Special
August
Issue
2016
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND
CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926
Homonymous Preformative Suffixal Morpheme in The Tatar
Language
Gulgena N. Khusnullina
Kazan Federal University ,
18 Kremlyovskaya St., Kazan 420008 Republic of Tatarstan,
The Russian Federation
Ruzilya R. Salakhova
Kazan Federal University ,
18 Kremlyovskaya St., Kazan 420008 Republic of Tatarstan,
The Russian Federation
Gulnara F. Zamaletdinova
Kazan Federal University ,
18, Kremlyovskaya St., Kazan 420008 Republic of Tatarstan,
The Russian Federation
Abstract
Homonymy is one of the most important problems of linguistics. This linguistic phenomenon
embracing both lexical units and grammatical forms, which, being similar in its phonetic
structure, do not have points of contact in the semantic content.
The main objective of our work was to study preformative homonymous suffixes of the Tatar
language. Based on this target, the sources of homosuffixes, the ways and methods of
formation at different levels of linguistic structure, semantics and functions of preformative
homonymous suffixes have been identified.
The source of the study was a special card index of preformative homosuffixes compiled by
the authors.
The research relied on the following methods: study and analysis of the literature, descriptive,
structural and morphological, comparative and contrastive, linguistic and statistical.
The study of preformative homonymous suffixes, their nature, the disclosure of the content,
the determination of the role and importance, as well as the features of formation of
derivative words have assuredly important theoretical and practical significance for the study
of questions of the history of language, semantics, vocabulary, grammar, word formation and
style, as well as for practice of lexicographical work and methods of language teaching in
university and high school.
Keywords: homonymy, homomorpheme, suffixal morpheme, homosuffix, preformative
suffix, the Tatar language.
http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index
Page 247
Special
August
Issue
2016
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND
CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926
Introduction
Currently, great importance is attached to the problem of homonymy in a wide variety of
linguistic concepts in many different areas of linguistic research. The most general definition
of the concept of “homonymy” derives from the word meanings of the Greek language һomos
(the very same, identical) and onoma (name, title), that is, having the same name. For more
profound, truly scientific definition it is necessary to base the opinion from the fact of the
close relationship between the grammatical and lexical elements in the language, from the
position that it is the grammatical structure of the language is the foundation, “the integral
part” of the language: “The main thing in a language is its grammar and basic word stock”
[Bulakhovsky, 1928, 48]. The definition proposed by A. A. Bulakhovsky connects “external”
aspects of the phenomenon of interest with the grammatical system of the language.
“Homonymy is coincidence or identity of two or more language units or segments of speech
by their external sound form, with the absence of semantic link even if only between one of
the morphemes included in the one of the units” [Bulakhovsky, 1928, 49].
There is no doubt that in order to thoroughly study and understand the internal relationship
and grammatical structure of any language, it is necessary to study its certain aspects from the
scientific standpoint on the basis of concrete material [Kirillova, 2014, 996], [Gafarova, V.R.,
Galiullina, 2015, 128]. One of such aspects is the problem of general homonymy, and within
it – the study of homonymous suffixes.
This paper is the result of scientific research of homonymy among preformative suffixal
morphemes, as currently, there is no unity of viewpoints in interpretation of homonymic rows
and in definition of the principles of eliciting homonymous suffixes and their classification;
many issues still remain matters in dispute and discussion. It is explained by the fact that the
problem of suffixal homonymy in the study of Turkic languages has been insufficiently
explored so far.
The article aims at investigating the peculiarities of the phenomenon of suffixal homonymy
among preformative suffixes in modern Tatar language.
It is known that derivational suffixes attaching to the word influence its form and content.
“Word-formative category – writes E. V. Sevortyan, – does not only organically enter the
semantic structure of the word but is the main part of this structure as it is the meaning of
word derivative form that allows to unite certain rows according to its physical meaning of
the word” [Sevortyan, 1962, 21]. But there are such word-formative suffixes that are used
only in a particular part of speech, but there are such ones that are used in different parts of
speech, therefore, “word-formative form is not universal. It has the capacity for forming new
units of a particular part of speech from any verbal material” [Habibulina, 2015, 53].
Therefore, the derivatives that are formed by means of homonymous preformative suffixes
and also derivative homonymous words play an important role in building vocabulary and
structure of the word in the language. So in modern Tatar linguistics the study of
homonymous preformative suffixal morphemes and system analysis of their general property
has both theoretical and practical value.
http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index
Page 248
Special
August
Issue
2016
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND
CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926
Main Part
Preformative homonymous suffixes have the same sound structure and different meanings.
