According to which languages ​​are classified by means of the abstract concept of type into the following four classes:

• 1) isolating or amorphous, such as Chinese, Bamana, most of the languages ​​of Southeast Asia. They are characterized by the absence of inflection, the grammatical significance of word order, a weak opposition of significant and functional words. 2) agglutinative, or agglutinating, for example, Turkic and Bantu languages. They are characterized by a developed system of word-formation and inflectional affixation, the absence of phonetically unconditioned allomorphism, a single type of declension and conjugation, grammatical unambiguity of affixes, and the absence of significant alternations. 3) incorporating, or polysynthetic, for example Chukchi-Kamchatka, many languages ​​of the Indians of North America. They are characterized by the possibility of including other members of the sentence (most often a direct object) into the verb-predicate, sometimes with an accompanying morphonological change in the stems.
• 4) inflectional languages, such as Slavic, Baltic. They are characterized by the polyfunctionality of grammatical morphemes, the presence of fusion, phonetically unconditioned root changes, a large number of phonetically and semantically unmotivated types of declension and conjugation. Many languages ​​occupy an intermediate position on the scale of morphological classification, combining features of different types; for example, the languages ​​of Oceania can be characterized as amorphous-agglutinative.

The first scientific T. to. I. is the classification of F. Schlegel, who contrasted inflectional languages ​​(meaning mainly Indo-European) with non-inflectional, affixal. Thus, inflections and affixes were opposed as 2 types of morphemes that create the grammatical form of a word. Non-inflectional languages ​​were evaluated by him according to the degree of their "evolutionary closeness" to inflectional ones and were considered as one or another stage on the way to an inflectional system. F. Schlegel declared the last type to be the most perfect (the idea of ​​evaluating the aesthetic perfection of a language occupied a central place in his concept, which also corresponded to the generally accepted philological views of the era). A. V. Schlegel improved the classification of F. Schlegel, highlighting languages ​​"without grammatical structure", later called amorphous or isolating, which marked the beginning of the selection of another parameter T. to. I. - synthesis and analytics. W. von Humboldt, based on the Schlegel classification, identified 3 classes of languages: isolating, agglutinating and inflectional. In the class of agglutinating languages, languages ​​with a specific sentence syntax are distinguished - incorporating; thus in the subject of consideration T. to. I. a proposal is also included. Humboldt noted the absence of "pure" representatives of one or another type of language,

constituted as an ideal model. In the 60s. 19th century in the works of A. Schleicher, basically all classes of T. to. I are preserved; Schleicher, like his predecessors, saw in the classes T. to. I. historical stages in the development of the language system from isolation to inflection, and the "new" inflectional languages, the heirs of the ancient Indo-European languages, were characterized as evidence of the degradation of the language system. Schleicher divided linguistic elements into those expressing meaning (roots) and those expressing attitudes, and he considered the latter to be the most essential for determining the place of language in T. to. I. and in each typological class he consistently singled out synthetic and analytical subtypes.

At the end of 19, it will become multidimensional, taking into account data from all levels of the language, thus turning from a morphological into a general grammatical classification. Müller for the first time draws morphonological processes as a criterion of T. to. I.; Misteli introduced into the practice of typological studies the material of new languages ​​for linguistics - Amerindian, Austroasiatic, African, etc. One of Fink's criteria - the massiveness / fragmentation of the structure of the word - is marked on a graduated scale, thus showing not so much the presence / absence, but the degree of manifestation of the feature.

At the beginning of the 20th century tasks Since I. still attract the attention of linguists, however, its shortcomings - the possibility of unmotivated association of historically or logically unrelated features, the abundance of empirical material that does not fall under any type, the fragility and sometimes arbitrariness of criteria and limited explanatory power - force a critical review of the basic principles of its construction. Noting the shortcomings of the existing T. to. I., E. Sapir made an attempt in 1921 to create T. to. I. new type - conceptual, or functional. Taking as a basis T. to. I. types of functioning of formal grammatical elements, Sapir distinguishes 4 groups of grammatical concepts: I - basic concrete concepts, II - derivational III - concrete relational, or mixed relational IV - purely relational. In accordance with these groups, languages ​​are divided into purely relational and mixed relational. Sapir's work is distinguished by a systematic approach, focus on the functional aspect of typology, the desire to cover the phenomena of different levels of language, but the very concept of a class in it turned out to be fuzzy, as a result of which the grouping of languages ​​was not obvious. The introduction of exact methods in linguistic research led to the emergence of the quantitative typology of J. X. Greenberg, who, taking Sapir's criteria as a basis and transforming them according to his goals, proposed calculating the degree of one or another quality of the linguistic structure manifested in syntagmatics.

