A grammatical category is a set of homogeneous grammatical meanings represented by rows of grammatical forms opposed to each other. The grammatical category in its connections and relations forms the grammatical core of the language. It exists as a class of meanings united in a system of oppositions. A necessary feature of the GC is also the unity of the expression of grammatical meaning in the system of grammatical forms, therefore, each grammatical category is a complex structure that combines a series of forms opposed to each other. GCs are divided into:

Morphological - expressed by lexical and grammatical classes of words - significant parts of speech (noun, adjective, verb, adverb, pronoun, number). Allocate:

Syntactic - categories belonging primarily to the syntactic units of the language (the category of predicativity or the category of sentence members), however, they can also be expressed by units belonging to other language levels (in particular, the word and its form, which participate in the organization of the predicative basis of the sentence and form its predicativity).

Ways and means of expressing grammatical meanings.

Ways of expressing grammatical meanings:

· Analytical (includes means of grammatical meanings that are outside the word)

Analytical tools include:

Prepositions - expression of case meanings

Particles - contribute different meanings, emotions. shades, serve to form word forms

Auxiliary words - the formation of new word forms (future tense of verbs)

Word order is a semantic function (mother loves daughter; daughter loves mother).

Context - we are going to the cinema (vin. pad); acted in films (adv. pad).

Intonation - an expression of the transfer of various shades

Synthetic (includes means of grammatical meanings that are in the word)

Synthetics include:

Affixation - the formation of new word forms

Stress - helps to distinguish word forms (pour - pour)

Internal flexion (alternation of sounds)

Agglutination and fusion, analytical and synthetic structure of language.

Analytic languages ​​are characterized by a tendency to separate (analytical) expression of LZ and GZ. LZ is expressed by significant words, and PG by function words and word order (modern Chinese; possibly English).

Synthetic languages ​​are characterized by a tendency towards synthesizing, combining lexical and grammatical morphemes within a single word form, i.e. these languages ​​make extensive use of affixes.

Affixal languages, which include Russian, are divided into:

inflectional (using inflection (fusion)) Fusion - the interpenetration of morphemes (most European languages)

· Agglutinative languages ​​- affixes with different GPs are joined sequentially to each other (Turkic, Georgian, Japanese, Korean, Finno-Ugric languages).

Vowels and consonants as types of sounds.

The system of vowels and consonants differ in 3 ways:

Functional - ch. sound form syllables into words (sonatas)

Articulatory - tension of the vocal cords. At Ch. sound speech apparatus is open. The air stream passes freely. In acc. sound we meet an obstacle in the formation of sound in the form of a gap or a bow, overcoming or exploding it. This generates noise.

Acoustic - noise - acoustic characteristics of noise

Vowel sounds are sounds that are formed with the participation of the voice. There are six of them in Russian: [a], [e], [i], [o], [y], [s].

Consonants are sounds that are formed with the participation of voice and noise or only noise.

The modern Russian alphabet consists of 33 letters, 10 of which are designed to represent vowels. 21 consonants are used to designate consonants. In addition, in modern Russian there are two letters that do not represent any sounds: ъ ( solid mark), ь (soft sign).

In Russian, 6 vowel sounds are distinguished under stress: [а́], [о́], [у́], [í], [ы́], [е́]. These sounds are indicated in writing with 10 vowels:

The sound [a] can be indicated on the letter with letters A (small[small]) and I (crumpled[m "al]).

The sound [y] is indicated by letters at (storm[bur "a]) and Yu (muesli[m "usl" and]).

The sound [o] is indicated by letters O (they say[say]) and yo (chalk[m "ol]);

The sound [s] is indicated by the letter s (soap[soap]) and And- after w, w And c(live[life "], sew[shut "], circus[circus]).

The sound [and] is indicated by the letter And (Mila[m "silt]).

The sound [e] is indicated by the letter e (measure[m "era] or after a hard consonant of some in borrowings - uh (mayor[mayor]).

In unstressed syllables, vowels are pronounced differently than under stress - more briefly and with less muscular tension of the organs of speech (this process is called reduction in linguistics). In this regard, vowels without stress change their quality and are pronounced differently than stressed ones. In Russian, in an unstressed position, 4 vowel sounds are distinguished: [a], [y], [s], [i]. The sounds [o] and [e] in Russian are found only under stress. The only exceptions are a few borrowings ( cocoa[cocoa]) and some function words, such as union But. The quality of an unstressed vowel depends on the hardness/softness of the preceding consonant.

Voiced and deaf consonants differ in the participation or non-participation of the voice in the formation of a consonant sound.

· voiced are made up of noise and voice. When they are pronounced, the air stream not only overcomes the barrier in the oral cavity, but also vibrates the vocal cords. The following sounds are voiced: [b], [b '], [c], [c '], [g], [g '], [d], [d '], [g], [h], [ h'], [d'], [l], [l'], [m], [m'], [n], [n'], [p], [p'].

· Deaf consonants are pronounced without a voice when the vocal cords remain relaxed, and consist only of noise. The following consonants are deaf: [k], [k '], [p], [p '], [s], [s '], [ t], [t'], [f], [f'], [x], [x'] [c], [h'], [w], [u'].

According to the presence or absence of a voice, consonants form pairs. There are 11 pairs of opposed consonants: [b] - [p], [b '] - [p '], [c] - [f], [c '] - [f '], [g] - [k], [g '] - [k '], [d] - [t], [d '] - [t '], [h] - [s], [h '] - [s '], [g] - [sh].

The remaining consonants are characterized as unpaired. Voiced unpaired ones include [th '], [l], [l '], [m], [m '], [n], [n '], [p], [p '], to deaf unpaired - sounds [ x], [x'], [c], [h'], [u'].

Hard and soft consonants differ in articulation features, namely the position of the tongue: when soft consonants are formed, the entire body of the tongue moves forward, and the middle part of the back of the tongue rises to the hard palate, when hard consonants are formed, the body of the tongue moves back.

Consonants form 15 pairs, contrasted in hardness / softness: [b] - [b '], [c] - [c '], etc.

The consonants [c], [w], [g] are hard unpaired ones, and the consonants [h '], [u '], [y '] are soft unpaired ones.

The consonants [w] and [w’] (as well as [w] and [w’]) do not form pairs, as they differ not only in hardness / softness, but also in brevity / longitude.

Vocalism. Classification signs of vowels (in a comparative aspect).

Vocalism is a system of vowels.

Classification of vowel sounds:

1) Lip position:

a) labialized (tense, stretched out) (oh, y)

b) non-labialized (not stressed)

2) Tongue position:

a) rise (upper, middle, lower)

b) row (front, middle, back)

Consonantism. Classification signs of consonants (in a comparative aspect).

