NOMINATIVE STATUS OF THE NAMES OF HOMEMADE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES IN THE RUSSIAN LANGUAGE

Background. A problem of linguistic and speech nomination is still rather topical being not completely solved in terms of the theory of modern linguistic. That is confirmed by numerous opinions of linguists concerning the one-word nominations that can replace a word combination. Those words form certain thematic and lexico-semantic groups which partially represent a cultural fund of native speakers of some specific language. One of such lexico-semantic groups includes the names of beverages. Analysis of each unit, belonging to the corresponding group and being the reflection of everyday life and culture of the nation, is the basis to understand peculiar national mentality represented by the speech. Those lexical elements were studied from the viewpoint of lexicology, word formation, pragmatics, and, rather rarely, from the viewpoint of modern theory of nomination and clear differentiation of lexical transformations and modifications; that defines the topicality of our research. Purpose of the research is to determine the nominative status of the lexemes denoting homemade alcoholic beverages in the Russian-language discourse. Methods. A continuous sampling method has been applied to accumulate the actual material. A methodology of distributive analysis has helped differentiate the concepts. Etymological analysis has become the key to identify real origin and genetic status of a particular univerb. Results. We consider that a univerb is a word which is identical semantically and grammatically to a certain word combination, differing stylistically from the equivalent word combination but being the modification, doublets of one nominathemes. That is why univerbation differs considerably from the word formation in its traditional sense. It is no doubt that the wordforming relations are always motivated. However, motivations can be different; consequently, not all the motivating relations can be considered as the word-forming ones. Motivation is considered as the semantic stipulation of the meaning of formative and derivative words by the meanings of their components. In terms of the word-forming act, some units are the source of motivation; others, being the results of that act, are motivated. Thus, if during the origin of a new word, its lexical meaning (taking into account its etymological cognation) differs from the formative meaning, then we observe the external motivation. If lexical meanings of the formative and derivative units are identical, then we can see the internal motivation. Though, formation of that sample involves the means being homonymic to the word-forming ones. Univerbation is opposed to quasiuniverbation, i.e. formation of univerbs by analogy. However, one should differentiate between quasiuniverbation and mechanism of analogy, accompanying the phenomenon of univerbation. Relying on the criteria of the determination of univerbation and quasiuniverbation, we propose two-component classification of the units under study. Discussion. The analyzed units are univerbs – synthetic implementation of the nominathemes like “word combination – elliptic univerb”; we attribute them to the ones belonging to the univerbs or quasiuniverbs depending on the ways and chronology of their origin in speech and language. They form the lexico-semantic field “Names of inanimate objects”, thematic group Ukrainian sense. 2020. ISSN 2313-4437 86 “Food”, lexico-semantic group “Beverages”, subgroup “Homemade alcoholic beverages”. That lexico-semantic group contains some more subgroups like “Alcoholic beverages”, “Refreshing beverages”, “Hot beverages” etc. Prospects for further studies of that group of words are in its analysis from the viewpoint of the derivative potential in both Russian and other Slavic languages.