Typological (morphological) classification (hereinafter - TC) involves the division of languages ​​into groups based on differences in the ways of forming grammatical forms (not dependent on their genetic relationship).

In the TC, languages ​​are combined on the basis of common features that reflect the most significant features of the language system.

Linguistic typology is a comparative study of the structural and functional properties of languages, regardless of the nature of the genetic relationship between them. The typological study of languages ​​aims to establish the similarities and differences of languages ​​(language structure), which are rooted in the most common and most important properties of the language (for example, in the way morphemes are combined) and do not depend on their genetic relationship.

TC appeared after the genealogical one (at the turn of the XVIII-XIX centuries.), although the material began to appear as early as the 16th century. If the genealogical classification is due to the common origin of languages, then the TC is based on the commonality of the linguistic type and structure (ie, the commonality of the word).

August-Wilhelm and Friedrich Schlegel are considered the founders of the TC.

F. Schlegel compared Sanskrit with Greek, Latin, and also with 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,
3. that inflectional languages ​​are characterized by "wealth, strength and durability", while affixing ones "lack living development from the very beginning", they are characterized by "poverty, poverty and artificiality".

August-Wilhelm Schlegel, taking into account the objections of F. Bopp and other linguists (It is clear that all the languages ​​of the world cannot be divided into two types. Where, for example, is the Chinese language, where there is no internal inflection or regular affixation?), reworked typological classification of his brother's languages ​​("Notes on the Provencal Language and Literature", 1818) and identified three types: 1) inflectional, 2) affixing, 3) amorphous (which is characteristic of the Chinese language), and in inflectional languages ​​he showed two possibilities of grammatical structure : synthetic and analytical.

He went much deeper into the question of the types of languages ​​and finally formulated the theoretical provisions - W. von Humboldt (1767 – 1835).

Humboldt explained that Chinese is not amorphous, but isolating, i.e. the grammatical form in it is manifested differently than in inflectional and agglutinating languages: not by changing words, but by word order and intonation, thus this type is a typically analytical language.

In addition to the three types of languages ​​noted by the Schlegel brothers, Humboldt described a fourth type; the most accepted term for this type is incorporating.

Humboldt noted the absence of "pure" representatives of one or another type of language, which is constructed as an ideal model.

A significant contribution to the development of this typology was made by A.Schleikher, G.Steinthal, E.Sapir, I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay, I.I. Meshchaninov.

A. Schleicher considered isolating or amorphous languages ​​to be archaic, agglutinating languages ​​to be transitional, ancient inflectional languages ​​to be the era of prosperity, and inflectional new (analytical) languages ​​to be attributed to the era of decline.

F.F. Fortunatov very subtly showed the difference in the formation of words in Semitic and Indo-European languages, which until recently was not distinguished by linguists: Semitic languages ​​are “inflectional-agglutinative” and Indo-European languages ​​are “inflectional”.

According to this classification, types of (morphological) languages ​​are distinguished:

• inflectional,
• agglutinative,
• insulating (amorphous),
• incorporating (polysynthetic).

Four types of languages.

inflectional(inflectional) languages ​​(hereinafter - FL) are languages ​​that are characterized by inflectional inflection, i.e. inflection through inflection (ending), which can be an expression of several categorical forms. For example, the ending -y in the form of write-y combines the meaning of the 1st person singular. numbers of the present tense of the indicative mood; the ending -a in the form of board-a indicates the nominative singular feminine.

The main features of this type of languages ​​are: the presence of internal inflection and fusion (alternations are widely used); ambiguity and non-standard affixes, i.e. polyfunctionality of grammatical morphemes; zero affixes are used both in semantically original and semantically secondary forms (hands, boots);

the stem of the word is often dependent: red-, zva-;

phonetic changes in the composition of the morpheme are performed by word-formation and

inflectional functions (phonetically unconditioned root changes);

a large number of phonetically and semantically unmotivated types of declension and

conjugations.

Usually FL are divided into two subclasses: with internal and external inflection.

Inflectional languages ​​include Indo-European languages ​​(Russian, Belarusian, Ukrainian, Czech, Polish, etc., i.e. all Slavic languages, except Bulgarian, languages, Latin, Lithuanian), Semitic languages.

Agglutinative (agglutinating) languages- languages ​​in which word forms

are formed not by changing flexion, but by agglutination.

Agglutination(from Latin agglutinare - to stick) - a way of forming word forms and derivative words by mechanically attaching standard affixes to unchangeable, devoid of internal inflection, bases or roots (note that each affix has only one grammatical meaning, as well as each meaning is always expressed by one and with the same affix). In Turkish, the word form dallarda "on the branches" includes the following morphemes dal - branches, lar - plural. number, da - local case. On the branch can be translated into Turkish as dalda.

