The analytical structure involves a wider use of service words, phonetic means and word order to form word forms, phrases and sentences. The languages of the analytical system are English, French, Italian, Spanish, Persian, Bulgarian and some other Indo-European languages.
The synthetic structure is characterized by the fact that along with the use of service words, word order and intonation, a large role belongs to the forms of words formed with the help of affixes - inflections and formative suffixes and prefixes. The languages of the synthetic system are Russian, Polish, Lithuanian and most other Indo-European languages; all ancient written Indo-European languages were synthetic, for example, Latin, Greek, Gothic.
50. Typological K. I. (see also Morphological classification of languages) arose on the basis of morphological data, regardless of genetic or spatial proximity, relying solely on the properties of the linguistic structure. Typological K. I. seeks to cover the material of all languages of the world, to reflect their similarities and differences, and at the same time to identify possible language types and specifics of each language or group of typologically similar languages. Modern typological K. I. relies not only on morphological data, but also on phonology, syntax, and semantics. The basis for the inclusion of the language in the typological K. I. is the type of the language, that is, the characteristic of the fundamental properties of its structure. However, the type is not implemented absolutely in the language; in fact, each language has several types, that is, each language is polytypological. Therefore, it is appropriate to say to what extent this or that type is present in the structure of a given language; on this basis, attempts are made to give a quantitative interpretation of the typological characteristics of the language. The main problem for typological K. I. is the creation of descriptions of languages, sustained in a single terminology and based on a single concept of linguistic structure and a system of consistent and sufficient criteria for a typological description. The most accepted typological type is the isolating (amorphous) type - invariable words with the grammatical significance of the word order, a weak opposition of meaningful and auxiliary roots (for example, ancient Chinese, Vietnamese, Yoruba); agglutinating (agglutinative) type - a developed system of unambiguous affixes, the absence of grammatical alternations in the root, the same type of inflection for all words belonging to the same part of speech, a weak connection (the presence of distinct boundaries) between morphs (for example, many Finno-Ugric languages, Turkic languages, Bantu languages); the inflectional (inflectional) type combines languages with internal inflection, that is, with grammatically significant alternation at the root (Semitic languages), and languages with external inflection, fusion, that is, with the simultaneous expression of several grammatical meanings with one affix (for example, hands - instrumental case, plural), strong connection (lack of distinct boundaries) between morphs and heterogeneity of declensions and conjugations (to some extent - Somali, Estonian, Nakh languages); in ancient and some modern Indo-European languages, internal inflection and fusion are combined. A number of typologists also distinguish incorporating (polysynthetic) languages, where there are "sentence words", complex complexes: the verb form includes (sometimes in a truncated form) nominal stems corresponding to the object and circumstances, the subject, as well as some grammatical indicators (for example, some languages of the American Indians, some Paleo-Asiatic and Caucasian languages). This typological language, which is basically morphological, cannot be considered final, mainly because of its inability to reflect all the specifics of a particular language, taking into account its structure. But it contains in an implicit form the possibility of its refinement by analyzing other areas of the language. For example, in isolating languages such as classical Chinese, Vietnamese, and Guinean, one-syllable words equal to a morpheme, the presence of polytony, and a number of other interrelated characteristics are observed.
51. Parts of speech - the main classes of words of the language, distinguished on the basis of the similarity of their syntactic, morphological and logical-semantic properties. Significant Ch. river differ. (noun, verb, adjective, adverb) and service (conjunction, preposition, particle, article, etc.). To Ch. r. traditionally also include numerals, pronouns and interjections.
Words can be classified according to the positions they occupy in a phrase. To one Ch. include words that can stand in a sentence in the same syntactic positions or perform the same syntactic functions. In this case, not only the set of syntactic functions is important, but also the degree of characteristic of each of the functions for a given Ch. in Russian, both a noun and a verb can act both as a subject (“a person loves”, “smoking is harmful to health”), and as a predicate (“Ivanov is a teacher”, “a tree is burning”), however, for a verb, the function of the predicate is primary, and the function of the subject is secondary, for a noun, the function of the subject is primary, and the predicate is secondary, for example, a verb can be the subject only with a nominal predicate, and a noun with a predicate of any type. Each Ch. its own set of grammatical categories is characteristic, and this set covers the absolute majority of the words of a given Ch. in Russian, a noun is characterized by number, case and gender (as a word-classifying category), an adjective - degrees of comparison, number, case and gender (as an inflectional category). In the Burmese language, for example, the adjective and the verb are not opposed in this respect (words corresponding to both adjectives and verbs of other languages have the category of degree of comparison).
CH system. modern school grammars goes back to the works of Alexandrian philologists (Dionysius of Thracia, Apollonius Diskol), who distinguished on mixed morphological, semantic and syntactic grounds a name, a verb, a participle, an adverb, an article, a pronoun, a preposition, a union, and nouns, adjectives and numerals were combined in the name (as opposed to Plato, who connected, based on logical-syntactic relations, an adjective with a verb). The system of the Alexandrian philologists also influenced the Arabic grammatical tradition. turn out to be inherent in all languages, at the same time, the difficulties that arise in the morphological approach are avoided (cf. the absence of morphological features in the classification of Russian invariable nouns like “coats”). Composition Ch. different in different languages. The differences relate both to the set of pure blacks and the volume of individual blacks. So, in Russian, French, Latin, a noun, an adjective, a verb, an adverb are distinguished. The most constant in languages is the opposition of name and verb, but the universality of this distinction remains unproven.