Note that the terms univerbated word (univerb) have entered the linguistic circulation comparatively recently in comparison with the term univerbation, defining a productive way of word formation and nomination; along with the terms substantivation and abbreviation, the term univerbation have been represented in the Russian language grammar for a long time. Thus, the term was first proposed by K. Brugmann (in 1904) to denote a process of the origin of a sound unit on the basis of word combinations. The terms univerbation has a number of synonyms proposed by linguists being involved in the study of that word-forming (as they thought) linguistic process: contraction or semantic condensation, inclusion, semantic compression. Univerbation is the best variant since other represented terms reflect the essence of the corresponding process only approximately.
Thus, in terms of wide interpretation, univerbation is a manifestation of synthetism in word formation, i.e. representation of a complex of meanings by "one word" (simple, derivative or compound); those meanings are reflected by word combinations in terms of analytical structures. Such an interpretation of the analyzed process and phenomenon makes it possible to attribute it to the domain of abbreviation, substantivation, suffixation, and formation of compound words. In terms of narrow interpretation, univerbation means creation of a word on the basis of analytical, somewhat stable name unit. Thus, researchers traditionally include a series of formations like абрикосовка (абрикосовая наливка), агрусовка (наливка изагруса), анисовка (анисоваяводка), березовик (березовыйсок), изюмовка (настойка на изюме), имбировка, имбирка (имбирная водка), кизиловка (кизиловая настойка) into the derivative units of compressive word formation, consider it as a result of secondary nomination, or believe it to be the manifestation of the law of loss of formal and semantic partitioning of a name, or determine it as one of the types of lexical condensation, or interpret it as a product of word combination synthesis into a derivative word.
Majority of linguists think about univerbation as the phenomenon of derivative nature, though identity of analytical (word combination) and synthetic (word) semantics of a unit is the significant basis for the assumption that the relations between a word combination and a word are not of word-forming nature at all, e.g.: клубничная наливка and клубниковка, клюквенная настойка and клюковка, напиток из липового меда and липец, липовый сок and липовица, медовый напиток and медовуха, облепиховая настойка and облепиховка, настойка изсельдерея and сельдереевка etc. Contrary to his predecessors, having decided to offer a unified terminological equivalent for the mentioned word-forming processes and the units appeared as a result of their action, professor V. Terkulov (2006) proposes to qualify every synthetic -wordunit as a univerbalized (verbal) equivalent of a word combination, "i.e. the word, appeared as a result of verbal interpretation of a word combination, has the lexical and grammatical meaning as well as syntactical function being absolutely identical to a word combination", and the verbal modification as the one appeared as the effect of elliptic univerbation. Each separate verbal implementation and its corresponding word combination is united by the concept of nominatheme like "word combination -univerb", which in turn is the component of structural varieties of nominathemes with a dominant-word combination, i.e. being semantically identical unit being identified at the level of word combination. Generally, a nominatheme is a certain abstract (linguistic) unit implemented in the verbal forms (glosses, doublets). In terms of our research, modifications of one nominatheme are represented by the word combinations and the word being identical to it semantically and grammatically; the word is stylistically identical or differs from the equivalent word combination in its slang features. It is clear that the concept proposed by V. Terkulov does not specify the fact, which structural unit of the two is the basis for language. Nevertheless, "it eliminated all contradictions in the attribution of different structural units by identifying generic linguistic unit which system-based importance means possibility for any structural speech implementation to represent the identical meaning being modeled" (Terkulov, 2006: 132). According to the linguist, it is a unit of such kind that is the basis of nominativenessnominatheme.
Thus, we consider that a univerb is a word which is identical semantically and grammatically to a certain word combination, differing stylistically from the equivalent word combination but being the modification, doublets of one nominathemes. That is why univerbation differs considerably from the word formation in its traditional sense. It is no doubt that the wordforming relations are always motivated. However, motivations can be different; consequently, not all the motivating relations can be considered as the word-forming ones. Specialist in derivatology O. Tikhonov notes that "word-forming motivations are just a part of the motivating relations" peculiar for a word-forming pair (formative -derivative); he emphasizes that "each derivative word occurs in the language on the basis of clear semantics of a formative word" (Tikhonov, 1985: I, 37-38). Motivation is considered as the semantic stipulation of the meaning of formative and derivative words by the meanings of their components. In terms of the word-forming act, some units are the source of motivation; others, being the results of that act, are motivated. Thus, if during the origin of a new word, its lexical meaning (taking into account its etymological cognation) differs from the formative meaning, then we observe the external (word-forming, linguistic, system-based) motivation. If lexical meanings of the formative and derivative units (analytical or synthetic in their structure) are identical (i.e. finally those units have common meaning), then we can see the internal (relational, speech) motivation. Though, formation of that sample involves the means being homonymic to the word-forming ones.
I. Dumchak (1998) in his paper "Univerbation in the Ukrainian language" studies the category of univerb equivalents and their corresponding word combinations: "stable word combinations become the assets of lexis only after the process of lexicalization, which results in "transformation of a word combination in a stable linguistic unit functioning as the equivalent of a separate word" (Dumchak, 1998: 6). Moreover, the linguist believes that "apart from isofunctionality of a word, nominative word combinations are characterized by semantic integrity, structural stability, determined certain order of components, speech reproducibility", and that is the reason why "stable nominative word combinations are the segmented complex names, which semantics is being rethought as the dependent component loses its main nominative meaning; they are often found in the specified order in social linguistic practice, they are so active that they may be considered as reproductible rather than coined again in the speech" (Dumchak, 1998: 6-7).
As it was mentioned before in papers by N. Diachok and O. Ivko, univerbation is opposed to quasiuniverbation, i.e. formation of univerbs by analogy. However, one should differentiate between quasiuniverbation and mechanism of analogy, accompanying the phenomenon of univerbation (Diachok & Ívko, 2020: 23).
Difference of grammatical gender of a main word of the initial word combination and a univerb is considered to be a key feature of quasiuniverbation: дубленое пальто -дубленка, автоматическая коробка передач -автомат etc. However, the accuracy of the qualification of one or another phenomenon depends on the sequential analysis of the origin of each univerb, especially determination of the time of its origin comparing to the time of origin of its corresponding word combination. If a word combination existed in language/speech before the univerb origin and its origin was recorded in the tests later, then we can observe the phenomenon of univerbation along with the principle of analogy, which changes the grammatical gender of the univerb and includes it into the class of the univerbal forms being the most widespread from the viewpoint of generic assignment.
Relying on the criteria of the determination of univerbation and quasiuniverbation, we propose the following classification of the units under study.
Some of the represented quasiuniverbs are the result of secondary modification; they are illustrated by two schemes demonstrating the sequence of processes. Scheme 1.

