Parts of speech and their history. Parts of speech in different languages
The modern doctrine of parts of speech has been formed for a long time and has traditions. The doctrine of parts of speech has its roots in antiquity. In the IV century. BC. Aristotle, highlighting the "parts of verbal presentation", on an equal footing names the actual categories of words: name, verb, member, union (or bundle), and individual sounds, syllable and case. Ancient Indian grammarians (5th century BC) distinguished four classes of words in relation to Sanskrit: name, verb, prefix-preposition, conjunctions and particles. The scientists of the Alexandrian school, Aristarchus of Samothrace (II century BC) and his student Dionysius of Thracia, for the first time singled out 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 Ost Parts of the Word", compiled in Serbia in the 14th century. and common in the lists in Russia. There are already terms here: name, participle, preposition, conjunction, adverb. In the grammar of Meletiy Smotrytsky (“Grammar of the Slavonic Correct Syntagma”, 1619), new names appeared: pronoun, interjection, participle (the facts of the Church Slavonic language were described in the grammar).
The beginning of the proper Russian grammatical tradition 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 the "Russian Grammar" by A.Kh. Vostokov, adjectives were singled out 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. F.F. Fortunatov, A.A. Shakhmatov, A.M. Peshkovsky, F.I. Buslaev, L.V. Shcherba, V.V. Vinogradov and other scientists made a great contribution to the doctrine of parts of speech. L.V. Shcherba is credited with clarifying the composition of parts of speech and developing the principles of their classification (the 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 combination of lexical and grammatical indicators, he proposed to single out into a special part of speech state category words (US it's time, on the street cold and etc. - words naming the state of man or nature).
An exceptionally important role in the formation of modern ideas about the parts of speech, the definition of their boundaries was played by the fundamental research of V.V. Vinogradov, in particular his classic work “Russian language. Grammatical doctrine of the word "(1947). VV Vinogradov proceeds from the idea that parts of speech are lexical and 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 a particular part of speech. Offering a multi-stage classification of categories of words for the Russian language, the scientist attributed to the parts of speech not all words, but only those that are members of the sentence. Along with the system of parts of speech, V.V. Vinogradov singled out a system of speech particles (particles, linking particles, prepositions and conjunctions) and modal words and interjections that form special structural and semantic categories of words.
I - Parts of speech:
Names: noun, adjective, numeral
Remnants of pronouns
II - Particles of speech: particle-bundles, prepositions, conjunctions
III - Modal words
IV - Interjections
In the book "Russian language. The grammatical doctrine of the word ”VV Vinogradov describes in detail each of the parts of speech with its inherent forms and categories. The classification of V.V. Vinogradov, his doctrine of the parts of speech are the basis of modern ideas about the parts of speech.
Nevertheless, the question of parts of speech, their number, volume, principles of separation remains debatable in Russian linguistics and has not yet received a final decision. Thus, in the Project of Academic Grammar of 1966 “The 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 that change according to the pattern of adjectives, superlative forms of adjectives),
3) pronouns (only personal),
4) numerals (only quantitative),
5) comparative (comparative degree of adjectives and adverbs),
6) verb,
7) communion,
8) gerund,
9) adverb,
11) particles,
12) preposition,
13) modal words,
14) interjections.
In this classification, there are no words for the category of state.
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 the "Russian Grammar" (1980), significant words are divided into 1) actually significant (words non-indicative) And pronominal (words index) and 2) on uncountable And counting . Demonstrative (pronominal) words include words that do not name an object or feature, 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 sign by place in a counted series (ordinal adjectives), quantitative characteristics (adverbs), for example: five, two, six, three, together. There are no verbs among demonstratives or counting words.
Among the significant parts of speech stand out main parts of speech (noun, adjective, verb, adverb; they have the whole complex of features that characterize the part of speech as a special grammatical class of words) and minor 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 allocation in various languages of the world are one of the most debatable problems of general linguistics, and contradictions in scientific grammars are reflected in school textbooks of the Russian language.
Among the many statements about the origin of the language, two main groups can be distinguished: 1) biological theories, 2) social theories.
Biological theories explain the origin of language by the evolution of the human body - the sense organs, the speech apparatus and the brain. Within the framework of these theories, the emergence of language is considered as the result of a long development of nature. The one-time (divine) origin of language is rejected in them. Among biological theories, two are best known - onomatopoeia and interjection.
Social theories of the origin of language explain its appearance by social needs that arose in labor and as a result of the development of human consciousness. Social theories include the theory of the social contract, the working theory, the Marxist doctrine of the appearance of language in humans.
Onomatopoeic theory. The onomatopoeic theory explains the origin of language by the evolution of hearing organs that perceive the cries of animals (especially domestic ones). Language arose, according to this theory, as an imitation of animals (neighing of horses, bleating of sheep) or as an expression of an impression about a named object. Leibniz, for example, explaining the origin of words, believed that in Latin honey is called the word met, because it pleasantly caresses the ear, German words leben (live) and lieben (love) indicate softness, a Lauf (run), Lowe (lion) - for speed. Humboldt was a supporter of this theory.
The onomatopoeic theory is based on two assumptions: 1) the first words were onomatopoeia, 2) in the word, the sound is symbolic, the meaning reflects the nature of things.
Indeed, in languages there are onomatopoeic words and prohibitions on words as a result of the identification of the sound of a word and its meaning. However, there are still few onomatopoeic words in the language and, most importantly, they are different in different languages, and in primitive languages there are no more of them than in developed languages. This can only be explained if we recognize that onomatopoeic words are the result of the development of language.
Onomatopoeic words have sounds and forms that already exist in the language. That's why a duck screams for a Russian quack-quack (quacks), for an Englishman kwak-kwak (quack), for French can-can (sapsaper), but for the Dane pan- pan (rapper). The call words with which a person refers to a domestic animal, such as a pig, duck, goose, are also different.
(A digression on phonosemantic research.)
Interjection theory. Interjection (or reflex) theory explains the origin of language by the experiences that a person experiences. The first words, according to this theory, are involuntary cries, interjections, reflexes. They emotionally expressed pain or joy, fear or hunger. In the course of further development, cries acquired a symbolic meaning, obligatory for all members of this community. Supporters of the reflex theory were Shteital (1823-1899), Darwin, Potebnya.
If in the onomatopoeic theory the external world (sounds of animals) was the impetus, then the interjection theory considered the inner world of a living being, his emotions, as a stimulus for the appearance of words. Common to both theories is the recognition, along with the sound language, of the presence of a sign language that expressed more rational concepts.
Onomatopoeic and interjection theories put the study of the origin of the mechanism of speaking at the forefront, mainly in psychophysiological terms. Ignoring the social factor in these theories led to a skeptical attitude towards them: the onomatopoeic theory was jokingly called the “wow-wow theory”, and the interjection - “tfu-tfu theory”. Indeed, in these theories the biological side of the issue is exaggerated, the origin of language is considered exclusively in terms of the origin of speech. It does not take into account with due attention the fact that man and human society are emerging, essentially different from the animal and its herd.
The theory of the social contract. Already Diodorus Siculus wrote: “Initially, people lived, they say, an unsettled and animal-like life, wandered out to pastures and ate tasty grass and tree fruits. When the animals attacked, need taught them to help each other, and, gathering together out of fear, they gradually began to recognize each other. Their voice was still meaningless and inarticulate, but gradually they moved on to articulate words and, having established symbols for each thing with each other, created an explanation for everything that they themselves understood.
This passage outlines the theory of the social contract: language is seen as a conscious invention and creation of people. In the XVIII century. it was supported by J. du Bellay and E.B. de Condillac, ASmit and J-J. Rousseau. Rousseau's theory of the social contract is connected with the division of human life into two periods - natural and civilized.