Consonantism is a system of consonant sounds. To characterize consonants and their classification, 3 aspects are taken into account:

Obstruction or place of formation of an obstruction (articulation)

1) Bowed - an explosion of an air barrier. jet (b / b ', p / p ', d / d ', t / t ')

2) Slotted (fricative) - air friction. jets against the passage walls

3) Bow-slit (affricates) - articulation begins with a bow and ends with a slot passage (c, h ')

4) Bow-passage a bow is formed, but air. the jet bypasses it elsewhere (sonor). They are divided into nasal (m / m ', n / n '), lateral (l / l '), trembling (r / r ')

Method of formation (according to the active organ):

1) Labial: labial-labial (b, p); labio-dental (v, f)

2) Anterior-lingual: dental (d, t, c, n, s, s, l)

3) Anterior palatine (w, w, w, h, p)

4) Middle-lingual (s)

5) Back-lingual: (g, k, x)

1) Noisy:

a) deaf (n, t, k, c, h, f, s, w, u, x)

b) voiced (b, e, d, c, h, g)

2) Sonorants (m, n, l, p, d)

STYLISTIC CLASSIFICATION OF WORDS

The contextual, or thematic, classification of words is closely related to the definition and differentiation of various contingents of words, respectively. various areas the use of language: general literary, specially bookish or, conversely, familiar colloquial, slang, dialect, poetic, scientific and technical words in general and specific to individual specific branches of science and technology. Words move from one sphere to another and can occupy a more or less definite position, so it is impossible to draw precise boundaries between individual spheres of use. However, it is necessary to designate a fundamental distinction between words belonging to different areas, because otherwise, the vocabulary system of the given language will be presented in a wrong way.

A special place is occupied by the stylistic classification of words, partly related to their distribution in various areas of language application, since the language in certain areas of its application is distinguished by certain stylistic features.

I.V. Arnold, speaking about the English language, divides the vocabulary into bookish and colloquial, bookish, in turn, into scientific, special and poetic, colloquial - into literary colloquial (literary colloquial), familiar colloquial (familiar colloquial) , professional (professional words), vernacular (low colloquial) and slang (slang). In the scientific style, terms are widely used - words or stable combinations that serve as a refined name for a concept specific to any field of knowledge, production, culture (1, 249) and bookish words. There is a layer of vocabulary that is traditionally used exclusively in poetry. In any other environment, these words seem to be inappropriate archaisms, while in poetic speech they give the impression of solemnity, emotionality, elation, being associated with other poetic contexts. However, vocabulary modern poetry more and more approaching the literary and colloquial.

Literary and colloquial speech is the everyday speech of everyday and business communication, which is closest to the norms of book speech, grammatically correct and does not contain either jargon or dialectisms (1, 257). Familiar-colloquial speech is much less ordered and normalized, it is distinguished by a wealth of figurative expressions, often humorous or ironic. In contrast to literary colloquial speech, familiar colloquial speech easily absorbs slang and neologisms; within this style of speech, all kinds of abbreviations most often occur.

Professional speech has the same basic features as familiar colloquial speech, but is characterized by a special vocabulary and phraseology within each profession. Professional vocabulary, unlike terminology, refers to the vocabulary of oral communication of people of a particular specialty. A certain range of concepts, processes, phenomena, etc., associated with a particular professional activity, causes the appearance in the speech of specialists of new words expressing these concepts. These words differ from terms in that they are often emotionally colored, playful, figurative and often ambiguous. They are often difficult to distinguish from slang, which is why professional vocabulary is often referred to as professional jargon.

Common speech in the field of vocabulary is distinguished by the presence of dialectisms and archaisms. Slang is called purely colloquial words and expressions with a rude or emotional comic coloring, untested in literary speech. Slang words are always synonyms for commonly used words, not the only way expressions of a particular concept.

In Russian, it is customary to single out in book style - scientific, official business, journalistic and artistic styles.

In scientific speech, there are three layers of words:

Stylistically neutral words of common vocabulary

General scientific words, i.e. found in languages ​​of different sciences

Highly specialized vocabulary, terms of one science

The journalistic style is characterized by the widespread use of socio-political vocabulary, as well as vocabulary denoting the concepts of morality, ethics, medicine, economics, culture, words from the field of psychology, words denoting the internal state, human experiences.

In the official business style of speech, standard turns, special terminology, stable combinations of an unemotional nature are widely used.

The artistic style of speech is not distinguished by all scientists, and is considered mainly as the language of fiction. In the artistic style of speech, vernacular and dialectisms, words of a high, poetic style and jargon, rude words, professional and business turns of speech and vocabulary of a journalistic style can be used.

In the colloquial style of speech, a large number of words that have a colloquial coloring are used, including everyday content, specific vocabulary, words with expressive and emotional coloring (familiar, affectionate, disapproving, ironic). The use of abstract and terminological vocabulary, vocabulary of foreign origin and book words is limited (3). Conversational style can be divided into neutral-colloquial, familiar-everyday, colloquial and various jargons.

A stylistic classification is not semantic in the narrow sense of the word, since a difference in the stylistic character of two words is not a difference in their meaning. In addition, emotionally expressive, stylistic moments, no matter how they sometimes attract attention, cannot be put on a par with semantic, intellectual moments proper, relating to the expression of thoughts, the exchange of thoughts and being the most specific for the language.

At the same time, the stylistic classification still cannot be recognized as completely unrelated to semantics, A.I. Smirnitsky points out 4 reasons (12, 174 -203):

The very stylistic character of the word and its stylistic coloring is a special character or coloring of its meaning.

Stylistically different words in a very large number of cases are synonyms, and thus the stylistic classification is closely connected with the study of synonymy, and, consequently, with the logical classification of words.

Stylistic differences are often associated with semantic differences in the proper sense. In some cases, the word of a certain stylistic coloring has a meaning that is not close enough to which any word with a different stylistic character, in particular, the words of specially scientific, technical ones.

In some words, one or another stylistic character is connected with any one of the meanings of each of them.

The stylistic classification of words has a connection with the grouping of words on the basis of the emotional coloring of their meaning. So, for example, words of a solemnly poetic style have a clearly different emotional coloring than words characteristic of a familiar everyday style of speech; the words of the official business style can be distinguished by the deliberate absence of any emotional coloring ...

However, the classification of words on the basis of their emotional coloring, of course, does not completely coincide with their stylistic classification: in the system of the same style, there may be words that are emotionally completely different colored. On the other hand, the same emotional coloring can be found in synonyms belonging to different styles. Emotional coloring is even more closely connected with the actual semantics of the word than its stylistic coloring. The totality of semantic and stylistic features of a language unit, which ensure its ability to act in a communicative act as a means of subjective expression of the speaker's attitude to the content or addressee of speech, is called expressiveness (15, s.v. Expressiveness). All expressive means have a clearly defined positive or negative connotation. Connotation V.I. Shakhovsky calls the aspect of the lexical meaning of the unit, with the help of which the emotional state of the speaker and the attitude to the addressee, object and subject of the speech situation in which this speech communication is carried out are encoded (14, 14). Traditionally, linguists include emotional, expressive, evaluative and stylistic components of meaning in the semantic structure of connotation. V. I. Shakhovsky believes that the emotive component is the semantic core of connotation, and emotion is always both evaluative and expressive. By emotivity V. I. Shakhovsky understands the linguistic expression of emotions, and by the emotive component of meaning - the semantic share with which the linguistic unit performs its emotive function (14, 9). Differences in the emotional and expressive coloring of linguistic means are expressed in such assessments as "high, sublime", "solemn", "neutral", "reduced", "rude", "ironic" and others.

