(pdf)
SciELO 
SciELO 
Permalink
Introduction
A common contemporary definition of grammar is the underlying structure of a language that any native speaker of that language knows intuitively. The systematic description of the features of a language is also a grammar. These features are the phonology (sound), morphology (system of word formation), syntax (patterns of word arrangement), and semantics (meaning). Depending on the grammarian’s approach, a grammar can be prescriptive (i.e., provide rules for correct usage), descriptive (i.e., describe how a language is actually used), or generative (i.e., provide instructions for the production of an infinite number of sentences in a language). The traditional focus of inquiry has been on morphology and syntax, and for some contemporary linguists (and many traditional grammarians) this is the only proper domain of the subject.
In any language the parts of speech occupy an important place. In the case of Russian adjectives are quite important and complicated. Numerous lexical, semantic and syntactic aspects of the adjective development have been analyzed from various perspectives. For example, Tolstoj (1957), repeatedly stresses the semantic aspect of compounding, as well as the lexical meaning of adjectives, as important for the choice between the short and the long forms in Old Church Slavonic (hereafter OCS). Jakubinskij (1952), considers lexical and semantic aspects of definiteness crucial for understanding the evolution of adjectives in Russian.
Gippius (1993), analyzes the semantic side of the problem, explaining the predisposition of certain adjectives for the pronominal ending by their affinity with pronouns and too much variation and the morphological redundancy of the connecting vowel once the previously compound form fused into a single unanalyzable unit. The most comprehensive and up-to-date examination of the history of adjectives can be found in a separate volume of the Historical Grammar of the Old Russian language (Kuznecov, et al., 2006). Despite all this, there are factors that have not received sufficient attention (Bratishenko, 2019).
In the explanatory dictionaries of the Russian language, substantiated adjectives are characterized in different ways: in some dictionaries they are presented independently as two different words, in others they are in the same dictionary entry of the adjective, only marked in the meaning noun; or their substantive meaning is noted. However, the particularities of this type of words have not been abundantly addressed in previous studies; and given the semantic complexities that they may present was the main motivation to carry out this work. Thus, the objective of this paper is to analyze the evolution of the substantiated adjectives taking as reference various Russian dictionaries.
Development
There are no special problems in the lexicographical description of substantivates that do not have correlative adjectives, since these units are presented by lexicographers as ordinary nouns, without any labels. The problem arises when describing incomplete substantiation, since substantiation is a lengthy process, and the moment an adjective becomes finally a noun, it is difficult to say. Mikhalev (2014), correctly notes, "interpretation" in the meaning, can be understood as follows: it is no longer an adjective, but not a noun yet.
According to the degree of use in the meaning of nouns and according to the degree of lexicalization (phraseologization), substantivates that have correlative adjectives can be divided into different types. For example, words with the highest degree of lexicalization and with a full degree of substantiation are: weekend, city, fuel, first, second, root , night, cold, control room, left, acquaintance, brownie, operating room, invoice, vacation pay, tips, future, past, sleeping pills, etc. All of them are motivated by their respective producers, however, in their semantics there is one strong and not explained by their components, an additional component that makes them nouns and gives them the right to independent existence. Therefore, they should be reflected in the explanatory dictionaries separately, have an independent dictionary entry. This, in principle, is the case in explanatory dictionaries, however, there are some discrepancies.
For clarity, let us turn to the "Dictionary of the Russian language" by Ozhegov (1983), and the "Big Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language". For example, a substantiated brownie in both dictionaries has an independent dictionary entry: “brownie, th, m. according to superstitious ideas: a supernatural creature supposedly living in every house” (p. 155). In this dictionary entry, the brownie is defined as an ordinary noun with the reference word "creature", which has nothing to do with adjectives, except as an adjective declension, a supernatural being that supposedly lives in every home.
Another definition is: "Brownie, th; m. In popular beliefs: a good or evil spirit living in the house. Further there is a detailed description of the brownie from all sides: what kind of brownie is; in what guise is shown; what he loves, what he does not like; what are his abilities. In general, this dictionary explains all words in more detail, since the purpose of this dictionary is to give the most complete description of the word (its spelling, meaning, sphere of functioning, compatibility). But the most important thing is that the "Great Dictionary of Russian language" presents the brownie as an ordinary noun with the phrase good or evil spirit with the supporting word spirit.
