Ekaterina Zubenko (Kramatorsk)
The problem of classifying parts of speech today remains one of the most pressing and controversial in linguistics. Since modern linguistics is based on the experience of linguistic research, it is relevant to turn to the scientific heritage of grammarians of the past. European scientists achieved the greatest success in studying parts of speech in the 20th century.
Research on linguistic historiography contains important provisions regarding the study of classifications of parts of speech in linguistics of the twentieth century. At the same time, there are no special works devoted to this problem in linguistics.
The purpose of the article is to study the works of the lingua-historiographic direction devoted to the classification of parts of speech.
The existing research paradigm for studying the properties of language, and in particular parts of speech, has developed under the influence of certain socio-historical conditions. But by the middle of the 20th century, an understanding arose that the research paradigm that had developed in European science was by no means universal. It is not universal in the sense that it is not able to cover the entire diversity of linguistic phenomena, although it can note the most significant aspects of the phenomenon being studied.
Thus, by the beginning of the 20th century. It became obvious that the established practice of dividing language units into “parts of speech”, dividing them into “significant” and “functional” does not have a single basis in many respects.
Thus, O. Jespersen in his “Philosophy of Grammar” noted that the principles underlying the division of language units into parts of speech are largely arbitrary. He writes: “... everything must be taken into account: form, function, and meaning. However, it must be emphasized that form, being the most visual criterion, can induce us to recognize in one language such categories of words that in other languages are not separate categories, and meaning, important as it is, is difficult to analyze; classification in this case cannot be based on short and easily applicable definitions."
Around the same years, the outstanding Russian linguist L.V. Shcherba, in his remarkable article “On parts of speech in the Russian language,” pointed out: “Although, by subsuming individual words under one or another category (parts of speech), we get a kind of classification of words, however, the very distinction between “parts of speech” can hardly be considered the result of a “scientific” classification of words. After all, any classification implies some subjectivity of the classifier, in particular, to some extent, an arbitrarily chosen principium divisionis. In this case, many such principia divisionis could be chosen, and accordingly, if one sets out to “classify” words, one could arrange many classifications of words, more or less witty, more or less successful.”
Summarizing the discussion of the 50s. about parts of speech in Russian linguistics, M. I. Steblin-Kamensky noted: “Many attempts have been made to interpret the traditional distribution of words into parts of speech as a kind of harmonious and consistent “system”, i.e. as a classification.
The most typical attempt is by the Danish scientist V. Brendal, who argued that the distribution of words into parts of speech is based solely on the subsumability of words under one of four logical categories - essence, relation, quality and quantity - or a combination of these logical categories. Thus, according to Brendal, the meaning of a preposition is a relation, a noun is an essence, an adverb is a quality, a numeral is a quantity, a verb is a combination of a relation and a quality, a pronoun is a combination of essence and quantity, a conjunction is a combination of a relation and quantity, etc. The a priori nature of this scheme is completely obvious. However, in essence, any interpretation of parts of speech as a harmonious “system” is a priori - it doesn’t matter, semantic, morphological, syntactic, or even semantic-morphological-syntactic.”
Analysis of the above points of view allows us to conclude that linguists (both domestic and foreign) proceeded from two mutually exclusive positions. Some believed that the “traditional” classification was quite sufficient and convincing and only required adjustment based on the achievements of modern linguistics. Others, on the contrary, supported M.I. Steblin-Kamensky and believed that one should not look for consistency where it does not and cannot exist. The position of M. I. Steblin-Kamensky can hardly be called quite fruitful, although there is no doubt that the harshness of his judgments is associated with a fundamental rejection of a priori given schemes and the requirement to proceed from available linguistic material.
The need for a critical approach to the definition of parts of speech is also caused by the fact that the very concept of parts of speech developed in an era when linguistics as a science was out of the question.
Thus, we can say that a single universal classification of words by parts of speech (if we understand this classification as bringing to a strictly unambiguous correspondence of units of the phonological, morphological, syntactic structure of existing languages) is impossible by definition.
Depending on the typological structure of the language and the theoretical and methodological positions of researchers, linguists identify from 2 to 15 parts of speech, and, apparently, this is not the limit. Based on the syntactic criterion proposed by I. I. Meshchaninov, in most languages of the world there is a fairly clear distinction between, first of all, nouns and verbs.
As a basis for identifying parts of speech in a particular language, a set of grammatical criteria is used:
– semantic criterion (categorical grammatical meaning of words);
– syntactic criterion (the ability to act in the position of a certain member of a sentence and be combined with certain classes of words);
– morphological criterion (features of formation and composition of grammatical categories);
– derivation criterion (peculiarities of word formation);
– phonological (features of the phonemic and prosodic structure of words of different classes).
However, none of these criteria in itself can serve as the basis for an exhaustive classification, since not all of them have been sufficiently studied in theoretical and methodological terms, and even at the level of linguistic intuition it is quite clear that only the first three can act as a real basis for classification. Moreover, the semantic criterion, as the least formalized, can be used in addition to the morphological and syntactic ones, which have their own objective-material expression.
In modern linguistics there are no special monographic works devoted to the classification of parts of speech. A lot of things remain outside the attention of research. A comprehensive study of the scientific heritage of European grammarians of the 19th – 20th centuries. will make it possible to fill the obvious gaps in the field of linguistic historiographic coverage of the principles of classification of parts of speech and make the necessary generalizations. In this we see prospects for further research.
