TYPOLOGY OF WORDS

I. Structural-semantic types of words. Their signs.

II. Principles of classification of parts of speech.

III. Classification of speech particles.

V. Correlation of the concepts "part of speech" and "word". Words "outside the parts of speech".

VI. The phenomenon of transitivity as a dialectical process of accumulation of quantitative changes:

1. Causes of the transition phenomenon.

2. Consequences of the phenomenon of transition:

Functional homonymy; the concept of functional homonyms;

Syncretism; concept of hybrid words.

VI. Methodology for the analysis of homonymous and hybrid word forms.

The problem of word classification, the allocation in the language of some generalized categories (parts of speech) is very ancient. The doctrine of parts of speech in one form or another is mandatory in any grammatical theory.

For the first time we meet the doctrine of parts of speech in the writings of Dionysius of Thrace (Alexandrian school) c. 170-90s BC. He established 8 parts of speech for the ancient Greek language: name, verb, participle, member (article), pronoun, preposition, adverb, union. Sample definitions of parts of speech given by scientists: “A name is a declined part of speech denoting a body or thing (a body - for example, a stone, a thing - for example, education) and expressed as general and as private: general - for example, a person, private - for example, Socrates." "A verb is a non-case part of speech that takes tenses, persons, and numbers and represents action or suffering." In these definitions, the desire for a multidimensional description is noticeable - the heterogeneity of the pexical meaning is taken into account (lexico-grammatical categories are outlined) and the nature of the change (declension, conjugation).

Eight parts of speech were transferred to grammar Latin(instead of the article, which was not in Latin, an interjection was introduced).

In the first Church Slavonic grammars of the XII-XVI centuries. the doctrine of the eight parts of speech (in the Latin version) was presented (M. Smotrytsky, 1619).

In "Russian Grammar" M.V. Lomonosov the same 8 parts of speech. In "Russian Grammar" by A. Vostokov, the participle as a part of speech was replaced by an adjective. G. Pavsky (1850) and F. Buslaev described the numeral. Particles as part of speech were described already in the 20th century.

Let's look at the words of the Russian language. They have completely different properties. The very nature of the combination of lexical and grammatical meanings in the system different types words are heterogeneous. "Structure different categories words reflects different types relations between grammar and vocabulary of a given language” (V.V. Vinogradov). First of all, they are not the same in meaning: for example, oak - names an object that can be seen, touched, drawn, but the concept of beauty, regardless of its carrier, cannot be felt and depicted; run - calls an action that can be seen and depicted (however, together with its performer), and such as thinking, having and not actions at all, they cannot be seen, depicted; on - does not name anything, but expresses the attitude of the direction of the action. Words are not the same in structure, the system of word-formation possibilities. The former are free case forms, less freely - numerical, the latter change in time, person, etc .; both are capable of producing other words. The word na has no forms of inflection, cannot attach affixes. Words and functions are not the same. Some can be both main and secondary members of the proposal, others are only secondary, and others are not members of the proposal. If we take into account all the structural and semantic features of the words of the Russian language, then 4 structural-semantic types of words can be distinguished in it (these types were partly outlined by N. Grech in "Practical Russian Grammar", 1834 - parts and particles of speech; characterized in detail these and two others in the work of V. V. Vinogradov "Russian language", 1947). The typology of words in any textbook or teaching aid for universities, as well as the classification of parts of speech in school textbooks certainly directly or indirectly reflects the concept of V.V. Vinogradov.

The structural-semantic direction in our time is represented by several varieties: in some cases, more attention is paid to structure, in others - to semantics. It is also undoubted that science strives for the harmony of these principles.

The structural-semantic direction is the next stage in the evolution of traditional linguistics, which has not stopped in its development, but has become fundamental basis for the synthesis of the achievements of various aspects in the study and description of language and speech. That is why all existing directions "grow" and "grow" on the fertile soil of traditions, "bud off" from the main trunk - the main direction in the development of Russian linguistics, which are the syntactic concepts of M. V. Lomonosov, F. I. Buslaev, A. A. Potebnia, A. M. Peshkovsky, A. A. Shakhmatov, V. V. Vinogradov and others, who considered syntactic phenomena in the unity of form and content.

In traditional syntax, aspects of the study of syntactic units were not clearly distinguished, but one way or another they were taken into account when describing syntactic units and their classification.

In the works of representatives of the structural-semantic direction, they carefully preserve and develop best traditions Russian syntactic theory, enriched with new fruitful ideas developed during the one-aspect study of syntactic units.

The development of the structural-semantic direction is stimulated by the needs of teaching the Russian language, where a multidimensional, voluminous consideration of language and speech means is necessary.