§ 1. The vocabulary, depending on the various formal and semantic properties of words, is divided into groups or classes of words. Such a division can be displayed either on the vocabulary as a whole, or only on its part. In order to reflect these most important characteristics of the groupings of lexemes terminologically, within the general framework of the division of a set of lexemes, one should distinguish between a three-dimensional hierarchy of “sub-” and “over-” relations.

Thus, the class of words (lexical class) will be defined as a set of words, selected according to such features that are significant from the point of view of the organization of the vocabulary as a whole. This means that the basis to which a class is allocated, potentially breaks the entire vocabulary into correlative classes, although the actual implementation this division the accepted definition does not require. So, according to the morphemic-quantitative feature, one can single out and describe a single class of one-morphemic words, and potentially, in the absence of special restrictions, classes of two-morphemic words, three-morphemic words, etc. will be opposed to it. Specially given definitions can be opposed to the class of one-morphemic words by classes polymorphemic (more than one-morphemic) words, taken in different quantitative combinations of morpheme components - say, classes of two-morphemic, three-morphemic and more than three-morphemic words. By the way, phonologists know what division is English vocabulary very significant from an accentological point of view.

A subclass of words (lexical subclass), in contrast to a class, should be defined as a collection of words selected according to given features within a class of words. According to the content of the term, the concept of a lexical subclass forbids its components to cross class boundaries. Since the own basis on which the subclass is distinguished, generally speaking, is not reflected in the organization of the vocabulary as a whole, in so far as separate large groups of words, distinguished regardless of the division of the vocabulary as a whole, are often called "subclasses": a subclass of words of mental activity, a subclass of words of an emotional state , a subclass of words with a negative prefix, etc.

A superclass, on the other hand, is a collection of words distinguished according to certain characteristics, uniting classes either as a whole, without intersection, or with intersection in various combinations (one whole class and part of another, etc.). The two most important upper classes of words in any semantically relevant divisions of the dictionary are, on the one hand, full-valued words that serve as independent names of objects and relations of reality, and, on the other hand, ambiguous words of relational-qualifying semantics.

The main types of word classes identified in modern descriptions of a language for various purposes are grammatical classes, word-formation classes, etymological classes, semantic classes, and stylistic classes. "Class" terminology may be absent in this case. Thus, etymological and stylistic classes and subclasses of words are usually called "layers", and semantic-thematic classes, respectively, are called "groups".

But no semantic, stylistic or other non-grammatical classification of the vocabulary can be adequate to its purpose outside the grammatical ordering of the material. In fact, already at the very preliminary stage of the layout, words are divided into subject and feature, but these characteristics immediately interact with the highest categorical meanings of words, requiring their grammatical processing. Compare, on the one hand, words with subject basic semantics denoting a process, and on the other hand, words with process basic semantics denoting an object: to man (a ship), to spot (a dress), to butter (bread) - a run (for sheep), a drive (to a house), a refill (for a ballpen). He accidentally theoretical knowledge language in the history of science began with attempts to classify words into grammatical classes called "parts of speech".

§ 2. Based on the above definition of the class of words, we define the part of speech as a separate class of words, distinguished by grammatically significant properties and directly correlated with other classes in the division of the vocabulary on a common basis.

The term "part of speech" should be accepted as a conditional, but firmly established name, which has long lost its motivational connection with the designated phenomenon. It arose in ancient Greek grammar, which, as we noted above, had not yet explicitly singled out the concept of a sentence in the linguistic sense, had not separated it from the general concept of "speech" and, therefore, did not draw a strict difference between the word as a unit of the lexicon and the word as offer element.

There is hardly any other field of study in modern theoretical grammar that causes such heated debate among linguists as the division of words into parts of speech. The adopted partitioning schemes are accused of being discordant, unscientific, completely lacking logic, etc., etc. Here is what L. V. Shcherba, who himself made a significant contribution to the development of this theory, wrote about the theory of parts of speech: “Although , summing individual words under one or another category (part of speech), we get a kind of classification of words, however, the very difference in “parts of speech” can hardly be considered the result of a “scientific” classification of words” [Shcherba, 1928, p. 5]. The “destructive criticism” of parts of speech given by M.I. Steblin-Kamensky in a “penetrating oratorical” manner echoes the above assessment: “It is hardly advisable for us, linguists, like ostriches, to hide from the fact that our knowledge in the field of nature words, and in particular their grammatical nature, are not yet deep enough to make it possible to construct a grammatical classification of words in the scientific sense of the word ... By distributing words into parts of speech, i.e., arguing that among words there are so-called nouns , adjectives, verbs, etc., we, approximately, do the same as if we, summing up what we know about the people around us, said that among them there are blonds, there are brunettes, there are mathematicians, there are professors, and there are smart people...” [Steblin-Kamensky, 1974, p. 21].

The practical result of such criticism, as a rule, is the same: having finished with the “refutation” of parts of speech, the author, if the area of ​​his working interests really comes into contact with them, uses their nomenclature and conceptual base, as if forgetting that he rejected them. "on the vine" on the previous page of his essay. In this regard, the following statement, taken from a modern guide to theoretical grammar, is very characteristic: “... All attempts to create a classification of language units based on a single principle have not been successful. The traditional classification is as good as (though perhaps not better than) anything that has been tried to replace it, and has the advantage of being widely known. Therefore, we will continue to proceed from the traditional classification” [Ivanova, Burlakova, Pocheptsov, 1981, p. 19].

In order to make a correct judgment and general concept parts of speech, and the type of classification required by the parts of speech of specific languages, one should be clear that words are the most complex objects of that area of ​​reality that is created by man himself in the process of his social and mental development. These are not simple products-constructs produced by a one-time labor act of an individual master, and not objects of the extrahuman universe with their purely physical properties. In a generalizing classification, which is a grammatical classification, words - elements of a special two-sided ideal-material nature - should not, by their very nature, be grouped on a simple logical basis. Otherwise (and this case is not at all so difficult to realize, as it seems to some of the above-mentioned critics: compare, for example, the division of a dictionary according to the mere ability of a word to categorically change or according to the type of its morphemic structure), such a classification will be completely devoid of cognitive power with point of view of the challenges ahead. This was well understood by A. I. Smirnitsky, a brilliant specialist in the field of linguistic classifications. He wrote: “... when highlighting any of the parts of speech, one should be based on the same general principles, namely: take into account the general meaning of a given group of words and the grammatical features that express it. At the same time, it must be emphasized that the sum of the features by which the individual parts of speech are distinguished cannot be the same for all parts of speech ... each part of speech differs from the other by the sum of different features, and the ratio between the different parts of speech is therefore not the same " [Smirnitsky, 1959, p. 104-105].

