Industry, Pacific National University 680000, Russia, Khabarovsk krai, g. Khabarovsk, ul. K. Marksa, 68, of. 415 ValentinaSadchenko@yandex.ru

Dun QINFEI Postgraduate student, the department of Russian Language and Publishing Industry, Pacific National University 680035, Russia, Khabarovskii krai, g. Khabarovsk, ul. Tikhookeanskaya, 148, komnata 525 qinfei@mail.ru Other publications by this author

Russian Russian dialectology is one of the most controversial and complex issues in the morphemic structure and word formation of adverbs, not only because, in the words of R. Y. Tyurina, word formation itself is "the only section of the science of modern Russian, the name, content and place of which are still not clearly defined" ^{[19, p. 23]} but also because the history of many adverbs, especially dialect ones, is very individual, it is quite difficult to distinguish productive adverbial formants in their morphemic composition. In addition, the problem is complicated by the wide variability inherent in Russian dialects in general and adverbs in particular.         

The study of morphemic structure and word-formation features of a dialect word became more active in Russian studies in the second half of the XX century mainly on the material of names and verbs. At the same time, the first works describing the structural organization and word formation of adverbs in Russian vernacular dialects appeared. Among them should be mentioned, first of all, the works of I. A. Popov, who studied the word formation of adverbs in the dialects of the Northern Russian dialect. I. A. Popov establishes the structural features of dialect adverbs also in comparison with the system of adverbs of the literary language. As part of the general models of adverbs , he notes: 1) adverbs that coincide with the literary language in form, meaning and sound, or differ only phonetically; 2) adverbs that coincide in form with the adverbs of the literary language, but differ from them in meaning; 3) adverbs that are not characteristic of the literary language, but formed from the roots known in it; 4) adverbs with a dialect root; 5) adverbs that differ from the corresponding adverbs of the literary language by their formation: the use of prefixes or suffixes.

I. A. Popov does not take adverbs belonging to the fifth group beyond the framework of models common with the literary language, emphasizing that these dialect features of adverbs are due to the peculiarities of declension of nouns from which they are formed, and the use of prepositions in dialects. The difference from literary adverbial forms consists in the material content of a typical model: with the same motivating basis for a literary language and dialect, other affixes and a different compatibility of affixes are used in the dialect when forming adverbs ^[15].

Later, the attention of researchers was attracted by multi-prefixed adverbs (V. A. Ivnitskaya ^[8]), as well as a group of adverbs correlating with case and prepositional forms of nouns (E. E. Koroleva ^[10]), and, finally, adverbs formed morphemically/morphologically (E. A. Zemskaya ^[7]), and some other groups of words of this part of speech. The description of the word formation of adverbs often illustrates in dialectological works observations of a general nature, descriptions of word-formation or morphological systems of individual Russian dialects.

F. I. Pankov calls the adverb "unloved" for formal descriptive linguistics categorical class of words, traditionally located on the periphery of its attention, notes that the adverb is a "multifunctional word" and refers the adverbialized lexemes of other classes (the process of adverbialization of which cannot be considered fully completed) to peripheral means included in the functional-grammatical field of adverbs, the core which is formed by adverbs proper ^{[13, p. 12-13]}.

Russian Russian dialect features can be attributed to the earliest works of foreign researchers of the "Essay on the Physiology of Slavic Speech" by the Norwegian philologist and Slavist O. Brock, who, considering dialect and literary Russian languages comprehensively, called the differences between them "unclear" ^[2].

Comparative analysis of the word formation of adverbs in different languages (Russian, English, German and French) is presented in the joint work of R. Z. Muryasov and R. A. Gazizov. The authors claim that in the Russian language adverbs differ from other significant parts of speech by a "relatively poor set of models"; adverbial derived bases with a complex structure, as well as circumfixal formations motivated by adjectives and adverbs are dominant ^[11].