In the first period, man was a part of nature and language came from feelings, passions (passion). “The language of the first people,” Rousseau wrote, “was not the language of geometers, as is usually thought, but the language of poets,” since “passions caused the first sounds of the voice.” Sounds originally served as symbols of objects that act on hearing; objects perceived by sight were depicted by gestures. However, this was inconvenient, and they began to be replaced by sentence sounds; an increase in the number of sounds produced led to the improvement of the organs of speech. The "first languages" were rich in synonyms necessary to express the "wealth of the soul" of natural man. With the advent of property and the state, a social arrangement arose, rational behavior of people, words began to be used in a more general sense. The language changed from rich and emotional to "dry, rational and methodical". The historical development of the language is seen as a fall, a regression.
There is no doubt that the awareness of language was gradual, but the idea that the mind controlled people who consciously invented language is hardly reliable. “A person,” wrote V. G. Belinsky, “owned the word before he knew that he owns the word; in the same way, a child speaks grammatically correctly, even without knowing grammar.
Working theory. In the late 70s of the last century, the German philosopher L. Noiret put forward a working theory of the origin of the language, or the theory of labor cries. This theory was supported by K. Bucher. L. Noiret rightly emphasized that “thinking and action were originally inseparable”, since before people learned how to make tools, they tried the action of various natural objects on different objects for a long time.
When working together, cries and exclamations facilitate and organize labor activity. When the women are spinning and the soldiers are marching, they "love to accompany their work with more or less rhythmic exclamations." These cries, at first involuntary, gradually turned into symbols of labor processes. The original language was a set of verbal roots.
The theory of labor cries, in fact, turns out to be a variant of the interjection theory. The labor action is considered as parallel to the sound language - cries, and the language may not accompany the labor action. With this approach, work, music and poetry are recognized as equivalent.
G.V. Plekhanov, considering the book of K. Bucher "Work and Rhythm", criticizes such dualism, considering the thesis "opinions rule the world" to be wrong, since "the human mind could not be the demiurge of history, because he himself is its product." "The main cause of the socio-historical process is the development of the productive forces." Language acts as a condition and tool, cause and effect of society. Naturally, a person does not arise immediately, but through a long evolution of nature, as Charles Darwin showed. There was a time when tools played the same insignificant role in the life of humanoid ancestors as a branch plays in the life of an elephant. However, as soon as a person becomes social, the development of the relations that have arisen "is carried out according to its own internal laws, the action of which accelerates or slows down the development of productive forces, which determines the historical movement of mankind."
Marxist view of the origin of language.
Both biological (natural-historical) and social (socio-historical) prerequisites played a role in the origin of the language.
Among the first, we must include the separation of the functions of the fore and hind limbs of our ancestors, highly developed apes, the freeing of the hand for labor and the associated assimilation of a straight gait; Biological factors include the high development of the brain in our ancestors, and the use by them of a certain “set” of inarticulate sound signals that served as the physiological basis for the sound speech of people.
About a million years ago, at the end of the Tertiary period of the Cenozoic (new) era, in certain places on the Earth, highly developed monkeys lived in herds, scientifically called Australopithecus (or close to them). These monkeys, as can be seen from their fossils, moved on the ground (instead of climbing trees), and their forelimbs served to grasp various objects. They had a shortened jaw, indicating an increase in the ability to form sounds, a large brain, which speaks of the complexity of its activities, and other signs that allow scientists to consider Australopithecus as a higher animal, standing on the verge of becoming a man.
In Australopithecus, we can only assume the beginnings of such hand movements, which subsequently lead to labor operations. Australopithecus did not make tools, but used finished objects as tools for his work. But be that as it may, the great process of freeing the hand for labor actions began.
By the beginning of the Quaternary period of the Cenozoic era, scientists attribute the existence of ape people (Pithecanthropus, Sinanthropus and the like). The study of their fossil remains suggests that they knew how to make tools and learned to walk straight (the latest archaeological data obtained during excavations in Africa allow us to hypothesize about an even earlier than indicated here, the formation of ape people and their still primitive language ).
Somewhat later than Pithecanthropus and Sinanthropus lived Neanderthals, the predecessors of modern humans. Pithecanthropes, Sinanthropes, Neanderthals are primitive people who lived in herds, who knew how to make primitive tools (from stone, bone and wood) and began to realize the world around them, and therefore those sound signals that they gradually improved, having received them from their own. ancestors. These sound signals were not yet words in our understanding, they have not yet received either strict articulation or sufficient understanding. But nevertheless, gradually and painfully for a long time, the thought began to break away from the concrete perception of the object and connect with the sound signal, began to rely on it, and thereby gained the opportunity to generalize many objects that were homogeneous in some way. At the same time, awareness of the goals and possible results of the use of sound signals also matured; in a word, in the process of life, in connection with the complicated labor influence of man on the world of animals and plants surrounding him, two powerful forces of the human collective were formed - language and thought.
At the end of the Stone Age (Neolithic), Cro-Magnons lived, people of the modern type ( Homo sapiens – Homo sapiens), distant from us by a short (on the scale of geological time) period - about 40 - 50 thousand years. The study of their fossil remains speaks volumes. These people were members of the primitive communal system with complex labor, social and family relations. They had a well-developed brain, articulate speech, conceptual, abstract thinking.
Thus, hundreds of thousands of years passed before human speech signals developed from the rudimentary inarticulate sounds of our ancestors.
The emergence of language required the influence of two major natural-historical (biological) factors.
The first biological factor - the release of the forelimbs of the monkey for work and the straightening of the gait - was necessary in the development of the language, because without it the transition to labor was impossible, which began with the manufacture of tools for influencing nature.
Pointing out that, under the influence of the way of life, the monkeys began to wean themselves from the help of their hands when walking and began to learn more and more straight gait, Engels says: “This was done a decisive step for the transition from ape to man."
The second biological factor in the development of language is the presence of sound signals in monkeys - the ancestors of people. The study of modern highly developed monkeys showed that they use certain "sets" (reaching two or more dozens) of undifferentiated sounds, which they use as involuntary signals of their emotional states. About the feelings of joy, hunger, enmity, attraction, pain, fear, pleasure and others, the monkey signals a more or less stable definite sound or their inarticulate fusion. Moreover, as a rule, these sounds are used when the monkey is with other monkeys. It has been established that, along with the sounds of the monkey, they also use pointing signals, gestures, involuntarily conveying their internal states with them.
It is natural to assume that our distant ancestors, similar to Australopithecus, more developed than modern anthropoid apes, had a larger supply of sound signals and used them more “meaningfully”.
These sound signals of the ancestors were used by the emerging people for the gradual "organization" of their language. Sound signals were gradually comprehended and turned into the first units of communication of members of the human team, that is, into elements of speech. There was no other "building material" from which the first words-utterances could be "made" at the disposal of our ancestors.
Seeing the unusually large role of the release of the hand and the sound signals of monkeys in the emergence of language, Marxists argue that the decisive role in this belongs to labor and the collective, society. According to Engels, “the development of labor necessarily contributed to a closer unity of the members of society, since thanks to it, cases of mutual support, joint activity became more frequent, and the consciousness of the benefits of this joint activity for each individual member became clearer. In short, emerging people came to the fact that they had the need to say something each other. Need created its own organ: the undeveloped larynx of the monkey was slowly but steadily transformed by modulation for more and more developed modulation, and the organs of the mouth gradually learned to pronounce one articulate sound after another.
By themselves, the biological prerequisites of human speech could not create it, because in addition to them, a powerful impetus was needed that could bring it to life, and this impetus turned out to be labor and the need for communication that it constantly gives rise to. But labor from its very inception to the present day is labor in a team, in society and for society. It requires the coordination of the work efforts of many people, it requires the organization and distribution of their duties, that is, it requires, above all, the exchange of thoughts, communication through language. Making fire, hunting an elephant, fishing in antiquity, or the production of synthetic fibers and electronic devices in our time, equally need to coordinate and organize the labor efforts of many members of the team.
However, it is not necessary to imagine the matter in such a way that some periods of time lay between the emergence of labor, language and thinking. Labor, language and thought were formed simultaneously, in unity and interaction with each other, in unity and interaction they are still developing. The leading force of this trinity was and remains labor. The development of labor tools, the enrichment of labor skills, the expansion of the sphere of application of human labor efforts - all this made human thought work more intensively, improved human consciousness. But the intensification of the activity of thought, the improvement of consciousness led the language forward, enriched and refined the system of its meanings, and also influenced the totality of its formal elements.