Supporters of the structural-semantic direction rely on the following theoretical positions in the study and classification (description) of syntactic units:

1. Language, thinking and being (objective reality) are interconnected and interdependent.
2. Language is historical phenomenon constantly evolving and improving.
3. Language and speech are interconnected and interdependent, therefore it is fundamentally important functional approach to the study of syntactic units - an analysis of their functioning in speech.
4. Categories of language form a dialectical unity of form and content (structure and semantics, structures and meanings)
5. The language structure is a system of systems (subsystems, levels). Syntax is one of the levels of the general system of the language. Syntactic units form a level subsystem.
6. Syntactic units are multifaceted.
7. The properties of syntactic units are manifested in syntactic links and relationships.
8. Many linguistic and speech syntactic phenomena are syncretic.

Many of these provisions are fundamental for all levels language system, therefore they are considered in the courses "Introduction to Linguistics", " General linguistics», « Historical grammar Russian language” and others. However, they cannot be ignored in the analysis and description of the syntactic system.

Let us explain those provisions that are especially important for describing the units of syntax.

One of them is the principle of the systemic nature of the language system. All modern linguistics is permeated with the idea of ​​systematization of linguistic and speech facts. It follows from this: a) language as a system is a whole, consisting of interconnected and interacting elements; b) there are no and cannot be phenomena that fall out of the system of language, phenomena in a non-system.

The classics of Russian linguistics explored language as a non-single-level system, noted inter-level connections and interactions.

AT modern linguistics much attention is paid to the differentiation of levels, their differentiation.

In the structural-semantic direction, after understanding the differentiation of levels, tendencies are outlined: a) to explore and describe the complex interaction of levels, their interweaving. In syntactic works, this is manifested in the identification of connections between the vocabulary of syntax, morphology and syntax (see the relevant sections); b) in syntactic works to establish a hierarchy of syntactic units: a phrase, a simple sentence, a complex sentence, a complex syntactic whole. Two approaches to the description of syntactic units are outlined: from the lowest to the highest (“bottom” approach), from the highest to the lowest (“top” approach). Depending on the approach, the researcher discovers different aspects of syntactic units, their different properties.

A specific feature of the structural-semantic direction is the multidimensional study and description of the language, and in particular syntactic units.

If in traditional linguistics a voluminous study of syntactic units relied to a large extent on the intuition of researchers, then in the structural-semantic direction, the most essential features phenomena noted within the framework of any one-aspect direction.

However, it is obvious that it is difficult to take into account all one-aspect characteristics (there are too many of them!), and in many cases it is not necessary if a small number of signs is sufficient to determine the place of a syntactic fact in the system of others (during classification and qualification).

For linguistic and methodological purposes, the main features of syntactic units are structural and semantic.

The main criterion for the classification of syntactic units at the present stage of development of syntactic theory is recognized as structural.

Based on the dialectical unity of form and content, in which content is decisive, semantics is more important, because there is not and cannot be an empty, “empty” form. However, only those “meanings” are accessible to observations, generalizations, etc., which are expressed (formulated) by grammatical or lexico-grammatical means. Therefore, not only in structuralist directions, but also in the structural-semantic analysis of the phenomena of language and speech, the primary is the structural approach, attention to the structure, to the form of syntactic phenomena. Let us explain this with the following examples.

The distinction between two-part and one-part sentences in many cases relies only on a structural criterion (the number of main members and their morphological properties- way of expression). Wed: I love music. - I love music; Someone is knocking on the window. — There is a knock on the window; Everything is quiet around. - Quiet around, etc. Semantic differences between two-part one-part sentences insignificant.

The selection of incomplete sentences of the type Father - to the window is also based on a structural criterion, since this sentence is complete in semantical terms.

Semantic concretizers in some cases can be participial and adjectival phrases, and even subordinate clauses. For example: Life passed without serving the broad interests and tasks of society has no justification(Leskov).

And if we consistently carry out the semantic criterion for the classification of syntactic units, if we take the requirement of semantic completeness to the extreme, then the division of sentences in such cases can be represented in the form of two components, that is, the mechanism for constructing such sentences will practically not be clarified.

However, in the structural-semantic direction, the structural classification criterion is not always consistently observed. If the structural indicators are not bright, semantics plays a decisive role. Such cases have already been considered when clarifying the connections of vocabulary, morphology and syntax. Semantics can be critical when delimiting direct complement and subject (Cedar broke a hurricane), when determining syntactic function infinitive (cf .: I want to write a review. - I ask for a review), etc. A more rigorous, precise and complete definition of the nature of a syntactic phenomenon is possible only taking into account structural and semantic differences.

The next feature of the structural-semantic direction is the consideration of the meanings of the elements (components) of syntactic units and the relations between them of the prequalification of syntactic phenomena. In traditional linguistics, the focus is on the essence of the syntactic unit itself, its properties; in structural directions, the focus is on the relationship between syntactic units.

In the structural-semantic direction, both the meaning of the elements and the meaning of the relations are taken into account. In the most general sense, they can be defined as follows: the meaning of elements is their lexico-grammatical semantics, the meaning of relations is the meaning that is found in one element of the system in relation to another.