Literature:
Valgina N. S. Modern Russian language: textbook. for philol. specialist. universities / Valgina N. S., Rosenthal D. E., Fomina M. I. - M.: Higher. school, 1987. – 480 p.
Vinogradov V.V. Russian language (grammatical teaching about the word) / Viktor Vladimirovich Vinogradov. – M.: Uchpedgiz, 1947. – 784 p.
Golanov I. G. Morphology of the modern Russian language / I. G. Golanov. – M.: Higher. school, 1965. – 288 p.
Danylyuk I. G. Syncretism in the system of parts of the movie: abstract of dissertation. on health sciences. Ph.D. level Philol. Sciences: spec. 10.02.01 “Ukrainian language / I. G. Danilyuk. – Donetsk, 2006. – 20 p.
Kolesov V. V. L. V. Shcherba: book. for students / Vladimir Viktorovich Kolesov. – M.: Education, 1987. – 160 p.
Kucherenko I. K. Theoretical nutrition of Ukrainian language grammar. Morphology I / Illya Korniyovich Kucherenko. – K.: Kiev University, 1961. – 172 p.
Murugova E. V. Interaction of parts of speech and methods of their formation in human linguistic and creative activity: abstract of dissertation. for academic competition Ph.D. degrees philology sciences: spec. 02/10/19 “Language Theory”, 02/10/04 “Germanic languages” / Elena Valerievna Murugova. – Rostov-on-Don, 2007. – 39 p.
Pavlyukovets M.A. Syncretism at the morphological and syntactic levels of the English language as a manifestation of linguistic economy: a functional aspect: abstract of dissertation. for the Candidate of Science degree. Philol. Sciences: spec. 02/10/04 “Germanic languages” / Marina Alekseevna Pavlyukovets. – Rostov-on-Don, 2009. – 22 p.
Sitko Yu. L. The existence of functional-pragmatic methodology in domestic linguistics in the 60s of the 19th century in the first half of the 20th century (on the example of the concept of part of speech) / Yuri Leonidovich Sitko. – Sevastopol: Ribest, 2007. – 140 p.
Speaking about parts of speech, we mean the grammatical grouping of lexical units of a language, i.e. the allocation in the lexicon of a language of certain groups or categories characterized by certain grammatical features, and the lexico-grammatical categories (classes) of words into which the words of the language are divided based on features: semantic (a noun has a generalized meaning - an object, an adjective - quality, property, etc.), grammatical, which is divided into morphological and syntactic (the way of communication with other words, what function this word performs in a sentence).
The grammatical categories that characterize the words of a particular part of speech do not coincide or do not completely coincide in different languages, but in any case they are determined by the general grammatical meaning of a given class of words.
You need to start by identifying larger classes of words than individual parts of speech. First of all, these are the classes of significant and auxiliary words that we have encountered more than once, each covering several parts of speech of the traditional scheme.
Within the class of significant words, first of all, naming words and demonstrative-substitutive words are distinguished. A special place among significant words is occupied by interjections - words that serve as expressors of emotions (ay, oh, ba, fie, hurray, pipes) or signals of volitional impulses (hey, hello, chick, scatter, stop). Interjections are characterized by syntactic isolation, the absence of formal connections with the preceding and subsequent ones in the flow of speech.
A separate group, intermediate between significant and auxiliary words, consists of “evaluative” or modal words expressing an assessment of the reliability of a fact (undoubtedly probably, apparently, seems as if, maybe, hardly, hardly, etc., also say, hear, supposedly, etc.) or an assessment of its desirability or undesirability from the point of view of the speaker (fortunately, unfortunately, unfortunately, etc.). Modals are used in a sentence as introductory elements.
The noun expresses the grammatical meaning of objectivity. The primary syntactic functions of the noun are the functions of the subject and object. Nouns are also used as a predicate (in a number of languages they appear in a special predicative form), as a definition of another noun, and sometimes adverbial circumstances. The typical grammatical categories of a noun are case and number.
The category of case is expressed using affixes or using analytical means - prepositions (or postpositions) and word order. In principle, it is polynomial, although the system of affixed case expression may consist of only two members (for example, in English nouns: general case with zero inflection - possessive case with inflection -s), or may be completely absent. The content of the case category consists of various relationships between the noun and other words in a sentence, uniquely reflecting the relationships between real objects, object and action, etc.
The category of number is expressed by affixation, reduplication and other means. The content of the category of number consists of quantitative relationships reflected by human consciousness and forms of language. In the languages of the world, in addition to singular and plural, there are dual, sometimes triple, plurals of small quantities, collective plurals, etc. On the other hand, in some languages, expressing a number in a noun is not necessary at all.
Among other grammatical categories of a noun, the category of definiteness/indeterminacy is widespread (usually expressed by an article, which can be a functional word, as in English, French, German, ancient and modern Greek, Arabic, or an affix - like the definite article of the Scandinavian languages, Romanian , Bulgarian, Albanian). Indefiniteness can be expressed by the absence of an article (for example, in Bulgarian) or by a special indefinite article. In languages that do not have definiteness/indeterminacy as a developed grammatical category, the expression resp. categories express different types of relationships between the time of action and the moment of speech, and sometimes between the time of action and some other moment besides the moment of speech. In the latter case, we are dealing with special “relative tenses” (such as plus quaperfect - the past preceding another past, future preliminary, “future in the past”, etc.) or with the relative use of “basic” tenses (He it seemed that someone was walking in the house, where the present tense form expressing the simultaneity of the action of the main sentence seemed). Particular attention is paid to the figurative use of tenses, for example, the “present historical”, common in many languages, in stories about the past (I was walking down the street yesterday...).
