I. Phonetic changes.
The pronunciation side of every language is constantly changing, but in most cases phoneticians are powerless to explain why any given change occurred.
A language fully fulfills its purpose if it remains (in the area of pronunciation) unchanged. The fact that a change in pronunciation is an obstacle to the functioning of a language, especially if it serves higher social needs, is proven by literary languages. They have a process sound changes slowed down, inhibited precisely because they are instruments of culture.
There are many theories about the causes of phonetic changes. Changes in sounds in a language are either corrupt (but their ubiquity does not allow us to agree with such an assessment) or they make sense, i.e. determined by the very essence of language, its work.
There have been many attempts to understand the general causes of phonetic changes. Here are some of these attempts.
1. The principle of saving pronunciation efforts. Some changes follow this principle. But many changes in pronunciation required, on the contrary, an increase in muscular work.
The idea that the essence phonetic processes in simplifying articulations, involves a series of changes in which each subsequent member is simpler than the previous one and requires less energy. This series, going into the distances of the past, should lead to fairly complex articulations. How could such articulations, which were very complex in ancient times, arise? Why did the language start out incredibly complex? And could this complexity be so powerful that its simplification constituted phonetic history? human languages? Until it is clarified why the language ancient eras possessed such articulatory complexity that its simplification dragged on for centuries; until then, the hypothesis of economy of articulatory effort cannot be considered a means of explaining the causes of linguistic pronunciation evolution.
2. The principle of economy of phonemes and their distinctive features. It is assumed that the disappearance of phonemes that for some reason turned out to be weak: either they are rare in the speech stream, or their distinctive load is weak, or there are few words that include such sounds, or they are weak because they are formed by features not represented in other phonemes .
3. The principle of symmetry. After I. A. Baudouin de Courtenay and F. de Saussure, linguistics began to talk about system connections between units of language. A system is a collection of interconnected units, so that the status of each unit is determined by the presence of all other units of this collection. The concept is complex and it does not at all reduce to symmetry.
Much effort has been expended to prove the tendency of sounds to be symmetrically placed. But if we do not vulgarize the concept of a system, then such a craving for the sounds of a language to fall into line remains completely inexplicable. Apparently, in reality there is no such desire.
Social life, in her everyday manifestations, in everyday activities, gradually accelerates. Doesn't this affect pronunciation? Some Russian dialects have a high rate of speech, but retain all the clarity of articulation. Thus, a fast pace of speech does not at all entail blurriness, weakening, or simplification of articulations.
In the beginning phonetic change occurs in a certain position. Then it can spread to other positions. In some cases it covers all possible positions, and then the sound changes in the language as a whole. The old sound ceased to exist, and a new one appeared in its place. Thus, the phonetic change is positional in nature. I would like to consider positional changes as articulatory determined.
If there were such cases, then we must admit that the basis of all positional interactions is not at all an articulatory need, it is not physiology that “turns on” this mechanism.
II. Grammatical changes.
The most stable part of the language - grammar - is also, of course, subject to change. And these changes can be of different nature. They can concern the entire grammatical system as a whole, as, for example, in Romance languages, where the former Latin system of inflectional morphology (declension, conjugation) gave way to analytical forms expressions through function words and word order, or reflect on particular issues and only certain grammatical categories and forms, as, for example, it was during the XIV-XVII centuries. in the history of the Russian language, when the system of verbal inflection was restructured and instead of four Slavic past tenses (imperfect, perfect, aorist and plusquaperfect), one past tense (from the former perfect) was obtained.
The grammatical structure, as a rule, in any language is very stable and is subject to changes under the influence of foreign languages only in very rare cases. Such cases are possible here.
Firstly, something unusual is transferred from one language to another given language a grammatical category, for example, the specific differences of a verb from the Russian language to the Komi language, but this phenomenon is formalized by the grammatical means of the borrowing language.
Secondly, the word-formation model is transferred from one language to another, which is often called “borrowing affixes,” for example, the suffixes -ism-, -ist- into the Russian language in the words: Leninism, Leninist, otzovism, otzovist, etc. The case The point here is not that we borrowed the suffixes -iz-, -ist-, but that models of words in -iz- and -ist- with certain grammatical meanings, regardless of the meaning of the root, were introduced into the Russian language.
Thirdly, much less often, almost as an exception, one can find in languages the borrowing of inflectional forms, that is, those cases when the expression of a relationship (relational meaning) is adopted from another language; as a rule, this does not happen, since each language expresses relations according to the internal laws of its grammar.
In the process of grammatical development of a language, new grammatical categories may also appear, for example, gerunds in the Russian language, derived from participles that have ceased to agree with their definitions and have “frozen” in any one, inconsistent form and thereby changed their grammatical appearance. Thus, within groups related languages in the process of their historical development may arise significant differences associated with the loss of certain previous categories and the emergence of new ones. This can be observed even among closely related languages.
In the closely related German and English languages, as a result of their independent development a completely different fate of declension arose: in German, which received some features of analyticism and shifted all the “heaviness” of declension to the article, four cases still remained, and in English, where the article is not inflected, the declension of nouns disappeared altogether, only the possibility of forming from names denoting living beings, "archaic form" "Old English genetive" ("Old English genitive") with "s: man"s hand - "man's hand", horse"s head - "horse head", instead of the more usual: the hand of the man, the head of the horse.
III. Lexical changes.
The vocabulary of a language changes continuously and is updated much faster than other structural tiers of the language. This is understandable, because the vocabulary of a language, directly reflecting reality with its changes in language, is obliged to include new words to denote new things, phenomena, processes and set aside old ones. This process is always a fact of development of the vocabulary of the language, its replenishment and stylistic differentiation, which enriches the expressive means of the language. In other words, when changing vocabulary its increase always exceeds its decrease.
This concerns primarily the formation of derivative words from existing ones, borrowing and the creation of terms in one’s own language and various polysemic transfers of meaning, however, it has little to do with the main layers of vocabulary, what is called the main vocabulary fund or the main fund of vocabulary, which is used to form new derivative words and figurative meanings.
The main fund of vocabulary changes more slowly than the peripheral and special layers of the vocabulary, but even here changes occur either through the formation of new derivative words from non-derivative ones, and the productive itself non-derivative word may be lost. Either by borrowing words from other languages, which happens both when a new thing appears (in technology, in everyday life), and when there is a need to express a new concept in the field public relations or ideology (international terms democracy, revolution, etc.), and when given word although it duplicates what already exists, for one reason or another it turns out to be necessary.
The reasons for such duplication (doubling) of words in a language are different; sometimes this is a desire for terminology, especially when the borrowed word is an international term, sometimes a desire to highlight some shade of meaning that is unclear in one’s word, and sometimes just a fashion for foreign language, which is typical for slang borrowings (not victory, but Victoria, not politeness , and polites, etc. in the Russian language of the 18th century).