The analysis of adverbs in the structural aspect on dialect material is contained in the works of Yu. N. Dracheva, who calls an adverb a fundamentally "secondary" part of speech, meaning not the secondary importance of this class of words, but its derivation, on the basis of which the author considers the study of the morphemic structure of words in this part of speech and "the establishment of their lexical boundaries" to be the primary type of analysis.", i.e. differentiation of possible homonymy, variability and synonymy ^{[5, pp. 81-83]}. Studying the dynamics of the internal form of dialect adverbs in modern Vologda dialects, Yu. N. Dracheva distinguishes them depending on the motivating parts of speech (adjectives, nouns, verbs, adverbs, pronouns, numerals), which are also divided by the author into three groups according to the degree of (weak, medium and high) lexicalization. As a result of the analysis, Yu. N. Dracheva comes to the conclusion that dialectisms-adverbs have a complex structure that complicates morphemic analysis ^{[6, pp.16-21]}.

The article by E. V. Bochkareva is devoted to the structural analysis of pronominal adverbs. E. V. Bochkareva notes that if in the literary language only pronominal and indefinite adverbs are formed by postfix, then in Don dialects numerous adverbs motivated by nouns and adverbs are produced with the help of postfixes. At the same time, complex adverbs and dialectisms are found in the Don dialects-adverbs that are formed by fusion in combination with the truncation of morphemes ^{[1, pp.17-23]}.

Scientists pay attention to the need to develop a special methodology for analyzing the morphemic structure of a word in a dialect. According to E. N. Shabrova, the main parameters of such a technique can be: 1) analysis of the composition of morphs within one morpheme, the nature of their relationship (allomorphs or morpheme variants), phonemic structure and semantics, function performed; 2) syntagmatics of morphemes, the specifics of their formal and semantic compatibility in a separate word (based on) or in some combination of single-root or single-structured words; 3) paradigmatic relations of morphemes in word forms of the same word or in different words ^{[20, p. 7]}.

Assessing the general state of research on Amur dialects in the structural (including word-formation) aspect, it should be emphasized that their number is extremely small. The adverb, as already noted, and in the dialects of the Amur region, and all-Russian, in general, has not been studied enough. In relation to the studied material, one can note only the article by N. A. Klepitskaya and D. A. Yachinskaya devoted to the analysis of the word-formation variability of adverbs. The authors draw attention to the fact that they consider adverbial word production "within the framework of the traditionally distinguished methods of word formation: morphological, morphological-syntactic, lexico-syntactic and lexico-semantic," however, they believe that it is impossible to classify adverbs according to the methods of word formation, since this is hindered by the variability of adverbs, which is represented in all semantic classes of adverbs and it can be created by various word-forming means with the identity of the meaning. Proceeding from the above, N. A. Klepitskaya and D. A. Yachinskaya analyze only the variability of certain groups of circumstantial adverbs (adverbs of time, some place-named adverbs with spatial meaning and two non-nominal adverbs) ^{[9, pp. 25-27]}.

We also addressed the problem of the variability of adverbs in Russian dialects, and in this group of dialects in particular. The material allowed us to identify numerous series of formal grammatical variants of adverbs ^[16].

Russian Russian Dialects of the Amur region served as a source for these observations ^[17], from which 563 adverbs were selected by continuous sampling, from the total composition of which all variants and analogues recorded in the dictionaries of the modern Russian literary language were excluded. As a result, using descriptive-analytical, structural-semantic and comparative methods, 243 adverbs related to the actual regional vocabulary were analyzed.

When developing a structural classification of dialect adverbs, the issue of the allocation of word-forming formants and the establishment of motivating foundations is relevant. The correlation of literary and dialect dialects in this aspect can be defined, according to F.I. Pankov, as zones of "convergence" and "divergence".

Empirical material has shown that by the nature of the opposition to the literary language, all adverbial lexemes recorded in the "Dictionary of Russian Dialects of the Amur region" can be differentiated into the following groups:

1. Words formed with the help of affixes that are absent in the literary language in single-root units with identical meaning: together ("together"), far away ("far away"), doubly ("doubly"), briefly ("briefly"), inarok ("on purpose"), inwardly ("inside"), close ("close"), divovezh ("amazing"), divya ("good, wonderful; amazing"), on the straight ("straight, straight"), on a par ("on a par"), nichek ("face down"), nikogdy ("never"), nowhere ("nowhere"), nowhere ("nowhere"), everywhere / everywhere / everywhere ("everywhere"), potomich ("then"), level ("level") (8% of the total composition of adverbs in the specified source).