The category of mood expresses the relationship of the action denoted by the verb to reality, and in some cases to the will and desire, sometimes to the personal experience of the speaker. Accordingly, they distinguish between the mood of reality - indicative (indicative) and certain grammemes opposed to it, representing the verbal action as completely unreal or as possible, prev. posited, permissible, conditioned in its implementation by another action; as desirable and even directly required from the addressee of speech, or as prohibited, etc. Direct encouragement to action in many languages is expressed by forms of the imperative (imperative mood). The composition, functions and nomenclature of other “inclinations of incomplete reality” are more diverse.
Moods include special interrogative and negative forms of the verb, for example in English - analytical interrogative and negative forms with the auxiliary verb to do (Do you speak English? “Do you speak English?”).
The category of voice is closely related to the structure of the sentence. In a number of languages there is a system of two opposed voices - active and passive. An active, or active voice, is a form of a verb in which the subject corresponds to the actor (“The workers are building a house”), and a passive, or passive voice, is one in which the subject, on the contrary, corresponds to the object of the action (“The house is being built during bochimi”, “The house is being built”, “The house was built”, etc.) or - in some languages - also to the addressee (English: “Not is given a book” “He was given a book”).
A special place among verbal categories is occupied by the grammatical category of aspect, which contrasts with each other different types of occurrence and distribution of action in time. Thus, in Russian and other Slavic languages, the perfect form (decided, climbed), expressing the action as an indivisible whole (usually an action reaching its limit), and the imperfect form (decided, climbed), expressing the action without emphasizing its integrity, are contrasted. in particular, an action directed towards the limit, but not reaching it, an action in the process of flowing or repeating, non-limiting (had), a general concept of action, etc. In English, the specific process view (Progressive) is contrasted, for example, he is writing "he writes at the moment," and the general view is he writes 'he writes in general."
Being a predicate, the verb always, as noted, correlates with the “actor”, and in certain cases - with other “persons” in the sentence. If the correlation with different persons is expressed in the verb itself by one or another formal difference, we say that the verb has the category of person (in the broad sense, including number, as well as gender and grammatical class). The presence of a verbal category of person sometimes makes the subject unnecessary (so, I’ll go, you’ll go, and it’s so clear who performs this action). When using a subject, a verb with a person category agrees with the subject in person and number.
The participle combines the properties of a verb and an adjective, representing an action as a property of an object or person. The participle combines the properties of a verb and an adverb. The participle names an action as a sign characterizing another action (“said laughing,” “sat slouched”).
An adverb, according to its grammatical meaning, is defined as a “sign of a characteristic.”
Humanity has always been interested in how language appeared on earth. In ancient times, the answer to this question was that language was created by a god or a hero. The ancient Egyptians believed that the god Ptah created language. The ancient Jews believed that the god Jehovah created language. The ancient Greeks believed that language was created by Prometheus. Subsequently, the opinion was increasingly expressed that language was created by man himself.
People tried to find answers to the questions: how was language created in general and specific languages in particular; which language was more ancient? They answered differently. One Egyptian pharaoh even conducted an experiment: a child was isolated from his mother and raised without communication, fed with goat's milk. The first word the baby said was: “Beh.” Egyptian sages came to the conclusion that this word is of Lydian origin and means bread. From this it was concluded that Lydian was the most ancient language. It is clear that with this word “Beh” the child simply reproduced the bleating of a sheep, and the judgment of the ancient Egyptian sages has nothing to do with it.
The Armenian linguist Erzenkatsi believed that the ancient language was Hebrew, like the language of the Bible. But another Armenian linguist Tatevatsi believed that the most ancient language was Armenian. Of course, such judgments have no scientific value.
During the Renaissance, the idea that language emerged as a result of a contract between people began to dominate. But in order to reach an agreement, it was necessary to already know some language. But where does the ethnic group itself get its language? The problem of the origin of language splits into two problems:
1) What are the conditions and prerequisites for the emergence of language in general, what is the mechanism for the appearance of the first words?
2) What is the history of the emergence of specific languages?
It cannot be said that these questions have been resolved in science. For now, we can talk about fragmented provisions that seek solutions to these problems.
First of all, it became clear to researchers that a physiological transformation of former Neanderthals into modern Cro-Magnons (human Homo Sapiens) was necessary. According to the theory of Charles Darwin, it is known that people arose from primates, which the scientist himself called Pithecanthropus. From Pithecanthropus arose two branches of living highly developed creatures: on the one hand, monkeys, and on the other, primitive people, or Neanderthals.
Neanderthals appeared about a million years ago in northeast Africa. These were tall creatures, covered with hair and walking upright. Their speech apparatus was not developed, but they used burial and food preparation rituals. According to the domestic paleontologist I. Efremov (a famous science fiction writer), the ancient ancestors were exposed to radiation, as a result of which they lost their tails and fur, the gestation period was shortened, and premature births occurred (female monkeys carry their babies for 11 months, and human babies are born born in 9 months). Human babies are born physiologically premature, and the possibility of social influence on them from their parents arises. This is how people of the modern type Homo Sapiens, or Cro-Magnons, appeared (as they were named after the village of Cro-Magnon in southern France, where human skulls were discovered in a cave). This happened approximately 400-200 thousand years ago. Under the influence of upright walking and the use of tools, the larynx of a humanoid creature changed, and speech organs emerged.