52.Syntax(from other Greek σύνταξις - “construction, order, compilation”) - a branch of linguistics that studies the structure of sentences and phrases.
The syntax deals with the following main questions:
Connection of words in phrases and sentences;
Consideration of types of syntactic connection;
Definition of types of phrases and sentences;
Determining the meaning of phrases and sentences;
Combining simple sentences into complex ones.
The syntax is static, the object of study of which are structures that are not related to the context and situation of speech: a sentence (as a predicative unit) and a phrase (non-predicative unit) and, most importantly, a member.
Syntax communicative The object of study of which are such problems as the actual and syntagmatic division of a sentence, the functioning of phrases in a sentence, the communicative paradigm of sentences, the typology of an utterance, etc.
Text syntax The objects of study of which are the structural diagrams of a phrase, a simple and complex sentence, a complex syntactic whole, and various kinds of statements related to the situation of speech, as well as the structure of a text that goes beyond the complex syntactic whole. The study of these phenomena is of great importance for the linguistic-stylistic and psycholinguistic analysis of the text.
Syntax functional A type of syntax that uses the “from function to means” approach as a research method, that is, finding out by what grammatical means spatial, temporal, causal, target, etc. relations are expressed (cf.: the traditional “from means to function” approach, that is, finding out what functions a certain grammatical unit performs).
53. Offer - the minimum syntactic construction used in acts of speech communication, characterized by predicativity and implementing a certain structural scheme. Since any syntactic construction is usually a group of words, the definition of a sentence through a syntactic construction does not lose the information reported in the traditional definition. However, the definition of a sentence as a syntactic construction is more precise: a syntactic construction is a group of words, but not every group of words constitutes a syntactic construction. Having characterized the sentence as a syntactic construction, we named the property that unites the sentence with some other syntactic units, and showed the generic affiliation of the sentence.
A sentence is a minimal syntactic construction used in acts of speech communication, characterized by predicativity and implementing a certain structural scheme. a sentence (even a one-word one), in contrast to a word and a phrase, denotes some actualized, i.e., a situation in a certain way correlated with reality. The most important combatant, otherwise structural, feature of the sentence is the closeness of the mutual syntactic links of the components of the sentence. Not a single word of this sentence can act as a main or dependent element in relation to words outside it. This phenomenon is based on the correspondence of each sentence to a certain structural scheme, the set of which is finite and specific for each language.
At different times, such outstanding linguists as A. Schleicher, E. Sapir, J. Greenberg, as well as A. A. Reformatsky, B. N. Golovin, Yu. S. Maslov and many others were engaged in the study of the typology of languages. The topic is relevant now, and will be relevant in the future, since languages develop continuously, and with the development they undergo changes in the levels of synthesis and analyticity, which is of interest to linguistics.
1. Typological classification of languages
According to the work of T. I. Vendina: “A typological classification of languages is a classification that establishes the similarities and differences of languages in their most important properties of the grammatical structure (not dependent on their genetic relationship) in order to determine the type of language, its place among other languages of the world. In a typological classification, languages are combined on the basis of common features that reflect the most significant features of the language system, i.e. the language system is the starting point on which the typological classification is built.
According to Yu. S. Maslov: “The most developed is the morphological typology, which takes into account a number of features. Of these, the most important are: 1) the general degree of complexity of the morphological structure of the word and 2) the types of grammatical morphemes used in a given language, in particular as affixes. Both features actually appear already in the typological constructions of the 19th century, and in modern linguistics they are usually expressed by quantitative indicators, the so-called typological indices. The index method was proposed by the American linguist J. Greenberg, and then improved in the works of scientists from different countries
(Quoted in J. Greenberg, “A Quantitative Approach to the Morphological Typology of Languages.”) The overall degree of complexity of the morphological structure of a word can be expressed by the number of morphs per word form on average. This is the so-called synthetic index, calculated by the formula M / W, where M is the number of morphs in a segment of text in a given language, and W (from the English word) is the number of speech words (word usage) in the same segment. Of course, for the calculation it is necessary to take natural and more or less typical texts in the corresponding language (usually, texts with a length of at least 100 word usages are taken). The theoretically conceivable lower limit for the synthetic index is 1: with such an index value, the number of morphs is equal to the number of word usages, i.e., each word form is one-morphemic. In fact, there is not a single language in which each word would always coincide with a morpheme, therefore, with a sufficient length of the text, the value of the synthetic index will always be higher than one. Greenberg obtained the lowest value for Vietnamese: 1.06 (i.e., 106 morphs per 100 words). For English, he received the figure 1.68, for Sanskrit - 2.59, for one of the Eskimo languages - 3.72. For the Russian language, according to the estimates of various authors, figures from 2.33 to 2.45 were obtained.