Signs of languages ​​of this type:

• highly developed derivational and inflectional affixation;
• they have an unchanging root,
• weak connection between morphemes,
• standard and unambiguous affixes,

the variation of affixes is regular and is caused by the laws of phonemic alternations (the laws of vowel harmony, vowel harmony and consonant assimilation), the boundaries of morphemic segments are characterized by clarity,

the phenomena of simplification and re-decomposition are not typical.

The agglutinative languages ​​are Turkic, Finno-Ugric, Altaic, Uraliclanguages, Bantu languages, Japanese, Korean and some other languages.

insulating(amorphous (Greek amorphos from a- - non-, without- + morphē - form), formless, root, root-isolating) languages ​​- languages ​​\u200b\u200bthat do not have affixes and in which grammatical meanings (case, number, time, etc. .) are expressed either by adjoining one word to another, or with the help of auxiliary words. Since in the languages ​​of this group the word consists of one root, there are no affixes, therefore, there is no such grammatical structure as affixation (the word is equal to the root). For example, in Chinese, the same sound complex can be different parts of speech and, accordingly, different members of a sentence. Therefore, the main grammatical ways are stress and word order in a sentence. The semantic function in this language is performed by intonation.

Something like this is how words are formed in Chinese from the word write: rewrite = write - remake, letter = write - subject.

Its main characteristics:

• immutable words,
• underdeveloped vocabulary,
• grammatically significant sequence of words,
• weak opposition of meaningful and functional words.

Isolate languages ​​are Chinese, Burmese, Vietnamese, Lao,Siamese, Thai, Khmer.

Incorporating (polysynthetic) languages- languages ​​whose grammatical structure is based on incorporation.

incorporation(Latin incorporatio - association, inclusion in its composition) (holophrasis, encapsulation, agglomeration, incorporation) - a way of forming sentence words by adding stem roots (in these languages, the root is equal to a word) of individual words and service elements.

The peculiarity of this type of languages ​​(Indian in America, Paleo-Asiatic in Asia) is that the sentence is built as a compound word, i.e. unformed word roots are agglutinated into one common whole, which will be both a word and a sentence. Parts of this whole are both the elements of the word and the members of the sentence. The whole is a word-sentence, where the beginning is the subject, the end is the predicate, and additions with their definitions and circumstances are incorporated (inserted) into the middle. Humboldt explained this with a Mexican example:

ninakakwa, where ni is “I”, naka is “ed-” (i.e. “eat”), kwa is the object “meat-”. In Russian, three grammatically formed words are obtained, I am meat-about, and, conversely, such an integrally formed combination as an anteater does not constitute a sentence. In order to show how it is possible to “incorporate” in this type of languages, we will give another example from the Chukchi language: ty-ata-kaa-nmy-rkyn - “I kill fat deer”, literally: “I-fat-deer-killing -do”, where the skeleton of the “body” is: you-nmy-rkyn, into which kaa is incorporated - “deer” and its definition is ata - “fat”; The Chukchi language does not tolerate any other arrangement, and the whole is a word-sentence, where the above order of elements is also observed.

Thus, the incorporating languages ​​are characterized by the following features: along with independent words, these languages ​​have complex complexes: the verb form includes an object, a circumstance of an action, sometimes a subject.

Incorporating languages ​​are close to agglutinating languages ​​by the principle of combining morphemes, and to inflecting languages ​​by the presence of an internal form.

This type of language is Paleoasian, Eskimo, Indian languages.