B.V. Babaitseva, L.Yu. Maksimov. Modern Russian language - M., 1987

1. "A verb is a part of speech that expresses the grammatical meaning of an action (i.e., a sign of a mobile, realized in time) and functions primarily as a predicate" [Yartseva, 1998, p. 104], that is, the main feature of the verb in all languages ​​of the world is movement or movement. N. D. Arutyunova noted that "the concept of the path as a purposeful movement plays big role in relation not only to a person's life, but also to his mental actions and movements, since they are purposeful" [Arutyunova, 1999, p. 16].

Movement is fundamental concept expressing the relationship of objective reality. "The semantics of movement connects space and time. Movement is the third component included in the concept of chronotope." [Arutyunova, 1994, p. 4] It is the seme of motion that separates the verb from the noun, which does not have this seme. Movement or dynamics predetermines the distinction between static and dynamic verbs, the latter suggest the presence of movement, the former its absence.

The opposition "movement" - "state of rest" is of a semantic nature. The concept of "action" means a dynamic change of certain static relations [Gurevich, 1999, p. 175-176].

Verbs of motion belong to a number of the most significant units natural language. Even psycholinguists G. Miller and F. Johnson-Laird drew attention to the fact that this group is quickly and easily absorbed by young children, despite the fact that for an adult, the study of this topic can cause many difficulties, which has been repeatedly noted by researchers in the field of linguodidactics and Russian as a foreign language. In addition, movement lexemes are frequent, and these facts prompted psycholinguists to say that the verbs of movement are "the most characteristically verbal of all the verbs).

In a broad sense, the verbs of movement or the verbs of movement mean any lexemes denoting the location of the subject in space. However, there are researchers who prefer to separate verbs of movement and verbs of movement. One of the most famous works on this topic? "Fundamentals of Structural Syntax" by L. Tenier (1959). This linguist draws a line between movement and movement verbs, accepting that movement verbs describe a way of changing location, while movement verbs focus on the direction of movement: "movement is an end, and movement is only a means to achieve it" [cit. . according to Gorban 2002, p.27], "movement is inherent in the subject, while movement is an external characteristic in relation to him" [ibid., p. 27]. To the verbs of motion (mouvement) L. Tenier refers those lexemes that describe way location changes, for example, fr. "marcher" ? "go, walk", "courir" ? "run", "trotter" ? "trot", "galoper" ? gallop, "ramper" ? "creep", "nager" ? "float" etc. To the verbs of displacement (dйplacement), indicating a certain direction regarding the starting point, he attributed fr. "monter" ? "to rise", "descendre" ? "go down", "aller" ? "leave", "venir" ? "come", "entrer" ? "enter", "sortir" ? "go out", etc. [Tenier, 1988, p. 298?299, 322?325]. Movement reflects the personal characteristics of the subject, indicating the method and means of movement that seem to him the most natural. Speaking of movement, we refer to the geometry of space, it is determined by the direction - up, down, there, here, etc. [Gorban 2002, p. 27-28].

There are researchers who attribute movement to a particular manifestation of movement, for example, V. G. Gak believes that the verbs of movement are "such verbs and predicates that indicate movement associated with overcoming the limits of some space (Peter enters the garden, Peter leaves from the garden)" [op. according to Gorban, 2002, p. 28].

In this paper, the terms "verbs of movement" and "verbs of movement" will be used as synonyms when naming verbal lexemes denoting the movement of living beings or objects in space. We do not plan to study other semantic groups that often appear in speech as "verbs of motion", for example, we will not consider the transition from one thermal or chemical state to another, describe the verbs of sensory perception or speaking, as well as modal verbs etc. We refer only to verbs that describe specific changes in the subject in space and time, and the subject of the phenomenon of movement in the broad sense is not our task in this study.

In this context, it should be noted that this work will consider both the basic and figurative (metaphorical) meanings of polysemantic verbs of motion. AT last case we are talking about movement not in the objective material world, but about movement within the framework of abstract concepts related to the development of phenomena (for example, sounds, events, thoughts, movement in time, etc.)

2. The semantic structure of the verbs of motion is a unity of interacting features that implement the categorial-lexical seme "movement in space" at the lexical, lexico-grammatical and grammatical levels.

Speaking about the lexical level, it is impossible not to note the work of cognitive scientists who dealt with this problem: L. Talmy, Dan I. Slobin, S. Wikner, S. Selimis.

When we study verbs of motion, we look at what is encoded in them from a lexical point of view. The appearance of any verb of movement implies the presence of a typical situation of movement/movement. We will call a participant in such a situation subject("figure" by . The areas of space occupied by the subject when moving can be described as path("path" [ibid., 61]). Movement occurs relative to a certain landmark object, or background("ground" [ibid., 61]). (Talmy, 1985, 62, 69)

At the lexical level, the categorial-lexical seme "movement in space" is realized in differential features that express integral semes:

? "travel environment"

? "vehicle"

? "way of moving"

? "intensity of movement".