The labor theory of the emergence of humanity, which L.G. worked on. Morgan, F. Engels, is now considered the most authoritative theory of the formation of modern man. As for the theory of the appearance of the first sounds of human speech, there are a number of hypotheses that claim only a partial explanation. Among them is the theory of onomatopoeia. Without a doubt, some words can be explained by onomatopoeia, but this can hardly explain the appearance of language in general. The differences between modern languages can hardly be explained by the properties of onomatopoeia.
Another hypothesis is the theory of involuntary labor, or motor cries. Probably, some individual linguistic facts can be explained by this theory. For example, if we ask a person who does not know Chinese which of the two Chinese words Chung or Ching means heavy and which means light, we may get the answer: “Chung is heavy, and Ching is light.” In fact, when bending over under the weight of a load, it is easier for a person to pronounce the low sound u, and when lifting a light body upward, it is easier to pronounce the high sound i. But this theory can hardly explain the diversity of languages.
Linguistic science has achieved great success in solving the question of how language families, and from them, individual languages, were formed. According to the Russian linguist E.D. Polivanov, the emergence of languages was the result of two parallel processes - divergence, or separation, and convergence, or unification.
As mentioned above (see Genealogical classification of languages), the proto-human language first appeared - the Nostratic language, which split into two zones of languages - Western Nostratic and Eastern Nostratic. From the Western Nostratic languages families such as Khoisan, Niger-Congo, Nilo-Saharan, Afroasiatic, Caucasian and Indo-European gradually emerged.
From the East Nostratic language zone such language families emerged as: Australian, Austronesian, Austroasiatic, Dravidian, Yao-Miaosian, Sino-Tibetan, Altai, Paleo-Asian and Amerindian families. The beginning of the division (divergence) of the human proto-language began approximately 50-40 thousand years ago. The prerequisite for the process of convergence, or unification, is the physiology itself, or the genetic nature of man. If marriages take place within a related tribe, then that tribe dies out. To maintain human production, multi-ethnic marriages are necessary. Only as a result of such convergence can ethnic language families and languages emerge.
In the history of mankind, convergence has been carried out both voluntarily and by force. The picture of convergence is more complex than the picture of divergence, so we can point to individual fragments of this process and only in the most general terms.
Science and mythology tell us that approximately 10-12 thousand years ago a great catastrophe occurred on the territory of our land, as a result of which two continents, on which different groups of people lived, perished. The first continent is Atlantis, which sank to the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean (the terms “Atlantis” and “Atlantic Ocean” come from the name of the Central American tribe - the Aztlans). The inhabitants of Atlantis, dark in hair and eye color, settled throughout the modern Mediterranean, forming the Mediterranean culture. Since the land was covered with water for a long time, the Mediterranean people moved along the hills in the direction of the Southern Urals.
In the north, in the area of what is now Scandinavia and the Arctic Ocean, the continent of Hyperborea, whose inhabitants were mostly fair-haired and blue-eyed, went under water. They moved along the Ural ridge to the Southern Urals, where approximately 7-5 thousand years BC the two races united (in the area of the ancient city of Arkaim). The genetic mixing of the two races gave rise to the Indo-European ethnic family, which then moved into the Altai region and Central Asia to the foothills of the Tien Shan and Pamirs.
According to some researchers, the Turkic group of languages originated from a mixture of Indo-Europeans and Mongols (L.N. Gumilev’s hypothesis). The Romance group of languages was the result of a mixture of Latins and Celts. The English ethnic group arose as a result of a mixture of Caucasian, Latin, Celtic and Germanic ethnic groups. The Greek ethnos arose as a result of the mixing of Slavs and Illyrians (hypothesis of L.N. Gumilyov). The Russian ethnic group arose as a result of the primary mixing of two Slavic branches - northern and southern, as well as Iranian, Finno-Ugric and Baltic ethnic groups. Languages were mixed in a similar way.
The mixing of languages contributed to the establishment of their specific typology, as well as the stages of their development. In the history of the development of languages, some trends appear that are common to all languages, and trends that are characteristic of specific languages. Some moments of development for some languages are only stages of their history, while other languages use them as typological features. Thus, the history and typology of languages intersect.
The different levels of language generally develop independently, but at the same time there is also interaction between these levels.
Let's look at some of the main trends in the development of languages.
The development of phonetic (pronunciation) properties of languages, according to I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay, began with the pronunciation of posterior resonator sounds (laryngeal). The next stage was the formation of labial sounds, since the posterior lingual sounds and their innervations are interconnected. At the third stage, the development of mid-band sounds (front-lingual and mid-lingual) occurred. The first sounds were neither consonants nor vowels. In linguistics, such sounds are called sonants. We can conditionally designate laryngeal back-lingual sonants with the transcription sign h, labial sonants with w, front-lingual sonants with e, and middle-lingual sonants with j. At the same time, the culminating or central parts of the syllables became vowels, and the marginal or peripheral parts became consonants. Thus, the labial sonant split into the vowel U and the consonant V; the front-lingual sonant E split into the vowel E and the consonant S; middle-lingual J split into the consonant J and the vowel I; the guttural sonant h split into a vowel a and a consonant h.