The substantive future as a lexicalized substantive is quite rightly given in an independent article, for example: “the future is his": the period of time that will follow the present; upcoming events, (opposites: past). Another examples are: foresee the future, work for the future, in the distant, near future, further destiny, the future of the nation (humanity), the future of the plant, the future of science, worry about the future of children (Kuznetsov, 2001). There is a complete independent characteristic of the word future in this examples, which has completely passed from the category of a participle to the category of a noun.
Interestingly, the noun past is in the dictionary entry of the adjective past. Let's compare past: antecedent to the present, past, former. For example: past glory, last winter, spring, last year, last week. Past: about the past time, the past life, glorious, distant past, the past cannot be reversed, end the past (change your lifestyle), in the past (Kuznetsov, 2001).
Everything noted is also observed in the lexicographic description of the hypnotic substantivate. In the "Dictionary of the Russian language" (Evgeniev, 1984) it is inside the dictionary entry of the adjective hypnotic under its 2nd meaning marked in the meaning, however in Ozhegov (1983), does not stand out as a separate meaning of the adjective hypnotic, but dissolves in the same meaning with the mark “noun ”, and in the“ Big Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language» (Kuznetsov, 2001) the substantive hypnotic occupies a separate dictionary entry. Another example of this case happened with "sleeping pills": pills to induce sleep, lulling. A drug that induces sleep (Evgeniev, 1984).
It should be noted that in the 50-60s of the twentieth century, the adjective hypnotic in the neuter gender was also used in the meaning of a noun, but did not have an independent representation, therefore it was rightfully within the dictionary entry of the adjective; and in the 80s of the twentieth century it had an equal use both as an adjective and as a noun. This contradicts the lexical and grammatical characteristics of the parts of speech. Therefore, the authors of the "Big Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language" at the beginning of the XXI century, when almost everyone already associates the word sleeping pill with a drug that induces sleep, assign it a separate place, like all other nouns.
The second in the degree of lexicalization and substantiation of the group includes, for example, words such as: newcomer, beggars, rich, adults, seniors, relatives, loved ones, black, bay, final, attributed, present, past, dairy, conifers, citrus fruits, sonorous , sibilant, vowel, consonant and others. The substantivates of this group have more vivid semantics than the words of the first group. Their sound and form already presupposes the subject with which they are combined. Therefore, they easily discard the object they define and are used in the meaning of nouns. It can be emphasized that 50% of these substantivates contain both the meaning of the adjective and the meaning of the noun. Thus, they should be given in one dictionary entry marked “in meaning", which is mainly done in the explanatory dictionaries of the Russian language, however, there are sometimes some inaccuracies. For example, a visitor's substantivate functions both as an adjective and as a noun, although most of all it is presented as a noun. Nevertheless, in none of the dictionaries a visitor is not given independently as a noun, but is explained in the article of an adjective marked “in meaning. noun". And it is right. Let's compare:
“Newcomer, th, -ee.Arrived, coming from <…> in meaning noun newcomer. Ex: The one who came to the botanical garden from the hot country where the palm tree grew" (Evgeniev, 1984). “Newcomer. Arrived, arrived from; not local, visiting actors, visiting guest. Ex: A visitor from the provinces. “Newcomer. Who Came from somewhere, not from here". (Ozhegov, 1983, p. 523)
As can be seen, an academic dictionary explains the substantive of a visitor marked “in the sign noun " while in The Great Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language is expressed as a transitional phenomena in the system of parts of speech, and Ozhegov (1983), explains it as an adjective, but gives an example of a noun. However, in all cases newcomer is an adjective-noun, that is, an adjective equally used both as a noun and as an adjective. The proof of this is that in dictionaries these words are given sometimes as an adjective, sometimes as a noun.
From linguistic terms, words such as vowel, consonant, hissing, sonorous, etc. can also be attributed to this (second group) substantivates with correlative adjectives. These words are also used as adjectives with the words sound, letter, and as nouns. Therefore, the explanatory dictionaries of the Russian language represent them as incomplete subsantivates. For example:
“Vowel". 1. About the sounds of speech: formed with less participation of noises in the oral cavity than a consonant sound (compare the consonant). Vowel sounds of the Russian language.|| The same in meaning. noun vowel, vowel, m. (often in this meaning use vowel,). Vowels of the Russian language. Vowel under stress. 2. About letters: depicting a vowel sound in writing. Vowel. || The same in meaning. Noun vowel. The vowel "e" (Ushakova, 2007). “Vowel". Formed by the free passage of air through the oral cavity (about the sounds of speech). Vowel sound. | in meaning noun vowel. Vowels under stress" (Chernyshev, 1965). “Vowel". About the sounds of speech (a, o, e, u, y, s), formed with less participation of noises in the oral cavity than consonants, as well as the letters representing such sounds. Unstressed vowels (Ozhegov, 1983). “Vowel". It does not encounter obstacles from the speech organs in the process of its formation and does not generate noise (about the sounds of speech and the letters denoting them). Unstressed vowel" (Kuznetsov, 2001).