The development and improvement of thought and speech had an inverse effect on labor, made it more efficient and accurate, led to the creation of new tools, the discovery of new materials, and a change in the sphere of application of labor efforts. But the development of labor again influenced thought and speech. Thus, for tens and hundreds of thousands of years, the mutually stimulating influence on each other of labor, thought and language has been carried out. Such is the picture of the emergence of language, accepted by Marxist science (F. Engels's work "The Role of Labor in the Process of the Transformation of Monkeys into Humans" played a major role in substantiating Marxist views on the emergence of language).
(Digression on the question: Can modern apes turn into humans? Laws of the pack theory.)
Part of speech- these are the most common classes of words, their lexical and grammatical categories, which differ from each other in grammatical meaning, morphological features (inventory of word forms and paradigms, word formation features) and syntactic functions. Parts of speech, covering the entire vocabulary of the language, do not equally distribute all their features to all words - and these features are different in terms of identifying the essential properties of the part of speech and establishing its distinctive features. Parts of speech are divided into two main classes - nominative words and auxiliary 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 the sentence and denote concepts that are meanings
significant words, forming analytical forms, phrases and sentences. Therefore, the difference between significant and functional words of functional grammar
matic: they differ in purpose, type of meaning and derivational properties.
The main parts of speech are both men and verbs. They are necessary components of a proposal; they form two main categories of vocabulary, have their own word-formation
means and word-formation models, morphological features.
Imena denote objects and their constant features. Therefore, names are divided into nouns and adjectives; nouns denote
objectivity and act in the sentence in the position of the subject and object; therefore, nouns can change in cases, forming case forms and prepositional cases
combinations (or case and postpositional combinations). Adjectives denote signs of objectivity, act as determinants of a noun in a phrase and sentence, have special affixes of word formation and degrees of comparison. In some languages, adjectives agree with a noun by taking its categories, as in
Russian language; in other languages they adjoin the noun being defined, without accepting its categories, as, for example, in the Turkic languages. A special, lexically closed group is formed by numerals, standing out in some languages as a separate part of speech.
Verbs denote actions and states; they are divided into conjugated verbs and
non-conjugated verb forms. Actually verbs denote an action that changes in time, and appear in the sentence in the position of the predicate; therefore, verbs can change in tenses and persons, forming personal and temporary forms of the verb - simple and compound.
Verbs have word-building 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 the adverb and h and with t and I, combining the properties of the verb and the adjective, as well as n n and n and t and s, gerund and and and
d e p r and p a s t i n. All of them form hybrid lexico-grammatical groups of words, which in some languages are distinguished into special parts of speech. The system of verb forms in a number of languages includes impersonal verbs, impersonal predicative words (such as Russians sorry, ashamed etc.), in e r b o i d s of the type jumping gallop etc.
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 the fact of the very existence of
parts of speech. As for the composition of parts of speech, their features, they are historically mobile and different not only in languages of different types, but also in related languages, including
closely related. Different in languages are such basic parts of speech as the name and g l a g o l. For example, there is a noun in Russian and Tatar languages. A common property of this part of speech is that nouns have the meaning of objectivity, special
word-formation suffixes change in numbers and cases. However, both the composition of suffixes and the formation of number and case forms reveal noticeable differences. So, in Russian there are 6
cases, in Tatar there are also 6, but others: main (nominative), possessive (genitive), directional, accusative, initial, local-temporal. Russian noun has a gender,
it does not exist in the Tatar language; But in the Tatar language, nouns have a possessive category, for example: at- horse, atym- my horse. The peculiarity of parts of speech in different languages does not negate their universality; this uniqueness requires only that
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
given language. The general properties of individual languages manifest themselves in a very peculiar and even opposite way: in Russian, a complex system of case forms is preserved, in English -
tense forms of the verb.
9. Syntax as the doctrine of coherent speech. The problem of defining a sentence. The main features of the offer .
Syntax- a branch of linguistics that studies the construction of coherent speech and includes two main parts: the doctrine of the phrase and the doctrine of the sentence.
It is the basic communicative unit of language and speech. The sentence as a model belongs to language, its realization belongs to speech. The offer is at 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 has its own structure.
Double conversion sentences - to the 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 communicative, and the term itself becomes ambiguous.
Predicativity as a semantic-syntactic and communicative property of a sentence, in turn, has two sides - formal-logical and modal-semantic. Sometimes these two properties are considered as two aspects of the sentence, calling the first property predicativity, and the second modality. Semantically, predicativity is manifested in the presence of a correlation between the sentence model and such a form of thought as judgment (proposition). How does a judgment have two main components - a subject and a predicate (or
attribute), so the sentence has two main members of the sentence - subject to 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, non-usefully and redundantly. Verbalization of the subject-predicate form of the "mys"
generates two-component sentences of the nominative system. However, the semantic structure of the sentence and its logical characteristics are not identical in this case either. Yes, in the proposals 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 certain 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 also 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 compound members of a sentence. For example, iron door, wooden house, sand embankment- 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 proposals, cf .: Iron door- not a wooden house, does not burn; Iron - door, wooden-House.
The phrase is not: grammatical basis, homogeneous members of the sentence, official part of speech + noun, phraseological unit.
The main types of syntactic links of the subordinating type are agreement, control, adjoining.
11. Formal and actual division of the sentence .
A ctual mem berage sentences is the semantic underlining of one of the components of the sentence and the establishment of new subject-predicate between the parts
relations. The highlighted part of the sentence is called the rheme of the statement, the rest is the theme of the statement. "The means of actual articulation are word order,
syntagmatic articulation (according to L. V. Shcherba) and the setting of phrasal stress. Yes, proposal Now I'm going home by means of intonation-semantic articulation, it can be turned into four phrases having the same positional model of the sentence, the same lexical content, but different actual (semantic) articulation. All types and types of sentences, which contain more than one word, are subject to actual division. How
there are more words in a sentence (simple and complex), the more complex its syntactic structure, the more opportunities for its various actualization, the more complex the rules for the actual division of the sentence.
Formal division decomposes the composition of the sentence into its grammatical elements; the main elements of the formal articulation of a sentence are the grammatical subject and the grammatical predicate.
II. Language classification
1. Typological linguistics. The concept of language universals. Typological (morphological) classification of languages.
The typological classification of languages arose later than attempts at genealogical classification and proceeded from other premises. The question of the "type of language" arose for the first time among the Romantics. Romanticism was the ideological trend that at the turn of the 18th and 19th centuries. had to formulate the ideological achievements of the 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 thought was this: "the spirit of the people" can manifest itself in myths, in art, in literature and in language. Hence the natural conclusion that through the language you can know the "spirit of the people." Based on the comparison of languages made by W. Jonze, Friedrich Schlegel compared Sanskrit with Greek, Latin, and 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", while affixing languages "lack living development from the very beginning", they are characterized by "poverty, scarcity and artificiality". The division of languages into inflectional and affixing F. Schlegel did, based on the presence or absence of a change in the root. He wrote: “In the Indian or Greek languages, each root is what its name says, and is like a living sprout; by virtue of the fact that the concepts of relations are expressed by means of an inner change, a free field is given for development.... All that has been thus obtained from a simple root retains the impress of kinship, is mutually connected, and therefore is preserved. Hence, on the one hand, wealth, and on the other hand, the strength and durability of these languages. In a typological study, two tasks must be distinguished: 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 also necessary to use a comparative historical one, but not at the previous level of neogrammar science, but enriched with structural methods understanding and description of linguistic facts and patterns, so that for each group of related languages it would be possible to build its typological model (the model of the Turkic languages, the model of the Semitic languages, the model of the Slavic languages, etc.), rejecting 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, including their individual features, distinguishing between regular and irregular phenomena, which, of course, must also be structural. This is necessary for a two-way (binary) comparison of languages, for example, for applied translation purposes of any type, including machine translation, and, first of all, for developing a methodology for teaching a particular non-native language, in connection with which such an individual typological description for each matched pair languages should be different.