Languages with an index value below 2 (in addition to Vietnamese and English, Chinese, Persian, Italian, German, Danish, etc.) are called analytical, with an index value from 2 to 3 (in addition to Russian and Sanskrit, Ancient Greek, Latin, Lithuanian, Old Church Slavonic, Czech , Polish, Yakut, Swahili, etc.) - synthetic and with an index value above 3 (in addition to Eskimo, some other Paleo-Asiatic, Amerindian, some Caucasian languages) - polysynthetic. "
T. I. Vendina, like Yu. S. Maslov, notes that the most famous of the typological classifications is the morphological classification of languages. According to her research, languages are divided according to the way of connecting morphemes expressing one or another grammatical meaning into three main types:
1) isolating (or amorphous) languages: they are characterized by the absence of forms of inflection and, accordingly, formative affixes. The word in them is "equal to the root", which is why such languages are sometimes called root languages. The connection between words is less grammatical, but word order and their semantics are grammatically significant. Words devoid of affixal morphemes are, as it were, isolated from each other as part of an utterance, therefore these languages are called isolating languages (these include Chinese, Vietnamese, the languages of Southeast Asia, etc.). In the syntactic structure of the sentences of such languages, the order of words is extremely important: the subject always comes before the predicate, the definition - before the word being defined, the direct object - after the verb (cf. in Chinese: gao shan 'high mountains', but shan gao - 'mountains are high' );
2) affixing languages, in the grammatical structure of which affixes play an important role. The connection between words is more grammatical, words have affixes of formation. However, the nature of the connection between the affix and the root and the nature of the meaning conveyed by the affix in these languages may be different. In this connection, in affixing languages, languages of the inflectional and agglutinative types are distinguished:
a) inflectional languages (<лat. flexio ‘сгибание’, т.е. языки гибкого типа) – это языки, для которых характерна полифункциональность аффиксальных морфем (ср. в русском языке флексия -а может передавать в системе склонения существительных грамматические значения числа: ед.ч. стена и мн.ч. города; падежа: им. п. ед.ч. страна, род.п. города, вин.п. вола и рода: супруг- супруга). Наличие явления фузии, т.е. взаимопроникновения морфем, при котором проведение границы между корнем и аффиксом становится невозможным (ср. мужик + -ск ->peasant); “internal inflection”, indicating the grammatical form of the word (cf. German Bruder ‘brother’ - Brueder ‘brothers’); a large number of phonetically and semantically unmotivated types of declension and conjugation. Inflectional languages include all Indo-European languages;
b) agglutinative languages (< лат. agglutinare ‘приклеивать’, т.е. склеивающие) – это языки, являющиеся своеобразным антиподом флективных языков, т.к. в них нет внутренней флексии, нет фузии, поэтому в составе слов легко вычленяются морфемы, формативы передают по одному грамматическому значению, и в каждой части речи представлен лишь один тип словоизменения. Для агглютинативных языков характерна развитая система словоизменительной и словообразовательной аффиксации, при которой аффиксы характеризуются грамматической однозначностью: последовательно «приклеиваясь» к корню, они выражают одно грамматическое значение (например, в узбекском и грузинском языках число и падеж выражается двумя разными аффиксами, ср. дат.п. мн.ч. существительного ‘девушка’ в узбекском языке киз-лар-га ‘девушкам’, где аффикс -пар- передает значение множественного числа, а суффикс -га – значение дательного падежа, в русском же языке одна флексия -ам передает оба этих значения), поэтому в таких языках наблюдается единый тип склонения и спряжения. К агглютинативным языкам относятся финно-угорские, тюркские, тунгусо-маньчжурские, японский, корейский и др. языки;
3) incorporating (or polysynthetic) languages (< лат. in ‘в’, corpus род.п. от corporis ‘тело’, т.е. ‘внедрение, включение чего-либо в тело’, incorporo ‘вставлять’) - это языки, для которых характерна незавершенность морфологической структуры слова, позволяющая включение в один член предложения других его членов (например, в состав глагола-сказуемого может быть включено прямое дополнение). Слово «приобретает структуру» только в составе предложения, т.е. здесь наблюдается особое взаимоотношение слова и предложения: вне предложения нет слова в нашем понимании, предложения составляют основную единицу речи, в которую «включаются» слова (ср. чукотское слово-предложение мыт-купрэ-гын-рит-ыр-кын ‘сети сохраняем’, в которое инкорпорируется определение «новые» тур: мыт-тур-купрэ-гын-рит-ыр-кын ‘новые сети сохраняем’). В этих словах-предложениях содержится указание не только на действие, но и на объект и даже его признак. К инкорпорирующим языкам относятся языки индейцев Северной Америки, чукотско-камчатские и др.
According to Yu. S. Maslov, the inflectional tendency “is characterized by cases of mutual superposition of morpheme exponents, phenomena of re-expansion, simplification, absorption of entire morphemes or individual parts of their segment exponents by neighboring morphemes, as well as the widespread use of alternations as “simulfixes”. To the examples given above, let us add here those that illustrate the absorption of form-building affixes: the prehistoric Slavic forms *leg-ti and *pek-ii turned into lie, stove, where the infinitive affix is absorbed by the root, but at the same time causes historical alternation in its last consonant; the endings of Russian adjectives were formed from combinations of a nominal case ending and a pronoun in the same case (white< бiьла его и т. д.). Агглютинативная тенденция, напротив, характеризуется четкостью границ морфемных сегментов, для нее малотипичны явления опрощения и переразложения, как и использование «симульфиксов».
Yu. S. Maslov also notes that the agglutinative tendency is “characterized by haplosemy (“simplicity”, compare other Greek hapltoos 'simple'), the attachment of each formative affix to only one gramme, and hence the stringing of affixes to express a combination of heterogeneous grammes . Yes, in Turkish. dallardа 'on the branches' the postfix -lar- expresses the meaning of the plural, and the second postfix -da- expresses the meaning of the locative case (cf. loc. with the same postfix -da, and other plural cases, where after -lar- there are other case postfixes, for example, Dan.n. Sometimes they are referred to by the term "sticks."