The integral seme "environment of movement" expresses the spatial characteristics of the action and is realized in opposition to the following differential features:

? "moving on hard surfaces"

? "moving on water"

? "air travel".

The integral seme "way of moving" is represented in the following differential features:

? "moving by touching the surface, stepping"

? "moving, in contact with the surface with the whole body"

? "moving up, down, clinging hands and feet"

? "moving in contact with the surface indirectly"

? "moving, plunging into the environment"

? "moving without touching the surface"

The integral seme "means of transportation" is realized in differential features:

? "moving with the feet"

? "moving with arms and legs"

? "moving by the force of movement of the whole body"

? "moving with the help of technical Vehicle or riding"

? "moving with fins"

? "moving with wings"

The integral semes "method" and "vehicle" express a qualitative characteristic of an action.

The seme "intensity of movement" expresses the spatio-temporal characteristic of the action and is specified by the following features:

? "intensity-neutral movement"

? "fast travel"

? "slow movement" [Gorban, 2002, p. 111-112].

There are other ways of classifying verbs of motion at the lexical level. So, according to C. Fillmore, the semantic dimensions of verbs of motion can be chosen in an unlimited number of ways, but among them he singles out the following:

? "path of movement" (cf. "ascend" - to rise, "advance" - to move forward)

? "the path of movement, taking into account the external environment" (cf. "climb" - to climb, "dive" - ​​to dive, "cross" - to cross). There are three sub-paragraphs in this paragraph:

o "moving on the ground" (cf. "travel" - to travel, "walk" - to walk)

o "moving on water" (cf. "swim"? to swim, "float"? to swim (about a ship))

o "moving through the air" (cf. "fly" - fly, "soar" - soar).

Here, however, it is necessary to pay attention to the ability of verbs of movement to move from one variety to another in connection with metaphorization. (Compare - We hovered around our guide? "we hovered around our guide", initial value the verb "hover" ? soar (of birds).

? "the path of movement in relation to the starting or ending point" (cf. "arrive" - ​​to arrive, "alight" - to dismount, "enter" - to enter).

? "Method of movement" (cf. "lope" - skip, "stride" - go big steps, "scurry" ? run in small steps, "slog" ? dragging with difficulty).

? "A sound that accompanies movement" (cf. "stump" - to walk, stomping, "scuffle" - to walk, shuffling).

? "Participation of the body" (cf. "stride" ? to take long steps, "creep" ? to crawl).

? "Speed ​​of movement" (cf. "blot" ? to rush with an arrow, "hurry" ? to hurry), etc. [Fillmore]

In this paper, the terminology of O. A. Gorban will be used.

3. One of the ways to distinguish between the verbs of movement in more detail is the principle of highlighting some semantic components of their meaning. For example, the seme structure of the analytical phrase "walk slowly" does not require special analysis: the verb of movement "walk" conveys the idea of ​​moving on foot, and the adverb that accompanies it indicates a low speed of movement. While the seme structure of the synthetic verb "trudge? walk (on foot) at low speed, with slow, heavy steps" which is synonymous with this analytical phrase, implicitly contains several characteristics of the movement being made.

Lexico-semantic groups of verbs of motion in various languages form a special system, which is a specific lexico-semantic microstructure of the dictionary, in the form of one of the nodes of its hyper-hyponymic hierarchy, where the hyperseme reflects the general in the meanings of words, and the hyposeme indicates the specificity of a particular meaning. So, for example, all the verbs of motion that make up the system are hyponyms in relation to the hypernym "movement in space". They differ from each other due to their hyposemes, indicating the differential features of each type (for example, a specific tool? a part of the body with which movement is performed) [Nikitin, 1983, p. 94].

According to the concept of M.V. Nikitin, the meanings of verbs of motion have incorporated actants. Among them are incorporated actants-somatisms, as well as semantic features accompanying verb action? speed, directionality, location, step ratio, etc. The intension of the lexical meaning of such verbs is represented by the hyposeme "movement of a person in space with the help of the muscular strength of the legs" and the hyposeme "method of movement". For example: "shuffle" ? walk without raising the feet properly, that is, to walk without raising the feet properly, almost without lifting the feet off the ground. Does the hyperseme often correspond to the interpretation of "walk... the feet", hyposemes? "without raising properly" (shuffling).

"Thus, the selection of verbs with incorporated actants is based on the categorical commonality of hypersemes, and the distinction within classes occurs along the line of hyposemes" [Nikitin, 1997, p. 96].

The task of our work is to study the question of the ability of verbs of movement to combine, incorporate into internal structure deep elements, which are able to characterize the movement being made without the participation of the context.