The distribution of words by parts of speech in each language is subject to its own semantic, grammatical and syntactic patterns. As a result, in the structure of one or another part of speech, as well as in their very set, the originality of languages \u200b\u200bis manifested. In Russian, for example, among the significant parts of speech, a noun, adjective, verb, adverb, pronoun, numeral are distinguished, in Chinese - a name, a predicative (i.e. a verb and
Adjective) and adverb, in a number of languages of North America and Africa, adverbs and adjectives are combined within one part of speech, etc.
Differences can also be traced in the set of grammatical categories of common parts of speech. So, if we turn to a noun, then in Bulgarian, for example, a noun has a category of definiteness / indefiniteness, which nouns in Russian do not have, at the same time there is no category of case; in English, Armenian, Georgian, Korean, Uzbek, Tajik, Bengali languages, the noun, having the general meaning of objectivity, does not have the category of gender; in the Scandinavian languages, nouns have only two genders - common and neuter; in the Finno-Ugric languages, a noun has a category of possessiveness, which expresses belonging to someone or possessing something (for which special suffixes are used that are included in the stem of the word before the case ending), as well as a branched system of case forms (in Hungarian, for example, there are twenty of them), in addition, the noun here can change in degrees, despite the fact that the category of gender is absent; a similar situation is observed in some Turkic languages (for example, in Bashkir): a noun, denoting an object, is devoid of the category of gender, but has the category of possessiveness; nouns in the Yenisei and Dravidian languages also have the category of possessiveness, etc.
The originality can also be traced in the organization of such a part of speech as a verb: in Bulgarian, for example, the verb has a more developed system of tense forms than in Russian, this especially applies to the past and future tense (cf., for example, such forms of the past tense as aorist "past perfect", imperfect "past indefinite", pluperfect "past preliminary" or future: "future preliminary", "future in the past", etc.). The situation is even more complicated in English, where twenty-six tense forms of the English verb are presented, which can convey the relation of the action indicated by the verb, not only to the moment of speech, but also distinguish between the certainty / indefiniteness of the action, completeness / incompleteness, duration / instantaneousness, etc. .; in the Turkic languages, the verb, in addition to the active and passive voice, known in all Slavic languages, also has a return-
nym, mutual, coercive pledges, each of which (except for the real one) has its own formative affixes; in addition, in addition to the indicative and imperative moods, in the Turkic verb, the desirable and the conditional are distinguished, having their own formal expression; in the Abkhaz-Adyghe languages, the verb has such rare morphological categories as the category of union (which expresses the idea of performing an action with someone), compulsion (causative), version (transmitting the relation of the action to its subject or indirect object); in the Lezgi language, the verb has the category of tense and mood, but does not change for persons and numbers.
Thus, the morphological system of any language, along with universal elements, has its own, which form its originality and individuality.
SENTENCE AND TERM
A sentence is one of the main grammatical categories of syntax. As a communicative-predicative unit, it is opposed to the word and phrase in form, meaning and functions. In the theory of linguistics, there is no single definition of a sentence (about a thousand different definitions are known in science), which indicates that a sentence (like a word) belongs to the most complex linguistic concepts that can be characterized from different points of view. A sentence (in the broadest sense of the word) is the smallest communicative unit of language and speech. The sentence belongs to the language as a grammatically organized model of connecting words (or a word), as a structural type, and speech - as a speech formation, a statement that has semantic and intonational completeness. Being a unit of communication, a sentence is a unit of formation and expression of thought, which manifests the unity of language and thinking.
The study of the nature of the sentence, its form, meanings and functions has a long tradition and is characterized by different approaches. Only in Russian linguistics can we distinguish several
directions:
1) logical. Representatives of this trend (FI. Buslaev, N.I. Grech) defined the sentence as a “judgment”, expressed in words, since logical categories are reproduced in it.
Riya and relationships. However, the sentence, although correlative with the logical judgment, is in general not identical to it, since not every sentence expresses a judgment (cf., for example, interrogative or incentive sentences that do not express judgments, although they are built according to a certain structural model);
2) psychological. Supporters of this trend (A.A. Po-
you, D.N. Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky) considered the proposal
as a "psychological judgment". The psychological basis
clause is the combination of two representations in a special act
thinking called psychological communication. Existence
the presence of a verb in
personal form. On a logical and psychological basis, he built a theory
proposals and acad. A.A. Shakhmatov, who claimed that he
nie is a unit of speech perceived by the speaker and the listener
as a grammatical whole that serves for verbal expression
unity of thinking;
3) formal-grammatical. Representatives of this
board (the founder of which was F.F. Fortunatov)
in their definition of the proposal, they proceeded from the formal
signs: intonation, the presence of certain types of forms
presenting and predicate, etc. Based on the theory of formal classes,
F.F. Fortunatov defined a sentence as "a type of phrase
niya", which includes the grammatical subject and gram
tic predicate. However, the formal features of the proposal
even in the same language can be different (depending on the function
rational and meaningful side of the sentence), and therefore
this criterion is not universal for a general definition
suggestions;
4) structural-semantic. The founder of this
board, which received the greatest recognition in the domestic
linguistics, was acad. V.V. Vinogradov. Developing your teacher's ideas
calf acad. A.A. Shakhmatova, he defined the sentence as a gram
a holistic unit which is formalized according to the laws of a given language
speech, which is the main means of formation, expression
zheniya and messages of thought. The distinguishing features of this
units are predicative (by which we mean
relation of the content of the sentence to reality)
and intonation of the message.
In modern syntactic science, the tendency to distinguish between a sentence as a unit of language and as
units of speech. A sentence as a language unit is a structural type or model (for example, subject + predicate + object or predicate + circumstance, etc.). A sentence as a unit of speech is a statement, i.e. this is the lexical content of this structural model. As a unit of language, a sentence is reproducible (as any structural model is reproducible), as a unit of speech, it cannot be reproduced in the same form to express a new meaning, i.e. a statement is one of the speech variants of a sentence, its realization, since in speech the sentence functions in the form of a statement. And this is one of the features of the sentence, which distinguishes it from the "subordinate" language units.
As a unit of speech, a sentence has a communicative function, and in this sense, a sentence can be defined as the smallest communicative unit of a language. It is a unit of communication and is used as a means of communication between people. As a communicative unit, the sentence has a special intonation, the so-called intonation of the message, which is, as it were, an external manifestation of the communicativeness of the sentence.
The grammatical nature of the sentence is realized in the syntactic categories of modality and predicativity. Modality allows you to convey the attitude of the speaker to what is being expressed, his assessment of what is being reported in terms of correlation with objective reality: is it real or unreal, possible or impossible, necessary or probable, desirable or undesirable, etc. Modality is expressed by grammatical and lexical means: mood forms, modal words, particles, and intonation.
The category of predicativity allows the speaker to express with the help of linguistic means the relation of the content of the statement to reality. Such linguistic means are the grammatical category of time (actions, phenomena, states named in the sentence proceed in time, i.e. correspond to the speaker with the moment of speech), the category of person (the action is correlated with the subject or object of the action, i.e. with one of three persons), the category of modality.
Communicativity, predicativity and modality distinguish a sentence from a lower-level unit - phrases.
A phrase is a syntactic construction formed by combining two or more significant words based on
Subordinating grammatical connection (agreement, control, adjacency). Between the phrase and the sentence there are deep internal differences associated with their formal organization, with the nature of their grammatical meanings and syntactic functions. The phrase is a means of nomination, in contrast to the sentence - a means of communication. It denotes an object, phenomenon, process, quality, called the core word and specified, concretized by the dependent component (cf. blue sea, love spring, very far away). The grammatical meaning of a phrase is created by the relationship that arises between significant words that are connected on the basis of one or another type of subordinate connection (agreement, control and adjacency). The phrase is devoid of the main features of the sentence - communicativeness, modality, predicativity, it does not have, respectively, neither the category of time, nor the category of the person, nor the intonation of the message, therefore, phrases are only the building material of the sentence.