Taking into account the above classification, the division of languages into synthetic and analytical according to Maslov Yu.S. looks like this: “On the qualitative side, analytical languages are characterized by a tendency to separate (analytical) expression of lexical and grammatical there are no grammatical morphemes, and grammatical meanings are mainly functional words and word order. In a number of analytical languages, tone oppositions are strongly developed. Affixes are used to a small extent, and in some analytical languages, the so-called isolating languages (Vietnamese, Khmer, Old Chinese), they are almost completely absent. The non-single-morphemic words encountered in these languages are, as a rule, complex (usually two-rooted). Since the significant word here almost never bears in itself any indicators of a syntactic connection with other words in the sentence, it turns out to be, as it were, isolated (hence the name "isolating"). Some linguists, emphasizing the role of word order in isolating languages, call them "positional".
Synthetic languages are qualitatively characterized by a tendency to synthesize, to combine within one word form a lexical (sometimes a number of lexical) and one or more grammatical morphemes. These languages, therefore, use affixes quite extensively. To an even greater extent, the stringing of a number of affixes in one word is typical of polysynthetic languages. The common designation for both groups is affix languages. All these languages are characterized by a high development of form formation, the presence of richly branched, complex form-building paradigms built as a series of synthetic (sometimes partly analytical) forms. In addition, some polysynthetic languages use incorporation to a greater or lesser extent. According to this feature, which characterizes not so much the structure of the word as the structure of syntactic units, such languages are called "incorporating"
2. Languages of synthetic and analytic structure
According to Golovin B.N., the morphological classification given in section 1 of this work is not exhaustive: “Usually, when they present information about the morphological classification of languages, they also talk about the difference between analytical and synthetic languages. Synthetism and analyticism are not directly related to morphological classification. Synthetism is the presence in significant words of such formal indicators that indicate the connections of these words. Flexion is one such indicator. Analyticism is the absence of indicators of the connection of one significant word with another, therefore such words transfer the functions of indicators of connection to functional words. However, if there are no "pure" morphological types, then all the more so there are no "pure" analytic or synthetic languages. Therefore, the division of languages into synthetic and analytical is very conditional. For example, according to tradition, it is considered that in Russian synthetism is stronger than analyticism, and in English analyticism is stronger than synthetism. It is possible that this is so, although it must be verified by some rigorous technique.
I. T. Vendina also points to the mixture of analytical and synthetic features in languages: “In its pure form, analyticism and synthetism are not represented in any language of the world, since each language has elements of analyticism and synthetism, although their ratio may be different (cf. in Russian, along with the predominance of synthetism, there are pronounced features of analyticism, cf. the expression of the category of person in past tense verbs, the formation of future tense forms of imperfective verbs, analytical forms of the comparative and superlative degree of adjectives and adverbs, etc.). The general patterns of language development have not yet been studied, although certain trends in their evolution can be traced. Many languages in their history demonstrate the transition from a synthetic system to an analytical one (for example, Romance languages, a number of Germanic, Iranian). But their linguistic development does not stop there, and very often auxiliary words and parts of speech, agglutinating with the basis of a significant word, again create synthetic forms. In this regard, the grammatical fate of the Bengali language is extremely interesting: from an inflectional synthetic type, it gradually moved to an analytical type (the old declension disappeared, and with it the grammatical category of case, numbers, grammatical gender, internal inflection, but analytical forms became widespread), however thanks to the contraction of the analytical forms of the name and the verb, new synthetic forms with agglutinative affixes began to appear (cf. the verb form korčhilam 'I did', in which kor is 'root', čhi is a morpheme that goes back to the service verb with the meaning 'to be', - l- - past tense suffix, -am - 1st person inflection'), even a new declension of four cases appeared. The history of languages shows that often in the grammatical system of the same language, synthetic constructions can be replaced by analytical ones (for example, case forms by prepositional cases and then prepositional in the absence of declension, as, for example, in Bulgarian) or synthetic constructions can be formed on the basis of analytical constructions due to loss of a service element (cf. in other Russian language forms of the past tense I have walked and in modern Russian walked). Synthetic and analytical forms can coexist even within the same paradigm (cf. Rus. nobody, nobody). Moreover, formations of the analytical type are constantly being formed in languages, since word combinations are the simplest, motivated way to designate objects and phenomena of the outside world. However, in the future, these formations can be transformed into synthetic forms (cf. the designation of blueberries in Russian: black berry - blueberry).
Reformatsky A.A. notes that “the question of the synthetic and analytical structure of languages can be approached in different ways. Nobody argues that this is a grammatical question, but some researchers in the definition of this important issue come from morphology, others from syntax. However, there is a third way: to go from the classification of grammatical ways and their use in a particular language. At the same time, the interests of both morphology and syntax are observed.
All grammatical methods can be divided into two fundamentally different types: 1) methods that express grammar inside a word are internal inflection, affixation, repetitions, additions, stress and suppletivism, 2) ways that express grammar outside a word are methods of auxiliary words, word order and intonation. The first series of methods is called synthetic, the second - analytical.
Yu. S. Maslov writes more about the ways of expressing grammatical meanings in languages of analytical and synthetic types:
“Analytical formations have a special grammatical structure. They are combinations of significant and auxiliary words (sometimes significant and several auxiliary words), functioning as one significant word, a separate word form, a number of word forms or an entire lexeme.
