· Classification of lexemes and word forms

The most common and necessary categories in the grammar of each language are parts of speech.

The problem of the essence of parts of speech, the problem of the principles of their allocation, their classification in various languages ​​of the world is one of the most complex and relevant in modern linguistics.

Some scientists believe that parts of speech are lexical groups of words and their classification should be based on conceptual and subject grounds.

Others consider grammatical classes of words to be parts of speech, which are distinguished on the basis of taking into account the morphological and syntactic properties of words.

Another group of scientists believes that parts of speech are functional-semantic classes of words, the classification should take into account the general semantics of words.

In modern linguistics, the most accepted is an integrated approach to the allocation and description of parts of speech, while distinguishing several features, principles of classification.

1. One of the principles of classification is the possibility or impossibility of the functioning of word forms as a member of a sentence.

Those word forms that are or can be members of a sentence are called independent words meaningful, or significant words. (We can say that these are independent parts of speech).

Significant words (parts of speech) include 7 categories:

1. nouns,

2. adjectives,

3. numerals,

4. pronouns,

5. verbs:

Communion,

participles,

6. adverbs,

In addition to being members of the proposal, they have a number of important features:

1) reflect various phenomena of objective reality (objects and their qualities, processes, states, etc.): house, beautiful, run, fun;

2) have a nominative (naming) function. May function as a suggestion.

Word forms that are not members of a sentence are official words (or parts of speech). Functional words (or parts of speech) include:

- prepositions,

– particles .

In addition to the fact that they are not members of the sentence, they do not have an independent nominative function and perform only official speech (as if they “serve” independent words, satisfying their grammatical needs. They cannot function as a sentence). This feature was emphasized in the studies of A.A. Potebni and L.V. Shcherby.

In special groups are allocated modal the words, interjections and onomatopoeic the words.

Modal words serve to express the speaker's assessment of his statement as a whole or its individual parts in terms of their relationship to objective reality (indeed, certainly, undoubtedly, of course, undoubtedly, obviously, of course and etc.).

Not included in the category of modal words:

1) introductory words expressing an emotional attitude to the facts of reality (fortunately, surprisingly, unfortunately, unfortunately, surprisingly and etc.);

2) words with the meaning of clarification, explanation, restriction (in particular, by the way, by the way and etc.);

3) words indicating the connection of thoughts, the order of their presentation, the method of registration, close in function to unions (firstly, finally, on the contrary, that means and etc.).

Interjection are also deprived of the function of naming. They express certain feelings. (oh! choo! fu! alas!) and expressions of will (out! stop!).

Onomatopoeic words are, in their sound design, a reproduction of exclamations, sounds, cries (quack-quack, coo-coo, moo).

Semantic a sign of a part of speech is its general, categorical meaning. Thus, nouns have a categorical meaning of objectivity, which also extends to the semantics of nouns denoting quality - redness, whiteness, action - running, walking, condition - contemplation, calmness. The semantics of these and similar nouns is the abstract meaning of objectivity. A verb has a categorical meaning of an action or a state, an adjective has a quality or a sign of an object, an adverb has a sign of an action or a state.

At the same time, certain difficulties arise: where to attribute words like bakery, daily allowance.

Syntactic a sign of a part of speech is its usual, primary syntactic function.

According to the syntactic feature, one part of speech includes words that can stand in the sentence in the same syntactic positions or perform the same syntactic functions. This takes into account not only a set of syntactic positions and functions, but also the specificity of each of them for a given part of speech. According to the degree of specificity, syntactic functions are divided into primary and secondary. Thus, the primary syntactic function of a noun as a part of speech is to act as a subject and an object. The primary function of a verb is to be a predicate, an adjective a definition, an adverb a circumstance.

The syntactic functions of the parts of speech are mobile: in Russian, the verb acts as a predicate, but not every predicate is a verb; a noun can be a subject, but not always and not every subject is a noun.

Morphological a sign of a part of speech is a system of its morphological categories and morphological categories.

Thus, the nouns of the Russian language have morphological categories of gender, number, case, as well as morphological categories of proper and common nouns, collective and real nouns, and some others. The Russian verb has morphological categories of aspect, voice, tense, person, mood, etc., as well as categories of personal and impersonal verbs, reflexive verbs. Morphological features of one part of speech can be manifested to one degree or another in another part of speech.

For example, the borrowing of words in Russian gave rise to a group of indeclinable nouns (coffee, coat, highway) although inflexibility is a sign primarily of an adverb.

Transition of a group of adjectives into nouns (tailor, dining room, bathroom, living room) gave rise to a special group of words among nouns, which does not reveal, during inflection and word formation, those formal features that are characteristic of nouns.

According to the morphological feature, the Russian language distinguishes words that are unchangeable, for example, adverbs, and changeable, for example, nouns and verbs that have a system of inflection forms.

Morphological features in the allocation of parts of speech are not universal, they are significant only for inflectional and agglutinative languages.

In languages ​​with rich morphemics, derivational feature parts of speech - a set of its word-formation models and word-formation means, as well as the ability to identify bases for replenishing the vocabulary of other parts of speech. So, for a verb as a part of speech of the Russian language, an intra-verbal prefix word formation is typical, for a noun - an intra-substantive suffix word formation. Verbs in Russian highlight the bases for the formation of verbal nouns.

The difficulty of classification lies in the fact that one and the same word has to be considered either as a morphological phenomenon (noun, verb, adverb, etc.), or as a syntactic phenomenon (subject, predicate, object, etc.).

For example, in a sentence The birches are green again we can designate each word with the morphological terms "noun", "verb", "adverb", but we can designate the same words with syntactic terms - "subject", "predicate", "circumstance". This means that in the same word there can be both morphological and syntactic (of course, semantic) features.

· Parts of speech of different languages

The structural originality of each language has led to the fact that the system of parts of speech of each language must be original. Therefore, when describing the parts of speech of individual languages, new terms are being introduced to designate and highlight this “peculiarity”.

The presence of several acceptable signs of the allocation of parts of speech led to the fact that in the list of parts of speech of one language in the same historical period a different number of parts of speech was established. For example, for the Russian language A.A. Shakhmatov established 14 parts of speech, D.N. Kudryavsky - 4 parts of speech, and in the Academic Grammar of the Russian Language they write about eight parts of speech.

In modern Arabic, some scientists distinguish three parts of speech (name, verb, particle), others - six parts of speech (nouns, adjectives, pronouns, numerals, verb, particle), others - eleven parts of speech (noun, numeral, pronoun, verb , adverbs, prepositions, conjunctions, particles, modal words and interjections.

For example, in Chinese, M. Jianzhong establishes five parts of speech for significant words. He writes: "All significant words that denote phenomena and objects, we call nouns." "All significant words, by means of which we indicate names, we call pronouns." “All significant words that tell about the movement of phenomena and objects, we call verbs.” "All significant words that convey the external forms of phenomena and objects, we call adjectives." “All significant words that characterize verbs and adjectives, we call adverbs” (quoted from 146, 11).

A.A. Dragunov distinguishes two groups in Chinese, the name and the predicate. Among them, the leading ones are the noun and the verb, respectively.

The number of examples for both Chinese and other languages ​​could be increased, but the picture is clear.

In modern linguistics, the question of the principles of establishing parts of speech is still relevant.

Thus, the task of establishing parts of speech in different languages ​​is reduced to the following: 1) to a modern assessment of the previously established criteria for determining parts of speech and to clarify questions about the degree of their applicability; 2) to the consideration of such criteria for the selection of parts of speech that would be suitable for all languages ​​known to modern science, i.e. would be universal.

As evidenced by studies of parts of speech in a wide variety of related and unrelated languages, parts of speech in languages ​​of various types act as the most general and universal phenomena in the grammatical system of languages. It is impossible to name a single language in which there would be, for example, a noun or a verb. The presence of parts of speech is a universal phenomenon. Universal system parts of speech are as follows:

1. Parts of speech always form a system, i.e. their general grammatical meanings are in a certain correlation and opposition to each other.

2. The system of parts of speech, like other linguistic phenomena, is basically binomial, therefore it consists of at least two interrelated and mutually opposed components.

3. The system of parts of speech is historical. It arose and developed with the development of human consciousness, is organically connected with human thinking and serves as one of the most important linguistic means of forming and expressing thoughts.

4. The main part of speech in all languages ​​known to science is a noun. It is based on the meaning of grammatical objectivity, which manifests itself: 1) in the lexical meaning of the word, 2) in the forms of the phrase, 3) in its word-formation capabilities and 4) in syntactic functions. A person can express any object and any phenomenon of the world around us objectively, and this representation is always a word that has the general grammatical meaning of objectivity, that is, a noun.

5. Words with the meaning of objectivity, i.e. nouns, words-signs (verb, adjective) and words-signs of these signs (adverb) are opposed. Significant words are divided into static sign words (adjective) and dynamic sign words (verb).

This is the universal system of parts of speech.

Thus, any of the principles, criteria for the classification of word forms (lexemes) does not lead to the system of parts of speech that traditionally exists in a particular language. The commonly distinguished parts of speech are the result of a series of compromises between the syntactic, semantic, and morphological principles of classification.

The compromise nature of decisions made on the issue of parts of speech leads to the fact that the problem of parts of speech is one of the "eternal" problems in grammar.

In various manuals, you can find the following definition:

Parts of speech - these are the main lexico-grammatical categories (groups, classes), according to which the words of the language are distributed based on the principles: 1) semantic (generalized meaning of an object, action or state, quality, etc.), 2) morphological (morphological categories of words) and 3) syntactic (syntactic functions of the word).

GLOSSARY OF TERMS TO THE COURSE "INTRODUCTION TO LINGUISTICS"

Linguistics. Big encyclopedic dictionary. - Moscow: Great Russian Encyclopedia, 1998. - 685 p.

ACCOMMODATION- one of the types of combinatorial changes in sounds; (from lat. accommodatio - adaptation). Occurs between sounds of different types (a vowel with a consonant), so it can only be partial. With A., the excursion of the subsequent sound adapts to the recursion of the previous one (progressive A): "mint" - [m "at]. If the recursion of the previous one adapts to the excursion of the next - regressive A.: "mother" - [mat "]. For modern Russian characteristic A. vowels [a], [o], [y] with soft consonants. These vowels become more front after soft ones, and higher in pitch.

ASSIMILATION- one of the most common types of combinatorial changes in sounds; from lat. assimilatio - assimilation: articulatory assimilation of sounds to each other in the flow of speech within a word or phrase. Occurs between sounds of the same type: a vowel with a vowel or a consonant with a consonant. As a result, A. increases the similarity of sounds. If the sound is completely likened to another sound, complete assimilation occurs (sew - [shsht "], rest - [rest]. If the assimilation occurs only on one basis, assimilation is called partial: by softness / hardness [kos "t" and]; by deafness / sonority [lotk] - "boat"; at the place of formation - konsomolets vm. komsomolets in space. In all the examples given, the previous sound is likened to the next - regressive assimilation occurs. If the subsequent sound is likened to the previous one, then this is progressive assimilation (English hand [z]). If the sounds that are nearby interact, this is contact assimilation (see above). If the sounds separated by other sounds interact, this is distact assimilation (simple hooligan).