In the structure of the phrase, the main and dependent word are distinguished. The main word is a word that, with its internal properties, determines the connection and outlines the scheme for constructing a phrase (for example, the verb to read in Russian requires the accusative case without a preposition: newspaper, book, letter). A dependent word is a word (or word form) that implements this relationship. Depending on the part-speech attribution of the main word, phrases can be verbal (cf. dig with a shovel) named (cf. polka dot dress) adverbial (cf. very fast).
The main and dependent word in the phrase are interconnected by a subordinate relationship. In Russian and in many other languages, the following types of syntactic connection of words in a phrase are distinguished: agreement, control, and adjunction.
Agreement is a kind of subordination in which the dependent word is likened to the main one in their common grammatical forms (gender, number, case), cf. new dress: dependent word new is likened to the main, repeating the same grammatical forms in which the main appears, i.e. singular, genitive, neuter. Agreement is widely represented in languages with a developed system of inflections for expressing attributive relations.
Management is a kind of subordinating relationship in which the main word requires the use of the dependent in a definite
n th case with or without a preposition, cf. proud of father main word be proud to realize its meaning requires the use of a dependent word in TV. n. without preposition. In Indo-European languages, the main word (most often a verb) governs a prepositional or non-prepositional word form of a name (noun or pronoun) in a certain oblique case.
Adjacency is a kind of subordinating connection in which the dependent word, having no forms of inflection, adjoins the main one (the dependence of the adjoining word is expressed not by the variability of its form, but only by location and grammatical function), cf. go down. Adjacency is especially typical for languages of the analytical type (in particular, Turkic, English, Vietnamese, etc.).
In some languages, there are other types of syntactic connection of words within a phrase, for example, in Iranian and Turkic languages, such a type of attributive constructions as izafet is distinguished: the definition here is after the word being defined and is expressed either by an enclitic attached to the word being defined (as, for example, in Iranian languages), or a noun (as in Turkic languages), cf.: in Tajik whale"book" + link indicator And(which goes back to the pronoun which) + adjective hub"good" - whale-i hub"good book". In agglutinative languages, there is also such a type of syntactic connection within the phrase as incorporation: the components are combined into a single whole without any formal indicators, cf.: in the Chukchi language, attributive relations in the phrase "fat deer" are conveyed by incorporation ata- kaa(where kaa"deer", ata"bold") into the skeleton of a sentence word (since the sentence is built as a compound word): you-nmy-rkyn literally: "I kill do", i.e. you-ata-kaa-nmy-rkyn"I kill fat deer."
A special kind of connection exists between the subject and the predicate. This combination is not a phrase in the terminological meaning of the word, which implies the presence of a main and dependent component. Between these members of the sentence there are predicative relations that arise only in the sentence. Unlike other phrases, this combination contains a message (affirmation or negation) and has a semantic completeness, therefore it is not a phrase, but only a combination of words interconnected by a special type of syntactic connection by coordination (i.e. adaptation of forms to each other) ,
Built on the principle of equality. There are, however, other points of view according to which the connection between the subject and the predicate is considered as subordinating, while some scientists believe that the main (independent) word in this connection is the subject (F.F. Fortunatov, A.A. Shakhmatov, A.M. Peshkovsky) , since in many languages the predicate is consistent with the subject, thereby demonstrating its dependence on it; while others consider the predicate to be the dominant member (L. Tenier, A.A. Kholodovich), since it is it that “sets” the structural scheme of the sentence.
It is not a phrase (in the terminological sense) and a group of homogeneous members interconnected by a coordinating link (pen and notebook, blue and green): in this type of connection there is no “grammatical dominance” of one word over another, both words are equal, which is expressed in the fact that none of the members of this combination can be considered as a word denoting a sign of the other, and therefore it does not allow a grammatical question to be to another member of the combination, i.e. both members of the combination retain formal independence from each other.
In modern linguistics, there is another point of view (which goes back to F.F. Fortunatov, A.A. Shakhmatov, A.M. Peshkovsky, M.N. Peterson, etc.), according to which a phrase is defined as any combination of two or more significant words, characterized by the presence between them of a formally expressed semantic connection, i.e. The most important thing for a phrase in this approach is its grammatical organization, formalization. However, in this case, the problem arises of delimiting a phrase from a phraseological unit, a complex or compound word, as well as a sentence that can be considered as a complexly organized phrase.
Coordinating and subordinating communication are known in many languages of the world, although in some languages these two types of syntactic communication are not clearly differentiated. Even in the Russian language, where this connection is pronounced, there are cases of the absence of a sharp boundary between composition and subordination, especially in complex sentences, as a result of which, along with compound and complex sentences, there are sentences that combine the features of both, cf. , for example, complex sentences with comparative conjunctions if ... then, then how, in the meantime gak etc.
The theory of phrases is being developed mainly in Russian linguistics (see the works of V.V. Vinogradov and his followers H.N. Prokopovich, N.Yu. Shvedova and others). In foreign linguistics, the concept of a phrase is not widely used, it most often corresponds to the terms syntagma and phrase.
SENTENCE AS THE BASIC COMMUNICATION AND STRUCTURAL SYNTAX UNIT OF THE LANGUAGE
The central grammatical unit of syntax is a simple sentence as an elementary unit used to convey relatively complete information, as well as to build a complex sentence or any extended text. A simple sentence has its own grammatical features: being formed according to a certain grammatical pattern, it has the meaning of predicativity, has a semantic structure, formal characteristics, a communicative attitude and intonation. At the same time, recent studies of syntaxists have shown that this syntactic unit is closely related to the word: almost all grammatical patterns of a sentence are subject to lexical restrictions, which is especially pronounced in the languages of the so-called ergative (< др.греч. Ergates"doer") of the system (most Caucasian, Basque, many Australian and Chukchi languages), the syntax of which is characterized by a special design of predicative constructions, which depends on the class of the verb (in particular, its semantics, as well as transitivity / intransitivity).
Depending on the communication goals messages simple sentences are divided into several communicative types - narrative, interrogative and incentive, each of which has a more fractional gradation. The presence of a special emotional coloring of sentences allows you to highlight exclamatory sentences.
According to the nature of the relation to reality expressed in the sentence, all simple sentences are divided into affirmative (in which the content of the sentence is affirmed as real) and negative (in which the content of the sentence is affirmed as unreal).
By the presence / absence in a simple sentence of secondary members, it can be common and non-common.
Each simple sentence has its own structural scheme, i.e. an elementary sample (model) on which it is built. In the languages of the world, there are differences in the structural schemes of a simple sentence: and-e languages, for example, are mainly characteristic. two-component structure diagrams consisting of a predicate (i.e. a verb in a personal form or a form of another word in the same function) and a subject (i.e. the nominative form of a name or infinitive), although there are also one-component structure diagrams containing only one from the main members. Differences are also observed in the order of these terms: for example, in Russian, Hebrew, Latin, Greek it is free, but there are languages (cf. Germanic and Romance) where it is fixed: in English, for example, the subject comes first, on the second - the predicate, on the third - the addition, on the fourth - the circumstance. In languages where declension is poorly developed, fixed word order is the main way to determine the function of a name in a sentence (cf. French. Le lion a tue le chasseur"the lion killed the hunter", but if you rearrange the words le lion"lion" and to the chasseur"hunter", then the meaning of the sentence will change to "the hunter killed the lion"). The same situation is observed in the Turkic, Korean, Papuan languages, where there is a “subject - object - predicate” scheme, and in some Altaic and Indo-Aryan languages, secondary members always precede the main ones, while the predicate is at the end of the sentence.
Depending on the structural-semantic scheme of a simple sentence, the presence of one or two organizing centers in it, in all i-th languages, two-component structural schemes and one-component or two-part and one-part sentences are distinguished (the latter have their own gradation depending on the part-of-speech belonging of the main member of the sentence, cf. . verbal and substantive sentences), which are divided into several types (cf. in Russian, definitely personal, indefinitely personal, generalized personal, impersonal, infinitive, nominative). In most languages of the world, a verb is present in the structural scheme of the sentence, but there are languages (for example, Semitic) in which verbless predication is widely represented, i.e. they are characterized by sentences of the nominative type.