1. Analytical formations that function as word forms of a word that also has non-analytic (synthetic) word forms are called analytical forms. We have already met above with analytic forms of verb tenses (Rus. I will write, Eng. I'll write, German ich werde schreiben, etc.) and moods (Russian would write, Eng. I should write, etc.) .). There are analytical forms of the verb form, for example, the so-called Progressive in English (I am writing 'I am writing at the moment', I was writing 'I was writing at that moment'), analytical forms of voice, in particular the passive (German der Brief wird geschrieben 'the letter is being written'), adjectives and adverbs have analytical forms of degrees of comparison (French plus fort 'stronger', le plus fort 'the strongest'). Combinations of significant words with prepositions can be legitimately considered as analytical forms of cases (cf. German mit dem Bleistift or Bolg. Smoliv, equivalent to Russian tv.p. with a pencil, English of my friend or French de mon ami, equivalent to Russian. Gen. p my friend; Russian to the city, equivalent to the Finnish so-called illative kaupunkiin). Combinations with the article in English, German, French, Spanish and some other languages are analytical forms of expressing "certainty" and "uncertainty".
Sometimes an analytic form can be more or less synonymous with a parallel existing synthetic one. So, "This room is warmer" = "This room is warmer", eng. "the son of my friend" == "my friend's son". In other cases, the analytic form does not have even an approximate synonym among the synthetic forms, but is opposed to the synthetic form within the framework of the grammatical category. So, in Russian the complex future imperfective form and the subjunctive mood, in English the specific process form (Progressive), in French the comparative and superlative degrees do not have synthetic parallels, but participate in grammatical categories, opposing synthetic forms. Wed:
I am (was) writing: l write (wrote), etc. (view category)
It also happens that in words of one category, some grammeme is expressed by means of a synthetic form, and in words of another category by means of an analytical form. Wed English strong compares, stronger excels. strongest, easy ‘easy’ easier easiest, etc., but for polysyllabic adjectives: interesting ‘interesting’ compares, more interesting excels. the most interesting.
Formatives of analytical forms have a complex structure: they are usually represented by a combination of a function word (or several function words) and certain affixes as part of a significant word. So, in Russian on the table the formative consists of a preposition on and an ending - /e/ , a on the table from the same preposition and zero ending. The individual components of such a complex format can be correlated with the individual components of the complex grammatical meaning of the form.
2. Analytical formations that function as a whole lexeme in the totality of its forms, it is natural to call analytical words. An example is English verbs. to pride oneself ‘be proud’, German. sich schamen ‘to be ashamed’, fr. s’enfuir ‘to run away’, always used only with a reflexive pronoun, which (unlike the Russian reflexive affix -sya / -s) is a function word. The verb to pride oneself is formed by combining 1) the generating stem /praid/, presented in the noun pride 'pride' (there is no verb "to pride" in English, just as there is no verb "proud" in Russian), and 2) a derivational format consisting of two parts: a) a reflexive pronoun changing in persons and numbers and b) a set of affixal and analytical formatives of individual forms of the verb.
The formative of a synthetic (simple) word form can also be either monomorphemic, for example, consisting of one ending (in particular, zero), as in the word forms of the word table, or polymorphemic, consisting of two or more affixes, which is typical for a Russian verb: cf. -you see, -la sang, -/|o|m|t'i/- let's go. The formative may also include supersegmental morphemes. So, the formatives of the singular word forms of the word horn include the root stress as an indicator of the number, that is, they can be written like this: - #, - a, etc. ”
The definitions of Reformed A. A. synthetic and analytical in languages are interesting:
“The meaning of these terms comes down to the fact that with the synthetic tendency of grammar, the grammatical meaning is synthesized, combined with lexical meanings within the word, which, with the unity of the word, is a strong indicator of the whole; with an analytic tendency, grammatical meanings are separated from the expression of lexical meanings; lexical meanings are concentrated in the word itself, while grammatical meanings are expressed either by the auxiliary words accompanying the significant word, or by the order of the significant words themselves, or by the intonation accompanying the sentence, and not the given word.
From the predominance of one or another tendency, the nature of the word in the language changes, since in synthetic languages the word, being taken out of the sentence, retains its grammatical characteristic. For example, the Latin word filium, in addition to the fact that it lexically means "such and such a kinship name (son)", shows that: 1) it is a noun, 2) in the singular, 3) in the accusative case, 4) it is a direct object . And to characterize the structure of the sentence, this “torn out” form of filium gives a lot: 1) it is a direct object, 2) depending on the predicate - the transitive verb, 3) in which the subject1 must stand, defining the person and number of this predicate - the verb. The word of synthetic languages is independent, fully-fledged both lexically and grammatically, and requires, first of all, morphological analysis, from which its syntactic properties arise by themselves.
The word of analytic languages expresses one lexical meaning and, being taken out of the sentence, is limited only by its nominative possibilities; it acquires a grammatical characteristic only as part of a sentence.
In English, a "piece" - round - is only a "circle", if you do not know from which sentence this "piece" is taken out; of course, this is not always the same word that is revealed only in syntactic contexts (a round table - “round table”, a great round - “big circle”, etc.); Russian words circle, round, circle and without syntactic context are understandable as vocabulary phenomena, and therefore they are not comparable with the English round. They are grammatically different things.