The loss of words from the vocabulary is a gradual transition of words from active dictionary in passive; these are all the “historical” words that were once called modern era realities (i.e. facts of reality), and then already lost, for example, boyar, clerk, archer, flail, as well as NEPman, fellow traveler (in figurative meaning in relation to writers in the 20s. XX century).
This category of words - “historicisms” - should be distinguished from archaisms, i.e. obsolete words that denoted realities that were not lost, but called differently (for example, boar - boar, banner - banner , stogna – area, etc.).
Archaisms, unlike historicisms, can be resurrected, that is, from passive dictionary return to active; These are the words council, decree, major, sergeant, officer, etc.
New words in a language are called neologisms.
A person's vocabulary, reflecting the vocabulary of a language, is like a "storeroom" where "shelves of words" are located in known perspective: some are closer, what you need every day; others - further, what is needed only in known cases and situations, such “distant” words include archaisms, highly specialized terms, purely poetic words, etc.
New words appear in the language in different ways and for various reasons.
1. The invention of words is extremely rare, which once again confirms the stability of the language and its word-forming elements.
2. Creating new words according to existing models on the basis of existing words in the language is very productive way dictionary updates. Words starting with -ization denote activities aimed at implementing what is expressed by the root; hence, according to the model of legalization and activation, the words militarization, passportization, pasteurization, vernalization, and sovietization arose.
3.Borrowing. Enrichment of the vocabulary of a language at the expense of the vocabulary of other languages is a common consequence of interaction different nations and nations on the basis of political, trade, economic relations.
When borrowing, a new word most often comes along with new things (tractor, tank, combine), with the introduction of new organizational forms, institutions, positions (division, battery, officer, general, office, secretary, infirmary, resident, paramedic, university, conservatory, magistracy, associate professor, dean's office, dean, lecture, seminary, semester, consultation, exam, score, etc. .).
When borrowing, one should distinguish between:
1) Does borrowing occur orally through spoken communication or written through books, newspapers, catalogues, instructions, technical data sheets of machines, etc.
2) Does borrowing occur directly or through intermediaries, i.e. through transfer languages, which is why both the sound form and meaning of borrowed words can change greatly.
Sometimes the same word comes in two ways: directly and through an intermediary, or comes into the language twice, through different intermediaries, or twice in different eras(then the borrowing language produces two different words instead of two historically different forms the same word in the original). Sometimes a borrowed word returns unrecognized back into its language with a different meaning and a changed sound appearance.
3) There can be borrowings within one language, when a common literary language borrows something from dialects, professional speech, jargons, and vice versa.
4) Tracing. Along with borrowing foreign words in the unity of their meaning and material design (even with changes in both), languages widely use tracings of foreign words and expressions.
5) Expansion of vocabulary through word formation should be considered in grammar, because word formation is a grammatical phenomenon, although the results of this process take their place in the vocabulary; As for enriching the vocabulary by transferring the meanings of existing words, this is the sphere of vocabulary.
6) In vocabulary, differentiation by meaning can occur within even closely related languages.
Grammar, especially morphology, is the most stable aspect of a language, but it also changes. Each grammatical form has two sides: the grammatical meaning and the grammatical means by which it is expressed. Historical changes concern both the grammatical meanings themselves and their expression.
Any grammatical form exists not on its own, but in a number of other forms to which it is opposed. This row grammatical forms Thus, it has a general grammatical meaning (it is called a grammatical category), which is precisely manifested in the opposition of these forms. For example, the category of time in the Russian language is manifested in the opposition of present, past and future tense. Thanks to this connection, any change in the composition of grammatical forms is reflected in other forms of the same category, and sometimes can lead to the loss of the category itself. For example, the French language arose on the basis of the Latin language, which has five case forms: nominative and four oblique cases. But it’s already old French the number of cases was reduced to two (nominative and indirect). The meaning of this oblique case, which replaced the four lost ones, was, of course, not equal to the meaning of any of the previous cases. It has become broader and more abstract. Oblique case indicated only the dependence of the noun on other words, in contrast to the independent nominative case. Other, more specific meanings (for example, the meaning of belonging, which was previously expressed by the genitive, the addressee of the action, which was previously expressed by the dative) began to be conveyed by prepositions. During the XIV-XV centuries. the distinction between these two case forms was lost, and thus the category of case in general was lost. There are no cases in modern French.
But grammatical categories not only become simplified and disappear. There are also opposite changes. New grammatical categories emerge. So, for example, in modern Russian there is a grammatical category of animation - inanimateness, which did not exist in the ancient Russian language. The category of animation - inanimateness is manifested in the fact that for animate nouns the accusative case coincides with the genitive, and for inanimate nouns - with the nominative (I see a brother, but I see a table). In the Old Russian language, the names of living beings and inanimate objects were originally inclined equally, therefore, animate and inanimate as grammatical category there wasn't. It developed in the XV-XVII centuries.
Some changes concern only the means of expressing grammatical meanings, without affecting the meanings themselves. These changes are varied in nature and scale. Some isolated changes are also possible here. For example, the pronouns I and you previously had the ending -e (mene, you) in the genitive accusative case. Subsequently, it was replaced by the ending -я (me, you) under the influence of short pronouns (me, tya), which then disappeared from the language. The forms for you are preserved only in dialects. But such isolated changes are rare. Not only the grammatical meanings themselves, but also the means of their expression form a system (such as, for example, inflectional types: types of declension and conjugation). Therefore, changes in the endings of some forms often entail changes in the entire system of inflectional types.
Now the words fruit and honey belong to the same declension. In Old Russian, these nouns belonged to different declensions. In the genitive case there was fruit, but honey, in the dative case - fruit, but honey. But some of their forms coincided: nominative and accusative cases - fruit, honey. Under the influence of some case forms, others also merged, two declensions merged into one (see Analogy in grammar).
Changes may also affect the way in which grammatical meanings are expressed. For example, the number forms of nouns in French were once distinguished by endings. Then ending plural were lost, surviving only in writing, and function words - articles - became indicators of the number of nouns (compare: le talon - “heel”, les talons - “heels”; la maison - “house”, les maisons - “at home”” (final s not pronounced).
To demonstrate various types grammatical changes, we separately examined changes in the grammatical categories themselves and in the means of their expression. But in reality, these changes are often combined and intertwined: changes in the expression of grammatical meanings also cause changes in grammatical categories, and changes in grammatical categories influence the restructuring of inflectional types.