INTERNAL SPEECH- 1) planning and control "in the mind" of speech actions. In this sense, it is close to thinking; 2) internal pronunciation. The term was proposed by L.S. Vygotsky, he and his followers developed the theory of the phase structure of the speech act. According to this theory, the generation of speech consists of sequentially replacing each other stages: intention, motive, internal programming and implementation. INTERNAL SPEECH is one of the stages in the preparation of external speech, it creates a semantic scheme of the statement, helps to plan it. It differs from external speech in that it has a concentrated, compressed character, not all of its elements take on a verbal form, it is a system of objective meanings independent of a particular language.

EXCERPT- the middle (second of three) stage of sound articulation, finding the organs of speech in the state necessary for pronouncing this sound.

HAPLOLOGY- one of the types of combinatorial changes in sounds; loss due to dissimilation of one of two immediately following identical or similar syllables. More often occurs in compound words: standard-bearer< знаменоносец, трагикомедия < трагикокомедия, реже на стыке основы и суффикса: розоватый < розововатый.

DEPHONOLOGIZATION- the transformation of different phonemes into positional variants of one phoneme, the loss of the semantic character of any feature. For example, the distinction between long and short vowels in Latin is a phonologically significant feature that has been lost in French. The opposite of phonologisation.

DIACRONY- the historical development of the language system as a subject of study, the study of the language in time, in the process of its development on the time axis. Corresponds to the concept of synchrony.

DISSIMILATION- one of the types of combinatorial changes in sounds; (from Latin dissimilatio - dissimilarity) dissimilarity of the articulation of two or more identical or similar sounds within a word, their loss of common phonetic features. The opposite of assimilation. Dissimilation occurs between sounds of the same type (vowel with vowel, consonant with consonant) and is usually aimed at facilitating pronunciation. If adjacent sounds are distinguished, contact D. arises: simple. "bonba" vm. lit. "bomb". The distribution of sounds separated by other sounds is called distact D.: "camel"< "велблюд". Если последующий звук расподобляется с предыдущим, то это прогрессивная Д. (прост. "пролубь" вм. "прорубь"). Если же расподобляется предыдущий с последующим - регрессивная (прост. "колидор" вм. "коридор").

DIFFERENTIAL FEATURES OF PHONEMS(distinctive features) - a generalization of the articulatory and acoustic properties of sounds that play a semantic role in a given language. A phoneme is a bundle of differential features. So, in the Russian language, for example, for the phoneme [d] the signs will be differential: 1) the method of formation (explosive [d] is opposed to frikat. [s]: house - catfish); 2) place of formation (anterior lingual dental [d] is opposed to posterior lingual [k]: house - com); 3) deafness - voicedness (voiced [d] is opposed to deaf [t]: house - tom); 4) softness - hardness ([d] is opposed to [d"]: do ma - Dyoma).

DIERESIS- one of the types of combinatorial changes, loss of sound when pronouncing the word: "honest"> [h" clear], "sad"> [grusn].

SOUND(as a physical phenomenon) - the result of the oscillatory movements of a body in any environment, carried out by the action of some driving force and available for auditory perception.

SOUND OF SPEECH- the minimum, indivisible, insignificant unit of human speech, isolated as a result of the successive division of the sound chain of the word. From the point of view of articulation, the sound of speech can be represented as a sequence of three phases: a speech act: excursions, excerpts and recursions.

INTEGRAL FEATURES OF PHONEMS- indistinguishable features of phonemes in a given language. For example, in Russian, the sign of longitude / shortness will be integral for vowels, on the contrary, in English or Lat. lang. this sign is differential. For Russian consonants, the sign of aspiration / non-aspiration is integral.

COMBINATORIAL CHANGES- phonetic changes in sounds resulting from the influence of sounds on each other in the flow of speech. The main reason for K.I. - articulatory connectedness of sounds, leading to the fact that the recursion (end of articulation) of the previous sound interacts with the excursion (beginning of articulation) of the next one. As a result, qualitative changes occur: articulation, characteristic of only one sound, extends to others, for example, a consonant softens before soft (bone). The main types are assimilation, dissimilation, accommodation. On the basis of assimilation and dissimilation, other CIs can occur: epenthesis, diaeresis, haplology, metathesis.

METHODS OF LINGUISTICS divided into public and private. General methods are certain theoretical attitudes, methods of language research associated with a certain linguistic theory. Own methods of linguistics appeared in the 19th century, the first general method is comparative-historical, and comparative, descriptive, structural methods, and text interpretation also belong to the general ones. Private methods - separate techniques, techniques, a tool for studying one or another aspect of the language (statistical method, method of component analysis, experimental methods in phonetics, linguogeographic method, etc.).

DEAD LANGUAGE- a language that has fallen into disuse and is known on the basis of written monuments or records made at the time when they were alive. For example, Sanskrit, the literary and caste priestly language of Dr. India, Old Slavonic, literary and church language of the Slavs, native languages ​​of the Indians, the indigenous population of Australia. Dead languages ​​are often preserved in living use as a language of worship: Coptic as the language of worship among Egyptian Christians, Latin in the Catholic Church. In exceptional cases, it is possible to turn a dead language into a spoken, living one, as happened with Hebrew in Israel.

METATHESIS- one of the types of combinatorial changes in sounds; mutual permutation of sounds or syllables within a word. Occurs during the assimilation of new words (associated with the psychological peculiarity of perception: the quantity and quality of successive elements are captured faster and easier than their sequence), therefore, it is more common when borrowing (Russian Frol< лат. Flor), в просторечии и диалектах (ведмедь < мед-ведь, раболатория < лаборатория), в детской речи.

OCCASIONALISM- from lat. occasio - "case". This is a word or phrase used by the speaker once, for a given case, this is the meaning given to the word in a specific context of speech use. In occasionalism, its non-normativeness, situationality always come to the fore. As a rule, the reason for the emergence of occasionalism is the desire of the author to express some specific meaning (sometimes to combine several meanings), which cannot be expressed by existing language means. ), mediocrity (Severyanin). Lexical, morphological, semantic and other types of ok-mov are distinguished. Ok-we are characterized by certain features and originality of functions.

POSITIONAL CHANGES- phonetic changes in sounds that occur depending on the position of the sound in the word. For vowels, this is the position in relation to stress: in unstressed syllables (that is, in a weak position), reduction occurs; for consonants - deafening at the end of a word (mushroom - [gr "un]).

LANGUAGE- (base language) - the language from whose dialects a group of related languages ​​originated. For example, Proto-Slavic is a language that is the ancestor of all Slavic languages; Proto-Indo-European - Indo-European, colloquial. Latin is for Romance. The parent language is restored by a reconstruction method using data from known languages. In some cases, it is possible to use written evidence (Latin as the parent language of the Romance languages). According to the hypotheses of monogenesis, all language families of the world are reduced to the proto-languages ​​of several macrofamilies, and they, in turn, to dialects of one proto-language of Homo sapiens, which has existed since its appearance (100 - 30 thousand years ago). Proto-languages ​​of individual macrofamilies existed 20-10 thousand years ago.

PROSTHESIS- the appearance of an additional sound at the absolute beginning of a word. The prosthetic consonants are [v], [j], [g frikat.]: Rus. "eight" - cf. Bulgarian "osm", lat. "octo"; Russian "lamb" - cf. strsl. "lamb". As prosthetic vowels - [i], [e]: dial. went (walked), Ilvovna (Lvovna), French. esprit< лат. spiritus.

REDUCTION- (from Middle Latin reductio - reduction, reduction) - a change in the articulatory and acoustic characteristics of a vowel sound, caused by a reduction in its duration or a weakening of tension, in unstressed syllables. All unstressed vowels are characterized as vowels with an underfulfilled articulatory program. Distinguish between quantitative and qualitative reduction. Quantitative - this is a decrease in the duration of a sound without changing its timbre. The vowels у, ы are subjected to quantitative reduction in Russian. Qualitative reduction is not only a reduction in the duration of a sound, but also a change in its timbre. The vowels a, o, e in unstressed syllables are subjected to qualitative reduction: "sun" - [sonts], "willow" - [iv]. The absence of reduction is perceived as a deviation from the literary norm (in Russian; in French, for example, reduction of unstressed vowels is practically absent).

RECURSION- the last of the three stages of sound articulation, the transition to the articulation of the next sound or the transition to a neutral position.

SPEECH- concrete speaking, flowing in time and clothed in sound (including internal pronunciation) or written form. SPEECH is understood as the process of speaking (speech activity) and its result (speech works). SPEECH is usually viewed through its opposition to language. SPEECH and language form an inseparable integrity: SPEECH is the embodiment of language, which reveals itself in speech and only through it fulfills its communicative purpose. SPEECH is concrete and unrepeatable, as opposed to the abstractness and reproducibility of language; it is actual, language is potential; SPEECH unfolds in time and space, it is material (consists of signs perceived by the senses), language is abstract; SPEECH is active, changeable, dynamic - language is passive, stable, static. SPEECH is linear, language has a level organization; SPEECH is subjective, belongs to a specific individual, language is the property of society. SPEECH is situationally conditioned; language does not depend on the situation. SPEECH allows elements of random and non-normative, the language is characterized by orderliness and regularity.

SEGMENT UNITS- segments of the sound chain, distinguished by various phonetic means. In Russian, such units are a phrase, a speech tact, a phonetic word, a syllable, and a sound. A phrase is a segment of speech, united by a special intonation and phrasal stress, and concluded between two rather long pauses. The phrase is divided into speech measures. The speech tact (phonetic syntagma) is also characterized by a special intonation and tact stress, but the pauses between the measures are not required, they are shorter than interphrase pauses. Variants in dividing the phrase into measures are acceptable, depending on the meaning that the speaker puts into the statement. A speech tact may consist of one or more phonetic words. A phonetic word is a segment of a speech chain, united by one verbal stress. A phonetic word can correspond to one or more lexical words. For example, the following speech chain is divided into phrases (//), measures (/): The brichka runs, / and Yegorushka sees everything the same / - the sky, / the plain, / hills - / / Above the faded grass / from nothing to make / rooks rush, // they all look alike / and make the steppe / even more monotonous // (A.P. Chekhov). A syllable may consist of one or more sounds. One sound in a syllable is syllabic (syllabic), the rest are non-syllabic (non-syllabic). There are several syllable theories. A syllable is a combination of sounds that is pronounced with one push of exhaled air (expiratory theory). A syllable is a wave of sonority, sonority. A syllable is a grouping of sounds with varying degrees of sonority. The most sonorous is a syllabic sound, the rest of the sounds are non-syllable.

SYNCHRONY- 1) the state of the language at a certain moment of its development, at a certain chronological cut (for example, modern Russian; classical Latin); 2) learning the language in the specified state. The concept of SYNCHRONY was introduced by F. de Saus-sur together with the concept of diachrony.