There are a number of consequences from these general propositions. One of them is that the expression of grammatical meanings in synthetic languages is repeated both in agreed sentence members and within forms of the same word.
One can compare the "translation" from one language to another of such a sentence as "Big tables are standing.":
German: Die grossen Tische stehen - the plural is expressed four times: by the article (analytically) and by affixes in the noun (Tisch-e), in the adjective (gross-en) and in the verb (steh-en) (synthetically).
Russian language: Large tables stand - the plural is expressed three times: in the noun (stol-s), in the adjective (big-s) and in the verb (sto-yat) (synthetically).
English: The great tables stand - the plural is expressed twice: in the noun (table-s) (synthetically) and in the verb - by the absence of -s (stand), indicating the singular in the present tense (synthetically).
Kazakh language: Ulken stoldar - gur - the plural is expressed only once: in the noun (stoldar) (synthetically).
French: Les grandes tables restent debout - the plural is expressed only once in the article les (analytically)1.
Even if we compare the formation of the same plural forms in closely related languages, such as German and English (in the words Buch, book - "book" and Mann, man - "man" of the same origin), a synthetic tendency will be visible (in parallel repetition of grammatical meanings) and analytical (in the desire to express a given grammatical meaning only once):
English: The plural is expressed only once in each example:
the book - the books 1) in book - books only by external inflection (there is no internal inflection, and the article does not change)
the man - the men 2) in man - men only by internal inflection; the article in English cannot distinguish between a number.
Typical synthetic languages include the ancient written Indo-European languages: Sanskrit, Ancient Greek, Latin, Gothic, Old Slavonic; now largely Lithuanian, German, Russian (although both with many active features of analyticism); to analytical: Romanesque, English, Danish, Modern Greek, New Persian, New Indian; from Slavic - Bulgarian.
Languages such as Turkic, Finnish, despite the predominant role of affixation in their grammar, have a lot of analyticity in the system due to the agglutinating nature of their affixation; languages such as Semitic (for example, Arabic) are synthetic, because the grammar in them is expressed within the word, but they are rather analytic in terms of the agglutinating tendency of affixation.
3. Changing the structure of languages in the process of their development
According to V. I. Kodukhov: “Language types are a historically changeable category; in any language or group of languages, features of other grammatical types can be found. For example, according to the morphological classification, the Caucasian languages belong to the agglutinative type with a large proportion of prefixation. However, this is more typical for the Georgian language than for the Nakh-Dagestan languages, where there are elements of inflection and a decrease in the proportion of prefixation. It is known that Latin and Old Bulgarian were synthetic inflectional languages, while French and modern Bulgarian have acquired noticeable features of analyticism. Modern German has more synthesis than English, but more analytic than Russian.
The opinion of Shaikevich A. Ya. regarding the change in the typological characteristics of languages is interesting: “The division of languages into three types of synthesis (analytical, synthetic and polysynthetic) is accepted by modern linguistics.
Both typological classifications (by "technique" and by "degree of synthesis") are morphological. In linguistics, attempts are also being made to create a syntactic classification of languages.
In the process of its development, the same language can change its typological characteristics.
In the 19th century it seemed to many linguists that the grammatical structure of the Chinese language (wenyang) reflected the most ancient stage in the evolution of the language. In the XX century. linguists have discovered in the ancient Chinese language the remains of old suffixes, alternation of vowels and consonants. For example, tsher “wife” (modern qi); tshəs ‘marry’, (modern qi), dhən “field” (modern tian); and dhən-s “to cultivate the field” (modern tian); njup ‘enter’ (modern zhu); and nup ‘let in’ (modern on); tjan ‘pull’ (modern zhang) and dhjan ‘long’ (modern chan). This means that in Chinese the stage of isolation was preceded by a stage of some other type.
Many languages in their history demonstrate the transition from a synthetic system to an analytical one. This applies to most of the Indo-European languages: Romance, Germanic (except Icelandic and Faroese), Iranian, Indian. Maximum analyticism was achieved by English and French. But linguistic development does not stop there. Postpositions, auxiliary verbs and other functional words, agglutinating with the stem of the significant word, create new synthetic forms. The grammatical fate of the Bengali language is characteristic. From the inflectional synthetic type of the Old Indian language, the Bengali language passed to the analytical type (like English). The old declension (i.e., the category of case) has disappeared, the old forms of number, grammatical gender, and internal inflection have disappeared. Analytical forms have become widespread. And then, thanks to agglutination, new synthetic forms arose. The verb form korchilam ‘I did’ contains the root kor, the imperfective suffix chi, ascending to the service verb with the meaning ‘to be’, the past tense suffix l, and the inflection of the 1st l. -am. There was also a new declension of four cases.
These facts make us cautious about the problem of progress in grammar. So far, there is no reason to claim that one language is more progressive than another, or that one stage in the history of a language is superior to another. The general patterns of languages have not yet been sufficiently studied, so in the future, science may shed light on this interesting question: is there progress in the language?
Conclusion
In the course of the work done, various types of classification of languages were considered according to 1) the general degree of complexity of the morphological structure of the word 2) the method of connecting morphemes expressing a particular grammatical meaning 3) the ways of expressing grammatical meanings and their use. Also, the distinctive features of the languages of the synthetic and analytical system (on the examples of individual languages) and cases of transition from one system to another in the course of the historical development of the language were considered.
In the typological characteristics of inflectional languages, a special place is occupied by the determination of the proportion of synthetic and analytical forms of the language, the role of function words in the formation of word forms, phrases and sentences. Russian has a synthetic structure, English has an analytical one.