This is how things stood with the emergence in the Russian language of the category of animation - inanimateness. What caused the occurrence new category? The reason was the coincidence of the endings of the nominative and accusative cases of masculine nouns. In the Indo-European proto-language (the ancestor of many European languages, including Slavic) these cases differed. As a result of various phonetic processes in Proto-Slavic language both cases of nouns of certain types of declension ended in reduced vowels ъ and ь (fruit, son, guest), which were later lost. The coincidence of the nominative and accusative cases created an inconvenience that made it difficult to distinguish between the subject of the action (the one who performs the action) and the object towards which the action is directed. The coincidence of these forms in the names of living beings (and above all people) was especially inconvenient, because they could be both the subject and the object of the action: Ivan defeated Peter - who defeated whom? Getting rid of this inconvenience, the Russian language followed this path: instead of the previous form of the accusative case, it began to be used new form, coinciding with the genitive (like personal pronouns): Ivan defeated Peter. At first, this form was used only for nouns denoting a male person, but then it spread to the names of other living beings. A category of animation - inanimateness has emerged.
Another example of the influence of changes in grammatical means on the grammatical categories themselves. It has already been said that the number of types of declension in the Russian language has decreased. In particular, two types of declension of masculine nouns have merged: a representative of one type is, for example, the word forest, and the other is honey. These nouns in the genitive, dative and local (subsequently prepositional) cases had different endings. After the merger of two types of declination, each has one ending case form turned out to be unnecessary.
What happened?
Of two endings dative case(-у and -ovi) only the ending -у has been preserved. Both endings genitive case(-а and -у) were preserved, but began to be used in different meanings. The ending -у began to express the meaning of a part of the whole (along with some others); for example: the taste of honey, but why honey, give me honey (some amount). In modern language, the ending -у is gradually being replaced by the ending -ay in this meaning. Both endings prepositional case(in forest-e and in med-u) were also preserved (albeit in a small group of words) and also began to differ in meaning; compare: being in the forest and understanding the forest.
This is how new case meanings appeared. The system of cases became more complicated.
As can be seen from the above examples, analogy plays a large role in historical changes in inflectional types, i.e., changing the forms of some words under the influence of others that are somewhat similar (see Analogy in grammar). However, analogy only becomes an active force when it helps to carry out transformations useful for the grammatical system, for example, to free the language from excessive diversity in the means of expressing the same meanings.
Unidirectional changes in the expression of various categories can change the grammatical structure of a language. Thus, French and English languages from synthetic languages in which grammatical meanings are expressed primarily inside the word, they have become analytical, which are characterized by the expression of grammatical meanings outside the word, using auxiliary layers and word order (see Analytical and synthetic languages).
In the functioning and development of language there are quantitative changes service part of speech. In the modern Russian language at the turn of the 20th-21st centuries, some new particles were formed. The method of their formation is characteristic of the grammatical class; Particular meanings have been formed for certain discursive units - modal words or adverbs.
How would- modal meaning: They have as if there were no children (born in 2000); There's no stopping, people. as if must look for her (TV.
07/26/2016); I as if I’ll warn you right away: there are such meetings when residents begin to attack me, accusing me of all mortal sins. And I say: friends, I’m just going to the Moscow Regional Duma (established, published July 26, 2016); If Seryoga lets me go early tomorrow, then I as if this, I can do it (established mobile dated 2016); First we as if didn’t know how to do it (born 2016).
Like,- modal meaning: Will he come tomorrow? - Like yes (obst. p.);
- - excretory meaning: Well, these type state men..; The lesson, of course, ended with Nastya’s tears - Dasha, like, spoke sharply to her (Senchin. What do you want? 2011);
- - designation of someone else's speech: He type I didn’t know (established in 2009). Briefly speaking, - definitive meaning: I Briefly speaking arrived there, and there
there was no one (stat. by. b. 2015); Us Briefly speaking you still need to go there (stat. 2016).
Think about it- excretory meaning: Think about it how many people were there (according to everyday life, 2015)
Such/oh- definitive meaning: She like this comes and starts saying that... (born 2014); I like this generally calm (born 2015); I like this screamed, then went to the first aid station (born 2016); We such We’re sitting, we can’t say anything (ordinary everyday life, born 2016).
Well, that's it, huh;
Modal meaning: He such: What kind of circular do you have, Chinese? (statutory life dated 2015); She like this: Why do I need this! (stat. life. r. 2016).
In fact, - connecting meaning: Ukraine today loses the right to a discount on Russian gas. In fact at the same time, the price for it will even decrease by almost 13%; This will be too subtle for your newspaper... This legal problem is very subtle In fact(Kommersant 04/01/2016); I still assume that this is a tense In fact action program for credit institutions (Kommersant 06/23/2016)
Same, and, and, besides.
Definitive meaning: These books were bought by workers. Passion for education In fact was huge (TV. 08/15/2016).
After all, exactly, exactly.
In this new capacity, this unit loses emphasis and changes semantic connections in the structure of the sentence. For example: They raised the level there In fact(established in 2010);
As a result, - excretory value: As a result we were late (stat. by. b. 2010); He left and in the end did not return (Zvezda. 2014.10); I became terribly interested in how everything worked on stage, and in the end I started playing myself; This show was named that way because I was wondering what to include in it, and in the end decided to include everything (Kommersant 23.6.16); At first they said that they would bring the suspects at eleven, then at twelve. As a result they were brought to three (TV. 07.17.2014).
So, and, well.
In a good way - defining meaning: In a good way repairs need to be done there (established in 2010); Although in an amicable way, this is not a diagnosis, but a symptom (World Details. 2011).
After all, exactly, actually.
Please, - definitive meaning: There are no cigarettes L Please(statutory life dated 2015); Man, please show me your ticket. ^please", Don't give me a cigarette Please", Guys, can I go first? Please(establishment 29.6.16); Could you do this for me? Please(stat. life. p. 10.8.16).
This is the final postpositive particle, which, in accordance with its differential information content, is not separated by a pause and intonation.
New units are formed in addition to the transition different parts speech into particles. In modern Russian, some new discursive words with an intensifying meaning are created:
Quite so, - intensifying meaning: The hero is lost, drinks and quite bastard. He considers himself an unbeliever, although in reality he is just quite Christian (V. 06/23/2014); Various events have been held there for a long time, including quite entertainment (RG. 06/29/2015); Kuzya the cat jumped through a hoop and quite communicated peacefully with rats (Mayak. 06/15/2016). = well, just like that.
Wed. a previously functioning phraseologized combination of an adverb and a pronoun: He couldn’t do it any other way, it’s artistic, and he quite true (Dostoevsky. Notebooks. 1869); Some internal needs lived in him outside of science, which he did not quite formulated (Bely A. At the turn of two eras. 1929).
Super, simple - modal-evaluative value: Super(colloquial - simple) = exclusively, well, in.
To myself,- definitive meaning: I always had sympathy for the late Peter Weil. Such to myself a good-natured fat man walks around the cities of Europe and tells stories (LG. 2017.11); We hope that you have expressed your very to myself serious argument (TV.
Exactly, right there.