2. Words with morpheme substitution (replacement of morphemes – root and affixal) interminute ("every minute"), on-the-fly ("off-the-fly"), on end ("on tiptoe"), butt-to-toe ("close"), last ("at the end"; in literary language – "last"), instead of ("instead of") (2.4%).

3. Words with agglutination (addition) of morphemes (usually prefixed) in lexemes expressing the same concepts as in the literary language, and being of the same root: the day after tomorrow ("on the third day"), in return ("married"), in return ("married"), in between ("across"), apart ("separately, apart"), on the contrary ("opposite"), on the contrary ("back"), in the morning ("the next day, tomorrow"), in the morning ("otherwise"), along ("along"), in the back ("back, in the opposite direction"), (4.3%).

4. Words that are identical in structure to literary ones, but denote other concepts in the dialect, as a result of which homonyms are formed for words of the literary language, for example: rich ("a lot; good"), bravo ("beautiful; good"), dead ("strong, motionless"), wonderful ("a lot; a long time ago"), poor ("bad, weak"), healthy ("a lot"), notable ("noticeable, distinct"), okay ("a lot, enough"), dexterous ("good"), gracious ("safely, successfully"), lonely ("equally"), fatter ("richer"), neat ("well, safely"), deadly, deadly ("firmly, firmly"), ever ("always") (7%).

5. Words formed by such a combination of morphemes, which is unknown to the literary language to express identical concepts, but the sufficiently transparent etymology of their morphemes helps to determine the meaning of the lexeme as a whole: soulful ("pleasant"), kosmach, kosmach ("without a headdress"), probe ("feeling, touching something beforehand"), overland ("to go by land"), with a bare hand ("bare hands"), a likhomat ("very loudly, at the top of his voice"), a steamboat ("towing, using the power of steam"), without time ("before the deadline"), posthumously ("tightly"), day labor ("alternating day after day"), involuntarily ("forcibly, forcibly, against the will"), by a task/ task/ task ("dragging"), by a pusher ("by a strong push"), dreary / dreary ("cloudy") (7%).

6. Words with dialect roots and not opposed to literary affixes: loni, loni, ("last year, the same as letos"), pozaloni ("the day before yesterday"), nautur ("back, in the opposite direction"), navontaraty ("not the way it should be, not so, as it should be"), sundoloy / sundoloy ("two riding on the same horse without a saddle"), shokh ("fast, fast"), tulun ("whole, whole skin, without cutting"), khlyntsoy ("trot"), chekno ("good"), konovadni ("a few days ago"), vinno ("ambling"), wobudenok ("for one day"), on chipurki ("on tiptoe"). The boundaries between morphemes are fuzzy, root morphemes can be distinguished by the residual principle, because it is not possible to make a comparative series of single-root lexemes. The degree of articulation of such units can be defined as conditional (6%).

7. Tokens with a complex structure. This group also includes composite words with procedural roots in the position of the supporting component, such as peshkodral ("on foot"), steamboat ("towing, using steam power") and with roots with non-procedural meanings: overland ("to go by land"), bare-handed ("bare-handed"), likhomat ("very loudly, at the top of my voice"), sweetly ("with the consent of my parents (about getting married)"), self-consciously ("with my own hands; with my own hands"), vtupori ("at that time").

This group also includes the so-called "two-part" adverbs, consisting of two bases with a repetition of the root morpheme: vyloni-loni ("after four days"), gol-golom ("poor") (4.1%).

The observations of A. Sitarsky, who considers the peculiarities of the functioning of complex adverbs in modern Russian, are interesting. The author notes the productivity of the type "adverbs formed from motivating two-root bases" in the language of the modern period, which, in his opinion, reflects the general linguistic "tendency to structural and semantic condensation" and, ultimately, to the economy of linguistic means ^{[21, pp. 56-57]}.