In the most ancient development of languages, pitch played an important role in the pronunciation of vowels (which still occupies a leading position in the Chinese and Vietnamese languages). Later, longitude began to dominate, which was noticeably manifested in such languages as ancient Greek, Latin and modern Czech. In most modern languages, the dominant role in the pronunciation of vowels is played by the strength of sound; it is on this basis that stressed (strong) and unstressed (weak) vowels are distinguished. In ancient times, and in many languages in the modern era, stressed and unstressed vowels were not qualitatively different from each other. In the modern era, they begin to differ qualitatively, sometimes quite strongly. This process has gone quite far in the Russian language. Currently, the English language is also subject to it. The stress in most languages in ancient times was single. It is also unary in a number of modern languages (French, Polish and Turkic). Most languages of the world currently have different accents.
The formation of the phonological system proceeded from the processes of incipient alternation to the processes of positional changes, and from them to the processes of non-positional (morphological) changes. In some languages (for example, in Russian), positional changes are still leading. But in many languages of the Indo-European system, morphological alternations now play a leading role in the differentiation of grammatical forms (in English, German, French).
Stop consonants arose later than fricatives, initially at the end of syllables, and also between vowels in the middle of polysyllabic words. In ancient times, in many languages, and in Chinese, Japanese and Korean even now, sounds were not differentiated R And l.
The next stage was the distinction between noisy and sonorant consonants.
As is known, modern sonorant consonants do not differ in deafness and voicedness, but noisy consonants differ. But in the Korean language, voiced and voiceless consonants are still not differentiated. Articulatory, this is due to the fact that when pronouncing noisy voiceless consonants, the velum palatine completely covers the nasal cavity. When pronouncing voiced noisy consonants, the nasal cavity should be slightly open. In languages where nasal vowels still exist (French, Polish), when pronouncing nasal vowels the entrance to the nasal cavity is open, when pronouncing non-nasal vowels the entrance to the nasal cavity is closed. In those languages where there is no differentiation into nasal and non-nasal, the entrance to the nasal cavity is slightly open when pronouncing nasal vowels. In Proto-Slavic languages, unlike modern Russian, nasal vowels existed.
Such a property as the differentiation of soft and hard consonants was one of the last to appear. However, it appears differently in different languages. For example, in most Indo-European and Turkic languages there is “semi-softness”, or softening due to the articulation of palatalization (bringing together the middle part of the tongue and the hard palate). But to a strong degree, differentiation by hardness and softness is carried out in the modern Russian language. Soft consonants in modern Russian differ from hard ones by the forward movement of active organs, their strong tension, a larger area of closure or convergence, as well as a sharper opening.
In many European languages, the articulation patterns of adjacent consonants and vowels are relatively independent of each other. However, there are languages in which this dependence is clearly manifested. For example, in the Turkic languages there is a process of verbal synharmonism, when in some cases hard consonants and non-palatalized vowels are pronounced in a word, and in other cases softened consonants and palatalized vowels are combined (palatal synharmonism). In some Turkic languages, labial synharmonism also occurs (Turkish, Kyrgyz languages, partially Kazakh).
In modern Russian, syllabic synharmonism is clearly manifested: hard consonants are followed by non-front vowels, and soft consonants are followed by front vowels. In the Proto-Slavic language, there probably existed verbal synharmonism (as evidenced by the “third palatalization”, when consonants changed under the influence of previous vowels); one can think that the transition from verbal synharmonism to syllabic, and from syllabic to the absence of synharmonism is a natural historical phenomenon, but at present, the absence of synharmonism in European languages, the presence of syllabic synharmonism in the Russian language, and the presence of verbal synharmonism in Turkic languages have become a typological feature of these languages. To a certain extent, we can say that the difference in the pronunciation of stressed and unstressed vowels in the Russian language is its typological feature, and the absence of such a difference in other languages is their typological feature. But it is already noticeable that in modern English there is also a rather sharp difference in the pronunciation of stressed and unstressed vowels.
The older the language, the fewer non-positional alternations of sounds it contains. In most modern languages, non-positional alternations occupy a large place and serve to differentiate grammatical forms.
Based on the nature of pronunciation, two typological features of languages can be distinguished:
– in some languages, narrow (implasive) pronunciation of vowels dominates, mainly in the region of the middle rise (English, Turkic languages);
– in other languages, a wide pronunciation of vowels dominates, covering the range from the highest to the lowest rise (Russian, Romance languages).
Apparently, the Old Russian language was more implastic (closed) than the modern Russian language, so that for the Russian language implasivity and explosiveness serve not only as a typological, but also as a historical category. One might think that the development from implasivity to explosiveness, from progressive (from more posterior to more anterior pronunciation) to regressive (from more anterior to more posterior pronunciation) articulation serves as a basic historical trend for many languages.
The grammatical structure of different languages also changed. It is noticeable that in ancient times many languages had more morphological forms than in modern times, case systems and the number of grammatical forms of the verb sharply decreased, and the use of short forms of adjectives sharply decreased. In the English language, aspectual forms of the verb and cases of nouns have disappeared, the number of types of declensions and types of conjugations in the Russian language has decreased, but aspectual pairs have been preserved. In general, analytical forms of expressing grammatical relations began to play an increasingly important role. For example, in English, word order has come to occupy the same place as in Chinese. The role of prepositions (for example, in Russian) and postpositions (for example, in English) has increased.