is based on the characteristic features of their external formal (morphological) structure. It relies on only some of the features that distinguish one language from another, while the rest (the general direction of dynamic sound processes, various trends in syntax, semasiology, etc.) are ignored. Meanwhile, we still know almost nothing about the mutual relations that undoubtedly exist between the various aspects of language, for example. between phonetics and morphology, syntax and phonetics, morphology and syntax, and so on. speech. Therefore, we cannot vouch for the fact that the features of this or that language known to M. are caused precisely by M. factors and can really serve as the basis for M. classification. It follows from this that only that M. classification could lay claim to scientific significance, which would result from a comprehensive and profound development of the available scientific material. Modern linguistics, due to its youth, the inaccessibility of entire large sections of material (the languages ​​of many savage tribes only relatively recently received the opportunity to become the property of science, and many still remain inaccessible to it) and the small number of scientific forces working in some of its areas, is only just beginning to to this development. Even the most cultivated areas of it (for example, Indo-European) still present a lot of questions awaiting development. Thus, any attempt by M. to classify languages ​​in our time must inevitably suffer from a certain arbitrariness, randomness in the choice of signs-bases of classification, and inevitably leads, when verified, to a contradiction with the facts. For the vast majority of modern scholars of M., the classification of languages ​​has therefore lost all credit. If scientific M. classification lang. seems in our time not only very difficult, but also simply impossible, then M.'s classification is superficial, rough, relatively very simple and tempting. This explains the emergence of various M. systems of classification of languages ​​at the very dawn of modern linguistics. The first such system was given by Fr. Schlegel in his book "Ueber die Sprache und Weisheit der Indier" (1808). He divides languages ​​into inorganic and organic, referring to the former: 1) languages ​​without any grammatical structure (according to later terminology - insulating), i.e., having neither declension nor conjugation and expressing all grammatical relations with the help of separate independent monosyllabic particle words (for example, Chinese, Annam, etc.), and 2) languages affiliating(according to the latest terminology - agglutinating), i.e. expressing grammatical relations with the help of prefixes and suffixes (affixes = prefixes), easily distinguishable from an unchanged root and often still having an independent meaning (for example, Turkic languages); to organic he refers to inflectional languages, i.e., those with declensions and conjugations and expressing grammatical relations by changes in the root itself (internal and external, through endings closely soldered to the root). Fr system. Schlegel. rather vaguely stated by him, was accepted and more clearly formulated by his brother A. V. Schlegel ("Observations sur la langue et littérature provençales", P., 1818); he supplemented it with the division of inflectional languages ​​into synthetic and analytical. By analytical, he meant languages ​​that express various grammatical relations not with endings (like synthetic languages), but with so-called. members, personal pronouns (before the verb), auxiliary verbs (in conjugation), prepositions (in declension), etc. He defined synthetic languages ​​as "doing without all these means of descriptive expression." The classifications of W. Humboldt ("Ueber die Verschiedenheit des menschlichen Sprachbaues", in Gesam. Werke "VI), Schleicher ("Sprachvergleichende Untersuchungen", 1848, 1850, and "Compendium der Vergl . Grammatik"), Pott ("Jahrbücher der freien deutsch. Akad." (Franfk. am Main, 1849; "Wurzel-Wörterbuch der indogerm. Spr.", P.), F. Bopp ("Vergl. Gramm. ", vol. I) suffer from the disadvantage that they are based not exclusively on M. signs, but also attract more or less psychological grounds (the relation of speech to thinking), albeit indirectly. Max Muller in his classification (III vol. Bunsen "a, "Christianity and mankind", L., 1854, and "Lectures") falls into another error, attracting sociological and ethnographic grounds and distinguishing languages family(family languages; the peoples who speak them did not go further than the family or clan in their social life), nomadic(nomad languages ​​- belonging to the peoples, from time immemorial leading a nomadic life) and state(state languages; the peoples speaking them created a highly developed state system). This classification, with seeming wit, not only sins on the part of logic, but is also in contradiction with the facts. Suffice it to point to the "nomadic" (in terms of language) Magyars, who have reached a high degree of social development, and the "state" gypsies, deprived of any state life. All considered systems of morphological classifications stop only at the largest headings and, with further division, should already resort to genetic classification (see), which has the advantage that, when establishing kinship between certain languages, it takes into account not just one class of features, but all of them aggregate, and therefore less prone to error. But even the largest headings established by M. classification, in fact, turn out to be incorrect or inaccurate. In inflectional languages, we meet forms from a pure root or stem, without any endings, just like in isolating languages ​​(cf. lat. vinyl pronouns those, te, gr. έμε, τε, etc.). In all these cases, scientific analysis is unable to discover a trace of endings, which, apparently, never existed here. On the contrary, in isolating languages, as, for example, in modern Chinese (in dialects), we already find symptoms of the upcoming agglutination. Insulation in all its purity can only be found in ancient Chinese. lang., but even here there are strong arguments in favor of its secondary nature. Wed v. d. Gabelentz, "Die Sprachwissenschaft" (L., 1891, pp. 327-42); Delbrück, "Einleitung in das Sprachstudium" (3rd ed., L., 1894); Steinthal, "Charakteristik d. hauptsächl. Typen d. Sprachbaues" (B., 1860); his own, "Die Classification d. Sprachen dargestellt als d. Entwickelung d. Sprachidee" (B., 1850); Misteli, "Charakteristik d. hauptsächl. Typen d. Sprachbaues" (B., 1893: adaptation of Steinthal's work of the same name); Oppert, "On the classification of languages" (L., 1879); Whitney, "On the classif. of languages" ("Proceedings of the Amer. Orient. Soc.", Oct. 1866); his, "Language and the study of language" (New York, 1867).