All these words that have appeared are very common in modern Russian. They belong to the colloquial and vernacular sphere. This stylistic reference is a large characteristic part of their content.
The service part of speech develops in terms of content. New meanings are formed for particles existing in the modern Russian language. This expands the content of the words. Thus, new units of discursive expression appear. These phenomena are numerous.
We fix them when identifying types of contexts using the method of structural-semantic analysis of texts, where semantic valencies as a mechanism for connecting the meanings of words. Let us note these appeared in modern speech meanings in addition to the existing content of the words. The nature and nature of the meaning of particles is evidenced by synonymy, antonymy and homonymy among them. Let us identify and note here the particles synonymous with these meanings.
A, - Wed SOSH: particle. 1. Indicates a question or response to someone's. words. 2. Strengthens appeal.
Definitive meaning: A go there; A Let’s come to my place and have some tea (born 2015); A let's treat the cat! (Lighthouse.
Come on, come on;
Gain value: A everyone go to hell. Remember what my name was (Kuznetsov Yu. 2000).
Prov. connecting value: A by e..! (rude, simple. 1990s); A in the snout! A remove the skin with a razor! (Bushkov A. 1995).
And, here and, and so, and here.
A'+ vernacular excretory meaning: Don't start, but; Listen, shut up A(vulg. simple. 2016); Don't talk like that, A(established 2016).
Ka, yes, well;
Index value: A Hello (established 2012).
Here, this is, well.
This discursive word becomes an agglutinative element, in speech not separated by a pause, which is characteristic of the a-interjection.
Be there, - Wed. SOSH: It happens. 1. To be, to happen, to occur. 2. Be often, constantly or sometimes. 3. Be there (those!) Greetings when parting (simple).
Simple, modal meaning: farewell ‘goodbye, all the best’, southern Russian.
Was. The particle expressed a modal meaning. TSU: meant that the action began but was interrupted, or was intended.
Formative meaning: Doesn’t this prove that it was not necessary to start with a revolution, but was start with reforms and limit yourself to reforms (Lenin V.I. On the meaning of gold. 1920); I don’t need, I shouldn’t have rushed to meet love for so many years (Song of the 1960s “A Simple Story”).
Definitive meaning: Why was then fence the garden (established in 2014); For what was running so much in the rain (established in 2017)
Exactly, same, here;
Acquired an intensifying meaning: My heart-rending screams forced her to finally take hold of the grip with which she began was
bother me. The short comment was already in the evening (LG. 2015.9); The driver moved was to where they pointed him, when suddenly he heard, as if after him: “Everything can be seen from the other side” (Shishkin O. Witch. 2013); Milkmaid, was, they hired her, and she soon left, even though the pay was good; He tried was, pull at least one of the attackers away from a friend (Ivanovskaya Gazeta 2009); The Evil Fairy wanted to celebrate was again surround her goddaughter with care, but accidentally looked at the visiting hypnotist, and he looked at her (Lucas O. Princess, swineherd and difficulties with studies // October. 2014.11); So the mermaids will gnaw on the wife's wife and spit out the bones - such an evil and delightfully charming tribe. Tsar was collided with a mermaid and barely lost his legs (Lichutin V. Obsession // L G 2015.10).
Well, out there, after all.
It is a derived particle formed from the verb form. In the emerging type of use writing it is produced punctuation, indicating its separation from a certain syntactic component. In modern speech it expresses moderate expression.
At all, - Wed MAS: adv. 1. In relation to everything. 2. For any el. || not at all..., not at all. 3. In general, in general. 4. Attaching a sentence, expression. a more general idea than the previous one. 5. In meaning generalized sl.
Razg. intensifying meaning: Getting drunk in this situation... It’s somehow at all(Znamya. 2015.6); At all they don't give anything; They vbbsche they don’t want anything; And for me vbbsche to nothing (established 2016); The Russian language in the seventh grade is only four hours a week, in the eighth grade three, in the ninth - at all two (LG. 2016.46).
Well, absolutely;
Excretive-restrictive meaning: How is it at all could it happen? (Kommersant 04/01/2016).
Same, and, yes.
Yes,+ decom. modal meaning, exclamation particle:<...>- I’ll bring it now! (statutory everyday life 2015).
Let's, - Wed. SOSH: Give. 1. See give. 2. Sell. 3. Give (those) particles. Forms the form commanded, incl. 4. Come on, particle. With undefined imperfect form V. used in meaning began, began (colloquial). 5. Give (those) particles. With led, on. other verb used when prompted to action (colloquial).
Simple, emphatic meaning: She and Let's sweep it (verb)
Like, well, here it is;
Reinforcing value: AND Let's Let's talk about it no more; AND Let's don't argue.
Simple, definitive meaning: farewell, ‘end of communication’: Well, that’s it, Let's; That's it, Let's, kiss; Well Let's call when you arrive (established in 2015);
Limit value:<...> - Let's(established p.); OK, Let's, Fine. Let's, for now (established mobile dated 2017).
Yes, okay;
Let's I'll get sick; Let's I'll shave (colloquial)
Oh, no;
Modal-volitional meaning: - Come on; Let's here.
Well, well.
De - Wed MAS: De, particle. Simple Usage to indicate that the words given are a rendering of someone else's speech.
Razg. modal-volitional meaning, assessments. Designating not only the manner of someone else’s speech, but also a fact, an assessment: He began to speak. Like, I won’t sign any protocol. De, falsification of everything (Danilyuk S. Ruble zone. 2004); She told him de, come on, show me quickly (Solomatina T. Nine months. 2010); There was a reaction. It followed from it that everything this is it not within the competence of Rosarkhiv (L G. 2016.16)
Well, it’s like, well, here it is.
Only. Wed. MAS: 1. Adv. to the only one. E. the right way. 2. In meaning used particles for emphasis, limitation in meaning: only, exclusively. He didn't marry one very rich and beautiful bride, whom he really liked, only because her great-grandfather was not a nobleman. (Aksakov S. Family chronicle).
Reinforcing-restrictive and emotional-evaluative meaning: Only, travel far to work; Only, there may be traffic jams (RG. 10.6.16); They have only the room is not ventilated (established in 2010).
More, simple, cf.: Shimchuk, Shchur. Dictionary of Russian particles. Wed. MAS: More. adv. 1. Additionally, in addition to the same. 2. Until now. 3. Already. 4. Decree, available. possibilities, sufficient grounds. 5. More than to a greater extent. 6. In meaning will give in, union. Decree on the presumability of the condition. 7. In meaning reinforcing particle. Usage with pronouns and adverbs for emphasis, smb. a sign, a fact, to give a certain expressiveness to what is being expressed.
Definitive meaning: More If only one would come, or even bring friends with him; I'm running out of time, and there are guests here. More maybe two or three, otherwise all relatives at once.
