Morphological changes in the word advice. Changes in the morphological composition of a word

In the process of language development, various changes occur in the morphemic structure of the word: simplification, re-expansion, complication of the basics. Simplification change in the morphemic structure of a word in which a previously derivative and divisible into morphemes stem ceases to highlight affixes in its composition and turns into a non-derivative root. Re-decomposition is a change in the morphemic structure of a word in which the boundaries between morphemes move while maintaining the division of the derived stem into the morphemes rookery←lying←lying.

If this work does not suit you, at the bottom of the page there is a list of similar works. You can also use the search button

Historical changes in the composition and structure of words.In the process of language development, various changes occur in the morphemic structure of the word (simplification, re-decomposition, complication of the basics).

Simplification change in the morphemic structure of a word, in which the previously derivative and divisible into morphemes ceases to highlight affixes in its composition and turns into a non-derivative ( root ). Simplification of the basics leads to the emergence of new roots in the Russian language (merchant←buy, fable←fair, window←eye).

Re-decomposition is a change in the morphemic structure of a word, in which the boundaries between morphemes move while maintaining the division of the derived stem into morphemes (rookery←lying←lying). Re-expansion enriches the Russian language with new affixes.

Complication of the stem change in the morphemic structure of the word, in which a previously non-derivative stem turns into a derivative, i.e. divided into morphemes. The process of complicating the basis is opposed to the process of simplification. It usually occurs in words borrowed from the Russian language (flask←flask, umbrella←umbrella).

PAGE 1

The morphemic composition of a word is historically variable: over time, the boundaries between morphemes move, their semantics changes; articulated bases become indivisible, and indivisible ones acquire articulation. Yes, word bride, which on a synchronous cross-section of the language is characterized by inarticulateness, originally meant ‘unknown, unfamiliar’ and was formed using the prefix Not- from the disappeared vЪsta - ‘familiar’, derived from въдьти - ‘to know’. Accordingly, the root morph -Btc-, the prefix Not- and suffix -T. As a result of changes in the semantics of a word and the oblivion of its internal form, the connections between historically cognate words have ceased to be recognized bride And know, the root morpheme merged with the suffix and prefix.

Among the main types of historical changes in the composition of words, the most important are the processes simplification And re-decomposition.

Scientific discussion

Historical changes in the morphemic structure of a word began to be actively studied in Russian studies from the end of the 19th century, primarily by representatives of the Kazan linguistic school - I. A. Baudouin de Courtenay, N. V. Krushevsky, V. A. Bogoroditsky. In particular, I. A. Baudouin de Courtenay noted the possibility of the growth of subsequent suffixes due to the previous ones or due to the root, as well as the growth of the root due to the prefix. V. A. Bogoroditsky identified and described in detail two main types of absorption and proposed special terms to designate them: simplification And non-recomposition.

1. IN. A. Bogoroditsky simplification called the process in which a word ceases to be understood in relation to its composition and is understood only in its integrity, for example: ist. doctors(related lie- from lie -‘to speak’) - sync. doctor; ist. e-morning(cf. womb)- sync. inside.

Simplification- this is a historical process of changing the morphemic structure, as a result of which a previously divisible stem becomes indivisible. The main simplification mechanism is merger adjacent morphemes. Depending on which morphemes are combined, several structural types of simplification are distinguished:

• 1) fusion of root and suffix: ist. witch(cf. BtAb - ‘knowledge’, originally – ‘knowing’) - sync. witch;
• 2) fusion of root and prefix: ist. sleep(cf. food) - sync snack-p;
• 3) fusion of prefix, root and suffix: ist. in a sense(from tlo -‘plane, board’) - sync. ceiling,
• 4) fusion of two foundations: history. man-o-vek-i - sync Human-?.

Simplification is usually associated with de-etymologization words, their loss

internal form and therefore semantic correlation with historically cognate words. For example, the word that is indivisible in modern Russian language shirt derived from the verb chop: shirt literally means ‘hemmed garment’ (with a border). De-etymologization of the word shirt led to its simplification.