In all languages, the number of ergative constructions (constructions without a subject) has decreased and sometimes completely disappeared. In ancient times, the number of so-called paratactic constructions predominated in all languages. Outwardly, paratactic constructions resemble complex sentences, but in reality, parataxis meant the indistinction between composition and subordination; this phenomenon corresponded to the absence of causal relationships in human consciousness. Therefore, in the era of the dominance of parataxis, the creation of sciences, both fundamental and applied, was impossible. And only from about the 14th-15th centuries did the presence of hypotactic constructions appear in the syntactic structure. Outwardly, they resemble complex sentences, but in reality they indicate the differentiation of composition and subordination. This linguistic phenomenon was accompanied by the emergence of causal relationships in consciousness and perspective in painting and the perception of space.
In semasiology, according to some researchers (V.V. Kolesov), the presence of metonymy and heteronymy dominated. And only during the transition from the ancient language to the middle and new state did the dominance of synonymy, antonymy and polysemy intensify, and stylistic differentiation of linguistic means arose. In ancient times, of all the phenomena of polysemy, metonymy was mainly used; later the use of synecdoche expanded. With the development of stylistic forms of speech and fiction, metaphor began to play an increasingly important role. Under the strong influence of the French language, which Russian nobles were fond of in the 18th and 19th centuries, functional transfer began to occupy a worthy place in the Russian language. With the name A.S. Pushkin is associated with the emergence of such an extraordinary linguistic phenomenon in Russian literature as the principle of proportionality and conformity, according to which the same image was described from two sides by different means - from the outside (from the point of view of physical appearance) and from the inside (from the point of view of spiritual content) .
Parts of speech- these are the most general classes of words, their lexico-grammatical categories, which differ from each other in grammatical meaning, morphological features (inventory of word forms and paradigms, features of word formation) and syntactic functions. Parts of speech, covering the entire vocabulary of a language, do not equally apply all their features to all words, and these features are different from the point of view of identifying the essential properties of a part of speech and establishing its distinctive features. Parts of speech are divided into two main classes - nominative words and service words. Significant words can be members of a sentence (including one single member of a sentence) and denote separate concepts; function words are not separate members of a sentence and denote concepts that are meanings
significant words, forming analytical forms, phrases and sentences. Consequently, the difference between significant and function words is functional-grammatical
matic: they differ in purpose, type of meaning and word-formation properties.
The main parts of speech are nouns and verbs. They are necessary components of a sentence; they form two main categories of vocabulary and have their own word-formative
means and word-formation models, morphological features.
Names designate objects and their permanent characteristics. Therefore, names are divided into nouns and adjectives; nouns mean
objectivity and appear in the sentence in the position of subject and object; therefore, nouns can change according to cases, forming case forms and prepositional cases
combinations (or case and postpositional combinations). Adjectives denote characteristics of objectivity, act as determiners of a noun in phrases and sentences, and have special affixes of word formation and degrees of comparison. In some languages, adjectives agree with the noun by taking on its categories, as in
Russian language; in other languages they adjoin the defined noun without accepting its categories, as, for example, in Turkic languages. Numerals form a special, lexically closed group, standing out in some languages as a separate part of speech.
Verbs denote actions and states; they are divided into conjugated verbs and
unconjugated verb forms. The verbs themselves denote an action that changes over time and appear in the sentence in the position of the predicate; therefore, verbs can change according to tenses and persons, forming personal and temporal forms of the verb - simple and compound.
Verbs have word-formation models that specify the action as active and passive (state), perfect and imperfect; verbs in a number of languages have voice forms,
aspect and type. Among the non-conjugated forms of the verb, first of all, it is necessary to name participles, combining the properties of a verb and an adjective, as well as infinitives, gerunds
d e p r i c a t i o n . All of them form hybrid lexical-grammatical groups of words, which in individual languages are distinguished as special parts of speech. The system of verbal forms in a number of languages includes impersonal verbs, impersonal predicative words (such as Russians sorry, shame etc.), verboids like jumping gallop and so on.
Parts of speech of different languages. The third principle of the theory of parts of speech is historical and typological. It consists in recognizing that universal and constant is the fact of the very presence
parts of speech. As for the composition of parts of speech and their features, they are historically mobile and different not only in languages of different types, but also in related languages, including
closely related. The basic parts of speech such as nouns and verbs also differ across languages. For example, there is a noun in the Russian and Tatar languages. The common property of this part of speech is that nouns have the meaning of objectivity, special
word formation suffixes change according to numbers and cases. However, both the composition of suffixes and the formation of number and case forms show noticeable differences. So, in Russian there are 6
There are also 6 cases in Tatar, but different: main (nominative), possessive (genitive), directive, accusative, initial, local-temporal. Russian noun has a gender,
it is not in the Tatar language; but in the Tatar language nouns have a possessive category, for example: at- horse, atym- my horse. The uniqueness of parts of speech in different languages does not deny their universality; this uniqueness requires only that when
in the description of each part of speech of a particular language, not only its typological and universal properties were taken into account, but also the specific originality and individuality characteristic of
of this language. The general properties of individual languages manifest themselves in a very unique and even opposite way: in the Russian language a complex system of case forms is preserved, in English -
tense forms of the verb.
9. Syntax as the study of coherent speech. The problem of defining a proposal. Main features of the proposal .
Syntax- a section of linguistics that studies the construction of coherent speech and includes two main parts: the doctrine of phrases and the doctrine of sentences.