According to S. Dzhafarov, “though word-formative affixes are sometimes homonymous, the
words formed by means these affixes are not homonymous” [Jafarov, 1959, 45]. But it is hard
to agree with it: when preformative homonymous suffixes join to homonymous words, new
suffixed words function again as homonymous pairs. For example, the preformative
adjectival suffix -ык1, joins to the verb ач ‘открыть’ and forms the ajective ачык
‘открытый’. The verb formative suffix -ык2 homonymous to it, joins to the adjective ач
‘голодный’ and forms the verb ачык ‘проголодаться’.
Consider how when joining preformative homosuffixes to a non-homonimous word,
homonymous pairs emerge. For example, preformative suffix -ык1 and homonymous verb
formative suffix -ык2, joining to the same stem (кыз ‘накаляться’), form derivative
homonymous words: кызык ‘интересный’ and кызык ‘интересоваться’.
Thus, formal and semantic nature of formative bases taking homosuffixes can be both
different and identical in form and meaning.
One of the specific features of the suffixes of Turkic languages is their multivariance
[Yusupova, Galiullina et al, 2014, 507]. The study of multivariance is also directly connected
with the problem of determining the suffixal homonymic row. As is generally known,
different variants of one and the same suffix are not equal phonetically and graphically. But
each variant of one and the same marker can be homonymous with the suffix with which it is
formally identical. For example, the verb formative suffix -ла1 (уй ‘мысль’ – уйла ‘думать’),
also used in the form of -лә1, coincides with the suffix that forms nouns only in hard variant
(кыс ‘зажать’, ‘прижать’ – кысла ‘рак’). The variant -лә2 coincides with preformative
adverbial suffix -лә2 (төн ‘ночь’ – төнлә ‘ночью’). Such homonymity of multivariant
suffixes can be called partial suffixal homonymity.
The cases of coincidence of all suffixal variants are possible. Consider the suffixal
homonymic row in the form of -ча/-чә which consists of four markers.
Firstly, this is a noun formative suffix -ча/-чә1 that joins to the stems standing for parts of the
body and denotes accessory, object or adornment associated with the meaning of this stem:
бармак палец / finger – бармакча палец у перчатки / glove finger, күкрәк грудь / breast –
күкрәкчә нагрудник / breast collar.
Secondly, the suffix -ча/-чә2, forming comparative adverbs with the meaning «inherent in
that it is named by derivative stem »: балалар дети – балаларча по-детски, кешеләр люди /
people – кешеләрчә по-людски / in a human way; «in language designated by derivative
stem»: татарча по-татарски, русча по-руски /in Russian, гарәпчә по-арабски.
The third marker of this homonymic row is the suffix -ча/-чә3 that joining to adjectives
derives the adjectives with the meaning of “having to a lesser extent quality marked in the
stem”: җиңел легкий – җиңелчә довольно легкий, озын длинный – озынча длинноватый.
This affix combined with adjectives forms the adjectives with qualitative and evaluative
meaning, denoting lessening, reducing the quality in comparison with such expressed by
initial source, corresponds to the Russian suffix «-оват»: «длинноватый», «сладковатый» or
the combination of adverb «довольно» with adjective: «довольно длинный», «довольно
http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index
Page 249
Special
August
Issue
2016
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND
CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926
сладкий», for example: uzunca длинноватый, довольно длинный, tatlica сладковатый,
довольно сладкий» [Rahimova, Yusupova, 2015, 114].
The fourth marker of suffixal homonymic row in the form of - ча/-чә, is the noun formative
suffix -ча/-чә4 with the meaning of feminine gender which is characteristic for nouns: кода
сват – кодача свояченица, би господин, князь – бичә жена [Nurmukhametova
R.S., Zamaletdinov R.R., et al, 2014, 671].
Musayeva noting homonymity of preformative suffixes -ча in the Uzbek language writes:
“affix -ча/чә in the words бүвчә, тувча, әбәчә, айча, ойимча, хонимча is a diminutive affix,
as the seme of femininity constituted them before joining the affix. The affix -ча in the words
қудача, қиролича, бекача, оғача should be referred to formal marker of feminine gender”
[Musayev, 2011, 88].
Therefore, each phonetic variant of the suffix must be considered as an individual form, it
constitutes a separate homonymic row with other marker formally identical with it, as in
determining the phenomenon of suffixal homonymy the main criterion is formal identity of
suffixal units with different meanings.
The types of suffixal homonymic rows are determined by the number of homosuffixes. The
first type is homonymity of two suffixes, here one can refer verb formative suffix -лаш1 (дус
друг – дуслаш подружиться, якын близкий – якынлаш приблизиться) and the adverb
formative suffix -лаш2: (ярты половина – яртылаш вполовину, каршы против –
каршылаш напротив).