Analytical structure involves a wider use of service words, as well as phonetic means and word order for the formation of word forms and phrase forms. The languages of the analytical system are English, French, Hindustani, Persian, Bulgarian. Affixation, for example, in English is used mainly for word formation (past tense suffix ed). Nouns and adjectives are characterized by the poverty of inflection forms; on the contrary, the verb has a developed system of tense forms, which are formed almost exclusively analytically. Syntactic constructions are also distinguished by analyticism, since the main role in the expression of syntactic meanings belongs to function words, word order and intonation.
Synthetic tuning characterized by a greater role of word forms formed with the help of affixes - inflections and formative suffixes and prefixes. The languages of the synthetic system are Russian, Polish, Lithuanian and most other Indo-European languages; all ancient written Indo-European languages were synthetic, for example, Latin, Greek, Gothic.
Morphological types of languages:
1. Insulating (root isolating, amorphous) type (aging). These languages are characterized by a complete or almost complete absence of inflection and, as a result, a very large grammatical significance of the word order (subject - definition of the subject - definition of the predicate - predicate), each root expresses one lexical meaning, weak opposition of meaningful and auxiliary roots. The root isolating languages are Chinese, Vietnamese, Dungan, Muong and many others. etc. Modern English is evolving towards root isolation.
2. Agglutinative (agglutinative) type. Languages of this type are characterized by a developed system of inflection, but each grammatical meaning has its own indicator, the absence of grammatical alternations at the root, the same type of inflection for all words belonging to the same part of speech (i.e., the presence of a single type of declension for all nouns and a single for all verbs of the conjugation type), the number of morphemes in a word is not limited. These include Turkic, Tungus-Manchurian, Finno-Ugric languages, Kartvelian, Andaman and some other languages. The principle of agglutination is also the basis of the grammar of the artificial language in Esperatno.
For example, let's take the instrumental plural of the Komi-Permyak word "sin" (eye) - "synnezon". Here the morpheme "nez" is an indicator of the plural, and the morpheme "on" is an indicator of the instrumental case.
3. Inflectional (inflectional, fusional). Languages of this type are characterized by a developed system of inflection (diversity of declensions and conjugations: in Russian - three declensions and two conjugations, in Latin - five declensions and four conjugations.) and the ability to convey the entire gamut of grammatical meanings with one indicator:
Internal inflection, that is, with grammatically significant alternation at the root (Semitic languages),
External inflection (ending), fusion, that is, with the simultaneous expression of several grammatical meanings with one affix (for example, in the Russian word "home" the ending of the word "-a" is both a masculine and plural and nominative case).
Also in these languages, one affix can express different meanings (suffix -tel-: person teacher, device switch, abstract factor, substance blood substitute), the number of morphemes in one word is limited (no more than six; the exception is German), the presence of proper and common nouns, the presence of different types of stress.
These include Slavic, Baltic, Italic, some of the Indian and Iranian languages.
4. A number of typologists also highlight incorporating (polysynthetic) languages where there are "word-sentences", complex complexes: the verb form includes (sometimes in a truncated form) nominal stems corresponding to the object and circumstances, the subject, as well as some grammatical indicators. These include languages Chukotka-Kamchatka family, some languages of the Indians of North America.
A feature of this type of language is that the sentence is constructed as a compound word, i.e., unformed word roots are agglutinated into one common whole, which will be both a word and a sentence. Parts of this whole are both the elements of the word and the members of the sentence. The whole is a word-sentence, where the beginning is the subject, the end is the predicate, and additions with their definitions and circumstances are incorporated (inserted) into the middle. For the Mexican example: ninakakwa, where ni- "I", naka- “ed-” (i.e. “eat”), a kwa- object, "meat-". In Russian, three grammatically designed words are obtained I eat meat, and vice versa, such a fully-formed combination as ant-eater, does not constitute an offer.
In order to show how it is possible to “incorporate” in this type of languages, we will give one more example from the Chukchi language: you-ata-kaa-nmy-rkyn- “I kill fat deer”, literally: “I-fat-deer-kill-do”, where is the skeleton of the “body”: you-nmy-rkyn, which incorporates kaa- "deer" and its definition ata- "fat"; The Chukchi language does not tolerate any other arrangement, and the whole is a word-sentence, where the above order of elements is also observed.
Some analogue of incorporation in Russian can be the replacement of the sentence "I fish" with one word - "fishing". Of course, such constructions are not typical for the Russian language. They are clearly artificial. In addition, in Russian, only a simple non-common sentence with a personal pronoun as a subject can be represented as a compound word. It is impossible to "fold" into one word the sentence "The boy is fishing" or "I am catching good fish." In incorporating languages, any sentence can only be represented as a single compound word. So, for example, in the Chukchi language, the sentence “We guard new networks” will look like “Mytturkupregynrityrkyn”. It can be said that in incorporating languages the boundary between word formation and syntax is blurred to a certain extent.
Speaking about the four morphological types of languages, we must remember that just as there is no chemically pure, unadulterated substance in nature, there is not a single completely inflectional, agglutinative, root-isolating or incorporating language. Thus, the Chinese and Dungan languages, which are predominantly root-isolating, contain some, albeit insignificant, elements of agglutination. There are also elements of agglutination in inflected Latin (for example, the formation of forms of the imperfect or the future first tense). And vice versa, in agglutinative Estonian we encounter elements of inflection. So, for example, in the word töötavad (work), the ending "-vad" denotes both the third person and the plural.