9. In addition, this group of dialects is characterized by adverbs with vivid dialect features, many of which are represented by rare or single formations. For example, in the "Dictionary of Russian dialects of the Amur region" these are adverbs with the preposition o: ovdol ("along"), with the complex preposition in-for: vzadir ("in the direction opposite to the natural location of something"), vzadpyatki, vzapyatki ("backing away without turning your back"), as well as the adverb self-taught ("independently, without special training"), which are archaic forms of the Old Russian language.

The adverbial lexemes of time formed from the forms of the local case without a preposition are interesting: today ("this year, now") and segods, segods, sevogods, seogodye ("this year, this year"), segoy "one after the other; in a string, in single file". In the "Explanatory Dictionary of the living Great Russian language" by V. I. Dal in the dictionary entry with the word "sevodni" we also find: "Sevogody adverb. perm. Vologda. this year, this year, this year. <...> Today's adverb. yaroslav. today and today arch. this year, this year, this year" ^{[4, p. 169]}. In the "Dictionary of Russian dialects of the Amur region", the adverbs segoda (which may be considered as a variant of segoda) and segoy with the meaning "one after the other; string, single file" are recorded not marked by V. I. Dahl and in other dictionaries ^{[19, p. 388]} (4.1%).

10. It should be allocated to a special group of adverbs of time, naming the seasons and intervals of the day, with the formant s-, ascending to the common Slavic demonstrative pronoun s.: winter ("last winter"), spring ("last spring"), letos ("last year"), autumn ("autumn"), noches ("last night"): "Noches is noches, but I don't know how to eat." "I just don't go another year, I can't go that year either: I have no strength (N.-Open Shim.)" ^{[17, p. 228]} (2%).

The Utres adverb was described at the time by I. A. Popov, who noted its wide use in Russian dialects and especially in groups of the Northern Russian dialect ^{[15, p. 231]}. In addition, this adverb is recorded in a number of dictionaries of the nineteenth century: "Dictionary of Church Slavonic and Russian" in 1847 ^[18], "Experience of the regional Great Russian Dictionary" in 1852 ^[12], "Dictionary of the regional Arkhangelsk dialect ..." by A. O. Podvysotsky in 1885 ^[14] and in the "Explanatory Dictionary of the Living Great Russian language" V. I. Dahl ^{[4, p. 522]}.

M. M. Gromova notes the presence of adverbs formed according to this model in other Slavic languages, in particular, in Bulgarian – lyatos ("last summer"), yesenes ("last autumn"); in Slovenian – letos ("last year") ^{[3, p. 36]}. The author draws attention to the fact that in the dialects of the Arkhangelsk region, the adverb utres has the meaning "in the morning of today". Referring to the point of view of I. A. Popov and noting the large number of variants of this adverb in the Arkhangelsk dialects, M. M. Gromova comes to the conclusion that the formant loses the semantics of indicating a period of time in the past and begins to point simply to the period of time closest to the moment of speech, denoted by the root of the adverb, as a result of semantic contamination with the variant morning ^{[3, p. 41]}.

Adverbs with the formant s- are also noted by E. V. Bochkareva in Don dialects, where this formant indicates "uncertainty" or "relatedness to the last year" ^[1].

In the Russian dialects of the Amur region, such contamination is not observed; adverbs with the element c are used with the general meaning of the past tense.

Based on the above, we can draw the following conclusions: 1) dialect adverbs in the Russian dialects of the Amur region consist of both all-Russian and dialect morphemes; 2) some root morphemes in the dialect dialects common in this group of dialects formally coincide with literary analogues, but have a different semantics; 3) the articulability of some adverbial lexemes is difficult, the boundaries between morphemes are fuzzy and blurred, because the semantics of their dialect components are obscured and unique; 4) adverbs are characterized by substitution of not only affixal, but also root morphemes; 5) agglutination of prefixes does not lead to a change in the meaning of the adverbial lexeme; 6) the dominant units are those belonging to group 8, which includes lexicalized prepositional-case combinations; 7) in this group of dialects is observed the preservation of some relics, which make it possible to trace the dynamics of the vernacular vocabulary.