SUBSTITUTION- replacement of one sound by another, occurs, for example, when borrowing in the absence of any sound in the borrowing language: Rus. "sail"< греч. "Faros", рус. "Степан" < греч. "Stefanos", диал. "квасоля" < "фасоль".

SUPRA-SEGMENTAL UNITS- (prosodic) - units, due to which smaller segment units are combined into larger ones (sounds - into syllables, syllables - into words, etc.). Superimposed on segment units. Suprasegmental (supersegmental, supersegmental) units include stress and intonation. Intonation is the unity of interrelated components: melody, intensity, duration, speech rate and timbre of pronunciation. It is an important means of forming an utterance and revealing its meaning. Stress is the allocation in speech of a particular unit in a sequence of homogeneous units using phonetic means.

THREE ASPECTS IN THE STUDY OF SPEECH SOUNDS- Phonetics distinguishes three aspects in sound: acoustic (physical), articulatory (biological) and functional (actually linguistic). Acoustic considers the physical characteristics of sound (pitch, frequency, timbre, etc.) necessary for its perception by the human hearing aid. Articulatory studies the formation of sounds in the speech apparatus. The functional considers sound as an element of a system that serves to translate words into a material form, without which communication is impossible; at the same time, the semantic-distinctive role of sound units comes to the fore.

UZUS- established practice, habit. Language usage - the use of words, forms, fixed in speech (the meaning of a word that is known to everyone, the forms of a word, its word-formation structure), this is what everyone knows. Contrasted with occasional.

LANGUAGE LEVELS- some "parts" of the language, subsystems of the general language system. A level is characterized by a set of defined units and the rules that govern the use of those units. (Phonemic ur. - unit phoneme; morphemic - morpheme; lexical - word; syntactic - sentence). Language levels are characterized by hierarchy: units of one level can only be combined with their own kind, but when combined, they form units of the next level (phoneme + phoneme = morpheme; morpheme + morpheme = word, etc.).

PHONEME- the minimum insignificant unit of the language, which serves to identify and distinguish between meaningful units - morphemes and words. The main function of the phoneme is semantic. Phonemes in the language system are in opposition (opposition) relations with each other. Oppositions are based on differential (distinctive) features. The phoneme as an abstract unit is opposed to the sound as a concrete unit in which the phoneme is materially realized in speech. Several realizations (allophones) can correspond to one phoneme. Each allophone corresponds to a certain position, different allophones do not occur in the same position. For example, the phoneme [o] can be represented as sounds [o] - under stress: [water], [a] - in the first pre-stressed syllable or at the absolute beginning of a word: [in da], [b] - in stressed syllables , in the second, third, etc. pre-shock: [vd vO s] ("water carrier"). The coincidence of two phonemes in one sound is called neutralization. Neutralization is possible in weak positions (for vowels this is an unstressed position, for consonants - the end of the word): [prUT] - "pond" and "rod" - in the sound [t] the phonemes [d] and [t] are neutralized.

PHONETICS- (from the Greek phonetikos - sound, voice) - a section of linguistics that studies the sound side of the language. F. the material side of its object: the work of the speech apparatus and the acoustic characteristics of sounds, as well as their perception by native speakers. F. is associated with anatomy and physiology, as well as acoustics. Allocate general and private phonetics. The general one studies the conditions of sound formation, based on the capabilities of the human pronunciation apparatus, and also analyzes the acoustic features of sound units, creates universal classifications of speech sounds, etc. Private Ph. considers all these problems in relation to a particular language.

PHONETIC UNITS- see SEGMENTAL UNITS, SUPRA-SEGMENTAL UNITS

PHONOLOGIZATION- the process of transformation of positional variants of one phoneme into independent phonemes. In Praslav lang. [k] and [h] are positional variants: [k] was pronounced before front vowels, [h] - before front vowels as a result of the first palatalization. In modern Russian lang. [k] and [h] - different phonemes (cat - even).

PHONOLOGY- (from the Greek. Phone - sound and logos - word) - a section of linguistics that studies sounds in a functional aspect: Ph. considers the differences and identity of the sound elements of the language. Their meaningful function comes to the fore, which is associated with the distinction (identification) of significant units of the language - words and morphemes.

LANGUAGE FUNCTIONS- the role (use, purpose) of language in a given society. The functions of a language are a manifestation of its essence, its nature, and are those characteristics without which the language cannot be itself. The main functions of the language are communicative (to be the most important means of human communication) and cognitive (cognitive, associated with consciousness, thought formation). They also distinguish emotional (to be a means of expressing feelings and emotions), metalinguistic (to be a means of researching and describing language in terms of the language itself). The remaining functions are private, derived from the main ones, with which they correlate. The communicative function includes contact-establishing (phatic), conative (assimilation), voluntarily (influence), as well as accumulative, the function of storing and transmitting self-consciousness and traditions. With cognitive combined nominative and some. etc. From the emotional - poetic. An ethnic function is also distinguished (to be a means of communication in a certain ethnic group), magical (to create conspiracies, spells, etc.), etc.

EXCURSION- the initial (first of three) stage of sound articulation, the transition of the speech organs to the state necessary for the production of this sound.

EPENTHESIS- one of the types of combinatorial changes in sounds; the emergence in the word (most often due to dissimilation) of an additional, non-etymological sound (consonant or vowel). E. arises during the development of borrowings with combinations of sounds unusual for the native language. For example, gaping (confluence of vowels) uncharacteristic for the Russian language leads to the appearance of [j] Persia< Persia. Чаще встречается в ненормиро-ванной речи (простор., диал., детск.): радиво, страм.

LANGUAGE- the main object of study of linguistics. The term "LANGUAGE" has two interrelated meanings: 1) LANGUAGE - a socially fixed system of objectively existing certain signs and rules for their use. LANGUAGE in this sense is an abstract idea of ​​a single human language, in which the universal properties of all specific languages ​​are concentrated; 2) a specific LANGUAGE, that is, some real-life sign system used in some society at some time and in some space. Concrete languages ​​are multiple implementations of properties of a language in general. The main property of LANGUAGE is its social purpose, that is, as a sign system, it exists primarily not for an individual, but for a certain society. The essence of a language is revealed in its functions.

LINGUISTICS (LINGUISTICS)- the science of natural human language in general and of all languages ​​of the world as its individual representatives. Refers to the social (humanitarian) sciences. Sections of linguistics are distinguished: the general I. and the private I. The general I. deals with the properties inherent in any language, establishes linguistic universals (for example, talks about the functions of the language, establishes the difference between vowels and consonants, finds out how the word and the subject of reality are connected, which this word denotes, decides what the grammatical meaning is, etc.). Private sections of Japanese are distinguished depending on the language or group of related languages ​​that are studied by this section (Russian studies, Japanese studies, Turkology), or depending on the level of the language that this section is devoted to studying (phonetics, vocabulary, etc.). ).

The distribution of words by parts of speech in each language is subject to its own semantic, grammatical and syntactic patterns. As a result, in the structure of one or another part of speech, as well as in their very set, the originality of languages ​​\u200b\u200bis manifested. In Russian, for example, among the significant parts of speech, a noun, adjective, verb, adverb, pronoun, numeral are distinguished, in Chinese - a name, a predicative (i.e. a verb and

Adjective) and adverb, in a number of languages ​​​​of North America and Africa, adverbs and adjectives are combined within one part of speech, etc.

Differences can also be traced in the set of grammatical categories of common parts of speech. So, if we turn to a noun, then in Bulgarian, for example, a noun has a category of definiteness / indefiniteness, which nouns in Russian do not have, at the same time there is no category of case; in English, Armenian, Georgian, Korean, Uzbek, Tajik, Bengali languages, the noun, having the general meaning of objectivity, does not have the category of gender; in the Scandinavian languages, nouns have only two genders - common and neuter; in the Finno-Ugric languages, a noun has a category of possessiveness, which expresses belonging to someone or possessing something (for which special suffixes are used that are included in the stem of the word before the case ending), as well as a branched system of case forms (in Hungarian, for example, there are twenty of them), in addition, the noun here can change in degrees, despite the fact that the category of gender is absent; a similar situation is observed in some Turkic languages ​​(for example, in Bashkir): a noun, denoting an object, is devoid of the category of gender, but has the category of possessiveness; nouns in the Yenisei and Dravidian languages ​​also have the category of possessiveness, etc.

The originality can also be traced in the organization of such a part of speech as a verb: in Bulgarian, for example, the verb has a more developed system of tense forms than in Russian, this especially applies to the past and future tense (cf., for example, such forms of the past tense as aorist "past perfect", imperfect "past indefinite", pluperfect "past preliminary" or future: "future preliminary", "future in the past", etc.). The situation is even more complicated in English, where twenty-six tense forms of the English verb are presented, which can convey the relation of the action indicated by the verb, not only to the moment of speech, but also distinguish between the certainty / indefiniteness of the action, completeness / incompleteness, duration / instantaneousness, etc. .; in the Turkic languages, the verb, in addition to the active and passive voice, known in all Slavic languages, also has a return-

nym, mutual, coercive pledges, each of which (except for the real one) has its own formative affixes; in addition, in addition to the indicative and imperative moods, the desirable and the conditional are distinguished in the Turkic verb, having their own formal expression; in the Abkhaz-Adyghe languages, the verb has such rare morphological categories as the category of union (which expresses the idea of ​​performing an action with someone), compulsion (causative), version (transmitting the relation of the action to its subject or indirect object); in the Lezgi language, the verb has the category of tense and mood, but does not change for persons and numbers.

Thus, the morphological system of any language, along with universal elements, has its own, which form its originality and individuality.

SENTENCE AND TERM

A sentence is one of the main grammatical categories of syntax. As a communicative-predicative unit, it is opposed to the word and phrase in form, meaning and functions. In the theory of linguistics, there is no single definition of a sentence (about a thousand different definitions are known in science), which indicates that a sentence (like a word) belongs to the most complex linguistic concepts that can be characterized from different points of view. A sentence (in the broadest sense of the word) is the smallest communicative unit of language and speech. The sentence belongs to the language as a grammatically organized model of connecting words (or a word), as a structural type, and speech - as a speech formation, a statement that has semantic and intonational completeness. Being a unit of communication, a sentence is a unit of formation and expression of thought, which manifests the unity of language and thinking.

The study of the nature of the sentence, its form, meanings and functions has a long tradition and is characterized by different approaches. Only in Russian linguistics can we distinguish several

directions:

1) logical. Representatives of this trend (FI. Buslaev, N.I. Grech) defined a sentence as a “judgment”, expressed in words, since logical categories are reproduced in it.