Word(U) NomWCom
WCom, where NomWCom is the nominatheme with the dominant-word combination, Word(U) is the univerb (synthetic implementation of the nominatheme), and WCom is the word combination (analytical implementation of the nominatheme).

Scheme 2. KWCom KNomWCom Word(D) → KU NomW
WCom, where NomW is the nominatheme with the dominant-word, Word(D) -is the word-derivative, WCom is the word combination; KU is the quasiuniverb, KWCom is the quasi word combination, KNomWCom is the quasi nominatheme with the dominant-word combination, invariant, abstract unit occurred in terms of the corresponding quasiuniverb and quasi word combination.
For example: Thus, being the synthetic implementations of certain nominathemes, univerbs are capable of forming certain lexical and semantic as well as thematic groups.
"While inheriting the ideas of predecessors (L.M. Vasylieva, A.P. Zahnitko, Yu.M. Karaulova, M.P. Kochergina, L.O. Novikova and others), R.I. Gafarova highlightes that the suffixal univerbs enter into the paradigmatic relations that form lexico-semantic fields. The lexicosemantic fields fall into the semantic close clusters -lexico-semantic groups and thematic groups" (Diachok, 2019: 104). For instance, a semantic group is "the component of a thematic field structured on the basis of total covering of one or another subject area…" (Zahnitko, 2007: 125). It is considered that "lexico-semantic groups unite the words in terms of their lexical meaning while thematic groups consist of the words in terms of commonness of subjects and phenomena of reality defined by the words" (Gafarova, 2008: 146).
We define "the relation between the notions of a lexico-semantic field, thematic group, and lexico-semantic groups as the hierarchical subordination of those concepts to each other: lexicosemantic field -thematic group -lexico-semantic group" (Gafarova, 2008: 143).
The units under analysis belong to the lexico-semantic field "Names of inanimate objects", thematic group "Food", lexico-semantic group "Beverages". That lexico-semantic group contains some more sub-groups like "Alcoholic beverages", "Refreshing beverages", "Hot beverages" etc.

Abstract
Background. A problem of linguistic and speech nomination is still rather topical being not completely solved in terms of the theory of modern linguistic. That is confirmed by numerous opinions of linguists concerning the one-word nominations that can replace a word combination. Those words form certain thematic and lexico-semantic groups which partially represent a cultural fund of native speakers of some specific language. One of such lexico-semantic groups includes the names of beverages. Analysis of each unit, belonging to the corresponding group and being the reflection of everyday life and culture of the nation, is the basis to understand peculiar national mentality represented by the speech. Those lexical elements were studied from the viewpoint of lexicology, word formation, pragmatics, and, rather rarely, from the viewpoint of modern theory of nomination and clear differentiation of lexical transformations and modifications; that defines the topicality of our research.
Purpose of the research is to determine the nominative status of the lexemes denoting homemade alcoholic beverages in the Russian-language discourse. Methods. A continuous sampling method has been applied to accumulate the actual material. A methodology of distributive analysis has helped differentiate the concepts. Etymological analysis has become the key to identify real origin and genetic status of a particular univerb.
Results. We consider that a univerb is a word which is identical semantically and grammatically to a certain word combination, differing stylistically from the equivalent word combination but being the modification, doublets of one nominathemes. That is why univerbation differs considerably from the word formation in its traditional sense. It is no doubt that the wordforming relations are always motivated. However, motivations can be different; consequently, not all the motivating relations can be considered as the word-forming ones. Motivation is considered as the semantic stipulation of the meaning of formative and derivative words by the meanings of their components. In terms of the word-forming act, some units are the source of motivation; others, being the results of that act, are motivated. Thus, if during the origin of a new word, its lexical meaning (taking into account its etymological cognation) differs from the formative meaning, then we observe the external motivation. If lexical meanings of the formative and derivative units are identical, then we can see the internal motivation. Though, formation of that sample involves the means being homonymic to the word-forming ones. Univerbation is opposed to quasiuniverbation, i.e. formation of univerbs by analogy. However, one should differentiate between quasiuniverbation and mechanism of analogy, accompanying the phenomenon of univerbation. Relying on the criteria of the determination of univerbation and quasiuniverbation, we propose two-component classification of the units under study.
Discussion. The analyzed units are univerbs -synthetic implementation of the nominathemes like "word combination -elliptic univerb"; we attribute them to the ones belonging to the univerbs or quasiuniverbs depending on the ways and chronology of their origin in speech and language. They form the lexico-semantic field "Names of inanimate objects", thematic group