Russian univerb nominations with suffix –k(a) in the sociolinguistic perspective: from kommunalka to boyovka
Authors: Akhapkina Yana E. , Levinzon Anna I. 
Published: November 2019

Active distribution of lexemes derived from combining attributive phrases in one word – in particular, using the -k(а) suffix – is often associated with their stylistic markedness and expressive tone. Often, however, set -k(a)-formations function as stylistically neutral: open letter – otrkrytka, student’s record book – zachyotka. The derivative model is active both in colloquial speech and terminology. -K(а)-nominates are described in literature (see the works by Isachenko, Kapanadze, Yanko-Trinitskaya, Vinokur, Lopatin, Zemskaya, Osipova, Veprevoi, Ustimenko) as the result of semantic condensation, lexico-syntactic inclusion, lexical ellipticism, univerbation, compression (and are called univerbs, compressives, sometimes distinguishing these types). Due to their tendency to relate to several referents, -k(a)-words tend towards polysemic functioning. The study explores mono- and polyreferenciality of univerbs, their polysemous nature, and young Russian native speakers’ understanding / treatment of mono- and polysemic -k(a)-lexemes.
The article examines 32 relatively active (relevant at least in one meaning) derivational models with affixal -k(а) selected from several sources: the Internet; Contemporary Reverse Russian language dictionary; research, including dictionaries of compressives. Chosen were mainly derivatives from attributive combinations motivated by word-sign (adjective or participle) but without a strict distinction between univerbs and condensates. The informants (the students of HSE Lyceum, Moscow) were given a list that included 3 fillers to measure reliability and identify excessive speech creativity which might induce informants to interpret an uncommon word as known. Control group consisted of adults with technical and humanities background (12 people).
The study objectives were to determine the prevalence and marginality of univerbs, as well as poly- and monoreferential lexemes; to identify the use of dominant and non-actualized values; to show similarities and differences of adolescent and adult usage of compressives and their functioning. Selected lexemes were interpreted differently in everyday and professional speech, in urban usage and regiolects, in neutral colloquial speech and slangs. According to the analysis of the Internet and the Russian National Corpus newspaper sub-corpus, the selected lexemes are, in most cases, polysemic. Monosemic univerbs are rare. However, multireferencial lexemes have dominant meanings that may change with time. According to the informants’ self-evaluation, almost all respondents know the common lexeme kommunalka, sometimes in two meanings. Almost no one, at the same time, knows the specialised term boevka even in its dominant meaning. Typical context for the proposed words was asked to test whether informants’ self-evaluation alligns with general speech practice. Fillers shhipkovka and dobrotka expectedly produced no contexts, and the most natural potential formation pripaska was put in context by 9 informants. Globalka and boevka are commonly disappearing in live speech regardless of the respondents’ age (this is consistent with their self-assessment), while ochka and durka are dominant in the proposed set of lexemes. Based on the data collected, there are 9 monoreferential lexemes distinguished by their context formation ability (nastolka, voenka, bezlimitka, durka, globalka, zabroshka, lichka, minusovka, vkusnyashka), none of which are derived from the respondents’ answers. As for contextual usage and suggested synonyms, there are 23 polyreferencial lexemes. Informants’ individual response to fillers and unfamiliar existing words is similar: when trying to interpret the meaning, their internal form (something motivated by an adjective or participle) is reconstructed. Contexts of use, synonyms and producing base are not specified in these cases. Overall, the fillers differ significantly from the existing words in the sample: reactions to them are rare even in the interpretations’ graph. Therefore, the general results of the study of existing words may be said not to be inspired by informants’ desire to cooperate or their excessive creativity.