Thus, explanatory dictionaries give a vowel as an adjective with an indication of its other generic endings, however, at the end of the article, each of these dictionaries also notes its substantive use: the first two dictionaries are labeled "in meaning. ”, the latter without this label. In the same way, other terms are presented - incomplete substantivata.
The third group includes male and female contextual substantivates such as smart, stupid, blind, single, lazy, brave, rich, poor, old, good, bad, beautiful, young, cute, persistent and others, denoting different personality characteristics. Whistle to the clever , and he already understands; The strong in spirit does not lose heart; The guilty one is exposed by his deed; The good one is not given away, but the bad one does not want to be taken; neuter: new, old, funny, bitter, sweet, gifted, necessary, superfluous, great, kind, alien, cherished, pure and others, with meanings something material, important, evaluative. For example: Too much talk only hurts yourself; The clean will not stick to the filthy; You won't be rich for someone else, etc.
Noteworthy is the difference between contextual substantivates in their use in the forms of number: according to our data, the substantivates of the singular dominate. Such adjectives assert a personal character according to a characteristic specific to him. Substantiated (contextually) plural adjectives express a higher degree of typification and generalization. For example: Gifts and the wise blind; Fortitude and happiness helps; For the silent, the road is longer, etc. In explanatory dictionaries, these words are reflected as ordinary adjectives. For example:
"Wise". 1. Gifted with a great mind and possessing knowledge of life, experience. A wise man. Wise wanderer. 2. Based on deep understanding, knowledge of smth., Experience. Wise laws. A wise decision. Listen to wise advice. Listen to wise speeches. <Wise, adv. (2 characters). Speak wisely. To act is wise. Wisdom" (Kuznetsov, 2001); “Wise". 1. Possessing a great mind. A wise old man.2. Based on great knowledge, experience. Wise policy. A wise decision. It is wise (adv.) To act. II noun wisdom, and, well." (Ozhegov, 1983); “Wise". 1. Gifted with a great mind and possessing knowledge of life, experience. A wise man. A wise commander<…>". (Evgeniev, 1984)
In all three dictionaries, the wise is represented as an ordinary qualitative adjective with an indication of the forms of other genders and a short form, the corresponding lexical meanings, the adverb and noun formed from him. But none of the dictionaries contain any indication of its use in the meaning of a noun.
The meanings of other contextual substantivates are reflected in the same way. For example:
“Beloved". Most loved. Favorite writer. Favorite color" (Ozhegov, 1983).
"Lazy". Inclined to laziness, to idleness; avoiding labor. Lazy student. Unwilling to do smth., Shirking smth. <…> || Expressive laziness. Lazy pose ... || 2. Slow, unhurried (about movements, gait, etc.) ... <...> || transfer Slow moving, slow. <…> 3. Prepared in a faster way (about food). Lazy cabbage rolls. Lazy dumplings". (Evgeniev, 1984, p. 174).
“Married". Having a wife; married (anthonym: single). Married man. How long have you been married? He is married to my sister ... // Peculiar to a married person. Married life. Married position. Be in a married position". (Kuznetsov, 2001, p. 302)
If you ask anyone what question the words good or bad answer and to what part of speech they relate, then the answer will be the same: what? However, even these classic examples of adjectives can be substantiated in speech: Let's not talk about the bad, remember only the good. How much good he did to me. You are good one. Come on, my dear!
The substantive meaning and use of the adjective good is noted in the "Dictionary of the Russian language" (Evgeniev, 1984). The Big Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language even singled out the good, the good into an independent article with a reference to the good one and at the end of the dictionary entry of this adjective explains its meaning (Kuznetsov, 2001, p. 1452). All this testifies to the fact that any adjective in one context or another can be subjected to semantic rethinking, that is, substantiation.
Conclusions
For the most reliable reflection of substantivized adjectives, their lexico-grammatical characteristics in explanatory dictionaries, the lexicographer needs to know the features of substantiation as a historical, morphological-syntactic process leading to a change in the semantics of a word, its part of speech and status.
This will provide an opportunity for constructing dictionary entries, which would take into account the typology of substantivized words.