Thus, simplification is caused primarily by semantic reasons, which, however, can interact with reasons phonetic. Simplification was facilitated by the fall of reduced words, simplification of consonant groups, metathesis and other processes. For example, simplifying a consonant group bv led to a change in the morphemic composition of words vow(from *ob-vet -‘to speak, to advise’), promise, resentment(from *ob-view), cloud(cf. shell, drag out), oblige(from *about-knit). Simplification in the morphemic structure of an adjective musty associated with the process of falling reduced vowels, cf. with the original word for-duh-l-y, derived from the verb choke(‘to choke’).

Another reason for simplifying the morphemic structure of a word is archaization, withdrawal from the use of related words. This process led, for example, to simplification in words ring(cf. the word that has fallen out of use colo -‘cart, wheel’), box(cf. Old Russian yask -'basket'), mitten(Old Russian. varega -‘mitten’, originally – ‘Varangian mitten’).

All three noted reasons for simplification interact in the history of a language: both phonetic changes and the withdrawal from the active use of related words lead to the loss of the internal form of a lexical unit, the destruction of the semantic connections existing in the language, therefore it is semantic reasons that are leading in simplification.

This historical process plays an important role in morphemics and word formation: thanks to simplification, indivisible bases arise, which over time act as a productive base for new formations. The ratio of motivated and unmotivated words in the language also changes: as a result of simplification, the number of unmotivated and, therefore, non-derivative units in a synchronous section increases.

2. Re-decomposition, or reintegration,- the historical process of changing the boundaries between morphemes while maintaining the basis of articulation. Unlike simplification, re-expansion does not change the nature of the basis, but only leads to redistribution of word-forming affixes in the structure of the word. For example, in modern Russian, as part of the word ruin the associated root is highlighted -ruin-, stem verb suffix -And-, infinitive suffix -th. WITH From a historical point of view, this word is formed from an obsolete verb yell -‘to crush, destroy’; accordingly, in the morphemic structure of the word ruin the prefix was isolated once-, which later merged with the root, and the base of the word retained its distinctness.

Depending on which word-forming affixes undergo integration, the following types of re-decomposition are distinguished:

• a) transsuffixation - changing the boundaries between word-forming suffixes, cf.: ist. s-verst-i-ik-p (svrstn -‘same age^ - sync. verst-pik-p; ist. silent-iv-y (silent) - sync silent;
• b) transprefixation - moving boundaries between prefixes: source. oh-be-powerless (powerless) - sync. become weak;
• c) moving the boundaries between suffix and inflection. This phenomenon is more rare. It can be illustrated by the history of the word counselor. This word is derived from the verb leaders using a suffix -tai(cf. hoda-tai, ora-tai, voyeur). Back at the beginning of the 19th century. it belonged to the substantive declension, cf.: But I beg you, your faithful admirer, / Be my leader(A. Pushkin). At the base of the word the root was highlighted -leader-, suffixes -A- And -tai. As a result of the falling out of use of the generating verb leaders and analogies with suffixed adjectives like horned word counselor acquired a modern morphemic structure and underwent redesign - part of the modified suffix became the ending: leader.

The main reasons for re-decomposition are:

• 1) withdrawal from the use of a motivating word. So, adjective cheerful was originally motivated by the verb keep vigil currently out of active use. As a result, the derivative word was re-decomposed cheerfulness: previously the root was highlighted in it baud-, suffix -r-, suffix -awn-, null ending; the root is currently highlighted cheerful and suffix -ost-]
• 2) the law of analogy (remember the history of the word counselor).

Re-decomposition, like simplification, is of great importance: as a result of simplification, new indivisible bases appear in the language, and as a result of re-decomposition, new suffixes and prefixes appear. Thus, thanks to re-expansion, suffixes appeared in the Russian language -euuej-, -uuj-, -ichesk-, consoles obez(s)-, under- etc.

In addition to simplification and re-decomposition, when considering historical changes in the morphemic composition of a word, it is necessary to take into account the process opposite to simplification, which N. M. Shansky proposed to call complication.