Riya and relationships. However, the sentence, although correlative with the logical judgment, is in general not identical to it, since not every sentence expresses a judgment (cf., for example, interrogative or incentive sentences that do not express judgments, although they are built according to a certain structural model);

2) psychological. Supporters of this trend (A.A. Po-
you, D.N. Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky) considered the proposal
as a "psychological judgment". The psychological basis
clause is the combination of two representations in a special act
thinking called psychological communication. Existence
the presence of a verb in
personal form. On a logical and psychological basis, he built a theory
proposals and acad. A.A. Shakhmatov, who claimed that he
nie is a unit of speech perceived by the speaker and the listener
as a grammatical whole that serves for verbal expression
unity of thinking;

3) formal-grammatical. Representatives of this
board (the founder of which was F.F. Fortunatov)
in their definition of the proposal, they proceeded from the formal
signs: intonation, the presence of certain types of forms
presenting and predicate, etc. Based on the theory of formal classes,
F.F. Fortunatov defined a sentence as "a type of phrase
niya", which includes the grammatical subject and gram
tic predicate. However, the formal features of the proposal
even in the same language can be different (depending on the function
rational and meaningful side of the sentence), and therefore
this criterion is not universal for a general definition
suggestions;

4) structural-semantic. The founder of this
board, which received the greatest recognition in the domestic
linguistics, was acad. V.V. Vinogradov. Developing your teacher's ideas
calf acad. A.A. Shakhmatova, he defined the sentence as a gram
a holistic unit which is formalized according to the laws of a given language
speech, which is the main means of formation, expression
zheniya and messages of thought. The distinguishing features of this
units are predicative (by which we mean
relation of the content of the sentence to reality)
and intonation of the message.

In modern syntactic science, the tendency to distinguish between a sentence as a unit of language and as

units of speech. A sentence as a language unit is a structural type or model (for example, subject + predicate + object or predicate + circumstance, etc.). A sentence as a unit of speech is a statement, i.e. this is the lexical content of this structural model. As a unit of language, a sentence is reproducible (as any structural model is reproducible), as a unit of speech, it cannot be reproduced in the same form to express a new meaning, i.e. a statement is one of the speech variants of a sentence, its realization, since in speech the sentence functions in the form of a statement. And this is one of the features of the sentence, which distinguishes it from the "subordinate" language units.

As a unit of speech, a sentence has a communicative function, and in this sense, a sentence can be defined as the smallest communicative unit of a language. It is a unit of communication and is used as a means of communication between people. As a communicative unit, the sentence has a special intonation, the so-called intonation of the message, which is, as it were, an external manifestation of the communicativeness of the sentence.

The grammatical nature of the sentence is realized in the syntactic categories of modality and predicativity. Modality allows you to convey the attitude of the speaker to what is being expressed, his assessment of what is being reported in terms of correlation with objective reality: is it real or unreal, possible or impossible, necessary or probable, desirable or undesirable, etc. Modality is expressed by grammatical and lexical means: mood forms, modal words, particles, and intonation.

The category of predicativity allows the speaker to express with the help of linguistic means the relation of the content of the statement to reality. Such linguistic means are the grammatical category of time (actions, phenomena, states named in the sentence proceed in time, i.e. correspond to the speaker with the moment of speech), the category of person (the action is correlated with the subject or object of the action, i.e. with one of three persons), the category of modality.

Communicativity, predicativity and modality distinguish a sentence from a lower-level unit - phrases.

A phrase is a syntactic construction formed by combining two or more significant words based on

Subordinating grammatical connection (agreement, control, adjacency). Between the phrase and the sentence there are deep internal differences associated with their formal organization, with the nature of their grammatical meanings and syntactic functions. The phrase is a means of nomination, in contrast to the sentence - a means of communication. It denotes an object, phenomenon, process, quality, called the core word and specified, concretized by the dependent component (cf. blue sea, love spring, very far away). The grammatical meaning of a phrase is created by the relationship that arises between significant words that are connected on the basis of one or another type of subordinate connection (agreement, control and adjacency). The phrase is devoid of the main features of the sentence - communicativeness, modality, predicativity, it does not have, respectively, neither the category of time, nor the category of the person, nor the intonation of the message, therefore, phrases are only the building material of the sentence.

In the structure of the phrase, the main and dependent word are distinguished. The main word is a word that, with its internal properties, determines the connection and outlines the scheme for constructing a phrase (for example, the verb read in Russian requires the accusative case without a preposition: newspaper, book, letter). A dependent word is a word (or word form) that implements this relationship. Depending on the part-speech attribution of the main word, phrases can be verbal (cf. dig with a shovel) named (cf. polka dot dress) adverbial (cf. very fast).

The main and dependent word in the phrase are interconnected by a subordinate relationship. In Russian and in many other languages, the following types of syntactic connection of words in a phrase are distinguished: agreement, control, and adjunction.

Agreement is a kind of subordination in which the dependent word is likened to the main one in their common grammatical forms (gender, number, case), cf. new dress: dependent word new is likened to the main, repeating the same grammatical forms in which the main appears, i.e. singular, genitive, neuter. Agreement is widely represented in languages ​​with a developed system of inflections for expressing attributive relations.

Management is a kind of subordinating relationship in which the main word requires the use of the dependent in a definite

n th case with or without a preposition, cf. proud of father main word be proud to realize its meaning requires the use of a dependent word in TV. n. without preposition. In Indo-European languages, the main word (most often a verb) governs a prepositional or non-prepositional word form of a name (noun or pronoun) in a certain oblique case.

Adjacency is a kind of subordinating connection in which the dependent word, having no forms of inflection, adjoins the main one (the dependence of the adjoining word is expressed not by the variability of its form, but only by location and grammatical function), cf. go down. Adjacency is especially typical for languages ​​of the analytical type (in particular, Turkic, English, Vietnamese, etc.).

In some languages, there are other types of syntactic connection of words within a phrase, for example, in Iranian and Turkic languages, such a type of attributive constructions as izafet is distinguished: the definition here is after the word being defined and is expressed either by an enclitic attached to the word being defined (as, for example, in Iranian languages), or a noun (as in Turkic), cf.: in Tajik whale"book" + link indicator and(which goes back to the pronoun which) + adjective hub"good" - whale-i hub"good book". In agglutinative languages, there is also such a type of syntactic connection within the phrase as incorporation: the components are combined into a single whole without any formal indicators, cf.: in the Chukchi language, attributive relations in the phrase "fat deer" are conveyed by incorporation ata- kaa(where kaa"deer", ata"bold") into the skeleton of a sentence word (since the sentence is built as a compound word): you-nmy-rkyn literally: "I kill do", i.e. you-ata-kaa-nmy-rkyn"I kill fat deer."

A special kind of connection exists between the subject and the predicate. This combination is not a phrase in the terminological meaning of the word, which implies the presence of a main and dependent component. Between these members of the sentence there are predicative relations that arise only in the sentence. Unlike other phrases, this combination contains a message (affirmation or negation) and has a semantic completeness, therefore it is not a phrase, but only a combination of words interconnected by a special type of syntactic connection by coordination (i.e. adaptation of forms to each other) ,

Built on the principle of equality. There are, however, other points of view according to which the connection between the subject and the predicate is considered as subordinating, while some scientists believe that the main (independent) word in this connection is the subject (F.F. Fortunatov, A.A. Shakhmatov, A.M. Peshkovsky) , since in many languages ​​the predicate is consistent with the subject, thereby demonstrating its dependence on it; while others consider the predicate to be the dominant member (L. Tenier, A.A. Kholodovich), since it is it that “sets” the structural scheme of the sentence.

It is not a phrase (in the terminological sense) and a group of homogeneous members interconnected by a coordinating link (pen and notebook, blue and green): in this type of connection there is no “grammatical dominance” of one word over another, both words are equal, which is expressed in the fact that none of the members of this combination can be considered as a word denoting a sign of the other, and therefore it does not allow a grammatical question to be to another member of the combination, i.e. both members of the combination retain formal independence from each other.

In modern linguistics, there is another point of view (which goes back to F.F. Fortunatov, A.A. Shakhmatov, A.M. Peshkovsky, M.N. Peterson, etc.), according to which a phrase is defined as any combination of two or more significant words, characterized by the presence between them of a formally expressed semantic connection, i.e. The most important thing for a phrase in this approach is its grammatical organization, formalization. However, in this case, the problem arises of delimiting a phrase from a phraseological unit, a complex or compound word, as well as a sentence that can be considered as a complexly organized phrase.

Coordinating and subordinating communication are known in many languages ​​of the world, although in some languages ​​these two types of syntactic communication are not clearly differentiated. Even in the Russian language, where this connection is pronounced, there are cases of the absence of a sharp boundary between composition and subordination, especially in complex sentences, as a result of which, along with compound and complex sentences, there are sentences that combine the features of both, cf. , for example, complex sentences with comparative conjunctions if ... then, then how, in the meantime gak etc.

The theory of phrases is being developed mainly in Russian linguistics (see the works of V.V. Vinogradov and his followers H.N. Prokopovich, N.Yu. Shvedova and others). In foreign linguistics, the concept of a phrase is not widely used; it most often corresponds to the terms syntagma and phrase.

SENTENCE AS THE BASIC COMMUNICATION AND STRUCTURAL SYNTAX UNIT OF THE LANGUAGE

The central grammatical unit of syntax is a simple sentence as an elementary unit used to convey relatively complete information, as well as to build a complex sentence or any extended text. A simple sentence has its own grammatical features: being formed according to a certain grammatical pattern, it has the meaning of predicativity, has a semantic structure, formal characteristics, a communicative attitude and intonation. At the same time, recent studies of syntaxists have shown that this syntactic unit is closely related to the word: almost all grammatical patterns of a sentence are subject to lexical restrictions, which is especially pronounced in the languages ​​of the so-called ergative (< др.греч. Ergates"doer") of the system (most Caucasian, Basque, many Australian and Chukchi languages), the syntax of which is characterized by a special design of predicative constructions, which depends on the class of the verb (in particular, its semantics, as well as transitivity / intransitivity).

Depending on the communication goals messages simple sentences are divided into several communicative types - narrative, interrogative and incentive, each of which has a more fractional gradation. The presence of a special emotional coloring of sentences allows you to highlight exclamatory sentences.

According to the nature of the relation to reality expressed in the sentence, all simple sentences are divided into affirmative (in which the content of the sentence is affirmed as real) and negative (in which the content of the sentence is affirmed as unreal).

By the presence / absence of secondary members in a simple sentence, it can be common and non-common.

Each simple sentence has its own structural scheme, i.e. an elementary sample (model) on which it is built. In the languages ​​of the world, there are differences in the structural schemes of a simple sentence: and-e languages, for example, are mainly characteristic. two-component structure diagrams consisting of a predicate (i.e. a verb in a personal form or a form of another word in the same function) and a subject (i.e. the nominative form of a name or infinitive), although there are also one-component structure diagrams containing only one from the main members. Differences are also observed in the order of these terms: for example, in Russian, Hebrew, Latin, Greek it is free, but there are languages ​​(cf. Germanic and Romance) where it is fixed: in English, for example, the subject comes first, on the second - the predicate, on the third - the addition, on the fourth - the circumstance. In languages ​​where declension is poorly developed, fixed word order is the main way to determine the function of a name in a sentence (cf. French. Le lion a tue le chasseur"the lion killed the hunter", but if you rearrange the words le lion"lion" and to the chasseur"hunter", then the meaning of the sentence will change to "the hunter killed the lion"). The same situation is observed in the Turkic, Korean, Papuan languages, where there is a “subject - object - predicate” scheme, and in some Altaic and Indo-Aryan languages, secondary members always precede the main ones, while the predicate is at the end of the sentence.