• General linguistics. Sociolinguistics: Dictionary-Reference

• - a classification based on the genetic principle, i.e., grouping languages ​​related by origin into language families ...
• - the study and grouping of the languages ​​of the world according to various criteria: the genetic classification of languages ​​\u200b\u200bis based on kinship, that is, common origin from the alleged base language ...
• - see Gap...

  Geological Encyclopedia

• - is based on the characteristic features of their external formal structure. It relies on only some of the features that distinguish one language from another, while the rest are ignored ...

  Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Euphron

• - 1) genetic K. I. - on the basis of kinship, i.e. common origin ...

  Great Soviet Encyclopedia

• - a classification based on the similarities and differences in linguistic structure, as opposed to the genealogical classification of languages ​​...

  Great Soviet Encyclopedia

• - GENEALOGICAL Classification of LANGUAGES - see Classification of languages ​​...

  Big encyclopedic dictionary

• - MORPHOLOGICAL classification of LANGUAGES - classification of languages ​​according to the features of their morphology. Initially, the morphological classification of languages ​​underlay the typological classification of languages ​​...

  Big encyclopedic dictionary

• - The division of languages ​​into groups according to their kinship, based on the common origin and which is expressed in the commonality of words or morphemes. The largest groups are called families...
• - The division of languages ​​into groups according to some common features for them. Genealogical classification. Morphological classification...

  Dictionary of linguistic terms

• - classification of languages...

  Dictionary of linguistic terms

• - Systematization of languages ​​on one basis or another. There are four main classifications; 1) areal; 2) genealogical; 3) typological; 4) functional...

  Dictionary of linguistic terms T.V. Foal

• - Classification based on what part of speech the word to which the clause is attached is, or from the analogy of the clause with a certain part of speech. This classification is mainly used in...

  Syntax: Dictionary

• - One of the types of typological classification, in which the heading is based on the sociolinguistic parameters of languages ​​...

  Dictionary of linguistic terms T.V. Foal

"Morphological classification of languages" in books

the author Raff Rudolph A

From the book Embryos, Genes and Evolution the author Raff Rudolph A

From the book Embryos, Genes and Evolution the author Raff Rudolph A

Chapter 3 Morphological and Molecular Evolution

From the book Embryos, Genes and Evolution the author Raff Rudolph A

Chapter 3 Morphological and Molecular Evolution I think that our heavenly father invented man because he was disappointed in the monkey. Mark

Tree salamanders and frogs without tadpoles. Heterochrony and morphological adaptation

From the book Embryos, Genes and Evolution the author Raff Rudolph A

Tree salamanders and frogs without tadpoles. Heterochrony and morphological adaptation Why might heterochrony be such a common mode of evolution? The answer to this question, apparently, lies in the characterization given to evolution by F. Jacob. According to him,

Morphological and molecular recapitulation. "Cracked Mirror"

From the book Embryos, Genes and Evolution the author Raff Rudolph A

Morphological and molecular recapitulation. "Cracked Mirror" George Wald begins his discussion of molecular recapitulation with the following statement: "Living organisms are greatly enlarged expressions of the molecules of which they are

The sound system of languages. Sound form of languages

From the book Selected Works on Linguistics author Humboldt Wilhelm von

The sound system of languages. The sound form of languages ​​20. The sound form is the form that is created by the language to express thought. But it can also be imagined as a kind of framework into which the language, as it were, is built. The true and complete creation of the sound form could refer to

97. Ranking and classification of factors, classification and ranking of economic objects

From the book Economic Analysis. cheat sheets author Olshevskaya Natalya

97. Ranking and classification of factors, classification and ranking of economic objects

II. Genetic classification of the Uralic languages

From the book Introduction to Historical Uralistics author Napolskikh Vladimir Vladimirovich

II. Genetic classification of the Uralic languages ​​Given the complexity of the Uralic prehistory, outlined above only in its most general possibilities, it is nevertheless necessary to present, first of all, a general picture of the historical path traversed by the Uralic languages ​​- from

8.1. Language classification

From the book The Art of Unix Programming author Raymond Eric Steven

8.1. Classification of languages ​​All languages ​​shown in fig. 8.1 are described in the case studies in this or other chapters of this book. The generic interpreters shown on the right side of the diagram are described in Chapter 14. Chapter 5 covered the Unix conventions for files

Morphological typology of languages- the most developed area of ​​typological research. Typological linguistics began to develop precisely from the morphological classification of languages, that is, among other areas of typological research, morphological typology is chronologically the first.