Well, at least;
Modal-volitional meaning: Her baby has trouble falling asleep. More he can fall asleep with a fairy tale, but without it he can’t; Very sour cottage cheese - more You can eat it with sugar, but only in cheesecakes (oral everyday life).
Perhaps, perhaps, only.
Means, - Wed MAS: So. 1. Enter, sl. decomposition Therefore, it became. 2. Usage in meaning connectives ‘this, this is’ with the predicate.
Razg. excretory-restrictive meaning: Means, Zhenya, you will draw up an agreement with them (st. p.)
So, well, that's it, yes;
Connection meaning:<...>Then, Means, two buns (established 03/28/2016)
And, also, also, of course.
How, - Wed Secondary school: 1. Place, adv. and allied sl. 4. Particle. Usage to express surprise. 5. With verb. owls V. means suddenness of action. 6. Union.
Exclusive-restrictive meaning:<...> - How won't you go? A How I won't buy it for her? (established in 1990s)
Isn't it possible not to?
Which,- Wed Secondary school: places. 1. will ask, and allied. sl. Indicates a quality issue. 2. will determine. Indicates a quality rating. 3. will determine. At rhetorical question or in a response it means negation. 4. undefined Same as some. 5. What! particle. Expresses a confident denial, not at all, just the opposite.
Simple, modal-volitional meaning: Which let's smoke, we have to go (born in the 1990s); Which fly, brothers, I haven’t seen the sky (Song of the group “DDT” “Snake Petrov”. 1994)
No, under no circumstances is it possible.
Somehow, - Wed Secondary school: 1. places, adv. Somehow, no one knows how. 2. Places, adv. To some extent, somewhat. 3. Places, adv. One day, someday. 4. Union. The same as viz.
Razg. excretory meaning: Somehow one might say, to pass (established in 2016); Our group somehow I didn’t pay attention to this statement, but I couldn’t get it out of my head (Mayak. 15.7.16)
After all, well, although, only;
Reinforcing meaning: Problem solved somehow very simple (LG. 2016.30).
Like, + emotional-evaluative meaning. Not only the transmission of someone else's speech, but the transmission of thoughts and characteristics of a person, a figure: We were told this, they say, none of your business (established 2015); One day a huge jumpsuit appeared in our house. Probably one of the pilots brought it, they say, suitable for rural areas (Mayak. 07/22/16); Besides, we are talking about drugs, and this is oh so serious. So serious that the regional authorities are unlikely to commute the sentence. Like, in fact, from a formal point of view, everything is correct (LG. 2016.30).
Well, well, you see.
Well, - Wed Secondary school: 1. int. Expresses motivation as well as surprise. 2. particle. Expresses surprise. 3. particle. In summary contexts it is used to enhance and emphasize. 4. particle [always impact] used. to denote the unexpected and abrupt start actions. 5. particle. Usage in the meaning, let's say, let's assume that it is so (simple). 6. particle. Same as yes (simple).
Definitive meaning:<...> - Well.(colloquial simple) = yes, of course, exactly, exactly, exactly, correctly;
Negative value:<...> - Well, well, well more! Yes Well else: = no;
Gain value: Well I went; Well, for now (verb. everyday life) = so, so.
ABOUT,+ modal-volitional meaning: ABOUT, Vladimir Nikolaevich (established mobile dated 2015)
Hello; ah, this is, well;
Demonstrative meaning: Oh, Hello; (9, l I was looking for you (born 2015)
Here, by the way.
Just,+ connecting value: Just I’m his wife, I can give it to him (established mobile, b. 2008); Oh, well I'm now Just food (standard p.
04/05/2016) = besides, and so, here, well, ah, yes;
Emphasis: Today there are so many people, walking and walking, Just! (established in 2012); I put your disk on and Just resting (verbal)
Exceptionally, completely, well.
There,+ reinforcing meaning: The key role should belong to the Ministry of Internal Affairs. None there the people's squads and everything else will not cope with this task (RG.
04/01/2016). = same, yes;
Prov. undefined value: At the very beginning, I asked not to be included in any political ratings. Influences there...(Kommersant 04/01/2016); Was there a scandal? - Well there all sorts of neighbors (established in 2016)
Some kind, well.
So, + restrictive meaning and modal-volitional meaning: So, enough about this (verb); So, Kolya, you are not my children (Senchin. What do you want? 2013); So, Vasya, don’t beckon children (verbal) = come on, hey, well, well;
Index value: So, clean bowl here! (born in the 1980s) = well, well, come on, hey;
Definitive meaning: So I’ll tell you that if they take money from the budget for departmental security, then this in total will significantly exceed the entire profit from the reduction of employees of the Ministry of Internal Affairs (Kommersant 04/01/2016)
Oh, well, but, here;
Gain value:<...>So he'll tell you.
Well, yes, yes.
Fine,+ modal-volitional meaning: Today a Moscow summer resident can buy a dump truck of black soil for 15 thousand rubles. Yes Fine if only this - here it is at least somehow used for its intended purpose (LG. 2016.10)
After all, then, let it be, let it be.
That's right, So-and-so he's good So-and-so you can live with him; So-and-so nothing, just...
In general, after all, it is.
Duck, simple Wed. TSU. Dak - ‘here, after all’, letters. So.
Prov. defining meaning:<...> - Duck yes (verb. everyday life) = exactly, well, of course;
Gain value: Duck and went; Well yeah, these types of statesmen... (Senchin. 2013).
L then,+ vernacular boost value:<...>- Otherwise (verb); Sometimes they sit closer to the receiver and... start turning the knobs. L then(Mayak. 07/15/2016); L then No. = of course, yes, well, exactly, right; like this;
Connection meaning: Close the window, otherwise blows (verbal) = because, because, same.
This unit contains functional categories: connecting function union and reinforcing function of the particle.
In general,+ decom. exclusive-restrictive meaning: With patriotism in general same story (LG. 2016L0) = after all, well, almost.
Same, + decom. intensifying meaning, negative value: Same I'm an ace pilot (Vysotsky), Same specialist.
Well, here it is; Not.
Already,+ spacious, attributive meaning and modal meaning: Yes, call already Vanya will give us already some tea!
Come on, come on.
Exactly, + definitive meaning: I leave the office smooth in the same condition in which he left it for me<...>left office smooth the same; And we maintained contact with him throughout this entire period. smooth the same as with N.T. Ryabov, and with A.V. Ivanchenko! (Kommersant 04/01/2016).
Directly,+ definitive meaning: For them it was directly the reverse process - the acquisition of the state precisely as one’s own (LG 2016.14) = just, completely;
Razg. excretory-restrictive meaning: You directly sad (set mobile date: 04/14/2016)
Allegedly. Wed. TSU: 1. Union, book. obsolete; decomposition iron. Uncertainty, unreliability = ‘what’, 2. Ch-tsa book. Imaginary, discrepancy between reality and meaning. 'as if'.