When evaluating the modern distribution of words by parts of speech, made on the basis of the development of traditional classification, it should be clearly understood that the fundamental principles of separating classes and categorizing words are important here, and only secondarily is the enlargement or fragmentation of certain lexical groups or the revision of categorical and subcategorical features of individual words. The very idea of ​​subcategorization or subclass grouping of words as a necessary second stage in the general distribution of words into parts of speech clearly indicates the objective nature of such an analysis. The moment of objectivity has been intensifying recently in connection with the application to the concept of a part of speech of the idea of ​​a field structure for the distribution of relevant properties of objects: within a certain part of speech, the central part of words is distinguished, constituting a class strictly according to the signs established for it, and the peripheral part of words with the corresponding gradation of signs [ Ivanova, Burlakova, Pocheptsov, 1981, p. 19].

So, prepositions and conjunctions can be combined into one generalizing class of "connectors", since the functional purpose of both is precisely in the connection or "connection" of the significant members of the sentence. In this case, at the second stage of the classification, the enlarged class of connectors will be divided into two main subclasses, namely, the subclass of prepositional connectors and the subclass of allied connectors. Similarly, articles can be included as a small subclass in the enlarged class of qualifying particles. As you know, nouns, adjectives and numerals are sometimes considered under a single terminological rubric of "names"; in ancient Greek grammar, they did not differ as separate parts of speech, since they had the same forms of morphological change (nominal declension). On the other hand, in various grammatical descriptions of the language, a separate class status can be granted to such narrow sets of words as the words of affirmation and negation (yes, no) or the pronominal determiners of a noun, and in this case, the characterization of the distinguished units by their own grammatical properties does not suffer significant damage. .

§ 3. In modern linguistics, grammatical classes of words (parts of speech) are distinguished either by several or by one group of features. These two principles can be called, respectively, polydifferential and monodifferential.

The polydifferential principle, which develops the old philological tradition at the new stage of knowledge, has been developed mainly in Soviet linguistics. With the greatest completeness and consistency, it is formulated in the works of L. V. Shcherba and V. V. Vinogradov, devoted to the description of the Russian language, in the works of A. I. Smirnitsky and B. A. Ilyish, devoted to the description in English.

In accordance with this principle, parts of speech are distinguished according to the totality of three fundamental criteria: "semantic", "formal" and "functional". Consider these criteria in this order.

The semantic criterion involves an assessment of the abstract semantics of words, uniting them into verbal aggregates, which are opposed to each other in terms of content with the greatest degree of clarity. Such semantics is established on the basis of two aspects of comparison: on the one hand, extralinguistic, or denotative, With the other is intralinguistic, or formal-relative. In the denotative aspect, words are compared directly with the elements of reality they designate. In the formal-relative aspect, the semantics of a word is evaluated from the point of view of the integrative features of its morphemic composition. Thus, the class-forming semantics, reflecting the elements of the substance of the world - the elements of reality given to us in sensation - receives a limiting definition in the form of a categorical-semantic feature that is typical for each of the distinguished sets.

According to the role of categorical-semantic features in the general semantics of words, significant or full-valued words and auxiliary or ambiguous words are sharply opposed to each other. The difference lies in the fact that in significant words, categorical-semantic features are combined with generic and specific real (directly naming) features in their typified word usage, or "lexico-semantic variants". As for function words, the categorical-semantic features, in essence, exhaust their generalizing semantics: these are “structural elements of the lexicon” (L. V. Shcherba), which perform only various clarifying functions in any act of forming an utterance. Their own, individualizing, part of the semantics is so generalized that it is difficult to interpret in the order of a dictionary definition: the definition here, as a rule, is replaced by an indication of class membership and an explanation of functions. That is why the difference between the class and subclass stages of the division of functional words is not as important as the corresponding division of significant words: each auxiliary lexeme, unlike the significant one, is important in itself precisely as an element of the structure of the language as a whole. Speaking figuratively, significant words, although they are self-named, play the role of soldiers in the ranks, while official words are officers organizing the soldier's formation. As for generals and marshals, such a role in the semantic army of the language is played by semantic-categorical features in the broad sense of the term (features of words, phrases and sentences).

A complex gradation field is established between significant and auxiliary semantics. The more this or that specific word is saturated with significant semantics, the more clearly individual generalized word usages are singled out within its naming volume, determined by sets of elementary semantic features - “sem”. These word usages, referred to by the rather clumsy term "lexico-semantic version of the word" (LSV), could be called "lexicules" on a joint terminological basis with "lexemes". Using the existing terms "sememe" and "semantheme", we give the first of them to the semantic content of the lexicon, that is, the lexical set of semes, and the second, respectively, to the total semantic content of the lexeme, that is, the complete set of its semes (this set in the existing terminological practice is called completely the inappropriate name "semantic structure of the word").

In the seme composition of a word, one should distinguish between basic semes that are inherent in the word as such, and derivative semes that appear in specific conditions of the context and situation. The seme analysis of words used in lexicology usually aims to identify and define the lexicons of a word by establishing their semes, which are made up of combinations of "integral" and "differential" semes within larger or smaller inclusive lexical groups. However, it is necessary to take into account that to all these semes, an individual semantic feature is added in the form of a unique seme, connected by an unambiguous connection with the sound image of the word.

Integral semes are subdivided into categorical and real, and among the categorical semes are distinguished upper, or “class”, and lower, or “form” (embodiing the meanings of grammatical forms expressed by a given lexeme). So, in the lexeme (to) look, the class seme will be “process”, and the form seme, respectively, will be “uncertainty” in relation to “duration”, “imperfection” in relation to “perfect”, etc. Individual seme apart from the word is indefinable and must be represented by the very image of the word in the definition of each lexicon. This is how lexicons are entered into dictionaries, where they are provided with numbers that represent them in the enumeration, the ideal ordering of which places them from the primary (main) base lexicon through secondary bases to derivatives - first close, and then distant. Thus, for the lexeme eye (substantive) the primary basic lexicon eye 1 means “eye”; secondary basic lexicons eye 2 - "eye" of the needle, eye 3 - "peephole" in the door; close derivatives of the lexicon eye 4 - "eye" - a flower, eye 5 (in the plural) - "look, look", eye 6 - "views, judgments", etc .; more distant derivatives of the lexicon eye 7 (jargon) - “detective”, eye 8 (jargon) - “TV screen”, etc. The sememe of the primary base lexicon is what is commonly called the “basic meaning of the word”. The boundary of the semanteme (the total meaning of the word), and with it the boundary of the word (lexeme), that is, the transition of polysemy into homonymy, from a grammatical point of view, is distinguished by such a sememe that transfers its vocabulary into a subclass of another, essentially different grammatical characteristic. We see such "beyond" lexicons (in relation to generating base ones in the etymological sense) in the linking use of the verbs be, get, grow, go, run, in the significant use of the verbs will, need, in the pronominal use of the adjectives certain, definite, in the indefinitely personal use of the pronouns you, we, they, etc. At the same time, it is hardly advisable to require lexicographers to indispensably distinguish such lexicons into separate dictionary entries. It is much more important to provide the corresponding sub-entries (interpretations of lexicons) with grammatical marks and explanations and to unconditionally strive to arrange the sub-entries in the above-mentioned order of their removal from the interpretation of the primary basic lexicon.