§ 119. As noted above, each word in any language expresses a certain lexical meaning or set different values- two or more. As in Russian, as in many other languages, most words express at least two meanings. It is easy to verify this by referring to explanatory dictionaries. So, for example, in modern Russian, according to the Dictionary of Modern Russian literary language, nouns mountain, river, auditorium and many others have two lexical meanings, water, sea and others - three, house- four, head - five , hand - eight, adjective green- five values, new - nine, old– 10, verb wear- nine, carry - 12, walk - 14, fall - 16, stand - 17, go - 26, etc., not counting the various shades of different meanings. For comparison, we can cite similar data from the Lithuanian language. In the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language, for example, for a noun auditorium(audience) two values ​​are also indicated, Kalnas(mountain) - three meanings, namas(house) - six meanings (in the form plural namai- seven), ranka(hand) - ten, for an adjective naujas(new) - eight, for a verb kristi(fall) - 22 values, nesti(carry) - 26, eiti(go) - 35, etc. Words that express two or more lexical meanings are called polysemantic, or polysemic (polysemantic); the presence of at least two meanings in a word is called, respectively, polysemy, or polysemy (cf. Greek. poly-"a lot of", sema– "sign, meaning", polysemos- "multi-valued").

The number of words expressing only one lexical meaning (sometimes with different semantic shades) is extremely limited in many languages. In Russian, these include mainly words of foreign origin, terms different industries knowledge, many derived words, in particular, nouns with an abstract meaning, etc. In the Dictionary of the Modern Russian Literary Language, one meaning is indicated, for example, for nouns bicycle, cyclist, cyclist, tram, tram driver, tractor, tractor driver, tractor driver, airplane, aircraft building, pilot, pilot, collective farm, collective farmer, collective farmer, state farm, peasant, peasant woman, student, female student, expressiveness, literacy, stamina, courage, masculinity, adjectives scarlet, blue, black, brown, purple, bicycle, tractor, tram, peasant, student and others. Words that express no more than one lexical meaning are called unambiguous, or monosemic (monosemantic), the presence of only one meaning in a word - unambiguity, or monosemy (cf. Greek. monos- "one").

§ 120. The lexical meanings of many words, both single-valued and multi-valued, are a complex phenomenon. Just as many words are made up of material expressed parts, morphemes, as mentioned above, a single lexical meaning of a word can consist of different "pieces", elements, segments. Elementary, smallest, ultimate, i.e. indivisible further, the component part of the lexical meaning of the word is called seme(cf. Greek. sema). According to V. I. Kodukhov, "each value ... has several semantic features(sem)". The totality of semes of one or another lexical meaning is called sememe.

The seme composition of the lexical meaning of a word, or sememe, can be explained by the example of the basic, nominative meanings of kinship terms, i.e. words denoting the names of kinship relationships: father, mother, son, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, nephew, niece, brother-in-law and others. In the nominative meanings of each of these words, one seme, or archiseme, common to all of them, is singled out as a separate component; generic, integrating meaning - "relative". In addition, each of them has a number of differential semes, which are specific refinements of this generic concept. So, for the main, nominative meaning of the word father the following semes act as differential semes: 1) "male sex" (in contrast to the seme "female sex", as in the meaning of the words mother, daughter, niece etc.), 2) "parent" (in contrast to the seme "born", as in the meaning of the words son daughter), 3) "direct relationship" (in contrast to the seme "indirect relationship", as in the meaning of the words nephew niece), 4) "blood relationship" (in contrast to the seme "non-blood relationship", as in the meaning of the words stepfather, stepmother) 5) "first generation" (in contrast to this "second generation", "third generation", as in the meaning of the words grandfather, great-grandfather). A similar composition of semes is also characteristic of the nominative meanings (semes) of other terms of kinship; their nominative meanings differ from each other only by individual differential semes. For example, the nominative meaning of the word mother different from the corresponding meaning of the word father only the first of the above differential semes ("female"), the meaning of the word son- the second differential seme ("born"), etc.

In the lexical meanings of derivative, semantically motivated words, individual semes are expressed with the help of derivational morphemes and affixes. So, for example, in the meaning of nouns denoting the names of persons by type of activity, occupation, the seme "activity, occupation" can be expressed by suffixes -tel, -ist- and others (cf. the meanings of the words: teacher, lecturer, writer, leader; machinist, tanker, tractor driver and etc.); seme "female" in the meaning of nouns denoting the names of female persons - suffixes -to-, -nits- and others (cf. the meanings of the words: student, artist, tractor driver; teacher, lecturer, writer); the seme "incompleteness (of a sign)" in the meaning of some qualitative adjectives - with a suffix -ovate-(cf. word meanings: whitish, yellowish, reddish, thick, narrowish); seme "beginning (action)" in the meaning of many verbs - prefix per-(cf. word meanings: talk, sing, roar, light up, laugh) etc. According to the definition of I. S. Ulukhanov, at least two parts, two components are distinguished in the lexical meanings of such words: 1) the motivating part, i.e. part of the meaning expressed by the generating, motivating word, and 2) the formant part, i.e. part of the meaning expressed by a derivational means, or formant.