A modal meaning is formed: a link to the source of information; transmission of someone else's thoughts, transmission of someone else's speech: He registered on the Odnoklassniki social network, where he met recruiters from ISIS. Those during correspondence supposedly proposed to involve other immigrants from the former Soviet republics to carry out a terrorist attack in Moscow on Victory Day. Among the possible options supposedly called a terrorist attack on the “Immortal Regiment” (Kommersant 05/06/2016)
They say, they say.
These noted new values exist along with the previously existing values of these particles. They are built into the system of word content, expanding it.
These particle values have a certain style. Basically they relate to conversational style, and some of them relate to vernacular. Some of them changed their stylistic attribution, moving, like a particle “supposedly”, from the book sphere to wider use.
In addition to transforming words, combinations of particles are created and identified in the modern Russian language, carrying the resulting discursive meanings. They act as units expressing shades of meaning of words in a sentence.
It seems like, - connecting meaning: I him kinda like chief (established in the 1980s); It was the Russians who were liberated from kinda like their own state, and they are from someone else’s (LG. 2016.14); The ancient Romans founded a city higher up the Danube, and it is called Obuda, that is, old Buda. It seems like historical center with ancient circuses and Roman baths, but at the same time prices are the same as in the suburbs (RG. 06/30/2016)
After all, well, actually, actually, practically, after all;
Modal meaning: Him kinda like liked it (verbal)
It seems like it should be.
Or how, - exclusive-restrictive meaning: Let's go or how?
So, then, finally.
Just in case, - exclusive-restrictive meaning: This is fabric just in case(established 2015).
That's right, after all, well.
The meaning of the word corresponds structural characteristic; this particular unit always stands at the end of the syntagm. Wed. a previously functioning combination of a conjunction with a pronoun (If anything happens, I’ll be there).
If so, simple - definitive meaning: Yes, if I understand something, I’ll come and have a look (established mobile dated 04/12/2016)
Of course, that's all.
Almost - definitive meaning: He is there almost boss; They have it there almost downsizing (established 2009) = straight, just, exactly, it seems.
Something, - intensifying meaning: We work twelve hours, and you something say (verbal) = same, yes, here;
Exclusive-restrictive meaning: I had to move away, something it started to rain, and I went to one editorial office (Terehov A. Babaev. 2003); Something motor does not work (installation)
After all, here it is.
Wow, simple - excretory meaning: Now something do not accept the contract in handwritten form (established 07/05/2016); Yes something somehow it doesn't work out.
Here, ah, the same.
Nothing what, - gain value: A nothing what I'm pregnant! (established everyday life 2005)
After all, oh, well, yes.
What else?, - negative value:<...>- What else! = no, no way.
That one too - intensifying meaning: He that one worker! = same, after all.
What else - excretory meaning:<...>- Well what else! = why, no.
Well, - excretory-restrictive meaning: Well Let him go. = same, okay;
Gain value: Well he is stupid; Well day! Well heat!
Here's what it is.
Or what - excretory-restrictive meaning: You will inform him about this, or what? = after all, after all.
Same,- connection value: V the same America elections are organized... (Newspapers. 1996); After all same Djokovic played 88 matches in 2015, and Williams only 59 (Kommersant 09/24/2015). = besides, here, and, there, and; -Same.
Oh and - boost value: Oh and fool; Oh and organization! = what, same.
So to speak/ [To carry] / [To carry], - connecting meaning: What does it teach us, so to speak, family and school (Vysotsky); On this, so to speak, we said goodbye (verbal)
And so, and, well.
So/[Znachtak] [Zachtak], - connecting meaning: [Znachttak], let's move the table to the corner (establishment of everyday life) = and so, well.
So, - connecting meaning: Her mother considered him unworthy. So he trained here, then got angry, went to Germany (Kommersant June 30, 2016) = and so, well, that’s why, here.
So yeah,- connecting value: So yeah call him; So yeah let's invite them (verb)
Well, there you go.
In connection with discursive phrases, the question arises about the boundaries of a linguistic unit, which is essential for the auxiliary part of speech. In these resulting combinations, the question of their boundaries is resolved in accordance with the individual meaning expressed - additional information, which they contribute to the content of the utterance. The presence of a separate meaning is revealed through a possible selection of synonyms. These phrases function as stable ones, expressing certain structural meanings in the text.
(Outside the literary language and normative usage, obscene vocabulary is used in rough vernacular - obscene language. In the discourse of low style, some obscene lexemes have turned into particles, imparting to the expression signs of rudeness, cynicism, indifference or frenzied joy. They are part of intellectually very reduced and informatively sparse communication .)
Security questions
- 1. What is the linguistic status of the verb components “-sya”, “-te”, “-ka”, classified as particles?
- 2. Characterize the linguistic status of the pronominal components “-that”, “-or”, “something”, “something”, traditionally classified as particles.
- 3. Give comparative characteristics particles and unions.
- 4. Style reference and stylistic characteristics of particles.
- 5. Name the particles related to bookish styles of speech.
- 6. List the particles related to the oral-conversational sphere.
The most stable part of the language - grammar - is also, of course, subject to change. And these changes can be of different nature. They may concern the entire grammatical system as a whole, as, for example, in Romance languages, where the former Latin system of inflectional morphology (declension, conjugation) gave way to analytical forms of expression through function words and word order, or they may reflect on particular issues and only certain grammatical categories and forms, as, for example, it was during the XIV-XVII centuries. in the history of the Russian language, when the system of verbal inflection was restructured and instead of four Slavic past tenses (imperfect, perfect, aorist and plusquaperfect), one past tense was obtained (from the former perfect), where the auxiliary verb disappeared, and the former linking part became the old short participle of the past tense with the suffix– l- – rethought as a past tense verb form, hence the unusual agreement of these forms in modern Russian (rattled, thundered, thundered, thundered) in gender and number, but not in person, which is characteristic of the Indo-European verb.
The grammatical structure, as a rule, in any language is very stable and is subject to changes under the influence of foreign languages only in very rare cases. Such cases are possible here.
Firstly, a grammatical category that is unusual for a given language is transferred from one language to another, for example, the specific differences of a verb from the Russian language to the Komi language, but this phenomenon is formalized by the grammatical means of the borrowing language; an interesting case is observed in the Ossetian language, where the material of affixes remains in the declension primordial - Iranian, and the paradigmatic model - multi-case, development of cases of locative (local) meaning and the general nature of agglutination - follows the patterns of Caucasian languages [ 665 ] 665 .
Secondly, the word-formation model is transferred from one language to another, which is often called “borrowing affixes”, for example suffixes – meas-, - ist– into Russian in words: Leninism, Leninist, otzovism, otzovist etc. The point here is not that we borrowed suffixes – meas-, - ist-, but the fact that models of words in– Meas.– And- ist– with certain grammatical meanings, regardless of the meaning of the root.