Speaking about the semantics of a significant word, it is necessary to make a fundamental difference between the meanings of ordinary, everyday use and the meanings of professional, especially scientific use. Ordinary meanings correspond to the "visual representations" of the concepts behind the words-names. These values ​​in themselves are not and cannot be in any way total reflections corresponding concepts: concepts are reflected only in judgments about the objects of thought, and the meanings of words embodied in their sememes and semanthemes serve as a linguistic means of constructing judgments and, consequently, the formation of concepts. The usual meanings of significant words correspond to concepts that some researchers call "formal concepts" in contrast to the "meaningful" concepts of rational comprehension of reality. On the relationship between the usual meaning - a “formal concept” and a “meaningful” concept in the proper sense, S. D. Katsnelson writes: “... a formal concept can be expressed in two ways: using a single word and through an “internal translation” (that is, a synonymous interpretation - M. B.). A meaningful concept cannot be expressed in this way. If by “expression” we understand the reproduction of content, then the word in this case does not express the concept, but names it. Words also relate to meaningful concepts, as a library card index - to the content of the books registered in it” [Katsnelson, 1965, p. 25].

Based on the foregoing, we can make a strict distinction between the two noted types of meanings, which consists in the fact that the meaning of one type receives a detailed definition in any field of professional activity (scientific or practical) and therefore reflects a scientific or practical concept, and a value of another type does not receive such a definition, remaining within the limits of normal, everyday use. The word, the meaning of which forms the concept in the indicated sense, that is, is professionally defined, constitutes the term.

The professionally defined meaning of a word is so different from the undefined one that the defined lexicons certainly go beyond the lexical identity of the word, forming independent lexemes-terms. The totality of terms of a particular field of activity (knowledge) constitutes its terminology - "terminological system" or "terminological language". Pointing to the linguistic originality of terminology in comparison with other, undefined significant vocabulary, one should simultaneously emphasize the fact that no terminology forms a separate language in the full sense of the word: the terms are included in the speech of a professional according to the laws of the national language, outside of which full-fledged cognitive activity is impossible . This truth resolves the paradox of the so-called "meta-language" of linguistics, that is, the use of language tools for knowing "oneself". In fact, the language is learned not by the language, but by the researcher, and not by means of isolated terminology, but by means of terminological speech, that is, speech in a common language, but using the defined significant words of its branch of science. It is in this speech that the corresponding conclusions are built and the necessary theories are formulated. Consequently, in the fundamental philosophical plan, speech about language, within the framework of its epistemological specificity, is entirely correlated with speech about other subjects of theoretical knowledge.

§ 5. The formal criterion of the class distribution of words presupposes the selection of such elements of their structure, which, being repeated in sufficiently large aggregates, are their typical signs in delimitation from each other and, thus, indices of the class recognition of any randomly chosen word. The latter circumstance is especially important for understanding the very principle of the formal division of words into parts of speech. In fact, this principle asserts its vitality precisely for the categorical recognition of an unlimited set of words of a diverse structure, but differing in group characteristics. If we have a narrowly limited set of words of typologically identical categorical semantics, then the formal criterion of its class identification becomes redundant: such a set is given by a list. Indeed, the formal features of parts of speech are relevant for separating significant words into their categories, which form open systems in the language with characteristic categorial-grammatical forms of inflection and lexical, but grammatically significant forms of word formation. As for function words, their "form" is determined by simple enumerations under the appropriate headings of small classes and subclasses. After all, construction words enter the grammatical backbone of the language directly and directly. Their number is limited: “as carriers of grammatical functions, they are subject to the competence of grammar” [Katsnelson, 1965, p. 4].

§6. The functional criterion for separating words into parts of speech involves the disclosure of their syntactic properties in a sentence. For significant words, these are, first of all, positional-member characteristics, that is, the ability to play the role of independent members of a sentence: subject, verb-predicate, predicate, object, definition, circumstance. In determining the subclass affiliation of words (the second stage of classification), an important place is occupied by the identification of their combinational characteristics (cf., for example, the division of verbs into valence subclasses). At this level of analysis, a possible contradiction between the real-lexical and categorical-grammatical semantics of the word is resolved. So, according to its basic real semantics, the word stone is a noun, but in the sentence Aunt Emma was stoning cherries for preserves, this substantive stem acts as a generator in the verb. At the same time, the situational semantics of the sentence reflects the invariable substantive orientation of the lexeme, which is preserved in the causative nature of its content (here, “take out the bones”). The categorical characteristic of such lexemes can be called "mixed subject-process". In contrast, the categorical characteristic of the lexeme go in the statement That "s a go will be defined as "mixed process-but-objective." But the mixed nature of semantics at the derivational and situational-semantic level does not deprive the lexeme of its unambiguous functional-semantic characterization by class accessories.

Service words, considered from a functional-syntactic point of view, especially clearly reveal their proximity to grammatical affixes - indicators of various categorical meanings of words (cf., for example, prepositions and case forms, modal verbs and auxiliary verbs). Moreover, the syntactic characteristics for many function words, as we noted above, actually exhaust their content side: the functional-syntactic content fills the entire volume of their semantheme. No wonder V. V. Vinogradov, opposing the classes of functional words to the classes of significant words, called them not “parts of speech”, but “particles of speech”.

§ 7. So, as a result of the combined application of the three criteria for the class identification of words - semantic, formal and functional - all words of the language are distributed under the headings of significant and service parts of speech with the necessary subclass characteristics. The main significant parts of speech in English are usually recognized, in the traditional enumeration, as a noun, adjective, numeral, pronoun, verb and adverb; the main service parts of speech, respectively, are the article, preposition, conjunction, particle, modal word, interjection.

Due to the redistribution of classes and subclasses, a stative (category of state) is sometimes added to the significant parts of speech, the interjection is transferred from the service parts of speech to the significant ones, and linking verbs and words of affirmation and negation are added to the service parts. Other redistributions are also possible, which, as we pointed out above, mostly fit into the compensating ratios of super- and subdivisions and are rationally supplemented by data on the field properties of the lexicon.