The lexical meanings of many derived words, in addition to the obligatory semantic components expressed by their generating and derivational means, also contain additional semantic components that are not directly expressed by the named elements of the corresponding derivatives. Such semantic components, or semes, are called idiomatic or phraseological. Idiomatic (phraseological) as a special semantic component is found, for example, in the composition of the nominative meanings of nouns teacher, writer, tractor driver etc. Similar nouns do not denote any person performing the corresponding work, but only one for whom the performance of this work is a profession, i.e. main type of work.

Some linguists, as one of the components of the lexical meaning, or "component internal content", a semantically motivated word consider it motivation, or motivation. which is understood as the “substantiation” of the sound image of this word, contained in the word and realized by the speakers, i.e. its exponent is an indication of the motive that determined the expression given value precisely with this combination of sounds, as if the answer to the question “Why is it called that?” ". In the linguistic literature, the compound term "internal form of the word" is also widely used to refer to the concept under consideration. As examples of words containing motivation, or having an internal form, you can give the names of the days of the week.Compare the Russian hells: Tuesday(the day is so named because it is the second of the week), Wednesday(day in the middle of the week) Thursday(fourth day of the week) Friday(fifth day of the week). Motivated titles different days weeks are also in other languages, e.g. German Mittwoch(Wednesday; Wed. Mitte-"middle", Woche-"week"), Polish wtorek(Tuesday; Wed. secondtory-"second"), s "roda(Wednesday; Wed. s "rod -"among", s "rodek -"middle") czwartek(Thursday; Wed. czwarty-"fourth"), piqtek(Friday; Wed. piqty-"fifth"), Czech stfeda(Wednesday; Wed. stredrn-"average"), ctvrtek(Thursday; Wed. ctvrty-"fourth"), patek(Friday; Wed. pat u- "fifth"). AT Lithuanian all seven days of the week are called difficult words formed from the stem of a noun diena(day) and the bases of the corresponding ordinal numbers, for example: pirmadienis(Monday; Wed. pinnas-"the first"), antradienis(Tuesday; Wed. antras- "second"), treciadienis(Wednesday; Wed. trecias-"third"), etc.

§ 121. The totality of semes (archisemes and differential semes) of one or another lexical meaning of a word, this or that sememe, forms nucleus given value, which is also called denotative meaning (from lat. denotatum- "marked, marked, marked"), conceptual meaning (from lat. conceptus- "representation of something, concept"), a conceptual core, or a denotative, conceptual seme, conceptual seme. The core of the lexical meaning of the word, its denotative, conceptual seme is " essential part lexical meaning", which "in the majority of significant words constitutes a mental reflection of one or another phenomenon of reality, an object (or class of objects) in a broad sense (including actions, properties, relations, etc.)".

In addition to the conceptual core, the lexical meanings of many words include various additional, concomitant, peripheral meanings, or connotations called connotative values, or connotations(from lat. sop- "together" and notatio-"designation"). In linguistic literature, connotative meanings, or semes, are explained very ambiguously. Most often, connotative meaning is understood as "the additional content of a word (or expression), its accompanying semantic or stylistic shades, which are superimposed on its main meaning, serve to express different kind expressive-emotional-evaluative overtones...", "emotional, expressive, stylistic additions to the main meaning, giving the word a special color. " Russian literary language: dad(colloquially and regionally), head(colloquially) belly(colloquially) Virgo(obsolete, uiotr. in poetic and stylized speech), cheeks(obsolete, poet.), eye(obsolete, and folk poet.), forehead(obsolete and poet.), glutton(colloquial), Swedish(outdated, and spacious.), big-eyed(colloquially) mischievous(spacious) mischief(spacious) go to school(colloquial), beg(spacious) sleep(colloquially, with a touch of contempt), eat(roughly colloquial). These semes are most often found in the meanings of words containing evaluative suffixes, suffixes of emotional evaluation. The same dictionary presents some personal nouns with evaluative suffixes: boy, boy, mother, mother, mother, mother, father, father, son, son, son, man(accompanied by the tag "colloquial"), mommy, daddy(obsolete, colloquial), human flesh- in meaning. "man" (colloquial, usually joking), father, brother, brother, girl, girl, girl, boy, daddy, daddy, daddy(spacious) friend, friend(caress.), brother, brother(reduce and caress), mother(obsolete, and folk poet.).