Thirdly, much less often, almost as an exception, one can find in languages the borrowing of inflectional forms, that is, those cases when the expression of a relationship (relational meaning) is adopted from another language; as a rule, this does not happen, since each language expresses relations according to the internal laws of its grammar. This is, for example, the assimilation by one of the Aleut dialects of Russian verbal inflections to express certain relational meanings [ 666 ] 666 .
In the process of grammatical development of a language, new grammatical categories may also appear, for example, gerunds in the Russian language, derived from participles that have ceased to agree with their definitions and have “frozen” in any one, inconsistent form and thereby changed their grammatical appearance. Thus, within groups of related languages in the process of their historical development, significant differences may arise associated with the loss of certain previous categories and the emergence of new ones. This can be observed even among closely related languages.
Thus, the fate of the ancient Slavic declensions and the system of verb forms turned out to be different in modern Slavic languages. For example, in the Russian language there are six cases, but there is no special vocative form, while in the Bulgarian language the declension of names by case has been completely lost, but the vocative form has been preserved (yunak - young, ratay - ratay etc.).
In those languages where the case paradigm exists, there are significant differences due to the action of different internal laws of development of each language.
The following differences existed between the Indo-European languages in the field of the case paradigm (not counting differences in the vocative form, which is not a case in grammatical sense). There were seven cases in Sanskrit, six in Old Church Slavonic, five in Latin, and four in Greek.
In the closely related German and English languages, as a result of their independent development, completely different fates of declension arose: in German, which received some features of analyticism and transferred all the “heaviness” of declension to the article, four cases still remained, and in English, where the article is not declined , the declension of nouns disappeared altogether, leaving only the possibility of forming from names denoting living beings the “archaic form” “Old English genetive” (“Old English genitive”) with "s : man's hand –"man's hand" horse's head –“horse head”, instead of the more usual: the hand of the man, the head of the horse.
Even greater differences exist in grammar between unrelated languages. If in Arabic there are only three cases, then in Finno-Ugric there are more than a dozen of them [ 667 ] 667 . There is fierce debate among linguists regarding the number of cases in the languages of Dagestan, and the number of established cases varies (in individual languages) from three to fifty-two. This is related to the question of function words - postpositions, which are very similar in their phonetic appearance and grammatical design to case inflections. The question of distinguishing such function words and affixes is very important for the Turkic, Finno-Ugric and Dagestan languages, without which the question of the number of cases cannot be resolved [ 668 ] 668 . Regardless of one or another solution to this issue, it is absolutely clear that different languages are extremely unique in relation to grammatical structure and by paradigms; This direct consequence the operation of the internal laws of each language and each group of related languages.
In grammatical changes, a special place is occupied by “changes by analogy” [ 669 ] 669 when morphemes that have diverged due to phonetic changes in their sound design are “aligned”, “unified” into one general view“by analogy”, so, in the history of the Russian language, the former relationship rouka – rows"6 replaced by hand - hand by analogy with braid - braid, price - price, hole - hole etc., the transition of verbs from one class to another is also based on this, for example, for verbs hiccup, gargle, splash instead of forms I churn, rinse, splash forms began to appear: I hiccup(V literary language- the only possible) rinse, spray(coexisting along with the previously only possible I rinse, splash), here the analogy is based on productive verbs of class I type read - read, throw - throw etc.; these phenomena are even more widespread in children's speech (I'm crying, I'm jumping instead of I'm crying, I'm jumping) in common parlance (want, want, wants instead of want, want) etc.
A similar phenomenon is observed in the history of the German verb, where old archaic and unproductive forms of “strong verbs” in common parlance, by analogy with “weak verbs,” are conjugated without internal inflection; for example, in past tense forms: verlieren –"lose" - verlierte and not verlor, springen –"jump" - springte, and not sprang, trinken –"drink" - drinkte, and not trunk etc. by analogy with lieben -"to love" - ich liebte, haben –"have" - ich hatte(from habte) etc.
This pattern of the grammatical structure of languages in the era of Schleicher, when they thought that language changes occur according to the “laws of nature”, was considered a “false analogy”, a violation of laws and rules, but in the 70s. XIX century neogrammarists have shown that the effect of analogy in language is not only a natural phenomenon, but also one that establishes laws, regulates and brings into a more orderly form those phenomena in the field of grammatical paradigms that were violated by the action of phonetic laws [ 670 ] 670 .
The set and composition of grammatical categories in each language change historically. Grammatical categories are formed in the process grammaticalizations, that is, the transformation of lexical units into grammatical ones. An independent lexical unit gradually becomes a grammatical indicator - an affix or a function word. So, for example, the definite article in many languages arose from the demonstrative pronoun: le, la in French from the Latin ille, illa - ‘that’, ‘that’; the indefinite article often comes from the word “one” - like the French un, un; German ein; English a used to mean 'one'. Subsequently, the pronoun became a grammatical indicator, that is, its consumption has become mandatory: the use of a noun without an article was no longer allowed. Thus, the free combination of a noun with a demonstrative or indefinite pronoun turned into a noun with a grammatical indicator. Another example of grammaticalization: in English formerly free combination verbs shall(should) and will (want) with the infinitive became the analytical form of the future tense; an independent verb, having lost its lexical meaning, became a grammatical indicator. A similar process is currently taking place in French with the verbs aller and venir in the forms futur proche and passé immédiat, the status of which – a stable combination or tense form – is controversial (in general, verbs with the meaning “to go”, like and verbs meaning 'to be' and 'to have' are often grammaticalized in different languages). Grammarization is a gradually unfolding process that takes quite a lot of time. long periods, actively going on in living modern languages, and we can observe its intermediate stages. Grammarization is accompanied by a loss of semantic complexity , pragmatic significance, syntactic freedom of the corresponding units, and often phonetic reduction. This is expressed, in particular, in the fact that the meanings of will, aller, venir as auxiliary verbs are poorer than the meanings of the corresponding full-valued verbs (‘want’, ‘go’, ‘come’): auxiliary verb no longer names any action or state, but only indicates the time of action. The second feature is that grammatical meanings have less communicative significance in the utterance; grammatical indicators highlight corresponding meanings less than individual words with the same meaning. So, demonstrative pronouns compared to definite article emphasize the importance of certainty to a greater extent. The numeral “one” emphasizes singularity more than form singular(cf. He drank a glass of milk - He drank one glass of milk). Grammatical information, as a rule, is incidental, and not main, and logical stress rarely falls on grammatical indicators. Loss of syntactic freedom is most clearly manifested in the case when first separate word becomes an affix. Thus, the forms of the French future tense futur simple were formed as a result of the addition of the verb avoir, which merged with the previous word and became an inflection: je parler– ai,tu parler- as, and in this capacity the indicator cannot occupy a different place in the sentence, be rearranged, cannot be separated from another part of the form (former infinitive) by another word, etc. The phonetic reduction of the grammatical indicator is clear in the example with the French definite article: ille – le, illa – la. Naturally, in the history of various languages, the opposite process also occurs - the destruction of existing grammatical categories or individual grammatical meanings. Degrammaticalization is expressed in the loss of regularity in the use of grammatical forms with their subsequent death. They are often replaced by other forms, and the departure of some meanings is often associated with the expansion of others; thus, the entire system is rebuilt. Thus, the loss of the vocative case in the Russian language was accompanied by an expansion of the functions of the nominative, the loss of the dual number was accompanied by an expansion of the meaning of the plural. The death of a grammatical category can be facilitated by its purely formal nature, the lack of semantic motivation (as discussed in the previous section). It is no accident that destruction generic systems usually begins with the extinction of the semantically unmotivated neuter gender, as happened in Romance languages. When a grammatical category is destroyed, individual forms can be preserved and continue to exist in the language not as grammatical forms, but as independent lexical units - what happens lexicalization. So, for example, interjective verbs in Russian ( jump, grab and the like) are historically a form of aorist (from jump, grab), but after the loss of the aorist they began to be perceived as a special group of verbs and in this capacity continues to be replenished.