In the course of criticism of the polydifferential rubrication of the vocabulary, which was accompanied by the development alternative systems and, ultimately, contributing and continuing to promote its improvement and development, another, mono-differential principle of splitting the lexicon was put forward, based on taking into account only the syntactic properties of the word. The advancement of this principle was due to the fact that in the case of a polydifferential classification of words, a specific difficulty arises in establishing the grammatical status of such lexemes that have morphological characteristics of significant words (morphological-categorial, derivational features), but differ sharply from significant words in function, performing the role of auxiliary and auxiliary elements varying degrees lexical emptiness. These are modal verbs together with their equivalents - suppletive fillers, auxiliary verbs, aspect and phase verbs, adverbs-intensifiers, demonstrative determiners; the whole class of pronouns is distinguished by heterogeneous properties.

The noted complexity of the grammatical identification of lexemes, associated with the intersection of heterogeneous properties in the classes of the lexicon, obviously, should be overcome by accepting only one criterion out of three possible as defining.

As you know, in ancient Greek grammar, which outlined the contours of the linguistic doctrine of parts of speech, one defining feature was also taken as the basis for dividing the vocabulary, namely, the formal morphological feature. In other words, the recognizable word was translated into a classified lexeme on the basis of its relation to grammatical change. This characteristic was quite effective in the conditions of the primary accumulation of linguistic knowledge and in application to a language rich in inflectional forms. However, it gradually lost its effectiveness due to ever deeper penetration into the grammatical nature of the language.

The syntactic characteristic of a word, established after its disclosure morphological properties(in any case, such properties that are determined by grammatical change) is at the present stage of development of linguistics both relevant and universal from the point of view of the needs of a general classification of the lexicon. This characteristic is relevant, since it divides words into functions, that is, groups them according to the purpose that they have in the structure of the language. At the same time, the role of morphology as a system of means for deriving a word into the semantic-syntactic sphere of a sentence also comes out more clearly. This characteristic is universal, since it is not specifically oriented towards the inflectional side of the language, and, therefore, it is equally suitable for languages ​​of various morphological types. In addition, it is organically linked with the semantic properties of words, since syntactic functions are formed on the basis of a generalization of semantic ones.

Based on the material of the Russian language, the foundations of the syntactic approach to the class division of the vocabulary were outlined in the studies of A. M. Peshkovsky. Based on the material of the English language, the principles of the syntactic classification of words in positional-distributive refraction were outlined by L. Bloomfield and his followers and received a detailed development in the system of C. Freese.

The positional-distributive classification of words is based on the assessment of their compatibility, which is derived by means of a system of tests in substitution-diagnostic models of phrases and sentences. The material for the study is the sound recording of live dialogues.

Significant words in models are assigned the role of fillers for “positions” (the position of the actor, the position of the action, the position of the object of the action, etc.). These words are divided into four "formal" classes, which receive symbols in the form of numbers in the order of positions in the diagnosing model. The numbers correspond to the letter symbols that have become ordinary: N - substantive words, V - verbal words, A - adjective words, D - adverbial words. Pronouns are included in positional nominal classes as substitute words. Repeated substitution of previously identified words in different semantic combinations reveals their formal morphological characteristics (which is why they are called "formal words" or, more precisely, "form-words" - "form-words").

Functional words are singled out in strictly outlined sets in the process of substitutional research, as sentences that are not capable of occupying its positions without destroying the structure.

Functional words identified in this way in sets of the same type reveal their specificity as standing at the appropriate positions as qualifiers and complements of the meanings of significant words. Such, for example, are determiners with nouns, modal verbs with significant verbs, clarifying and intensifying words with adjectives and adverbs. I open service words in sets of another type! :i as interpositional elements indicating relationship positional words to each other. These are prepositions and conjunctions. Finally, auxiliary words in sets of the third type turn out to be outside the direct relationship of positions and, therefore, reflect their meaning on the sentence as a whole. These are the words of the question, motivation, request, request for attention, affirmation and denial, constructive introduction (introductory particles), etc.

When comparing the positional-distributive classification of words with the more traditional division of words into parts of speech, one cannot help but notice the similarity of the general contours of the two types of classification, although all the former "school grammar", together with its teaching on parts of speech, in accordance with the canons of descriptivism, was rejected by C. Freese as "pre-scientific". However, behind the similarities of both classifications, which serve as indirect confirmation of the objective nature of the general understanding of the structure of the lexicon (since the classifications under consideration are based on different principles, and the positional-distributive distribution of words is carried out in the form pilot study), and their significant differences are found. An assessment of these differences from the point of view of the functional-paradigmatic correlations of the elements of the language at different levels of its hierarchy allows us to make a number of fundamental generalizations regarding the grammatical organization of the vocabulary, to which we devote the next chapter.

Parts of speech - classes of words of the language, distinguished on the basis of the generality of their syntactic, morphological and semantic properties. Parts of speech are classes (sets) of words that have some common features. The classification of words is the grammar of a dictionary. Such a classification provides information about how words are used grammatically and what grammatical properties they have. Isolation of parts of speech is not an end in itself. This classification should serve the analysis and synthesis of speech.

The features by which words are classified into parts of speech are “reversible”. They serve to refer words to a particular part of speech, and knowing which part of speech a word belongs to gives us information about its grammatical properties.

The classification should not allow the intersection of classes. Each word must be assigned to one class. It cannot be assigned to one class according to some features, and to another class according to other features.

There is no universal classification of words by parts of speech. Allocate from 2 to 15 parts of speech. In Russian, it is customary to distinguish 10 parts of speech.

Significant and auxiliary parts of speech are distinguished.

The main significant parts of speech, distinguished in almost all languages, are:

Noun - N;

Verb - V;

Adjective - A;

Adverb - Adv.

The distribution of lexical units by grammatical classes is carried out on the basis of the complex grammatical features. Semantic, morphological, syntactic criteria are used.

The semantic criterion is based on the principle of taking into account the categorical (general categorical) meaning of words belonging to one or another part of speech. The categorical value of N is the value of objectivity, the categorical value of V is the value of procedurality, the categorical value of A is the value of the feature, the categorical value of Adv is the value of the feature of the feature.

The general categorical meaning determines those grammatical categories that are inherent in this part of speech. So, a noun with its general categorical meaning of objectivity has such categories as number, case, gender, but it does not have the meaning of time, type, etc.

The morphological criterion is that each part of speech has its own set of morphological forms. So if the word highway are inherent in the category of case, gender, then this is a noun. If it is a noun, then it has these categories.

The syntactic criterion is manifested in the fact that the words of each part of speech are characterized by a certain syntactic behavior, the ability to act in a certain function in a sentence. So, the primary syntactic function of N is the subject or direct object, the primary function of the verb (V) is the predicate. The syntactic valency of words can also be taken into account, i.e. that the words of a certain part of speech have a regular syntactic valency. For example, verbs open spaces for adverbs, nouns for adjectives.