In the lexical meanings of some words, connotative meaning components, connotative semes come to the fore. According to A.P. Zhuravlev, they have a "conceptual (i.e. conceptual. - V.N.) the core, although it exists, does not express the essence of meaning. "In the meaning of the word tall, for example, "the main thing is not that it is a person, but that it is "high, clumsy man. "" Some interjections are characterized by similar semantics. According to Yu. S. Maslov, "in every language there are such significant words for which the expression of certain emotions is not an additional, but the main meaning (for example, interjections wow! Ugh! or brrr!) or the transmission of commands - incentives for certain actions (stop! away! jump! on! in the sense of “take”, etc.)".

Both in Russian and in other languages, obviously, words with meanings that do not have connotative semes (in the sense given above) prevail. Most words in different languages ​​express only conceptual meanings. Connotative semes are absent, in particular, in the nominative meanings of most words. different parts speeches such as: man, friend, father, mother, son, hand, leg, head, house, forest, water, mountain, river, lake, white, blue, big, small, fast, young, old, three, ten, fifteen, long ago, early, today, go, sit, write, read, talk and many others.

§ 122. Different semantic elements of a word, or lexeme (as separate lexical meanings polysemantic word, or semes, and parts, components of a single meaning, or seme), are connected with each other by certain relationships. This allows us to talk about the semantic, or semantic, structure of the word (both polysemantic and unambiguous). Semantic structure of the word(lexemes) are the relationships between different semantic elements (sememes and semes) of a given word as a complex whole.

Speaking about the semantic structure of a word, linguists have in mind, first of all, different meanings of polysemantic words, connections and relationships between them. According to the definition of V. I. Kodukhov, " semantic structure of the word is formed by semantic components (meanings, lexico-semantic variants) of different types.

The connection between the different meanings of a polysemantic word is that they reflect objects and phenomena of reality that are similar in some respect and have a common semantic component. D. N. Shmelev explains this connection in the following words: “Forming a definite semantic unity, the meanings of a polysemantic word are connected on the basis of the similarity of realities (in form, appearance, color, value, position, also commonality of function) or contiguity ... There is a semantic connection between the meanings of a polysemantic word, which is also expressed in the presence of common elements meaning - this". This can be shown by the example of a noun board, which differs, in particular, in the following meanings: 1) a flat cut of a tree obtained by longitudinal sawing of a log; 2) a large plate on which they write with chalk; 3) a shield for announcements or any indicators, etc. The connection between these meanings is found in the fact that different objects denoted by this word have some external similarity, which is reflected in the definition of different meanings: a flat cut of a tree, a large plate, a shield; they all mean specific subject having a flat shape.

The differences between the individual meanings of a polysemantic word lie, first of all, in the presence of certain differential semes in each of them, reflecting the specific features of the designated objects, such as the purpose of the corresponding object (a board for making something, for example, furniture; a board for writing chalk; notice board, etc.), the material from which the designated object is made, features external form given item, size, color, etc.

When determining semantic structure words, it is also taken into account that the lexical meaning (seme) has its constituent parts (seme), which in turn are related to each other famous relationships. Different semes of one sememe are already united by the fact that they are all associated with the designation of the same object, phenomenon and, thus, represent a kind of structural whole. At the same time, they differ in different features, on the basis of which their classification is carried out (cf. archisemes and differential semes of a particular sememe, denotative and connotative semes, etc.). On this basis, one can speak of the structure of the lexical meaning of the word, which, according to the definition of V. I. Kodukhov, "is made up of the semantic components of each value." According to A. G. Gak, "each lexical-semantic variant is a hierarchically organized set sem- a structure in which an integrating generic meaning (archiseme), a differentiating species meaning (differential seme), as well as potential semes reflecting the side properties of an object that actually exist or are attributed to it by the collective are distinguished.

Already from the proposed description of the word it is clear that the structural-semantic types of words are heterogeneous and that this heterogeneity of the structure of words depends most of all on the nature of the combination and interaction of lexical and grammatical meanings. Semantic types words are not placed in the same plane. Established in Russian grammar since the 18th century. dividing words into significant and official interesting as a symptom of the consciousness of the structural heterogeneity of different types of words.

Seven distinguishing features of function words were noted: 1) the inability to separate nominative use; 2) the inability to independently spread the syntagma, or phrases (for example, union and, relative word which the, prepositions on, at etc. are unable by themselves, independently of other words, to construct or distribute a phrase or syntagma); 3) the impossibility of a pause after these words in the composition of speech (without a special expressive justification); 4) morphological indivisibility or semantic indecomposability of most of them (cf., for example, at, at, after all, here etc., on the one hand, and because to, then what, though etc. - with another); 5) inability to wear phrasal stresses(with the exception of cases of opposition by contrast); 6) the absence of independent stress on most of the primitive words of this type; 7) the originality of grammatical meanings, which dissolve the lexical content of service words. This is the division of words into significant and auxiliary under different names- lexical and formal words (Potebnya), full and partial (Fortunatov) - was adopted in all works on Russian grammar. Along with these two general categories of words in the Russian language, researchers have long outlined a third category - interjections.