This typological classification of languages, which is basically morphological, cannot be considered final, mainly because of its inability to reflect all the specifics of a particular language, taking into account its structure. But it contains in an implicit form the possibility of its refinement by analyzing other areas of the language. For example, in isolating languages such as classical Chinese, Vietnamese, and Guinean, one-syllable words equal to a morpheme, the presence of polytony, and a number of other interrelated characteristics are observed.
Russian language is inflectional language of the synthetic structure .
The section is very easy to use. In the proposed field, just enter the desired word, and we will give you a list of its meanings. I would like to note that our site provides data from various sources - encyclopedic, explanatory, word-building dictionaries. Here you can also get acquainted with examples of the use of the word you entered.
What does "synthetic languages" mean?
Encyclopedic Dictionary, 1998
synthetic languages
a class of languages in which grammatical meanings are expressed within a word using affixes or internal inflection, e.g. Russian, German, Lithuanian and other Indo-European languages.
Synthetic languages
typological class of languages in which synthetic forms of expression of grammatical meanings predominate. S. i. are contrasted with analytical languages, in which grammatical meanings are expressed with the help of function words, and polysynthetic languages, in which several nominal and verbal lexical meanings are combined within an integrally formed complex (outwardly resembling a word). The basis for dividing languages into synthetic, analytic, and polysynthetic is essentially syntactic, so this division intersects with the morphological classification of languages, but does not coincide with it. The division of languages into synthetic and analytical was proposed by A. Schlegel (only for inflectional languages), A. Schleicher extended it to agglutinative languages. Morphemes included in a word in S. Ya. can be combined according to the principle of agglutination, fusion, and undergo positional alternations (for example, Turkic vowel harmony). Synthetic forms are found in a large part of the world's languages. Since the language, in principle, is not typologically homogeneous, the term "S. I." applied in practice to languages with a sufficiently high degree of synthesis, for example, Turkic, Finno-Ugric, most Semitic-Hamitic, Indo-European (ancient), Mongolian, Tungus-Manchurian, some African (Bantu), Caucasian, Paleo-Asiatic, American Indian languages.
Lit .: Kuznetsov P. S., Morphological classification of languages, M., 1954; Uspensky B. A., Structural typology of languages, M., 1965; Rozhdestvensky Yu. V., Typology of the word, M., 1969; Linguistic typology, in the book: General linguistics, v. 2, M., 1972; Home K. M., Language typology 19th and 20th century views, Wash., 1966; Pettier B., La typologie, in Le langage, Encyclopedie de la Pleiade, v. 25, P., 1968.
MORPHOLOGICAL TYPES OF LANGUAGES
Morphological typology (and this is chronologically the first and most developed area of typological research) takes into account, firstly, the ways of expressing grammatical meanings and, secondly, the nature morpheme compounds in the word. Depending on the ways of expressing grammatical meanings, there are synthetic and analytic languages(§ 26; see also § 27). Depending on the nature of the connection, morphemes are distinguished agglutinative and fusional languages(§§ 28-29).
26. Analytic and synthetic languages
In the languages of the world, there are two main groups of ways of expressing grammatical meanings: 1) synthetic ways and 2) analytical. Synthetic methods are characterized by the combination of a grammatical indicator with the word itself (this is the motivation for the term synthetic). Such an indicator that introduces the grammatical meaning "inside the word" can be ending, suffix, prefix, internal inflection(i.e. alternation of sounds in the root, for example, flow - flow - flow), change accents (legs - feet), suppletive modification word stems ( I - me, go - go, good - better), transfix(in Semitic languages: a complex consisting of several vowels, which is "woven" into a three-consonant root, adding to it
Most languages have both analytical and synthetic means of expressing grammatical meanings, but their specific weight varies. Depending on which methods prevail, languages of a synthetic and analytical type are distinguished. Synthetic languages include all Slavic languages (except Bulgarian), Sanskrit, Ancient Greek, Latin, Lithuanian, Yakut, German, Arabic, Swahili and many others. others
The languages of the analytical system include all the Romance languages, Bulgarian, English, Danish, Modern Greek, New Persian and many others. etc. Analytical methods in these languages prevail, however, synthetic grammatical means are also used to some extent.
Languages in which there are almost no possibilities for the synthetic expression of a number of grammatical meanings (as in Chinese, Vietnamese, Khmer, Lao, Thai, etc.) at the beginning of the 19th century. called amorphous("formless"), i.e. as if devoid of form, but already Humboldt called them insulating. It has been shown that these languages are by no means devoid of grammatical form, just a series of grammatical meanings (namely, syntactic,
relational meanings) are expressed here separately, as if "isolated", from the lexical meaning of the word (For details, see Solntseva 1985, Solntsev 1995).
There are languages in which a word, on the contrary, turns out to be so “overburdened” with various auxiliary and dependent root morphemes that such a word turns into a sentence in meaning, but at the same time remains formalized as a word. Such a "word-sentence" device is called incorporation(lat. incorporate- "inclusion in its composition", from lat. in- "in and corpus- "body, whole"), and the corresponding languages - incorporating, or polysynthetic(some Indian languages, Chukchi, Koryak, etc.).
Synthetic(from Greek. synthesis- combination, compilation, association) - based on synthesis, united.