Derivational criteria can also be taken into account. Each part of speech has certain word-formation patterns.

Materials of typological linguistics indicate that support should be sought in semantic and syntactic criteria. The division of all words into two large classes - the class of significant and the class of functional words is based on semantic and syntactic criteria.

Significant words can function as members of a sentence.

Let's bring general information about the signs of the main parts of speech.

speech meaning syntactic morphological

N objectivity subject case, number, gender

V procedural predicate tense, mood

A sign definition degree of comparison

Adv attribute attribute circumstance

The classification of Russian words by parts of speech can be schematically represented as follows.

Russian words

Famous. Indicate subst. Int. Modal. Cat. comp. Service

N A V Adv Verboids

noun adj.

Infin. prich. Deeprich.

The class of nouns includes words with the categorical meaning "objectivity". The core of this class of words are words denoting physical bodies - people, animals, plants, things. This category also includes words with the so-called imaginary objectivity, words denoting: property - beauty; process - run; action - sawing; Seasons - spring; feelings - Love; abstract concepts - consciousness and others. Human thought is capable of making everything that is accessible to human consciousness a separate subject of thought. Having named the property of an object with a noun, we can operate in thoughts and in speech with the concept of a property as it would be a separate object, for example, we can define it - high speed.

The verb expresses the grammatical meaning of the action, i.e. sign of a dynamic, flowing in time. A typical category for a verb is the category of tense. The meaning of this category is the localization of the action, the process indicated by the verb in time relative to the moment of speech or relative to another action. Distinguish between absolute and relative times. Absolute time expresses the temporal relation of the action to the moment of speech I write, I wrote, I will write. Relative time expresses the relation of an action to another action. I watched him do his job(simultaneity).

Verboids are words that combine the properties of a verb and other parts of speech. The properties of the verb and the noun are combined in the infinitive, gerund, the properties of the verb and adjective - in the participle, and the properties of the verb and adverb - in the gerund.

The category of state (non-verbal predicative, predicative adverb) is singled out as a separate class of words by L.V. Shcherboy. This class includes words that are used as a predicative in constructions with a dative predicative I'm sorry, hunting, it's time, stuffy, hot etc. They denote the state of the person, the environment.

A special category of words is demonstrative-substitutive words, words with a deictic function. According to the syntactic criterion, they coincide with significant words. Pronoun I can act as a subject. However, it does not have a valence to an adjective, unlike nouns.

Modal words ( probably, possibly etc.) constitute a special category of words.

Interjections do not enter into syntactic relations with other words in this speech formation. They are sufficient in themselves to frame the statement.

E. Sapir emphasizes that parts of speech reflect our ability to organize reality into diverse formal patterns. Each language has its own schema. But there is no language that neglects the distinction between noun and verb.

Transposition, namely functional transposition, is the translation of a word (or the stem of a word) from one part of speech to another or its use in the function of another part of speech. There are two stages of transposition:

1) incomplete, or syntactic, transposition, in which only the syntactic function of the original unit changes without changing its belonging to the part of speech. The word of a certain part of speech begins to be used in a syntactic function unusual for this part of speech, acts as a function of the word of another part of speech: walk fast; look like a wolf.

2) complete, or morphological, transposition, in which the word of a new part of speech is formed. Its means is affixation or conversion. Conversion is a type of transposition in which the transition of a word from one part of speech to another occurs in such a way that the form of one part of speech is used without any material change as a representative of another part of speech, for example, in German leben verb ‘to live’ – das Leben(noun ‘life’); in English salt- noun "salt"; to salt- the verb 'salt'. The use of a word in a new syntactic function is accompanied not only by its use in the corresponding syntactic position, but also by its acquisition of a new morphological indicator, characteristic of the class of words whose functions it takes over.

Substantiation (transition of words into the class of nouns);

Adjectivation (transition to the class of adjectives);

Verbalization (verbalization);

Adverbialization (transition to the class of adverbs);

Pronominalization (transition to pronouns).

Transitions to service parts of speech (prepositions, conjunctions, particles), to interjections are possible.

4.10. Morphological typology

The classification of languages ​​(the establishment of language types) based on the general principles of the structure of grammatical forms is the essence of the traditional morphological classification of languages, which is the most developed. This classification takes into account the following features:

The general degree of complexity of the morphological structure of the word;

Types of grammatical morphemes used by a given language.

In modern linguistics, it is customary to express these features by quantitative indicators, or typological indices. The index method was proposed by the American researcher Joseph. Greenberg. The essence of this method is as follows. The degree of complexity of the morphological structure of a word can be expressed by the number of morphs per one word form on average. This is the so-called synthetic index, which is calculated by the formula M / W, where M is the number of morphs in a text segment on given language, and W is the number of word usages in the same segment. There is not a single language in which the synthetic index would be equal to 1. With such a value of the synthetic index, the number of word usages would be equal to the number of morphs, i.e. each word form must be monomorphemic. The index value is always greater than 1: the Vietnamese language is 1.06 (i.e., there are 106 morphs in 100 word forms); English - 1.68; Russian language - 2.33 - 2.45; Sanskrit - 2.59; Eskimo - 3.72.

Languages ​​with an index below 2 (Vietnamese, Chinese, English, etc.). are classified as analytical languages. Among the analytic languages, one can single out isolating languages ​​in which there are almost no affixes. The non-single-morphemic words encountered in these languages ​​are, as a rule, complex (usually two-rooted). Isolating languages ​​are characterized by the following features:

Lack of inflection;

Weak opposition of significant and functional words;

The grammatical significance of word order.

Languages ​​with an index from 2 to 3 (Russian, Sanskrit, Ancient Greek, Latin, Lithuanian, Old Church Slavonic, etc.) are classified as synthetic languages.

Languages ​​with an index greater than 3 (Eskimo, Paleoasiatic, Amerindian, etc.) are classified as polysynthetic languages. In polysynthetic languages, a verb can agree simultaneously with several members of a sentence. They are characterized by the possibility of including other members of the sentence in the verb-predicate, most often a direct object. Sometimes this is accompanied by a morphological change in stems.

Analytic languages ​​are characterized by a tendency to separate (analytical) expression of lexical and grammatical meanings. Lexical meanings are expressed by significant words, and grammatical meanings - by function words ( am reading, has done, the man etc.) and word order.

Synthetic languages ​​are characterized by a tendency to unite (synthesize) within one word form of a lexical morpheme (or several lexical morphemes) and one or more grammatical morphemes. These languages ​​make extensive use of affixes.

Polysynthetic languages ​​also use incorporation. Polysynthetic languages ​​are characterized by the stringing of affixes in one word. Synthetic and polysynthetic languages ​​are called affixal. These languages ​​are characterized by:

High development of shaping;

The presence of richly branched, complex formative paradigms;

Synthetic and polysynthetic languages ​​are divided into groups based on the use of different types of affixal morphemes:

Word-building, form-building;

Various positional types of affixes (prefixes, postfixes, etc.)