3. Complication - the process of transforming a previously indivisible base into a divisible one. Yes, nouns echidna And umbrella, which have a divisible basis in modern Russian (cf.: malice, malicious] umbrella, umbrella-shaped), didn't have it before. Word echidna Old Church Slavonic in origin, dating back to Greek echidna, and the word umbrella - borrowing from Dutch (cf. Zonnedek). These words acquired articulation already on Russian soil, but they have analogies with suffixal formations (cf., for example: bow, carnation, kids, twins), and in the Russian language, as a result of reverse word formation, new lexical units appeared over time echidna And umbrella.

Complication is a process characteristic primarily of borrowed words. It is associated with the action of the law of analogy, on the basis of which elements of units of different origins come together. Thus, a word that is indivisible at the time of borrowing monarchy, taken from the Greek language, was correlated by Russian linguistic consciousness with the formation of the suffix -uj-(denoting the form of government, cf., for example, democrat). As a result, the word acquired distinctness.

The reason for the complication is often folk etymology. It brings together initially unrelated words that seem similar to the speaker in semantic and phonetic terms. Yes, word colic, borrowed in the second half of the 17th century. from Latin ( colica from Greek kolike> kolon- ‘large intestine’) was correlated with the Russian word prick.

Complication is often associated with the appearance of related words next to one or another borrowing. The establishment of derivational connections between words with the same root presupposes the parallel borrowing of these lexical units. For example, the word poetess, French in origin, was originally indivisible. The presence in the Russian language of another borrowed word - poet(from the Greek language) determined the division of the word poetess, in which the suffix began to stand out -ess-.

Thanks to the complication, the language is replenished with new root morphemes. This process plays an important role in the adaptation of borrowed words and their mastery by the Russian language.

A particular historical process of changing the morphemic structure of a word is substitution It covers a relatively small number of words compared to simplification and refactoring.

4. Substitution is the replacement of one of the morphemes that is part of a word with another morpheme that is similar to it in formal and/or semantic terms. So, the Latin word christianus on Russian soil was initially perceived as a substantive formation from the word Christ using an affix -ap- and as a result, it experienced a process of complication: it began to function as a structurally divisible unit. Later this word began to be used to designate the rural population and was perceived as a derivative of the noun cross. As a result, the root morpheme was replaced Christians-> peasants.

Substitution is widespread in vernacular and dialects, where it is associated with folk etymology. The literary language contains words in which the substitution has occurred. Except the word peasants morphemic substitution is characteristic, for example, of such lexical units as witness And tit. In a word witness root morpheme view- replaced the original root Ved-(cf. Old Russian съвъдтиль), as a result, a partial narrowing of the semantics of the word occurred: witness- ‘an eyewitness, a person who directly saw an incident’. In a word tit, according to etymologists, even in the common Slavic era, the onomatopoeic root zin- as a result of folk etymological convergence with the word blue was replaced by a root with color semantics: zinitsa -> tit. As we can see, the main reasons causing substitution are: analogy And folk etymology- lead to the convergence of words with different roots in the language.

Scheme of etymological analysis

• 1. Indicate the initial form of the word and its part-speech affiliation.
• 2. Determine the lexical meaning of the word.
• 3. Establish the nature of the basis (derivative/non-derivative).
• 4. Identify the historical root, established from etymological dictionaries.
• 5. Indicate etymologically related words.
• 6. Determine the historical division of the word.
• 7. Establish the type of historical changes in the morphemic composition of the word.
• 8. Determine the reasons for historical changes in the morphemic composition of a word.

Example of etymological analysis

Youth

• 1. Noun, initial form - youth
• 2. Lexical meaning - ‘teenage boy’.
• 3. The basis is non-derivative.
• 4. Historical root -rock-, meaning - 'speaker'.
• 5. Etymologically related words: speech, saying.
• 6. Historical division of the word: prefix from- meaning 'not', root -rock-.
• 7. Type of historical changes: simplification.
• 8. The reason for the change in the morphemic composition of the word: de-etymologization of the word, loss of its internal form.