The traditional solution to the question of the main semantic-grammatical classes of words is different doctrines of parts of speech. But these teachings - for all their diversity - do not take into account the general structural differences between the main types of words. All parts of speech are placed in the same plane. More about this V.A. Bogoroditsky wrote: "It is necessary to pay attention to the subordination of some parts of speech to others, which is ignored in school grammars, and all parts of speech are put on the same line."

The identification of parts of speech should be preceded by the definition of the main structural-semantic types of words.

Classification of words should be constructive. It cannot ignore any side of the structure of the word. But, of course, lexical and grammatical criteria (including phonological ones) must play a decisive role. In the grammatical structure of words, morphological features are combined with syntactic ones into an organic unity. Morphological forms are settled syntactic forms. There is nothing in morphology that is not or was not previously in syntax and vocabulary. The history of morphological elements and categories is the history of the displacement of syntactic boundaries, the history of the transformation of syntactic breeds into morphological ones. This offset is continuous. Morphological categories are inextricably linked with syntactic ones. AT morphological categories there are constant changes in relations, and the impulses, pushes towards these transformations come from the syntax. Syntax is the organizational center of grammar. Grammar, immanent to a living language, is always constructive and does not tolerate mechanical divisions and dissections, since grammatical forms and the meanings of words are in close interaction with lexical meanings.

An analysis of the semantic structure of a word leads to the identification of four main grammatical-semantic categories of words.

1. First of all, a category stands out words-names, by the traditional definition. All these words have a nominative function. They reflect and embody in their structure objects, processes, qualities, signs, numerical connections and relationships, circumstantial and qualitative-consequential definitions and relationships of things, signs and processes of reality and are applied to them, pointing to them, designate them. Adjoining words-names are words that are equivalents, and sometimes substitutes for names. Such words are called pronouns. All these categories of words form the main lexical and grammatical fund of speech. Words of this type form the basis of syntactic units and unities (phrases and sentences) and phraseological series. They serve as the main members of the sentence. They can - each separately - make up a whole statement. The words belonging to most of these categories are grammatical and combined complexes, or systems, of forms. Different forms or modifications of the same word are associated with different functions of the word in the structure of speech or utterance.

Therefore, when applied to these classes of words, the term "parts of speech" is especially appropriate. They form the subject-semantic, lexical and grammatical foundation of speech. It - " lexical words", in the terminology of Potebnya, and" full words", according to the qualifications of Fortunatov.

2. Parts of speech are opposed by particles of speech, ligamentous, official words . This structural-semantic type of words is devoid of a nominative function. He is not characterized by "subject relatedness". These words relate to the world of reality only through and through the medium of words-names. They belong to the sphere of linguistic semantics, which reflects the most general, abstract categories of existential relations - causal, temporal, spatial, target, etc. They are closely connected with the technique of language, complicating and developing it. Linking words are not "material", but formal. they have a "real" content and grammar functions match. Their lexical meanings are identical with grammatical ones. These words lie on the verge of vocabulary and grammar, and at the same time on the verge of words and morphemes. That's why Potebnya called them " formal words", and Fortunatov - "partial".

3. The third type of words differs markedly from the two previous structural types. it modal words. They are also devoid of a nominative function, like linking words. However, many of them do not belong to the same extent as connective, functional words, to the field of formal linguistic means. They are more "lexical" than link words. They do not express the connections and relationships between the members of the sentence. Modal words seem to be wedged or included in the sentence or lean against it. They express the modality of the message about reality or are the subject-stylistic key of speech. The sphere of assessments and points of view of the subject on reality and on its methods finds expression in them. verbal expression. Modal words mark the inclination of speech towards reality, due to the point of view of the subject, and in this sense they are somewhat close to the formal meaning of verb moods. As if modal words introduced into the sentence or attached to it are outside both parts of speech and particles of speech, although in appearance they can resemble both of them.

4. The fourth category of words leads to the sphere of purely subjective - emotional-volitional expressions. To this fourth structural type of words belong interjections, if we give this term a slightly wider meaning. The intonational, melodic peculiarities of their form, their lack of cognitive value, their syntactic disorganization, their inability to form combinations with other words, their morphological indivisibility, their affective coloring, their direct connection with facial expressions and expressive gesture sharply separate them from other words. They express emotions, moods and volitional expressions of the subject, but do not designate or name them. They are closer to expressive gestures than to words-names. Whether interjections form sentences is a matter of debate. However, it is difficult to deny the meaning and designation of "sentence equivalents" behind interjectional expressions.

So, there are four main structural and semantic categories of words in the modern Russian language: 1) words-names, or parts of speech, 2) connective words, or particles of speech, 3) modal words and particles, and 4) interjections.

Apparently, in different styles of book and colloquial speech as well as in different styles and genres fiction frequency of use of different types of words is different. But, unfortunately, this question is still only in the preparatory stage of the examination of the material.