It is the basic communicative unit of language and speech. The sentence as a model belongs to language, its implementation belongs to speech. The offer is the same
time is the most complex unit in which words, word forms and phrases function. In other words, the sentence is their minimal context, although it itself has its own structure.
Double appeal sentences - to language, its system and norm, and on the other hand - to speech, context and situation - makes it a fundamentally two-aspect unit.
Therefore, the proposal is considered from these two points of view
Constructive and communal, and the term itself becomes ambiguous.
Predicativity as a semantic-syntactic and communicative property of a sentence has, in turn, two sides - formal-logical and modal-semantic. Sometimes these two properties are considered as two aspects of a sentence, calling the first property predicativity, and the second - modality. Semantically, predicativity is manifested in the presence of a relationship between a sentence model and a form of thought such as a judgment (proposition). As a judgment, it has two main components - the subject and the predicate (or
a attribute), and the sentence has two main members of the sentence - the subject and the predicate: The man is walking; The man is kind. Both the semantic structure of the sentence and
especially its formal structure may differ from the structure of the judgment, correlating with it indirectly, inappropriately and redundantly. Verbalization of the subject-predicate form cape"
generates two-part sentences of the nominative structure. However, the semantic structure of the sentence and its logical characteristics are not identical in this case. Yes, in sentences The man is walking; House is built.
10. The concept of a phrase. The problem of the nature of the phrase .
A phrase as a syntactic unit is a syntactic form endowed with a specific syntactic meaning. A word combination is a typical combination of word forms, characteristic of a particular language. The phrase is part of the sentence, but it exists before the sentence, representing the building material for the sentence and the basis for creating a compound name. Therefore, phrases must be distinguished from combinations of words and from constituent members of a sentence. For example, iron door, wooden house, sand mound- different combinations of words, but one type - an attributive substantive phrase, built on the syntactic connection of agreement. These combinations of words and this type of phrase can be used to form a name (cf. Railway) and construction of sentences, cf.: Iron door- not a wooden house, does not burn; Iron - door, wooden-house.
A phrase is not: grammatical basis, homogeneous members of a sentence, auxiliary part of speech + noun, phraseological unit.
The main types of syntactic connections of the subordinating type are agreement, control, and adjunction.
11. Formal and actual division of the sentence .
ACTUAL MEMBERSHIP sentences is the semantic underlining of one of the components of the sentence and the establishment between parts of new subject-predicate
relationships. The selected part of the sentence is called the mode of utterance, the rest is the topic of the utterance." The means of actual division are word order,
syntagmatic division (according to L.V. Shcherba) and setting phrasal stress. Yes, a proposal I'll go home now through intonational-semantic division can be turned into four phrases that have the same positional model of the sentence, the same lexical content, but different actual (semantic) division. All types and types of sentences that contain more than one word are subject to actual division. How
the more words there are in a sentence (simple and complex), the more complex its syntactic structure, the greater the possibilities for its various actualization, the more complex the rules for the actual division of a sentence.
Formal division decomposes the composition of a sentence into its grammatical elements; The main elements of the formal division of a sentence are the grammatical subject and the grammatical predicate.
II. Classification of languages
1. Typological linguistics. The concept of linguistic universals. Typological (morphological) classification of languages.
The typological classification of languages arose later than attempts at genealogical classification and was based on different premises. The question of the “type of language” first arose among the romantics. Romanticism was the ideological direction that, at the turn of the 18th and 19th centuries. was supposed to formulate the ideological achievements of bourgeois nations; For the romantics, the main issue was the definition of national identity. It was the romantics who first raised the question of the “type of language.” Their idea was this: the “spirit of the people” can manifest itself in myths, in art, in literature and in language. Hence the natural conclusion is that through language one can know the “spirit of the people.” Based on a comparison of languages made by W. Jonze, Friedrich Schlegel compared Sanskrit with Greek, Latin, as well as the Turkic languages and came to the conclusion: 1) that all languages can be divided into two types: inflectional and affixing, 2) that any language is born and remains in the same type and 3) that inflectional languages are characterized by “richness, strength and durability”, and affixative ones “from the very beginning lack living development”, they are characterized by “poverty, scarcity and artificiality”. F. Schlegel divided languages into inflectional and affixing based on the presence or absence of root changes. He wrote: “In the Indian or Greek languages, every root is what its name says, and is like a living sprout; due to the fact that the concepts of relationships are expressed through internal change, a free field for development is given... However, everything that has come in this way from a simple root retains the imprint of kinship, is mutually connected and is therefore preserved. Hence, on the one hand, the wealth, and on the other, the strength and durability of these languages.” In typological research, it is necessary to distinguish between two tasks: 1) the creation of a general typology of the languages of the world, united in certain groups, for which one descriptive method is not enough, but it is necessary to use a comparative-historical one, but not at the previous level of neogrammatical science, but enriched with structural methods understanding and description of linguistic facts and patterns, so that it is possible for each group of related languages to build its typological model (model of Turkic languages, model of Semitic languages, model of Slavic languages, etc.), sweeping away everything purely individual, rare, irregular and describing the type language as a whole, as a structure according to strictly selected parameters of different tiers, and 2) a typological description of individual languages with the inclusion of their individual characteristics, the distinction between regular and irregular phenomena, which, of course, must also be structural. This is necessary for two-way (binary) comparison of languages, for example, for the applied purposes of translation of any type, including machine translation, and, first of all, for the development of teaching methods for a particular non-native language, and therefore such an individual typological description for each compared pair languages should be different.