In the languages ​​of the world, there are two main groups of ways of expressing grammatical meanings- synthetic and analytical.

For synthetic methods expressions of grammatical meanings are characterized by the connection of a grammatical indicator with the word itself. Such an indicator that introduces the grammatical meaning "inside the word" can be prefix, suffix, ending, internal inflection(alternation of sounds in the root: lie down - lie down - bed), stress change ( ss?ypat - pour), suppletivism (child - children, take - take) (see A.A. Reformatsky, 1997, pp. 263–313). The term "synthetic" is motivated, from the Greek. synthesis- "combination, compilation, association."

For analytical methods characteristic expression of grammatical meaning outside words, separately from it: with the help of prepositions, conjunctions, articles, auxiliary verbs, other auxiliary words; using word order through general intonation statements. Recall that analytical - from the Greek. analysis- "separation, decomposition, dismemberment" - this is a separating, decomposing into its component parts; associated with analysis.

Scientists distinguish the following ways of expressing grammatical meanings:

affixation(attachment to the root of grammatical morphemes - affixes);

internal flexion(significant alternation of phonemes in the root of the word, such as English. sing–song or Russian lie down - lie down);

stress;

intonation;

reduplication(repetition of a root morpheme or a whole word);

official words(prepositions, conjunctions, particles, articles, auxiliary verbs, etc.);

word order.

Sometimes this list is added composition(although this grammatical method does not serve for inflection, but for the formation of new words) and suppletivism- using a different root to convey grammatical meaning, like Russian. man - people, put - put or English. good-better).

In principle, each language uses different grammatical methods from among those named, but in practice they are grouped in a certain way, combined with each other. Namely: in some languages, grammatical meaning is expressed mainly within the (significant) word itself: with the help of affixation, internal inflection, stress. Lexical and grammatical meanings appear here in a complex, jointly forming the semantics of the word. Such languages ​​are called synthetic languages. Examples are ancient Latin, and from modern languages ​​​​- Finnish, Estonian, Lithuanian, Polish. In other languages, grammatical meaning is expressed outside the significant word: with the help of functional words, word order, intonation. In such languages, grammatical and lexical meanings are presented separately, they are embodied in different material means. This is analytic languages; these include modern English, French, Danish, Bulgarian, etc.

Many languages ​​combine the features of analyticism and synthetism in their grammatical structure. In particular, modern Russian belongs to the languages mixed order(with some preponderance in the direction of synthetism, although the share of analytical tools in it is steadily increasing); they also include the German language (although elements of analyticism predominate in it), see about this: (B.Yu. Norman, 2004, p. 205).

There are languages ​​in which there are almost no synthetic methods. These are Chinese, Vietnamese, Lao, Thai, Khmer. At the beginning of the XIX century. some linguists have called them amorphous(formless), that is, devoid of form. W. von Humboldt clarified that these languages ​​are not formless, he called them isolating. It was found that these languages ​​are not devoid of grammatical form, but grammatical meanings are expressed in them separately, in isolation from the lexical meaning of the word. The "morphemes" of such languages ​​are extremely isolated from each other, independent, that is, the morpheme is both a root and a separate word. How are words formed in such languages? Do they only contain words like write but no rewrite, nor letter? New words in isolating languages ​​are formed according to a different principle. To form new words, in such languages, you just need to put the roots (words) side by side and you get something in between a compound word and two words. For example, this is how Chinese words are formed from the word write:

rewrite = write + remake, letter = write + subject etc. (on isolating languages, see: N.V. Solntsev, 1985).

On the other hand, there are languages ​​in which the root of the word is so heavily overloaded with various auxiliary and dependent root morphemes that such a word, growing, turns into a sentence in meaning, but at the same time remains shaped like a word. Some words in such languages ​​seem to be introduced into others. At the same time, complex alternations often occur at the junctions of morphemes. Such a word-sentence device is called incorporation(lat . incorporation - inclusion in its composition, from lat. in- in; corpus- the body, a single whole), and the corresponding languages incorporating, or polysynthetic. Polysynthetic languages ​​are Eskimo-Aleut, Chukchi, Koryak, most of the Indian languages ​​of North and Central America.

J. Greenberg even identified language synthesis index.

During the XIX - XX centuries. the science of language develops a classification of languages, called morphological (typological). A good review of research in this field of science was brought to the attention of readers by A. A. Reformatsky. He convincingly showed that science has not yet been able to obtain completely satisfactory results in its repeated attempts to establish the morphological types of languages.

However, some results have been obtained. We can talk about the existence of four morphological types that unite many languages ​​of the world. On what basis are languages ​​combined into one type? Apparently, according to the stable and characteristic features of the given language in the morphological structure of the word.