Thus, lexical suffixal homonymic row can include from two to five markers (see table 1).
Table №1 Word-Formative Suffixal Homonymic Rows
Types
of Number
homonymic Rows homosuffixes
homonymic Rows
Type I
Type II
Type III
Type IV
of Number of In
in homonymic persenta
Rows
ge
Homonymity of two
suffixes
Homonymity of three
suffixes
Homonymity of four
suffixes
Homonymity of five
suffixes
Total
Number of In
homosuffix persetag
es
e
46
58,5%
92
47%
24
30,5%
72
36,8%
7
9,8%
28
43,8%
1
1,2%
5
2,4%
78
100%
197
100%
Results
To illustrate characteristic features of homonymity of preformative suffixes of the Tatar
language, we have conducted the analysis of 78 suffixal homonymic rows which are grouped
into four different types according to the number of the constituent elements. Each type of
homonymic rows has been statistically analyzed from the point of view of functional and
http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index
Page 250
Special
August
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND
CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926
Issue
2016
grammatical nature of suffixes (table №1). Suffixal homonymic rows have been analyzed
alphabetically, the suffixes have been characterized, their meanings, functions, parts of speech,
phonetic variants, structures and other features have been compared.
The calculation has shown that the word-formative suffixal row has 197 markers.
Participation of preformative suffixes of the nouns, adjectives and verbs in homonymic rows
is more active (table №2).
Table №2 Preformative Homonymous Suffixes
Types of
homonymic
rows
I
II
III
IV
Total
Nouns
Adjectives
Verb
Adverb
Pronoun
Total
36
25
8
2
71
25
18
3
2
48
30
13
5
3
51
8
6
4
2
20
1
4
1
1
7
100
70
24
10
197
The results have shown that in the process of historical development the language is widened
with new preformative homonymous suffixes that emerge in different ways. In the Tatar
language homosuffixes emerge as a result of the following phenomena:
1) occasional phonation and spelling identification of suffixes.
2) transformation of words into suffixes. For example, in the suffixal homonymic row given
above the suffix -ча/-чә2, which derives comparative adverbs, goes back to the word чак
подобный, такой: искечә по-старому, кешечә по-человечески, минемчә по-моему
[Ganiev, 2015, 204].
3) by means of the following phono-morphological changes:
а) reduction, especially by omission of the initial consonant suffixes. The marker -ак, found
in the words with gun meaning, had at first the form -гак. According to the scholars, the
omission of the phonemes к, г at the beginning of the suffix is a common phenomenon. This
phenomenon resulted in homonymy of the marker -гак < -ак (урак ‘серп’) and other
elements -ак – diminutive suffix (башак ‘колос’) [Ganiev, 1974, 78].
б) metathesis. The markers -гы1 (the gun suffix чалгы ‘коса’, the suffix, forming the names
with an abstract meaning: тойгы ‘чувство’) and -гы2 (adjective suffix: язгы ‘весенний’),
etymologically originated from -(ы)г, -(ы)к, owing to such changes created homonymy;
в) phonetic divergence. So, there emerged, for example, two independent markers as -кан < кын, the first of which became a member of the homonymic pair: -кын1 – preformative suffix
of adjectives (алкын ‘захватывающий’) amd verb formative suffix -кын2 (ашкын
‘стремиться’);
г) assimilation of separate consonants. This phenomenon occurs mainly owing to
multivariance of the suffixes of the Tatar language. For example, homonymy of the noun
http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index
Page 251
Special
August
Issue
2016
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND
CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926
formative suffix -ка1 тотка ручка and suffix -ка2, forming adjective кыска короткий,
originated as a result of acoustic assimilation, as their derivatives end in voiceless consonant.
5) by means of usual sequence of suffixes. Such coincidence occur:
а) between complex and simple suffixes: verb formative suffix -лаш1 (дуслаш
‘подружиться’) coincides with the preformative suffix of adverbs -лаш (яртылаш
‘наполовину’);
6) withdrawal of suffixes from multiple meaning, which occurs by widening the function of
polysemantic suffixes.
By differentiation of homonymy and polysemanticism of the suffixes, it is essential to
proceed from correlation of language facts in their contemporary state. At the same time one
should take into account the following: 1) there is no meaningful connection between the
semantics of homomorphemes, and in the meaning of polysemantic suffixal morphemes they
are contained uniting in a single center; 2) the ways of word formation of homomorpheme
are various and have different paradigms, and the ways of word formation of polysemantic
suffixes are common and have the same paradigms; 3) the functions of homorphemes –
different, the functions of polysemantic morphemes – the same; 4) the suffixes having
synonyms are polysemantic, the suffixes not having synonyms are homonymous;
5) homonymy is characteristic for mainly word formative suffixes, and polysemantism – for
inflectional morphemes.