Depending on the structural-semantic scheme of a simple sentence, the presence of one or two organizing centers in it, in all i-th languages, two-component structural schemes and one-component or two-part and one-part sentences are distinguished (the latter have their own gradation depending on the part-of-speech belonging of the main member of the sentence, cf. . verbal and substantive sentences), which are divided into several types (cf. in Russian, definitely personal, indefinitely personal, generalized personal, impersonal, infinitive, nominative). In most languages ​​of the world, a verb is present in the structural scheme of the sentence, but there are languages ​​(for example, Semitic) in which verbless predication is widely represented, i.e. they are characterized by sentences of the nominative type.

Depending on the implementation of the structural-semantic model of a simple sentence, the presence / absence of structurally necessary members in it, simple sentences are divided into complete (having all structurally necessary members) and incomplete (with missing structurally necessary members, the existence of which is indicated by the context).

One of the main features of a sentence is predication, so the number of predicative centers of a sentence turns out to be a determining factor for dividing sentences by complexity, because in speech, simple sentences are organized into complex ones. A complex sentence is a combination, according to certain grammatical rules, of two or more simple sentences based on one or another type of grammatical connection. The connection of parts of a complex sentence is carried out with the help of intonation, conjunctions (coordinating and subordinating), allied words, a special ratio of verb forms, often with the support of the lexical composition of the parts of a complex sentence (i.e. one of the sentences contains words that need to be distributed to others offer). Parts of a complex sentence, being sentences in form, do not have an independent communicative meaning and intonation completeness. Being a grammatical analogue of a simple sentence, in isolated use they are not able to convey the general meaning of a complex sentence. Therefore, the parts of a complex sentence form one single whole. This structural and semantic integrity of a complex sentence distinguishes it from a series of simple independent sentences.

Depending on what means of communication are used when combining two or more simple sentences as part of a complex one, there are allied (where the main means of communication are unions, allied words and intonation) and non-union sentences (where such a means of communication is primarily intonation). According to the nature of unions and the formal dependence / independence of parts of a complex sentence, as well as the degree of closeness of their structural and semantic connection, all union sentences are divided into compound (with formally independent parts connected by coordinating unions) and compound (with formally dependent and closely related components - the main and subordinate parts, connected by subordinating conjunctions and allied words). Further gradation of complex allied proposals is determined by the nature

a formal expression of the semantic-syntactic connection of the parts of a complex sentence (cf. within the framework of compound sentences such typologically universal types of compositional relations as connective, adversative and divisive, or within the framework of complex subordinates - definitive, explanatory, temporal, causal, investigative, etc.).

A complex sentence, just like a simple one, has its own structural scheme of construction, and if in some languages ​​this scheme is not rigid, allowing the placement of a subordinate clause in any position, as well as the rearrangement of the main and subordinate clauses (as, for example, in Russian), then in in other languages, it is rather rigid, predetermining the strict order of its parts (as, for example, in Semitic languages, where the main clause always comes before the subordinate clause, or in Cushitic, where, on the contrary, the subordinate clause precedes the main one). There are, however, languages ​​(for example, Turkic, Dravidian), whose syntax is characterized by the absence of subordinate clauses, and various subordinating relations are transmitted using participial and adverbial constructions or infinitive constructions; A similar situation is observed in the Abkhaz-Adyghe languages, where adverbial infinitive forms of the verb act as subordinate clauses.

Each sentence has not only a formal division, but also a semantic one, since the communicative load of a sentence between its members can be distributed in different ways. The actual division of the sentence is connected with the distribution of this functional load, i.e. the semantic division of the sentence into the original part of the message - the topic (or given) and into what is asserted about it - the rheme (or new). The very word "actual" indicates that this articulation takes place only at the moment of communication, in actual speech. Moreover, in speech, any member of the sentence, depending on the situation or context, can act as a theme or rheme (cf. Flowers(subject) on the window(rhema) when answering a question: "Where are the Gretas?" or On the window(subject) warmed up(rhema) when answering a question "What's on the window?"). The main means of actual division of a sentence in oral speech is word order (the topic is usually placed at the beginning of the phrase, and the rheme at the end), intonation (it rises on the topic, decreases on the rheme) and pause. The components of the actual articulation can thus be recognized by their position in the phrase. When this order is changed, the phrasal

stress: it falls in an enhanced form on the rheme (cf. Petya Ivanov(subject) did not like to study(rheme) and Didn't like to study(rheme) Petya Ivanov(topic), i.e. the same sentence in terms of lexical composition, grammatical meaning and syntactic structure can receive different actual articulation in speech. The exception is some one-part sentences that are not amenable to actual division (cf. Late fall). Word order, however, is not only an indicator of the actual articulation, but also itself to a certain extent depends on it (if, for example, the topic is a circumstance, then the predicate precedes the subject, cf. Through the wavy mists(subject) the moon is breaking through(rheme).

PARTS OF SPEECH AND SENTENCE MEMBERS

The members of a sentence are the structural and semantic components of a sentence (word forms or phrases), which differ in their function and are distinguished by a whole range of formal and semantic features (the function of creating a predicative center of a sentence, the nature of formal connections and syntactic relations, the way of linguistic expression, etc.) . Each sentence consists of sentence members structuring it, which are interconnected by certain grammatical and logical relationships. The theory of sentence members arose in the process of studying a simple sentence, dividing it into functional elements. The term "members of a sentence" itself appeared due to the fact that it was found that the language did not have a one-to-one correspondence between the grammatical classes of words and their role (functions performed by them) in the sentence.

Attempts to build a classification of sentence members in accordance with parts of speech go back to the ancient grammatical tradition, when it was noticed that there is some correspondence between parts of speech and sentence members: each part of speech in its primary function acts as a specific member of the sentence, and, conversely, each the member of the sentence has its own characteristic way of part-of-speech expression. In Russian linguistics, this approach to the study of sentence members was implemented in the works of A.A. Potebni, D.N. Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky, A.M. Peshkovsky (compare the terms “agreeable adjective” proposed by A.M. Peshkovsky instead of a definition or

"controlled noun" instead of object, "adjoining adverb" instead of adverb). In modern linguistics, there was also an opinion that parts of speech are morphologized members of a sentence (see, for example, the works of Academician I.I. Meshchaninov). The system of sentence members for a long time underlay the characteristics of the types of subordinate clauses in the composition of a complex sentence (cf. subject clause, additional clause, adverbial clause, and still remaining attributive clause).

In syntactic science, it is customary to distinguish between the main members of a sentence (subject and predicate) and secondary ones (definition, object, circumstance), the role and function of which in constructing a sentence and reflecting elements of reality in it is different. The main members of the sentence are the center of the structure of the sentence, its core, since it is they who organize the minimum basis of the sentence. They determine the formally grammatical organization of the sentence, express its grammatical meanings (modality, tense, person), perform a logical function. The secondary members of the sentence are the distributors of the rest of its members (main and secondary) or the entire sentence as a whole, when the needs of communication make it necessary to clarify, concretize, “deploy” the components of the sentence, therefore their function in the sentence is semantic. At the same time, the secondary members of the sentence can be informatively more significant than the main ones (cf. The water is coming or be a thunderstorm).

The members of a sentence are distinguished, as a rule, according to two main criteria - logical (or semantic) and formal (or grammatical), although other features are also taken into account, for example, the communicative function of the sentence, which makes it possible to determine the theme and rheme of the message in it.

Subject (tracing paper lat. subjectum"subject") is the main member of the sentence, indicating the "logical subject" (in the traditional concept) or, more broadly, the object to which the predicate refers. The position of the subject in i-th languages ​​is usually occupied by a noun in im.p., however, any substantiated form can be used in this position, and in Russian even a non-substantiated form (cf. smoke- harmful), phraseologism and even a whole sentence (cf. "Proletarians of all countries, unite!" - the main slogan of the communists). Some linguists do not rule out

the possibility of expressing the subject in other case forms, for example, in negation, cf. There was no church in the village.

The predicate is the main member of the sentence, indicating the action, state, property or quality in their relation to the subject or, more broadly, to the object expressed by the subject, i.e. the predicate expresses the predicative feature of the subject. Formally, the predicate depends on the subject (the forms of dependence are different in languages), but it is the predicate, which conveys modality and tense, that forms the predicative center of the sentence. The position of the predicate is usually occupied by the verb (however, the name can also be used in this position, as well as various circumstantial turns).

The subject and the predicate are interconnected by predicative relations, they create the predicative minimum of the sentence. In the communicative aspect, the subject in most cases acts as a grammaticalized theme, and the predicate as a grammaticalized rheme.

The secondary members of the sentence include the definition, addition and circumstance, which differ in the nature of the syntactic connection and the functions they perform in the sentence.

A definition is a minor member of a sentence that extends and explains any member of a sentence with an objective meaning and denotes a sign, quality or property of an object. It is associated with the name being defined (or any other substantiated part of speech) by an attributive connection according to the method of agreement (cf. green lamp) less often - according to the method of management (cf. man with a gun or contiguity (cf. loose shirt). The morphologized form of the definition is the adjective. A definition expressed by a noun and explaining the noun is called an application. Unlike the “classical” definition, which is characterized by a subordinating connection, the application has a special kind of connection with the word being defined, built on the principle of “mutual agreement” (cf. young warrior).

An addition is a minor member of a sentence that extends and explains any member of a sentence with the meaning of an action, object or attribute and designates an object in its relation to the action, object or attribute. The main type of syntactic connection is control (cf. read a book, improve productivity, satisfied with success). The morphologized form of the complement is a noun in the indirect case. The addition can be direct (expressed in the form of

Thread case without a preposition) and indirect. The direct object, correlating with the subject, is referred by some scholars to the main members of the sentence.

A circumstance is a minor member of a sentence that expands and explains the members of the sentence with the meaning of the action or feature or the sentence as a whole and indicates where, when, under what circumstances the action is performed or indicates the condition, reason, purpose of its implementation, as well as the measure, degree and the way it manifests. The mythologized form of the circumstance is the adverb, the main type of syntactic connection-adjacency (cf. stay up late).

In a sentence, however, the meanings of secondary members can often be combined (for example, adverbial meanings with attributive and additional meanings, or the meanings of an indirect adjective with the meaning of an inconsistent definition, cf. walk, garden in front of the house, house with a mezzanine), which leads to the possibility of a double interpretation of the secondary members of the sentence, the allocation of mixed types.

The syntactic load of parts of speech in the function of members of a sentence is not the same. It is especially high for nouns, which can act as any member of the sentence, and much less for adjectives and verbs (personal forms of the verb, for example, can only act as a predicate).

Some modern syntactic theories of generative grammar exclude the concept of sentence members, replacing it with the concept of a dependency tree, which reflects the system of syntactic subordination implemented in the sentence.