The modern doctrine of parts of speech has been formed over a long time and has traditions. The roots of the doctrine of parts of speech go back to antiquity. In the 4th century. BC. Aristotle, highlighting “parts of verbal presentation,” names on equal terms the actual categories of words: name, verb, member, conjunction (or connective), and individual sounds, syllable and case. Ancient Indian grammarians (5th century BC) identified four classes of words in relation to Sanskrit: name, verb, prefix-preposition, conjunctions and particles. Scientists of the Alexandrian school Aristarchus of Samothrace (II century BC) and his student Dionysius of Thracia first identified for the ancient Greek language eight parts of speech: name, verb, participle, member, pronoun, preposition, adverb and conjunction. The Romans borrowed the system of parts of speech from the Greeks, replacing the member (article) with an interjection. The first Slavic grammatical work was the treatise “On the Osmich Parts of the Word,” compiled in Serbia in the 14th century. and common in lists in Rus'. There are already terms here: name, participle, preposition, conjunction, adverb. In the grammar of Meletiy Smotritsky (“Grammars of the Slavic correct syntagma”, 1619), new names appeared: pronoun, interjection, gerund (the grammar described the facts of the Church Slavonic language).
The beginning of the Russian grammatical tradition proper was laid by the work of M.V. Lomonosov “Russian Grammar” (1755). M.V. Lomonosov identified eight parts of speech: Name(actual name, adjective and numeral), pronoun, verb, participle, adverb, pretext, union And interjection. In 1831, in “Russian Grammar” by A.Kh. Vostokov, adjectives were identified as an independent part of speech. In 1842, G.P. Pavsky, in his work “Philological Observations on the Composition of the Russian Language,” substantiated the grammatical independence of numerals. A great contribution to the study of parts of speech was made by F.F. Fortunatov, A.A. Shakhmatov, A.M. Peshkovsky, F.I. Buslaev, L.V. Shcherba, V.V. Vinogradov and other scientists. L.V. Shcherba deserves great credit for clarifying the composition of parts of speech and developing principles for their classification (article “On Parts of Speech,” 1928). When characterizing parts of speech, the scientist takes into account both lexical meanings and grammatical properties of words. Based on a set of lexical and grammatical indicators, he proposed to distinguish into a special part of speech state category words (us it's time, on the street Cold and etc. - words that name the state of man or nature).
An extremely important role in the formation of modern ideas about parts of speech and the definition of their boundaries was played by the fundamental research of V.V. Vinogradov, in particular his classic work “The Russian Language. Grammatical doctrine of the word" (1947). V.V. Vinogradov proceeds from the idea that parts of speech are lexico-grammatical categories of words that have a certain set of features: lexical meaning, formal grammatical (morphological) features and syntactic functions. None of these principles can be ignored when highlighting one or another part of speech. Proposing a multi-stage classification of word categories for the Russian language, the scientist classified not all words as parts of speech, but only those that are members of a sentence. Along with the system of parts of speech, V.V. Vinogradov identified a system of particles of speech (particles, connective particles, prepositions and conjunctions) and forming special structural-semantic categories of words - modal words and interjections.
I – Parts of speech:
· Names: noun, adjective, numeral
· Vestiges of pronouns
II – Particles of speech: connective particles, prepositions, conjunctions
III – Modal words
IV - Interjections
In the book “Russian language. The grammatical doctrine of the word" V.V. Vinogradov describes in detail each of the parts of speech with its inherent forms and categories. V.V. Vinogradov’s classification and his doctrine of parts of speech form the basis of modern ideas about parts of speech.
Nevertheless, the question of parts of speech, their number, volume, and principles of isolation remains controversial in domestic linguistics and has not yet received a final solution. Thus, in the Academic Grammar Project of 1966 “Experience of descriptive grammar of the modern Russian literary language”, in accordance with the leading grammatical principle, 14 parts of speech are distinguished:
1) noun,
2) adjective (adjectives also include ordinal numbers, pronouns inflected like adjectives, superlative forms of adjectives),
3) pronouns (personal only),
4) numerals (quantitative only),
5) comparative (comparative degree of adjectives and adverbs),
6) verb,
7) participle,
8) participle,
9) adverb,
11) particles,
12) pretext,
13) modal words,
14) interjections.
There are no condition category words in this classification.
The academic “Russian Grammar” (1980) offers a different system, including 10 parts of speech:
Interjections constitute a special group of words: they do not name anything and serve to express an emotional attitude and subjective assessments.
Further in “Russian Grammar” (1980) significant words are divided into 1) truly significant (words non-indicative) And pronominal (words index fingers) and 2) on countless And counting . Demonstrative (pronoun) words include words that do not name an object or attribute, but only point to it ( I you he; that, such, some; there, there; as much as). Counting words include words that name the number of objects (numerals), a feature in place in a counting series (ordinal adjectives), quantitative characteristics (adverbs), for example: five, two, six, three, two. There are no verbs among the demonstrative or counting words.
Among the significant parts of speech are basic parts of speech (noun, adjective, verb, adverb; they have the whole complex of features that characterize a part of speech as a special grammatical class of words) and non-core parts of speech (pronoun-noun and numeral; these are closed, non-replenishing classes of words).
Problems concerning the essence of parts of speech and the principles of their isolation in various languages of the world are among the most controversial problems of general linguistics, and contradictions in scientific grammars are reflected in school textbooks of the Russian language.