Depending on the implementation of the structural-semantic model of a simple sentence, the presence / absence of structurally necessary members in it, simple sentences are divided into complete (having all structurally necessary members) and incomplete (with missing structurally necessary members, the existence of which is indicated by the context).
One of the main features of a sentence is predication, so the number of predicative centers of a sentence turns out to be a determining factor for dividing sentences by complexity, because in speech, simple sentences are organized into complex ones. A complex sentence is a combination, according to certain grammatical rules, of two or more simple sentences based on one or another type of grammatical connection. The connection of parts of a complex sentence is carried out with the help of intonation, conjunctions (coordinating and subordinating), allied words, a special ratio of verb forms, often with the support of the lexical composition of the parts of a complex sentence (i.e. one of the sentences contains words that need to be distributed to others offer). Parts of a complex sentence, being sentences in form, do not have an independent communicative meaning and intonation completeness. Being a grammatical analogue of a simple sentence, in isolated use they are not able to convey the general meaning of a complex sentence. Therefore, the parts of a complex sentence form one single whole. This structural and semantic integrity of a complex sentence distinguishes it from a series of simple independent sentences.
Depending on what means of communication are used when combining two or more simple sentences as part of a complex one, there are allied (where the main means of communication are unions, allied words and intonation) and non-union sentences (where such a means of communication is primarily intonation). According to the nature of unions and the formal dependence / independence of parts of a complex sentence, as well as the degree of closeness of their structural and semantic connection, all union sentences are divided into compound (with formally independent parts connected by coordinating unions) and compound (with formally dependent and closely related components - the main and subordinate parts, connected by subordinating conjunctions and allied words). Further gradation of complex allied proposals is determined by the nature
a formal expression of the semantic-syntactic connection of the parts of a complex sentence (cf. within the framework of compound sentences such typologically universal types of compositional relations as connective, adversative and divisive, or within the framework of complex subordinates - definitive, explanatory, temporal, causal, investigative, etc.).
A complex sentence, just like a simple one, has its own structural scheme of construction, and if in some languages this scheme is not rigid, allowing the placement of a subordinate clause in any position, as well as the rearrangement of the main and subordinate clauses (as, for example, in Russian), then in in other languages, it is rather rigid, predetermining the strict order of its parts (as, for example, in Semitic languages, where the main clause always comes before the subordinate clause, or in Cushitic, where, on the contrary, the subordinate clause precedes the main one). There are, however, languages (for example, Turkic, Dravidian), whose syntax is characterized by the absence of subordinate clauses, and various subordinating relations are transmitted using participle and adverbial constructions or infinitive constructions; A similar situation is observed in the Abkhaz-Adyghe languages, where adverbial infinitive forms of the verb act as subordinate clauses.
Each sentence has not only a formal division, but also a semantic one, since the communicative load of a sentence between its members can be distributed in different ways. The actual division of the sentence is connected with the distribution of this functional load, i.e. the semantic division of the sentence into the original part of the message - the topic (or given) and into what is asserted about it - the rheme (or new). The very word "actual" indicates that this articulation takes place only at the moment of communication, in actual speech. Moreover, in speech, any member of the sentence, depending on the situation or context, can act as a theme or rheme (cf. Flowers(topic) on the window(rhema) when answering a question: "Where are the Gretas?" or On the window(topic) warmed up(rhema) when answering a question "What's on the window?"). The main means of actual division of a sentence in oral speech is word order (the topic is usually placed at the beginning of the phrase, and the rheme at the end), intonation (it rises on the topic, decreases on the rheme) and pause. The components of the actual articulation can thus be recognized by their position in the phrase. When this order is changed, the phrasal
stress: it falls in an enhanced form on the rheme (cf. Petya Ivanov(topic) did not like to study(rheme) and Didn't like to study(rheme) Petya Ivanov(topic), i.e. the same sentence in terms of lexical composition, grammatical meaning and syntactic structure can receive different actual articulation in speech. The exception is some one-part sentences that are not amenable to actual division (cf. Late fall). Word order, however, is not only an indicator of the actual articulation, but also itself to a certain extent depends on it (if, for example, the topic is a circumstance, then the predicate precedes the subject, cf. Through the wavy mists(topic) the moon is breaking through(rheme).
PARTS OF SPEECH AND SENTENCE MEMBERS
The members of a sentence are the structural and semantic components of a sentence (word forms or phrases), which differ in their function and are distinguished by a whole range of formal and semantic features (the function of creating a predicative center of a sentence, the nature of formal connections and syntactic relations, the way of linguistic expression, etc.) . Each sentence consists of sentence members structuring it, which are interconnected by certain grammatical and logical relationships. The theory of sentence members arose in the process of studying a simple sentence, dividing it into functional elements. The term "members of a sentence" itself appeared due to the fact that it was found that the language did not have a one-to-one correspondence between the grammatical classes of words and their role (functions performed by them) in the sentence.
Attempts to build a classification of sentence members in accordance with parts of speech go back to the ancient grammatical tradition, when it was noticed that there is some correspondence between parts of speech and sentence members: each part of speech in its primary function acts as a specific member of the sentence, and, conversely, each the member of the sentence has its own characteristic way of part-of-speech expression. In Russian linguistics, this approach to the study of sentence members was implemented in the works of A.A. Potebni, D.N. Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky, A.M. Peshkovsky (compare the terms “agreeable adjective” proposed by A.M. Peshkovsky instead of a definition or
"controlled noun" instead of object, "adjoining adverb" instead of adverb). In modern linguistics, there was also an opinion that parts of speech are morphologized members of a sentence (see, for example, the works of Academician I.I. Meshchaninov). The system of sentence members for a long time underlay the characteristics of the types of subordinate clauses in the composition of a complex sentence (cf. subject clause, additional clause, adverbial clause, and still remaining attributive clause).
In syntactic science, it is customary to distinguish between the main members of a sentence (subject and predicate) and secondary ones (definition, object, circumstance), the role and function of which in constructing a sentence and reflecting elements of reality in it is different. The main members of the proposal are the center of the structure of the proposal, its core, since it is they who organize the minimum basis of the proposal. They determine the formally grammatical organization of the sentence, express its grammatical meanings (modality, tense, person), perform a logical function. The secondary members of the sentence are the distributors of the rest of its members (main and secondary) or the entire sentence as a whole, when the needs of communication make it necessary to clarify, concretize, “deploy” the components of the sentence, therefore their function in the sentence is semantic. At the same time, the secondary members of the sentence can be informatively more significant than the main ones (cf. The water is coming or be a thunderstorm).
The members of the sentence are distinguished, as a rule, according to two main criteria - logical (or semantic) and formal (or grammatical), although other features are also taken into account, for example, the communicative function of the sentence, which makes it possible to determine the theme and rheme of the message in it.
Subject (tracing paper lat. subjectum"subject") is the main member of the sentence, indicating the "logical subject" (in the traditional concept) or, more broadly, the object to which the predicate refers. The position of the subject in i-th languages is usually occupied by a noun in im.p., however, any substantiated form can be used in this position, and in Russian even a non-substantiated form (cf. smoke- harmful), phraseologism and even a whole sentence (cf. "Proletarians of all countries, unite!" - the main slogan of the communists). Some linguists do not rule out
the possibility of expressing the subject in other case forms, for example, in negation, cf. There was no church in the village.
The predicate is the main member of the sentence, indicating the action, state, property or quality in their relation to the subject or, more broadly, to the object expressed by the subject, i.e. the predicate expresses the predicative feature of the subject. Formally, the predicate depends on the subject (the forms of dependence are different in languages), but it is the predicate, which conveys modality and tense, that forms the predicative center of the sentence. The position of the predicate is usually occupied by the verb (however, the name can also be used in this position, as well as various circumstantial turns).
The subject and the predicate are interconnected by predicative relations, it is they that create the predicative minimum of the sentence. In the communicative aspect, the subject in most cases acts as a grammaticalized theme, and the predicate as a grammaticalized rheme.
The secondary members of the sentence include the definition, addition and circumstance, which differ in the nature of the syntactic connection and the functions they perform in the sentence.