LANGUAGE AS A SYSTEM OF SYSTEMS

The elements of the language do not exist in isolation, but in close connection and opposition to each other, i.e. in system. The interrelation of the elements of the language lies in the fact that the change or loss of one element, as a rule, is reflected in other elements of the language (for example, the fall of the reduced ones in the Old Russian language caused the restructuring of its entire system of consonantism, the formation of the categories of deafness/voicedness and hardness/softness).

Scientists have been aware of the structural complexity of the language system for a long time (W. Humboldt spoke about the systemic nature of the language: “In

In language there is nothing singular, each individual element of it manifests itself only as part of the whole. However, a deep theoretical understanding of the systematic nature of the language appeared later, in the works of the Swiss scientist F. de Saussure. “No one has realized and described the systemic organization of language as clearly as Saus-sur,” wrote E. Benveniste. 1 Language, according to Saussure, is "a system, all parts of which can and should be considered in their synchronic interdependence." 2 Therefore, each element of the language should be studied from the point of view of its role in the language system (cf .: in Russian, which has lost its dual number, the plural began to have a different meaning than in Slovenian, where the category of the dual number is still preserved).

In linguistics, the terms system and structure have long been used as synonyms. However, in the last decade there has been a trend towards their differentiation. The system is understood as an internally organized set of elements that are in relationships and connections with each other (i.e., the following basic concepts are taken into account here: "set", "element" and "function"), and under the structure - the internal organization of these elements, the network their relationship. It is the system that determines the presence and organization of linguistic elements, since each element of the language exists by virtue of its relationship to other elements, i.e. the system is a structure-forming factor, because there is no system without the structural correlation of elements (figuratively speaking, the structure of the language can be likened to the human skeleton, and the system - the totality of its organs). In this sense, it is quite legitimate to talk about the structure of the system. In Russian linguistics, as well as in a number of foreign schools, the distinction between the concepts of the system and structure of a language is often based on the nature of the relations of their elements: the elements of the structure are connected with each other by syntagmatic relations (cf. the word usage accepted in linguistics word structure, sentence structure etc.), and the elements of the system are connected by paradigmatic relations (cf. case system, vowel system etc.).

The idea of ​​a systematic language has been developed in different linguistic schools. The Prague School of Linguistics played an important role in the development of the doctrine of the systemic nature of language, in which the language system is characterized primarily as a functional system, i.e. as a system of means of expression used to

1 Benveniste E. General linguistics. M, 1974, p. 95.

2 Saussure F. Works on linguistics. M., 1977, p. 120.

a specific goal. The Prague School of Linguistics also put forward the thesis of language as a system of systems. This thesis was further interpreted in different ways: according to one point of view, the language system is a system of language levels, each of which is also a system; according to another, the language system is a system of functional styles (sublanguages), each of which is also a system.

A significant contribution to the development of the idea of ​​the systemic nature of the language was also made by Russian linguistics, which developed the doctrine of the units of the language, their systemic connections and functions, the distinction between statics and dynamics in the language, etc.

Modern ideas about the systemic nature of the language are primarily associated with the doctrine of its levels, their units and relationships, because. a language system, like any other, has its own structure, the internal structure of which is determined by a hierarchy of levels. Language levels are subsystems (tiers) of the general language system, each of which has a set of its own units and rules for their functioning. Traditionally, the following main levels of language are distinguished: phonemic, lexical, morphological and syntactic. Some scholars also distinguish morphonological, derivational and phraseological levels. There are, however, other points of view on the system of language levels: according to one of them, the level organization of the language is more complex, it consists of such tiers as hypophonemic, phonemic, morphemic, lexeme, sememe, etc.; according to others, it is simpler, consisting of only three tiers: phonetic, lexico-grammatical and semantic, and when considering the language from the point of view of the "expression plane" and "content plane" - only two tiers: phonological (expression plane) and semantic ( content plan).

Each of the language levels has its own qualitatively different units that have different purposes, structure, compatibility and place in the language system: in accordance with the law of the structural correlation of language levels, a unit of a higher level is built from units of a lower level (cf. morphemes from phonemes), and a unit the lower level implements its functions in the units of the higher level (cf. morphemes in words).

In most languages ​​of the world, the following language units are distinguished: phoneme, morpheme, word, phrase and sentence. In addition to these basic units, in each of the levels (tiers) a number of units are distinguished, differing in the degree of abstraction, complex

sti, for example, on the phonetic tier - a phonetic syllable, a phonetic word, speech measures, phonetic phrases, etc. The sound units of the language are one-sided, insignificant. These are the shortest language units obtained as a result of linear division of the speech stream. Their function is to form and distinguish the sound shells of bilateral units. All other units of language tiers are two-sided, significant: they all have a plane of expression and a plane of content.

In structural linguistics, the classification of language units is based on the divisibility / indivisibility feature, in connection with which the limiting (hereinafter indivisible) units of the language (for example, phoneme, morpheme) and non-limiting (for example, group phonemes, analytical word forms, complex sentences) are distinguished.

Specific representatives of the same language unit are in paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations with each other. Paradigmatic relations are relations in the inventory, they allow you to distinguish one unit of a given type from all others, since the same unit of a language exists in the form of many variants (cf. phoneme / allophone; morpheme / morph / allomorph, etc.). Syntagmatic relations are combinatory-bridge relations that are established between units of the same type in a speech chain (for example, a speech flow from a phonetic point of view consists of phonetic phrases, phonetic phrases - from speech beats, speech beats - from phonetic words, phonetic words - from syllables, syllables - from sounds; the sequence of words in the speech chain illustrates their syntagmatics, and the combination of words into various groups - synonymous, antonymic, lexico-semantic - is an example of paradigmatic relations).

Depending on their purpose, the functions in the language system of a language unit are divided into nominative, communicative and combat functions. The nominative units of the language (word, phrase) serve to designate objects, concepts, ideas. Communicative units of the language (sentence) are used to communicate about something, with the help of these units thoughts, feelings, wills are formed and expressed, people communicate. The structural units of the language (phonemes, morphemes) serve as a means of constructing and designing nominative, and through them, communicative units.

Language units are interconnected by various types of relations, among which paradigmatic,

syntagmatic and hierarchical, and the relations between units of the same tier of the language and different tiers are fundamentally different from each other. Units belonging to the same tier of the language enter into paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations, for example, phonemes form classes of functionally identical sounds, morphemes - classes of functionally identical morphs, etc., i.e. this is a type of paradigmatic variant-invariant relationship. At the same time, in a linear sequence, phonemes are combined with phonemes, morphemes with morphs. In modern linguistics, syntagmatic relations are often compared with the logical relations of conjunction (relations and ~ and), and paradigmatic - with logical relations of disjunction (relations or~ or). In hierarchical relationships (such as "consists of" or "is included in") there are units of different linguistic levels, cf. phonemes are included in the sound shells of morphemes, morphemes - in a word, a word - in a sentence, and, conversely, sentences consist of words, words - from morphemes, morphemes - from phonemes, etc.

Language levels are not isolated tiers, on the contrary, they are closely interconnected and determine the structure of the language system (cf., for example, the connection of all language levels in such a unit as a word: with its different sides it belongs simultaneously to the phonemic, morphemic, lexical and syntactic levels ). Sometimes units of different levels can coincide in one sound form. A classic example of this point is A.A. Reformed from Latin: two Romans argued over who would say the shortest phrase; one said: "Eo rus" "I'm going to the village", and the other replied: "I" "go". In this Latin i the sentence, word, morpheme and phoneme match, i.e. it includes all levels of the language.

The language system is a constantly evolving system, although its different levels develop at different speeds (the morphological level of the language, for example, is generally more conservative than the lexical one, which quickly responds to changes in society), so the center stands out in the language system (morphology ) and periphery (vocabulary).

The multi-tiered system of the language contributes to the economy of language means when expressing various concepts. Only a few dozen phonemes serve as material for constructing morphemes (roots, affixes); morphemes, combining in different ways with each other, serve as a means for the formation of nominative units of the language,

those. words with all their grammatical forms; words, combined with each other, form different types of sentences, etc. The multi-tiered language system allows the language to be a flexible means of expressing the communicative needs of society.

test questions

1. Basic units of the grammatical structure of the language.

2. How does the grammatical meaning of a word differ from the lexical one?

3. What is a morpheme? What is a null morpheme?

4. Types of meanings of root and affix morphemes.

5. Classification of affixal morphemes.

6. What is a word form? Synthetic and analytical form.

7. What is the difference between word formation and form formation?

8. What ways of word formation exist in the languages ​​of the world?

9. How are grammatical meanings expressed?

10. What is simplification and re-decomposition?

11. What is a sentence as a unit of language and as a unit of speech?

12. What is a phrase?

13. Types of syntactic connection of words in a phrase.

14. What is the actual division of the sentence, theme and rheme?

15. How do parts of speech and members of a sentence relate?

16. What is the system and structure of the language?

1. Questions of the theory of parts of speech. Based on different languages. L, 1968.

2. Golovin B.N. Introduction to linguistics. M, 1983, Ch. 5-10.

3. Zolotova G. A. Communicative Aspects of Russian Singashama, 1982.

4. Kurilovich E. The main structures of the language: phrase and sentence // Essays on linguistics M, 1962.

5. Maslov Yu.S. Introduction to linguistics. M., 1998, Ch. IV.

6. Reformatskiy A.A. Introduction to linguistics. M, 1967, Ch. IV.

7. Reformatskiy A.A. Essays on morphology, phonology, morphonology. M., 1978.

8. Serebrennikov B.A. Parts of speech // Linguistic encyclopedic dictionary. M, 1990.

9. Modern foreign grammatical theories. M., 1985.

10. Solntsev V.M. Language as a system-structural formation. M, 1977.

11. Members of a sentence in languages ​​of various types. L., 1972.

The tradition of forming the concept of parts of speech in different languages ​​of the world has a long history. The principles of singling out parts of speech is one of the most debatable problems in general and Russian linguistics.
Starting from the first known grammars and even earlier, long before linguistics emerged as a special scientific discipline, word classifications were more logical-semantic and philosophical than grammatical. In connection with the rapid development of philosophy and rhetoric in Ancient Greece, scientists became interested in various aspects of the language, in particular, in the question of the nature of the relationship between the word and the object it denotes. Initially, two classes of words began to be distinguished. So, Plato V-IV centuries BC. singled out in his philosophical dialogues such components as the subject and the predicate associated with the name and the verb.

A little later, ancient scientists (and Indian scientists almost simultaneously with Plato) began to distinguish four categories specific in their semantics. Indian linguistics developed along a very special path, far from always similar to European ones, in many respects anticipating the linguistic ideas that began to be developed in European linguistics only in our time. But even among the ancient Indians, classes, categories of words stood out. Yes, in V-IV centuries BC. Ancient Indian grammarians Yaska (as applied to reading and interpreting sacred texts) and Panini (as applied to Sanskrit norms) singled out four classes of words: 1) name, 2) verb, 3) prefix-preposition, 4) conjunctions and particles. Panini's grammar consists of many short verse rules (sutras) and is very different from European grammars with their paradigm tables. The concept of “part of speech” was also used in the Arabic grammar that developed later, at the end of the first millennium AD, and was influenced by the Greek and Indian grammatical systems.