Within the framework of affixation, two opposite tendencies are distinguished:

Inflectional, fusional, "fusion", characterized by the presence of endings (Russian, other Indo-European languages, etc.);

Agglutinative, "gluing" (Turkic, Finno-Ugric languages).

Inflectional languages ​​are characterized by the combination in one formative affix of several meanings belonging to different grammatical categories: city- ami (meaning of number and case). The affix is ​​assigned to a complex of heterogeneous grammes. This phenomenon is called complication (synthetosemia).

Affixes in inflectional languages ​​are not standard. So, the meaning of the instrumental case is expressed by the affix - om (city), -oy (sister) and others in singular and affix - ami- in plural. This phenomenon is called homosemia of formative affixes, which manifests itself in the presence of a number of parallel affixes to convey the same meaning or set of meanings. Plural nouns in English can be expressed by affixes s, es, en, alternation man - men.

Exponents of morphemes in inflectional languages ​​are characterized by mutual overlap (redecomposition, simplification, absorption of morphemes by neighboring morphemes). Alternations are widely used.

Zero affixes are used in both semantically primary and semantically secondary forms ( hands, boots).

The stem of a word is often non-independent: red-, call -

So, inflectional languages ​​are characterized by:

Polyfunctionality of grammatical morphemes;

The presence of fusion;

Phonetically unconditioned root changes;

Big number phonetically and semantically unmotivated types of declension and conjugation.

Agglutinative languages ​​are characterized by haplosemy (simplicity) - the attachment of each formative affix to only one gramme. Hence the stringing of affixes to express heterogeneous meanings in one word form. In Turkish, the word form dallarda"on branches" includes the following morphemes dal- branches, lar- plural. number, da- local case. On a branch can be translated into Turkish as dalda.

Affixes in agglutinative languages ​​are standard. Each gramme has only one affix. There are no parallel formal indicators. The exponential variation of affixes is of a regular nature and is caused by the laws of phonemic alternations (the laws of vowel harmony, synharmonicity and consonant assimilation).

The boundaries of morphemic segments are characterized by clarity. The phenomena of simplification and re-decomposition are not typical.

In semantically original forms, null affixes are typical.

The stem without an affix represents the normal type of the word and acts as a semantically original word form.

Affixes are regarded as quite independent units, they are psychologically "weighty".

So, agglutinating languages ​​are characterized by:

Developed system of derivational and inflectional affixation;

The absence of phonetically unconditioned allomorphism;

Lack of significant alternations;

uniqueness of affixes.

In Russian, the postfix has the features of agglutination sya / sya. It is haplosemic, i.e. each time carries only one value (collateral or transitivity). It is attached not to the base, but to the finished word form.

So, according to the morphological typology, languages ​​are divided into the following classes: analytical; synthetic; polysynthetic. Synthetic languages ​​are divided into fusional and agglutinative.

Many languages ​​occupy an intermediate position on the scale of morphological classification, combining features of different types. For example, the languages ​​of Oceania can be characterized as amorphous-agglutinative.

The first typological classification is the classification of F. Schlegel, who contrasted inflectional and non-inflectional languages ​​(affixal). Non-inflectional languages ​​were evaluated by him according to the degree of their evolutionary closeness to inflectional ones and were considered as one or another stage on the way to an inflectional system. The inflectional type was regarded by Schlegel as more perfect.

A. Schlegel singled out languages ​​"without grammatical structure", later called amorphous, or isolating languages.

W. von Humboldt, based on the classification of the Schlegel brothers, identified 3 classes of languages: isolating, agglutinating and inflectional. In the class of agglutinating languages, Humboldt singled out more incorporating languages. Humboldt noted the absence of "pure" representatives of one or another type of language, which is constructed as an ideal model.

A prominent place in the general typology of languages ​​belongs to the American scientist E. Sapir (1884-1939). In his main work - "Language" (1921), he outlined his point of view on the classification of languages, and presented several options for the classification of languages. Sapir proceeds from the fact that at the heart of each language lies some basic scheme, as it were, each language has its own “cut”. A similar direction of movement is observed in the most distant corners from each other. the globe. Unrelated languages ​​independently come to similar morphological systems. Powerful driving forces direct the language towards balanced models, types.

Sapir emphasizes that if we have intuitively found the similarity of the two given languages, the same inherent in both of them inner feeling forms, we should not be too surprised that each of them seeks and avoids the same directions (drift) of development.

4.11. Historical changes in the morphological structure of the language

Changes in the morphological structure of the language are associated with:

With changes in the inventory of grammatical categories;

With the restructuring of grammatical categories;

With a change in the morphological type of the language;

With the restructuring of the morphological structure of the word.

So, in the Germanic and Romance languages, a grammatical category of correlation was formed, including 3 grammemes:

mismatch relatedness

indefinite definite

correlation correlation

In English, the grammatical category of gender of a noun has died out. Only pronouns survived she, he, it. In English, one can speak of a hidden grammatical category of gender, since it appears only when a noun is replaced by a pronoun.

Some languages ​​have new grammes. So, in the Indo-European languages, the gramme of the future tense appeared.

French and English evolved from synthetic to analytical.

Literature

Admoni V.G. Fundamentals of the theory of grammar. M.-L., 1964.

Bondarko A.V. Grammatical categories and context L., 1971.

Bondarko A.V. Conceptual categories and language semantic functions in grammar // Universals and typological researches M., 1974. P.54-78.

Bondarko A.V. Theory of morphological categories L., 1976.

Bondarko A.V. Grammatical meaning and meaning L., 1978 ..

Bondarko A.V. Principles of functional grammar L. 1983.

Bondarko A.V. Functional grammar. L., 1984.

Bulygina T.V. Problems of the theory of grammatical categories. M., 1977.

Jespersen O. Philosophy of grammar M., 1958.

Kasevich V.B. Morphonology L., 1986.

Katsnelson SD Typology of language and speech thinking. L., 1972.

Kubryakova E.S. Fundamentals of morphological analysis. M., 1974.

Kubryakova E.S. Parts of speech in onomasiological coverage. M., 1978.

Kubryakova E.S. Types of language values. Semantics of the derived word. M., 1981.

Kubryakova E.S. Parts of speech from a cognitive point of view. M., 1997.

Kubryakova E.S. Language and knowledge. M., 2004.

Lyons J. Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. M., 1978.

Lam S.M. Essay on stratification grammar. Minsk, 1977

Plungyan V.A. General morphology. Introduction to the problem. M., 2000..

Potebnya A.A. From notes on Russian grammar. M., 1958.

Slyusareva N.A. Problems of functional morphology of modern English. M., 1986.

Kholodovich A.A. Problems of grammatical theory. M., 1979.

Shcherba L.Ya. Language system and speech activity. M., 1974.

Yakobson R. To the general doctrine of the case: The general meaning of the Russian case // Selected Works. M., 1985.