A definition is a minor member of a sentence that extends and explains any member of a sentence with an objective meaning and denotes a sign, quality or property of an object. It is associated with the name being defined (or any other substantiated part of speech) by an attributive connection according to the method of agreement (cf. green lamp) less often - according to the method of management (cf. man with a gun or contiguity (cf. loose shirt). The morphologized form of the definition is the adjective. A definition expressed by a noun and explaining the noun is called an application. Unlike the “classical” definition, which is characterized by a subordinating connection, the application has a special kind of connection with the word being defined, built on the principle of “mutual agreement” (cf. young warrior).
An addition is a minor member of a sentence that extends and explains any member of a sentence with the meaning of an action, object or attribute and designates an object in its relation to the action, object or attribute. The main type of syntactic connection is control (cf. read a book, improve productivity, satisfied with success). The morphologized form of the object is a noun in the indirect case. The addition can be direct (expressed in the form of
Thread case without a preposition) and indirect. The direct object, correlating with the subject, is referred by some scholars to the main members of the sentence.
A circumstance is a minor member of a sentence that expands and explains the members of the sentence with the meaning of the action or feature or the sentence as a whole and indicates where, when, under what circumstances the action is performed or indicates the condition, reason, purpose of its implementation, as well as the measure, degree and the way it manifests. The mythologized form of the circumstance is the adverb, the main type of syntactic connection-adjacency (cf. stay up late).
In a sentence, however, the meanings of secondary members can often be combined (for example, adverbial meanings with attributive and additional meanings, or the meanings of an indirect adjective with the meaning of an inconsistent definition, cf. walk, garden in front of the house, house with a mezzanine), which leads to the possibility of a double interpretation of the secondary members of the sentence, the allocation of mixed types.
The syntactic load of parts of speech in the function of members of a sentence is not the same. It is especially high for nouns, which can act as any member of the sentence, and much less for adjectives and verbs (personal forms of the verb, for example, can only act as a predicate).
Some modern syntactic theories of generative grammar exclude the concept of sentence members, replacing it with the concept of a dependency tree, which reflects the system of syntactic subordination implemented in the sentence.
LANGUAGE AS A SYSTEM OF SYSTEMS
The elements of the language do not exist in isolation, but in close connection and opposition to each other, i.e. in system. The interrelation of the elements of the language lies in the fact that the change or loss of one element, as a rule, is reflected in other elements of the language (for example, the fall of the reduced ones in the Old Russian language caused the restructuring of its entire system of consonantism, the formation of the categories of deafness/voicedness and hardness/softness).
Scientists have been aware of the structural complexity of the language system for a long time (W. Humboldt spoke about the systemic nature of the language: “In
In language there is nothing singular, each individual element of it manifests itself only as part of the whole. However, a deep theoretical understanding of the systematic nature of the language appeared later, in the works of the Swiss scientist F. de Saussure. “No one has realized and described the systemic organization of language as clearly as Saus-sur,” wrote E. Benveniste. 1 Language, according to Saussure, is "a system, all parts of which can and should be considered in their synchronic interdependence." 2 Therefore, each element of the language should be studied from the point of view of its role in the language system (cf .: in Russian, which has lost its dual number, the plural began to have a different meaning than in Slovenian, where the category of the dual number is still preserved).
In linguistics, the terms system and structure have long been used as synonyms. However, in the last decade there has been a trend towards their differentiation. The system is understood as an internally organized set of elements that are in relationships and connections with each other (i.e., the following basic concepts are taken into account here: "set", "element" and "function"), and under the structure - the internal organization of these elements, the network their relationship. It is the system that determines the presence and organization of linguistic elements, since each element of the language exists by virtue of its relationship to other elements, i.e. the system is a structure-forming factor, because there is no system without the structural correlation of elements (figuratively speaking, the structure of the language can be likened to the human skeleton, and the system - the totality of its organs). In this sense, it is quite legitimate to talk about the structure of the system. In Russian linguistics, as well as in a number of foreign schools, the distinction between the concepts of the system and structure of a language is often based on the nature of the relations of their elements: the elements of the structure are connected with each other by syntagmatic relations (cf. the word usage accepted in linguistics word structure, sentence structure etc.), and the elements of the system are connected by paradigmatic relations (cf. case system, vowel system etc.).
The idea of a systematic language has been developed in different linguistic schools. The Prague School of Linguistics played an important role in the development of the doctrine of the systemic nature of language, in which the language system is characterized primarily as a functional system, i.e. as a system of means of expression used to
1 Benveniste E. General linguistics. M, 1974, p. 95.
2 Saussure F. Works on linguistics. M., 1977, p. 120.
a specific goal. The Prague School of Linguistics also put forward the thesis of language as a system of systems. This thesis was further interpreted in different ways: according to one point of view, the language system is a system of language levels, each of which is also a system; according to another, the language system is a system of functional styles (sublanguages), each of which is also a system.
A significant contribution to the development of the idea of the systemic nature of the language was also made by Russian linguistics, which developed the doctrine of the units of the language, their systemic connections and functions, the distinction between statics and dynamics in the language, etc.
Modern ideas about the systemic nature of the language are primarily associated with the doctrine of its levels, their units and relationships, because. a language system, like any other, has its own structure, the internal structure of which is determined by a hierarchy of levels. Language levels are subsystems (tiers) of the general language system, each of which has a set of its own units and rules for their functioning. Traditionally, the following main levels of language are distinguished: phonemic, lexical, morphological and syntactic. Some scholars also distinguish morphonological, derivational and phraseological levels. There are, however, other points of view on the system of language levels: according to one of them, the level organization of the language is more complex, it consists of such tiers as hypophonemic, phonemic, morphemic, lexeme, sememe, etc.; according to others, it is simpler, consisting of only three tiers: phonetic, lexico-grammatical and semantic, and when considering the language from the point of view of the "expression plane" and "content plane" - only two tiers: phonological (expression plane) and semantic ( content plan).
Each of the language levels has its own, qualitatively different units that have different purposes, structure, compatibility and place in the language system: in accordance with the law of the structural correlation of language levels, a unit of a higher level is built from units of a lower level (cf. morphemes from phonemes), and a unit the lower level implements its functions in the units of the higher level (cf. morphemes in words).
In most languages of the world, the following language units are distinguished: phoneme, morpheme, word, phrase and sentence. In addition to these basic units, in each of the levels (tiers) a number of units are distinguished, differing in the degree of abstraction, complex
sti, for example, on the phonetic tier - a phonetic syllable, a phonetic word, speech measures, phonetic phrases, etc. The sound units of the language are one-sided, insignificant. These are the shortest language units obtained as a result of linear division of the speech stream. Their function is to form and distinguish the sound shells of bilateral units. All other units of language tiers are two-sided, meaningful: they all have a plane of expression and a plane of content.
In structural linguistics, the classification of language units is based on the divisibility / indivisibility feature, in connection with which the limiting (hereinafter indivisible) units of the language (for example, phoneme, morpheme) and non-limiting (for example, group phonemes, analytical word forms, complex sentences) are distinguished.
Specific representatives of the same language unit are in paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations with each other. Paradigmatic relations are relations in the inventory, they allow you to distinguish one unit of a given type from all others, since the same unit of a language exists in the form of many variants (cf. phoneme / allophone; morpheme / morph / allomorph, etc.). Syntagmatic relations are compatibility-bridge relations that are established between units of the same type in a speech chain (for example, a speech flow from a phonetic point of view consists of phonetic phrases, phonetic phrases - from speech beats, speech beats - from phonetic words, phonetic words - from syllables, syllables - from sounds; the sequence of words in the speech chain illustrates their syntagmatics, and the combination of words into various groups - synonymous, antonymic, lexico-semantic - is an example of paradigmatic relations).
Depending on their purpose, the functions in the language system of a language unit are divided into nominative, communicative and combat functions. The nominative units of the language (word, phrase) serve to designate objects, concepts, ideas. Communicative units of the language (sentence) are used to communicate about something, with the help of these units thoughts, feelings, wills are formed and expressed, people communicate. The structural units of the language (phonemes, morphemes) serve as a means of constructing and designing nominative, and through them, communicative units.