Aristotle in IV century BC he distinguished such “parts of verbal presentation” as a name, verb, member, union (or copula), however, including individual sounds, syllable and “case” on an equal footing, i.e. form of the name and verb, different from the original. Aristotle divided all categories of words into “meaningful” (name and verb) - and “insignificant” (everything else).
The doctrine of parts of speech in Ancient Greece was continued by the Stoics ( III-I centuries BC), who identified five parts of speech: 1) a proper name, 2) a common noun, 3) a verb, 4) a union (properly a union and a preposition), 5) a member (a pronoun and an article). The achievement of the Stoics, lost after the termination of their tradition, should be considered the distinction in the name of the "name" in the proper sense, the name of the individual, and the general, or common noun, which is quite consistent with modern logical ideas [Stepanov 1985].

Further observations on vocabulary made it possible later to differentiate eight classes of words. This was first done by representatives of the Alexandrian school of philologists Aristarchus of Samothrace and his student Dionysius of Thrace ( II-I centuries BC), who, based on the morphological and syntactic features of words, singled out in the "Grammar" such " partes orationis ": 1) name, 2) verb, 3) participle, 4) member (article), 5) pronoun, 6) preposition, 7) adverb and 8) union. Apollonius Discolus ( II in. BC) established a hierarchy of parts of speech and determined their properties and functions. Thus, among the Alexandrian scientists, the grammatical properties of words took their rightful place in the classification of parts of speech.
Dionysius of Thrace, arguing with the Stoics, refuses a sharp division of names into proper and common (common) and considers both of them, using the term of Aristotle, as entities; its own name is the designation of "special entity", and the common name is the designation of "general entity". This is a break with the traditions of the Stoics and the design of the philosophy of the name as a "philosophy of essence" [Stepanov 1985].

In I century BC The Roman grammar of Varro used a formal criterion for dividing words into classes - the presence or absence of case forms or tense in words. Thus, a name (noun, adjective, numeral, pronoun) is a word that has a case and no tense, a verb is a word that has a tense and no case, a participle has both, and an adverb has neither. , no other.

In the middle of I century AD in the “Grammar Guide” of Palemon, for the first time, the interjection was singled out as an independent part of speech and the article missing in the Latin language was excluded.
In medieval Europe, the grammatical model of late antiquity was preserved, presented in the works of Probus and Donatus ( IV century AD) and in Priscian's Grammar Course ( VI century), to which Peter of Gelia in the middle XII century gave a commentary that became a significant contribution to grammatical theory. It is possible that it was Peter of Geliysky who first distinguished names into nouns and adjectives.
In the middle of the XVII century in the famous school of the Abbey of Port-Royal, the French philosopher and philologist A. Arno prepared, together with P. Nicol, a textbook of logic (later known as the “Logic of Port-Royal”), and together with C. Lanslo “Grammaire Générale et Raisonne e ”, which is commonly called the “Grammar of Port-Royal”. The concepts of both books proceeded from the principles of rationalism (the direction in epistemology, opposite to empiricism). The philosophical views of Arno, Lanslo and Nicolas were close to the teachings of R. Cartesia-Descartes. This doctrine recognized as the only criterion of truth only the logical correctness of speculative constructions leading to this truth, and not its verification by observation and experience. Scholastically described Latin categories (number, case, person, etc.) were perceived as “natural”, “logical”, corresponding to the unshakable and unified (universal) laws of reason. Ars grammatica was understood by Arno and Lanslo as the art of correctly "expressing one's thoughts by means of signs that people invented for this purpose" (here a direct continuation of ancient concepts and the medieval teachings of nominalists was found). In the "Grammar of Port-Royal", which in its settings and methods was actually a philosophical introduction to the study of the logic of languages, for the first time the doctrine of the members of a sentence was expounded separately from the doctrine of parts of speech. But the sentence itself was understood as an expression with the help of words of a logical judgment (the laws of which are the same for all languages). This a priori approach seemed convenient for teaching. School teaching adapted to grammars of this kind, and it can be said that in many countries these rationalistic traditions still dominate in school practice [Shirokov 2003].

In general, the system of parts of speech, isolated on the basis of the ancient Greek and Latin languages, was later adopted in Slavic grammars. Eight parts of speech (up to XIX century, the term “part of a word” was used) are also preserved in the grammars of Lawrence Zizanius (1596) and Meletius Smotrytsky (1619), however, Lavrenty Zizanius, following the Greek samples, retained the article (“difference”), and Meletius Smotrytsky, who followed Roman predecessors, excluded the article, but introduced an interjection.


Thus, the doctrine of parts of speech arose in completely different grammatical schools. One can think that the appearance of this doctrine, its acceptance in Russian grammarians was due not only to the use of the ancient grammatical tradition, but also to some objective factors contained in many, if not all, languages ​​of the world, and in particular in Russian.

Among the many statements about the origin of the language, two main groups can be distinguished: 1) biological theories, 2) social theories.

Biological theories explain the origin of language by the evolution of the human body - the sense organs, the speech apparatus and the brain. Within the framework of these theories, the emergence of language is considered as the result of a long development of nature. The one-time (divine) origin of language is rejected in them. Among biological theories, two are best known - onomatopoeia and interjection.

Social theories of the origin of language explain its appearance by social needs that arose in labor and as a result of the development of human consciousness. Social theories include the theory of the social contract, the working theory, the Marxist doctrine of the appearance of language in humans.

Onomatopoeic theory. The onomatopoeic theory explains the origin of language by the evolution of hearing organs that perceive the cries of animals (especially domestic ones). Language arose, according to this theory, as an imitation of animals (neighing of horses, bleating of sheep) or as an expression of an impression about a named object. Leibniz, for example, explaining the origin of words, believed that in Latin honey is called the word met, because it pleasantly caresses the ear, German words leben (live) and lieben (love) indicate softness, a Lauf (run), Lowe (lion) - for speed. Humboldt was a supporter of this theory.

The onomatopoeic theory is based on two assumptions: 1) the first words were onomatopoeia, 2) in the word, the sound is symbolic, the meaning reflects the nature of things.

Indeed, in languages ​​there are onomatopoeic words and prohibitions on words as a result of the identification of the sound of a word and its meaning. However, there are still few onomatopoeic words in the language and, most importantly, they are different in different languages, and in primitive languages ​​there are no more of them than in developed languages. This can only be explained if we recognize that onomatopoeic words are the result of the development of language.

Onomatopoeic words have sounds and forms that already exist in the language. That's why a duck screams for a Russian quack-quack (quacks), for an Englishman kwak-kwak (quack), for French can-can (sapsaper), but for the Dane pan- pan (rapper). The call words with which a person refers to a domestic animal, such as a pig, duck, goose, are also different.

(A digression on phonosemantic research.)

Interjection theory. Interjection (or reflex) theory explains the origin of language by the experiences that a person experiences. The first words, according to this theory, are involuntary cries, interjections, reflexes. They emotionally expressed pain or joy, fear or hunger. In the course of further development, cries acquired a symbolic meaning, obligatory for all members of this community. Supporters of the reflex theory were Shteital (1823-1899), Darwin, Potebnya.

If in the onomatopoeic theory the external world (animal sounds) was the impetus, then the interjection theory considered the inner world of a living being, his emotions, as a stimulus for the appearance of words. Common to both theories is the recognition, along with the sound language, of the presence of a sign language that expressed more rational concepts.

Onomatopoeic and interjection theories focus on the study of the origin of the mechanism of speaking, mainly in psychophysiological terms. Ignoring the social factor in these theories led to a skeptical attitude towards them: the onomatopoeic theory was jokingly called the “wow-wow theory”, and the interjection - “tfu-tfu theory”. Indeed, in these theories the biological side of the issue is exaggerated, the origin of language is considered exclusively in terms of the origin of speech. It does not take into account with due attention the fact that man and human society arise, essentially different from the animal and its herd.

The theory of the social contract. Already Diodorus Siculus wrote: “Initially, people lived, they say, an unsettled and animal-like life, went out to pastures and ate tasty grass and tree fruits. When the animals attacked, need taught them to help each other, and, gathering together out of fear, they gradually began to recognize each other. Their voice was still meaningless and inarticulate, but gradually they moved on to articulate words and, having established symbols for each thing with each other, created an explanation for everything that they themselves understood.

This passage outlines the theory of the social contract: language is seen as a conscious invention and creation of people. In the XVIII century. it was supported by J. du Bellay and E.B. de Condillac, ASmit and J-J. Rousseau. Rousseau's theory of the social contract is connected with the division of human life into two periods - natural and civilized.

In the first period, man was part of nature and language came from feelings, passions (passion). “The language of the first people,” Rousseau wrote, “was not the language of geometers, as is usually thought, but the language of poets,” since “passions caused the first sounds of the voice.” Sounds originally served as symbols of objects that act on hearing; objects perceived by sight were depicted by gestures. However, this was inconvenient, and they began to be replaced by sentence sounds; an increase in the number of sounds produced led to the improvement of the organs of speech. The "first languages" were rich in synonyms necessary to express the "wealth of the soul" of natural man. With the advent of property and the state, a social agreement arose, rational behavior of people, words began to be used in a more general sense. The language changed from rich and emotional to "dry, rational and methodical". The historical development of the language is seen as a fall, a regression.

There is no doubt that the awareness of language was gradual, but the idea that the mind controlled people who consciously invented language is hardly reliable. “A person,” wrote V. G. Belinsky, “owned the word before he knew that he owns the word; in the same way, a child speaks grammatically correctly, even without knowing grammar.

Working theory. In the late 70s of the last century, the German philosopher L. Noiret put forward a working theory of the origin of the language, or the theory of labor cries. This theory was supported by K. Bucher. L. Noiret rightly emphasized that “thinking and action were originally inseparable”, since before people learned how to make tools, they tried the action of various natural objects on different objects for a long time.

When working together, cries and exclamations facilitate and organize labor activity. When the women are spinning and the soldiers are marching, they "love to accompany their work with more or less rhythmic exclamations." These cries, at first involuntary, gradually turned into symbols of labor processes. The original language was a set of verbal roots.

The theory of labor cries, in fact, turns out to be a variant of the interjection theory. The labor action is considered as parallel to the sound language - cries, and the language may not accompany the labor action. With this approach, work, music and poetry are recognized as equivalent.

G.V. Plekhanov, considering the book of K. Bucher "Work and Rhythm", criticizes such dualism, considering the thesis "opinions rule the world" to be wrong, since "the human mind could not be the demiurge of history, because he himself is its product." "The main cause of the socio-historical process is the development of the productive forces." Language acts as a condition and tool, cause and effect of society. Naturally, a person does not arise immediately, but through a long evolution of nature, as Charles Darwin showed. There was a time when tools played the same insignificant role in the life of humanoid ancestors as a branch plays in the life of an elephant. However, as soon as a person becomes social, the development of the relations that have arisen "is carried out according to its own internal laws, the action of which accelerates or slows down the development of productive forces, which determines the historical movement of mankind."