PARTS OF SPEECH - classes of words of a language, distinguished on the basis of the commonality of their syntactic, morphological and semantic properties. Significant Ch. r. differ. (noun, verb, adjective, adverb) and auxiliary (conjunction, preposition, particles, article, etc.). To significant Ch. r. traditionally also include numerals and pronouns. The hierarchy of features that underlie the identification of ch. r. is understood differently in different linguistics. schools. Traditionally, morphological factors have come to the fore. signs that are due to the orientation of the European. language knowledge into inflectional and agglutinative languages. Expansion of typological perspective led to the awareness of the non-inversal nature of morphological. signs. With typological analysis of the universal definition of Ch. r. based on syntactic characteristics, while morphological. parameters act as additional, significant for inflectional and agglutinative languages. Semantic ones also serve as additional ones. properties that are essential primarily for the identification of Ch. in different languages. With typological analysis to one Ch. r. include words that can appear in a sentence in the same syntax. positions or perform the same syntactic. functions. For example, one of the signs distinguishing a noun and a verb in Russian. language, is the ability to be the main member of an attributive construction with an adjective (“quick step” when it is impossible to “walk quickly”). In this case, not only the set of syntaxes is important. functions, but also the degree of specificity of each of the functions for a given Ch. These functions are divided into primary and secondary (related to certain morphological and syntactic restrictions). So, in Russian language both the noun and the verb can act both as a subject (“A person loves”, “Smoking is harmful to health”) and as a predicate (“Ivanov is a teacher”, “the tree is burning”), but for verbs 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, which is expressed in a number of restrictions imposed on the use of the noun and verb in secondary functions. In typological In the future, the correctness of identifying it as a department is questionable. Ch.r. pronouns and numerals (for most languages), since the principles of identifying these classes differ from the principles of identifying other Ch. Words of these classes are usually heterogeneous in their syntax. functions and from this point of view are adjacent to diff. classes of words (see Pronoun, Numeral). Therefore, they are often considered as subclasses within other Ch. r. (cf. numeral nouns “three >”, “four”, numeral adjectives “first”, “second”). Although the syntactic signs of discharge Ch. typologically universal, and morphologically. the signs are not such, it is the morphological ones. signs that have a clear (explicit) expression can be decisive for linguistic consciousness speakers of inflectional and agglutinating languages. For a verb, the general meaning of an action or state is established, for an adjective - quality, for an adverb - a sign of an action or quality. Semantic. characteristics underlie the typological identification Ch. r. in different languages. Thus, we can say that there is a noun in both Russian and Vietnamese languages because they distinguish (according to different syntactic characteristics) a class of words containing the names of objects. Composition Ch. r. varies in different languages. The differences relate to both the composition itself and the volume of the department. Ch.r. So, in Russian, French, Lat. In languages, nouns, adjectives, verbs and adverbs are distinguished. In a number of Northern languages. America and Africa do not differ in adverbs and adjectives. In China language distinguish between name, predicate (verb, adjective), adverb. In some languages, only the name and the verb are distinguished (for example, in the Indian language Yuma). The most constant thing in languages is the opposition between noun and verb. Lomonosov in “Russian Grammar” identified 8 words: name (actual name, adjective and numeral), pronoun, verb, participle, adverb, preposition, conjunction, interjection. Smotritsky and Lomonosov used the term “word parts”; in the 19th century it was replaced by the term “parts of speech.” The problem concerning the essence of Ch. r. and the principles of their separation into various. languages of the world is one of the most controversial problems of general language knowledge. Throughout the 19th century. This problem was addressed by A. Kh. Vostokov, G. P. Pavsky, K. S. Aksakov, F. I. Buslaev and others. In the con. 19th century A.A. Potebnya and F.F. Fortunatov put forward different principles for classifying Ch. Potebnya put the semantics of Ch. r. on the first Mecto, also pointing out their syntactic. role. Fortunatov constructed a classification of Ch. on sequential implementation of morphological principle, naming classes of words (Ch. r.) formal classes. Further classifications of Ch. in Russian language knowledge were built on a combination of the principles proposed by Potebnya and Fortunatov. According to Shcherba, he attached primary importance to semantics. sign, the basis for the classification of Ch. are categories common to all languages of the world: objectivity, action, quality. Multi-stage classification of Ch. for Russian language proposed by V.V. Vinogradov, referring to Ch. Not all words, but only those that are members of a sentence. Along with the Ch.r. system Vinogradov identified a system of speech particles (particles, connective particles, prepositions and conjunctions) and forming special structural-semantic. word categories, modal words and interjections. from the point of view of linguistic universals of Ch. r. are defined as functional-semantic. word classes. Dr. linguists believe that Ch. r. is logical. word ranks and therefore crucial when isolating Ch. have their morphological signs. Ch.r. are considered as lexical-co-grammatical. categories of words, which differ from each other not only in a number of grammatical terms. features (morphologically - changeability and immutability, method of change, paradigmatics; syntactically - ways of connection with other words and siitactic function), but also lexically. This point of view is the most accepted in modern times. owls language-knowledge. There are different points of view on whether categorical values Ch.r. original or arose under the influence of syntax. In Sov. In linguistics, the opinion was expressed that Ch. r. is a morphologizer. members of the proposal (Meshchaninov, Degtyarev). Functional-semantic. Word categories are not mobile. In this sense, each language has a “sector” structure, that is, each element of the language has its own. strictly delineated and strictly defined. scope of action, despite cases of identity in form with k.-l. another element of language that performs another function.