Language units are interconnected by various types of relations, among which paradigmatic,
syntagmatic and hierarchical, and the relations between the units of the same tier of the language and different tiers are fundamentally different from each other. Units belonging to the same tier of the language enter into paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations, for example, phonemes form classes of functionally identical sounds, morphemes - classes of functionally identical morphs, etc., i.e. this is a type of paradigmatic variant-invariant relationship. At the same time, in a linear sequence, phonemes are combined with phonemes, morphemes with morphs. In modern linguistics, syntagmatic relations are often compared with the logical relations of conjunction (relations and ~ and), and paradigmatic - with logical relations of disjunction (relations or~ or). In hierarchical relationships (such as "consists of" or "is included in") there are units of different linguistic levels, cf. phonemes are included in the sound shells of morphemes, morphemes - in a word, a word - in a sentence, and, conversely, sentences consist of words, words - from morphemes, morphemes - from phonemes, etc.
Language levels are not isolated tiers, on the contrary, they are closely interconnected and determine the structure of the language system (cf., for example, the connection of all language levels in such a unit as a word: with its different sides it belongs simultaneously to the phonemic, morphemic, lexical and syntactic levels ). Sometimes units of different levels can coincide in one sound form. A classic example of this point is A.A. Reformed from Latin: two Romans argued over who would say the shortest phrase; one said: "Eo rus" "I'm going to the village", and the other replied: "I" "go". In this Latin i the sentence, word, morpheme and phoneme match, i.e. it includes all levels of the language.
The language system is a constantly evolving system, although its different levels develop at different speeds (the morphological level of the language, for example, is generally more conservative than the lexical one, which quickly responds to changes in society), so the center stands out in the language system (morphology ) and periphery (vocabulary).
The multi-tiered system of the language contributes to the economy of language means when expressing various concepts. Only a few dozen phonemes serve as material for constructing morphemes (roots, affixes); morphemes, combining in different ways with each other, serve as a means for the formation of nominative units of the language,
those. words with all their grammatical forms; words, combined with each other, form different types of sentences, etc. The multi-tiered language system allows the language to be a flexible means of expressing the communicative needs of society.
test questions
1. Basic units of the grammatical structure of the language.
2. How does the grammatical meaning of a word differ from the lexical one?
3. What is a morpheme? What is a null morpheme?
4. Types of meanings of root and affix morphemes.
5. Classification of affixal morphemes.
6. What is a word form? Synthetic and analytical form.
7. What is the difference between word formation and form formation?
8. What ways of word formation exist in the languages of the world?
9. How are grammatical meanings expressed?
10. What is simplification and re-decomposition?
11. What is a sentence as a unit of language and as a unit of speech?
12. What is a phrase?
13. Types of syntactic connection of words in a phrase.
14. What is the actual division of the sentence, theme and rheme?
15. How do parts of speech and members of a sentence relate?
16. What is the system and structure of the language?
1. Questions of the theory of parts of speech. Based on different languages. L, 1968.
2. Golovin B.N. Introduction to linguistics. M, 1983, Ch. 5-10.
3. Zolotova G. A. Communicative Aspects of Russian Singashama, 1982.
4. Kurilovich E. The main structures of the language: phrase and sentence // Essays on linguistics M, 1962.
5. Maslov Yu.S. Introduction to linguistics. M., 1998, Ch. IV.
6. Reformatskiy A.A. Introduction to linguistics. M, 1967, Ch. IV.
7. Reformatskiy A.A. Essays on morphology, phonology, morphonology. M., 1978.
8. Serebrennikov B.A. Parts of speech // Linguistic encyclopedic dictionary. M, 1990.
9. Modern foreign grammatical theories. M., 1985.
10. Solntsev V.M. Language as a system-structural formation. M, 1977.
11. Members of a sentence in languages of various types. L., 1972.
Almost all modern grammatical concepts of parts of speech originate from ancient (ancient Greek). Parts of speech - tracing paper from the ancient Greek mere tu logu or directly Latin partes orationis, where partes are "parts", and oratio is "speech, utterance, sentence" Parts of speech were first called those grammatical phenomena that are now called members of a sentence *. Only later did this expression acquire a modern torminological meaning, although for a long time parts of speech were identified with members of a sentence and with members of a speech.
For the first time the parts of speech were distinguished by an ancient Indian grammarian. Yaska and. Panini (V in do. Not), who distinguished in Sanskrit such parts of speech as the name, verb, preposition, conjunction and share. However, the Indian theory has not been known for a long time. Europe. The European theory of parts of speech comes from. Aristotle (IV in BC), who singled out four parts of speech: name, verb, member (article) and union. Finally, the study of parts of speech was formed in the Alexandrian school (II century BC). Aristarch. Samothrace and his disciple. Dionysius. Thracian was the first to distinguish eight parts of speech: name, verb, adverb,. Article ь, pronoun, preposition, participle, conjunction. The adjective was combined with the noun in one part of speech, because in ancient Greek they had a common declension system. The classification of sli in parts of speech was based on two principles: morphological ("The name is a declension part of the language") and semantic ("which means a body or thing"). This system of parts of speech was borrowed by Roman scholars and, however, they made minor changes to it: the article, which is not in Latin, was eliminated from the parts of speech, and vigunema was added in Latin language, and viguk was added.
Later, this classification spread to all European, and then to other languages. This is how the classification of parts of speech was formed, which is usually called school and, in fact, has become universal. The grammatical classes of words of different languages are trying to be squeezed into a pre-selected ancient scheme, without taking into account the differences that exist in different speeches.
According to the school classification, ten parts of speech are distinguished, which are divided into independent (those that can be members of a sentence) and service (those that express the relationship between words in a sentence). The independent parts of speech include the noun, adjective, numeral, pronoun, verb and adverb. For official - pretext, union, share, etc. Article.
Separately, exclamations are singled out, which cannot be members of a sentence, but can themselves form sentences.
The classification of parts of speech is widely known. VV. Vinogradov. According to this scientist, parts of speech are only significant words. In his classification, four categories of words are distinguished: parts of speech, modal words, parts of the language and exclamations. To the parts of speech, he refers names (noun, adjective, numeral), pronoun, verb, adverb and category of state. To private language, beyond. Vinogradov, own their share and connections, prepositions and alliances. Graphically, this classification looks like:
Parts of speech in different languages
Linguists have come to the conclusion that it is impossible to build a system of parts of speech that is the same for all languages, because each language has a lot of peculiarities in dividing words into parts of speech. Firstly, not all languages have the same parts of speech, and secondly, in different languages there are significant differences in the characteristic features of the same part of speech. The usual scheme of parts of speech for European languages is not suitable for many languages. Asia,. Africa and. Americans.
So, the differences in the parts of speech of different languages relate to both the composition itself and the volume of individual parts of speech. If the main parts of speech - the name and the verb - are distinguished in all languages of the world, it is a reflection of the universality of the functional-semantic categories of substantiality and procedurality (i.e., the subject and action), then there are significant differences in other parts of speech. Yes, in some languages. North. America and I. Africa does not distinguish between adverbs and adjectives. In Chinese, such parts of speech are distinguished as the name, which includes the noun and numeral, the predicate, which includes verbs and adjectives, and the same adverb. Adjectives are combined with verbs into one part of speech based on the ability to be a predicate without an auxiliary connection. This is also the case in Burmese. In some languages, only k and the verb are singled out, as, for example, in the Indian language yumi yuma.
In English, the opposition between adjective and noun is reduced to a minimum. In the Turkic languages there is a problem of interpretation of the so-called "figurative words", that is, those that imitate sound or are "figurative" as a separate part of the language to the other part of the language.
The classification of words by parts of speech and the phenomena of the transition of words from one part of speech to another make it difficult, which indicates the existence of more or less stable intermediate links between parts of speech. In the Turkic, Mongolian and Tungus-Manchu languages, the transition of nouns into adjectives and adverbs and vice versa has a massive character.