Marxist view of the origin of language.

Both biological (natural-historical) and social (socio-historical) prerequisites played a role in the origin of the language.

Among the first, we must include the separation of the functions of the fore and hind limbs of our ancestors, the highly developed apes, the freeing of the hand for labor and the assimilation of a straight gait associated with this; Biological factors include the high development of the brain in our ancestors, and the use by them of a certain “set” of inarticulate sound signals that served as the physiological basis for the sound speech of people.

About a million years ago, at the end of the Tertiary period of the Cenozoic (new) era, in certain places on the Earth, highly developed monkeys lived in herds, scientifically called Australopithecus (or close to them). These monkeys, as can be seen from their fossils, moved on the ground (instead of climbing trees), and their forelimbs served to grasp various objects. They had a shortened jaw, indicating an increase in the ability to form sounds, a large brain, which speaks of the complexity of its activities, and other signs that allow scientists to consider Australopithecus as a higher animal, standing on the verge of becoming a man.

In Australopithecus, we can only assume the beginnings of such hand movements, which subsequently lead to labor operations. Australopithecus did not make tools, but used finished objects as tools for his work. But be that as it may, the great process of freeing the hand for labor actions began.

By the beginning of the Quaternary period of the Cenozoic era, scientists attribute the existence of ape people (Pithecanthropus, Sinanthropus and the like). The study of their fossil remains suggests that they knew how to make tools and learned to walk straight (the latest archaeological data obtained during excavations in Africa allow us to hypothesize about an even earlier than indicated here, the formation of ape people and their still primitive language ).

Somewhat later than Pithecanthropus and Sinanthropus lived Neanderthals, the predecessors of modern humans. Pithecanthropes, Sinanthropes, Neanderthals are primitive people who lived in herds, who knew how to make primitive tools (from stone, bone and wood) and began to realize the world around them, and therefore those sound signals that they gradually improved, having received them from their own. ancestors. These sound signals were not yet words in our understanding, they have not yet received either strict articulation or sufficient understanding. But nevertheless, gradually and painfully for a long time, the thought began to break away from the concrete perception of the object and connect with the sound signal, began to rely on it, and thereby gained the opportunity to generalize many objects that were homogeneous in some way. At the same time, awareness of the goals and possible results of the use of sound signals also matured; in a word, in the process of life, in connection with the complicated labor influence of man on the world of animals and plants surrounding him, two powerful forces of the human collective were formed - language and thought.

At the end of the Stone Age (Neolithic), Cro-Magnons lived, people of the modern type ( Homo sapiens – Homo sapiens), distant from us by a short (on the scale of geological time) period - about 40 - 50 thousand years. The study of their fossil remains speaks volumes. These people were members of the primitive communal system with complex labor, social and family relations. They had a well-developed brain, articulate speech, conceptual, abstract thinking.

Thus, hundreds of thousands of years passed before human speech signals developed from the rudimentary inarticulate sounds of our ancestors.

The emergence of language required the influence of two major natural-historical (biological) factors.

The first biological factor - the release of the forelimbs of the monkey for work and the straightening of the gait - was necessary in the development of the language, because without it the transition to labor was impossible, which began with the manufacture of tools for influencing nature.

Pointing out that, under the influence of the way of life, the monkeys began to wean themselves from the help of their hands when walking and began to learn more and more straight gait, Engels says: “This was done a decisive step for the transition from ape to man."

The second biological factor in the development of language is the presence of sound signals in monkeys - the ancestors of people. The study of modern highly developed monkeys showed that they use certain "sets" (reaching two or more dozens) of undifferentiated sounds, which they use as involuntary signals of their emotional states. About the feelings of joy, hunger, enmity, attraction, pain, fear, pleasure and others, the monkey signals a more or less stable definite sound or their inarticulate fusion. Moreover, as a rule, these sounds are used when the monkey is with other monkeys. It has been established that, along with the sounds of the monkey, they also use pointing signals, gestures, involuntarily conveying their internal states with them.

It is natural to assume that our distant ancestors, similar to Australopithecus, more developed than modern anthropoid apes, had a larger supply of sound signals and used them more “meaningfully”.

These sound signals of the ancestors were used by the emerging people for the gradual "organization" of their language. Sound signals were gradually comprehended and turned into the first units of communication of members of the human team, that is, into elements of speech. There was no other "building material" from which the first words-utterances could be "made" at the disposal of our ancestors.

Seeing the unusually large role of the release of the hand and the sound signals of monkeys in the emergence of language, Marxists argue that the decisive role in this belongs to labor and the collective, society. According to Engels, “the development of labor necessarily contributed to a closer rallying of the members of society, since thanks to it cases of mutual support, joint activity became more frequent, and the consciousness of the benefits of this joint activity for each individual member became clearer. In short, emerging people came to the fact that they had the need to say something each other. Need created its own organ: the undeveloped larynx of the monkey was slowly but steadily transformed by modulation for more and more developed modulation, and the organs of the mouth gradually learned to pronounce one articulate sound after another.

By themselves, the biological prerequisites of human speech could not create it, because in addition to them, a powerful impetus was needed that could bring it to life, and this impetus turned out to be labor and the need for communication that it constantly gives rise to. But labor from its very inception to the present day is labor in a team, in society and for society. It requires the coordination of the work efforts of many people, it requires the organization and distribution of their duties, that is, it requires, above all, the exchange of thoughts, communication through language. Making fire, hunting an elephant, fishing in antiquity, or the production of synthetic fibers and electronic devices in our time, equally need to coordinate and organize the labor efforts of many members of the team.

However, it is not necessary to imagine the matter in such a way that some periods of time lay between the emergence of labor, language and thinking. Labor, language and thought were formed simultaneously, in unity and interaction with each other, in unity and interaction they are still developing. The leading force of this trinity was and remains labor. The development of labor tools, the enrichment of labor skills, the expansion of the sphere of application of human labor efforts - all this made human thought work more intensively, improved human consciousness. But the intensification of the activity of thought, the improvement of consciousness led the language forward, enriched and refined the system of its meanings, and also influenced the totality of its formal elements.

The development and improvement of thought and speech had an inverse effect on labor, made it more efficient and accurate, led to the creation of new tools, the discovery of new materials, and a change in the sphere of application of labor efforts. But the development of labor again influenced thought and speech. Thus, for tens and hundreds of thousands of years, the mutually stimulating influence on each other of labor, thought and language has been carried out. Such is the picture of the emergence of language, accepted by Marxist science (F. Engels's work "The Role of Labor in the Process of the Transformation of Monkeys into Humans" played a major role in substantiating Marxist views on the emergence of language).

(Digression on the question: Can modern apes turn into humans? Laws of the pack theory.)

Almost all modern grammatical concepts of parts of speech originate from ancient (ancient Greek). Parts of speech - tracing paper from the ancient Greek mere tu logu or directly Latin partes orationis, where partes are "parts", and oratio is "speech, utterance, sentence" Parts of speech were first called those grammatical phenomena that are now called members of a sentence *. Only later did this expression acquire a modern torminological meaning, although for a long time parts of speech were identified with members of a sentence and with members of a speech.

For the first time the parts of speech were distinguished by an ancient Indian grammarian. Yaska and. Panini (V in do. Not), who distinguished in Sanskrit such parts of speech as the name, verb, preposition, conjunction and share. However, the Indian theory has not been known for a long time. Europe. The European theory of parts of speech comes from. Aristotle (IV in BC), who singled out four parts of speech: name, verb, member (article) and union. Finally, the study of parts of speech was formed in the Alexandrian school (II century BC). Aristarch. Samothrace and his disciple. Dionysius. Thracian was the first to distinguish eight parts of speech: name, verb, adverb,. Article ь, pronoun, preposition, participle, conjunction. The adjective was combined with the noun in one part of speech, because in ancient Greek they had a common declension system. The classification of sli in parts of speech was based on two principles: morphological ("The name is a declension part of the language") and semantic ("which means a body or thing"). This system of parts of speech was borrowed by Roman scholars and, however, they made minor changes to it: the article, which is not in Latin, was eliminated from the parts of speech, and vigunema was added in Latin language, and viguk was added.

Later, this classification spread to all European, and then to other languages. This is how the classification of parts of speech was formed, which is usually called school and, in fact, has become universal. The grammatical classes of words of different languages ​​are trying to be squeezed into a pre-selected ancient scheme, without taking into account the differences that exist in different speeches.

According to the school classification, ten parts of speech are distinguished, which are divided into independent (those that can be members of a sentence) and service (those that express the relationship between words in a sentence). The independent parts of speech include the noun, adjective, numeral, pronoun, verb and adverb. For official - pretext, union, share, etc. Article.

Separately, exclamations are singled out, which cannot be members of a sentence, but can themselves form sentences.

The classification of parts of speech is widely known. VV. Vinogradov. According to this scientist, parts of speech are only significant words. In his classification, four categories of words are distinguished: parts of speech, modal words, parts of the language and exclamations. To the parts of speech, he refers names (noun, adjective, numeral), pronoun, verb, adverb and category of state. To private language, beyond. Vinogradov, own their share and connections, prepositions and alliances. Graphically, this classification looks like:

Parts of speech in different languages

Linguists have come to the conclusion that it is impossible to build a system of parts of speech that is the same for all languages, because each language has a lot of peculiarities in dividing words into parts of speech. Firstly, not all languages ​​have the same parts of speech, and secondly, in different languages ​​there are significant differences in the characteristic features of the same part of speech. The usual scheme of parts of speech for European languages ​​is not suitable for many languages. Asia,. Africa and. Americans.

So, the differences in the parts of speech of different languages ​​relate to both the composition itself and the volume of individual parts of speech. If the main parts of speech - the name and the verb - are distinguished in all languages ​​of the world, it is a reflection of the universality of the functional-semantic categories of substantiality and procedurality (i.e., the subject and action), then there are significant differences in other parts of speech. Yes, in some languages. North. America and I. Africa does not distinguish between adverbs and adjectives. In Chinese, such parts of speech are distinguished as the name, which includes the noun and numeral, the predicative, which includes verbs and adjectives, and the same adverb. Adjectives are combined with verbs into one part of speech based on the ability to be a predicate without an auxiliary connection. This is also the case in Burmese. In some languages, only k and the verb are singled out, as, for example, in the Indian language yumi yuma.

In English, the opposition between adjective and noun is reduced to a minimum. In the Turkic languages ​​there is a problem of interpretation of the so-called "figurative words", that is, those that imitate sound or are "figurative" as a separate part of the language to the other part of the language.

The classification of words by parts of speech and the phenomena of the transition of words from one part of speech to another make it difficult, which indicates the existence of more or less stable intermediate links between parts of speech. In the Turkic, Mongolian and Tungus-Manchu languages, the transition of nouns into adjectives and adverbs and vice versa has a massive character.