Summary
The study of homonymy based on the material of the Tatar language convinces of the fact that
not only the words belonging to different categories enter into homonymic correlation but
suffixes as well. Hence, the paper defines homonymy more precisely, elicits new common
features, reveals the sources of their emergence, ways and means of formation of language
structure at different levels, states the conformity of laws of history of homonymy in the
language system. There is no doubt that all the units of language can be homonymous but
this is different phenomena, they have their own peculiarities and specific features, their
regular occurrence and development. Therefore, defining these phenomena, the special and
the particular should be emphasized which is inherent in each individual case and differ them
from similar but, in the main, different other phenomena. Lexical homonyms are determined
more or less uniformly as the words the same in sounding but different in meaning.
Grammatical homonymy has more abstract character than lexical. If lexical homonyms are
represented by certain words – the bearers of a particular physical content, grammatical
homonymy can be expressed not only in the identity of the whole word forms but in the
identity of only grammatical formants as well. Preformative homonymous suffixes being one
of the types of grammatical homonymy as well as lexical homonyms being in homonymous
relation represent different parts of speech with absolutely different meanings. The groups of
such suffixes that are spelt in the same way but have different meaning are called
preformative homonymous suffixes in general linguistics. Therefore, by means of such
suffixes there emerge lexical suffixal homonymic rows which form the derivatives with new
lexical meaning. They embrace the same parts of speech or different lexical and grammatical
classes (table №2)
http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index
Page 252
Special
August
Issue
2016
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND
CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926
Conclusion
By setting ourselves the task of studying the phenomenon of suffixal homonymy in the Tatar
language, we attempted to determine qualitative and quantitative composition of preformative
homosuffixes. The results of such investigation help well to define the place of this
phenomenon in the language, that is, the degree of its occurrence, its functions and role in the
language – the most important means of human communication.
Acknowledgments.
The research is performed according to the Russian Government Program of Competitive
Growth of Kazan Federal University.
http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index
Page 253
Special
August
Issue
2016
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND
CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926
References
Bulakhovsky А.А. From Life of Homonyms // The Russian Speech. 1928. Issue 3. P. 47–60.
Kirillova, Zoya. The Tatar language realization as the official (the 20s-30s of XX century) //
International Multidisciplinary Scientific Conferences on SOCIAL Sciences and ARTS
SGEM 2014. Psychology and Psychiatry, Sociology and Healthcare, Education. Conference
proceedings. Volume III. 1-10 September, 2014, Albena, Bulgaria, pp. 995-1001.
Gafarova, V.R., Galiullina, G.R. Tatar language non-derivative verbs in
historical perspective //Journal of Language and Literature.Volume6, Issue 2, 2015, pp. 128131.
Yusupova, A.S., Galiullina, G.R., Denmukhametova, E.N. Representation of national
mentality in Turkic-Tatar vocabulary// Life Science Journal - Volume 11, Issue 7, 2014,
Article number 66, Pages 506-508.
Sevortyan E.V. Word Formation in Turkic Languages // Reserches on Comparative Grammar
of Turkic Languages: Morphology. P.2. М.: АS of the USSR Publisher, 1956. P.12–30.
Habibulina E.V. Substandard derivations as objects of system analysis: derivational
homonyms // XLinguae, Volume 8, Issue 1, 2015 , pp. 50-56.
Dzhafarov S. Vocabulary of Modern Azerbaijani Language: The Author’s Abstract of
Dissertation for Candidate of Philological Sciences. – Baku, 1959. – 56 p.
Rahimova, D.I., Yusupova, Z.F. Semantics and pragmatics of demonstrative pronouns in
Russian and Turkic languages // Journal of Language and Literature, Volume 6, Issue 2, 2015,
pp. 113-116.
Musayeva F.Т. Suffixes of Feminization in Turkic Languages //Herald of Chelyabinsk State
University. Issue 61. № 37. 2011. P. 87–89.
Nurmukhametova R.S., Zamaletdinov R.R., Sattarova M.R. The vocabulary of Tatar literary
language (the first half of the XX century) // Life Science Journal, 2014, Volume 11, Issue 10,
pp. 670-673.
Ganiyev F. А. Functional Grammar of the Tatar Language. Kazan, 2015. 272 p.
Ganiyev E.А. Suffixal Word Formation in Modern Tatar Literary Language. Kazan, 1974.
232 p.
http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index
Page 254