In the morphological structure of the word of some languages, the role of the ending (inflection) is great, which, as it were, completes the formation of various grammatical forms of the same word. Therefore, in such languages, inflection is a stable and essential feature of the morphological structure of the word. Languages ​​that have this feature constitute one morphological type - inflectional. The inflectional languages ​​include, first of all, the Indo-European languages ​​and then the Semitic-Hamitic ones, which have internal inflection. However, the Semitic-Hamitic languages ​​also have signs of agglutination, so F.F. Fortunatov rightly saw an intermediate type in these languages.

A number of languages ​​are characterized by agglutination, i.e. sequential "gluing" to the base-root of special affixes, each of which expresses only one grammatical meaning. Such affixes turn out to be a stable and essential sign of the morphological structure of a word. Languages ​​with such a sign form the second morphological type - agglutinative. Turkic, Finno-Ugric, Mongolian, Dravidian languages, Japanese, etc. belong to the agglutinative languages. Of course, the degree of agglutination is not the same in all languages.

For a long time, insulating (root) languages ​​were called amorphous, assuming that they lack a grammatical (more precisely, morphological) form. But it turned out that there are no amorphous languages ​​at all. If a language has a grammatical structure (and currently existing languages ​​cannot be devoid of a grammatical structure), then one or another grammatical form is necessarily inherent in its words, it can only be familiar to us or unusual. Thus, the grammatical forms of the Chinese language are unusual for Europeans, therefore, probably, the Chinese language was recognized for a long time as morphologically formless, not even having parts of speech.

What stable and essential features characterize the morphological structure of words in isolating languages? In such languages, there are no formative affixes, and, of course, there is no grammatical change of the word associated with such affixes. Therefore, the word is equal to the basis ("root"). Hence comes one of the names of such languages ​​- root. Inflectional and agglutinative languages ​​can be called affixal languages ​​by contrasting them with root languages. The absence of formative affixes also affects the expression of the connection between words: this connection in the root languages ​​is less formal and "grammatical", more free and "semantic" than in the affix languages. Hence comes the second name of the root languages ​​- isolating. In them, words are devoid of affixal indicators of mutual dependence, and only in this sense are they “isolated” from one another as part of an utterance. Chinese, Tai and other languages ​​belong to the root, mainly in Southeast Asia.

We have already talked about incorporation. Incorporation (polysynthetism) is characteristic of the languages ​​of the Indians of America and some languages ​​of Asia (Chukchi, Koryak, Kamchadal, etc.). A stable and characteristic feature of the morphological structure of a word in corporative languages ​​is its incompleteness: the word acquires a peculiar structure only as part of a sentence. The grammatical construction of an utterance at the same time turns out to be the end of the grammatical construction of a word. However, it must be said here that our ideas about incorporation are not yet clear. It is possible that this phenomenon requires a different interpretation than is customary.

Of course, it would be naive to think that languages ​​of the same type in all words and their forms carry typical features - inflection, agglutination, non-affixation, etc. Typically, a typical feature is a feature that is only more or less common in words, but by no means obligatory for each of them. In Russian, for example, inflection is a stable and significant indicator. But the Russian language is not alien to agglutination, although it is peculiar: for example, in the forms of the past tense ( read-l, speak-l-a, think-l-and), in imperative mood forms ( take-and-those, id-and-those), in the formation of passive verbs from active verbs ( read - read-sya, wipe - wipe-sya). The Russian language is not alien to the elements of "isolation": I'm going that's fast home; sang, of course, long and not resting; early evening here much warmer than during the day- in these statements, the highlighted words, by the absence of signs of inflection and agglutination, resemble the words of isolating languages. So there are no "pure" languages ​​in terms of their morphological classification, just as there is no type superiority. A language of one type over time can change into a language of another type: for example, modern English loses signs of inflection and acquires signs of isolating.

Usually, when presenting information about the morphological classification of languages, they also talk about the difference between analytic and synthetic languages. Synthetism is the presence in significant words of such formal indicators that indicate the connections of these words. Flexibility is one such indicator. Analytizm is the absence of indicators of the connection of one significant word with another, therefore such words transfer the functions of indicators of connection to functional words. However, if there are no "pure" morphological types, then all the more there are no "pure" analytic and synthetic languages. Therefore, the division of languages ​​into synthetic and analytical is very conditional. For example, according to tradition, it is considered that in Russian synthetism is stronger than analyticism, and in English analyticism is stronger than synthetism.

Other (besides those described) classifications of languages ​​have been proposed. One of them belongs to N.Ya. Maru, who tried to divide languages ​​into types depending on the stage of development. However, his hypotheses were not confirmed by specific linguistic facts.

Other classifications can be built on the basis of stable and essential features of the phonetic, word-formation, semantic-lexical and syntactic structure of languages. In particular, attempts are currently being made to construct a so-called typological classification of languages. This classification should be based on the similarities and differences in the essential features of the structure of the languages ​​of different peoples.

Mankind speaks about 5000 languages. Some of them have not yet been described, the boundaries between them have not been established; it is far from always possible to distinguish an independent language from a dialect. Nevertheless, it is possible to make classifications of sufficiently studied languages. Two classifications of languages ​​have been recognized - genealogical and morphological. The genealogical (historical) classification is based on the kinship of languages ​​(common origin), established using the comparative historical method. Large groups (families) of related languages ​​are identified - Indo-European, Finno-Ugric (Uralic), Turkic (Altaic), etc. Each family of languages ​​can be divided into several branches; within each branch, the degree of relationship between languages ​​is greater than the degree of relationship between languages ​​belonging to different branches. Some languages ​​remain outside the general classification.

The morphological (typological) classification of languages ​​is based on the similarities and differences in the morphematic structure of words and their forms in a particular language. According to this classification, four types of languages ​​are distinguished: inflectional, agglutinative, isolating (root), incorporating.

Science recognizes the division of languages ​​into analytical and synthetic. Other approaches to constructing a classification of languages ​​are also possible.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Bryzgunova E.A. Sounds and intonation of Russian speech. M., 1983.
2. Introduction to linguistics: / Reader. 2nd ed. / Comp. Yu.N. Norman,

N.Yu. Pavlenko. Minsk, 1984.

1. Golovin BN Introduction to linguistics: Textbook. Ed. 6th,

stereotypical. - M .: Kom Book, 2007. -232 p.

1. Danilenko V.P. General linguistics and the history of linguistics: a course of lectures /V.P. Danilenko.- M.: Flinta: Nauka, 2009. - 272 p.
2. Kochergina V. A. Introduction to linguistics. Fundamentals of phonetics-phenology. Grammar: Proc. Benefit. – 2nd ed., revised. - M.: Publishing House of Moscow State University, 1991. - 205 p.
3. Linguistic Encyclopedic Dictionary / Ch. ed. V.N. Yartseva, - M.: Sov. Encyclopedia, 1990. - 685 p.
4. Lukina N.D. Practical course of phonetics of the English language: textbook. allowance for in-comrade and factor. Foreign lang. / n.d. Lukin. -2nd ed. Correct. And extra. -M.: Astrel: AST, 2006. - 270 p.
5. Martine A. Fundamentals of General Linguistics // New in Linguistics. M., 1963. Issue 3
6. Maslov Yuri Sergeevich. Introduction to linguistics: Proc. for philology. specialist. universities.
1. - 2nd ed., revised. and additional - M .: Higher. school, 1987. - 272 p. pp. 66-80.
7. Musatov V.N. Russian language. Phonetics, phonology, orthoepy, graphics, orgography: textbook. allowance / V.N. Musatov. -M.: Flinta: Nauka, 2006. - 280 p.
8. Reformatsky A.A. Introduction to Linguistics / Ed. V.A. Vinogradov. - M. Aspect Press, 1996. - 536 p.
9. Rozhdestvensky Yu.V. Lectures on general linguistics: Proc. allowance for philol. specialist. Univ. –M.: Higher. school, 1990. -381 p.
10. Modern Russian: Textbook: Phonetics. Lexicology. Word formation. Morphology. Syntax. - 3rd ed. / L.A. Novikov, L.G. Zubkov, V.V. Ivanov and others; 2001. - 864 p.
11. Susov I.P. Introduction to linguistics: textbook. for students of linguistic and philological specialties / I.P. Susov. - M.: AST: East - West, 2008. - 379 p.
12. Fomina M.I. Modern Russian language. Lexicology: Textbook for in-tov and f-tov foreign language - 2nd ed., corrected. And extra. –M.: Higher. school, 1983. -335 p.
13. Reader for the course "Introduction to Linguistics" Compiled by: A.V. Blinov, I.I. Bogatyreva, O.A. Voloshin, V.P. Murat.- M.: Academic Project, 2005.–560 p.
14. Cheremisina-Enikolopova N.V. Laws and rules of Russian intonation: Textbook.-M.: Flinta: Nauka, 1999. -520 p.
15. Shirokov O.S. Linguistics: an introduction to the science of languages ​​/ Ed. A.A.

Volkov. -M.: "Dobrosvet", 2003.- (Studia academica). – 736 p.