The structure of a word can be considered not only from a synchronic, but also a diachronic point of view, which involves studying the history and origin of the word. In diachronic analysis, the word-formation connections of a word are restored at the moment of its occurrence (it is determined how the word was divided earlier).

During the historical development of a language, the derivational and morphemic structure of a word can change, which is manifested in a change in the number of morphemes, their meanings, and functions. In this regard, it is customary to talk about historical change in the morphemic and word-formation structure of the word.

The main types of historical changes in the composition of words include simplification, re-decomposition, complication, and decorrelation.

Simplification(the term was introduced by the representative of the Kazan linguistic school V.A. Bogoroditsky) - a historical change in which a word with a derivative base becomes a word with a non-derivative base, that is, it ceases to be divisible. For example: bullfinch– from the point of view of diachronic word formation, it is a suffixal derivative of snow. Bullfinch literally - “arriving from the north along with the first snow.” The word was motivated and articulated ( snow - + -yr), has undergone simplification as a result of the loss of semantic connection with the noun snow and weakening the productivity of the suffix -yr. From a synchronic point of view, the word is non-derivative and indivisible. Cm.:

bullfinch-– from a synchronic point of view simplification

bullfinch-– from a diachronic point of view

There are several reasons for simplification:

1) violation of the semantic connection between the derivative and the generating words (see: witch, etymologically related to after all in the meaning of “knowledge”, derived from lead"to know", literally witch– “knowing, in charge”);

2) violation of the word-formation connection between the derivative and the generating word, loss of productivity by affixes (see: bison– suffixal derivative of tooth meaning “horn, fang”, bison literally - “horned beast”, according to the same model “noun. + suffix -r" formed otter; in modern Russian the suffix -r is not used to form new words according to this model).

3) loss of the producing word by the language (see: haze, etymologically related to myga(mg + -l) in the meaning of “damp and cold snow, drizzling rain);

4) phonetic changes that obscured the morphological structure of the word (see: indivisible and non-derivative from a synchronic point of view musty and original stale from suffocate, which changed its sound shell as a result of the fall of the reduced ъ and stuns d before X).

Re-decomposition(I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay was one of the first to note and characterize this process) - such a change in the morphemic structure of a word, in which in synchronous word formation, as in diachronic, the word continues to be divided into morphemes, but is divided somewhat differently than it was earlier, that is, a redistribution of morphemes occurs. For example, same from the point of view of diachronic word formation, it is a suffixal derivative of the same, which in turn goes back to the word one. With the loss of the producing lexeme in modern Russian language the same initial articulation ( same) changes ( same). Cm.: re-decomposition:

same– from a synchronic point of view

same– from a diachronic point of view

New affixes arise by expansion at the expense of a generating base or by merging two adjacent affixes. This is how suffixes or variants of suffixes arose: - ink(a) (speck of dust, snowflake), -ochk- (bone, blouse), -itel (savior, lord), -lk(a) (stirrer, winnower), -lishch(e) (rod, dwelling), - nits(a) (mill), -ness (hotness, readiness), -teln- (justificatory, tactile), -nitsa(t) (hunt, be lazy) and many more etc.

Complication- a process opposite to simplification, that is, this type of historical change in the morphemic and word-formation structure of a word, in which words with a non-derivative and indivisible base become derivative and divisible. For example, juggler, borrowed by the Russian language from the French language at the beginning of the 19th century (cf.: French. jongleur< lat . joculator“joker, funny man”, suffixal derivative from joculari“to joke, to amuse”), from a synchronic point of view, is motivated by the verb juggle juggle-, suffix -yor and a zero ending, although previously the word was non-derivative and indivisible.

The main reason for the complication The basis of borrowed words is the presence in the Russian language of word-forming morphemes that coincide in sound composition with the corresponding parts of borrowed words, the impact of the word-formation structure of derived words with such morphemes on the structure of historically non-derivative borrowed words. So, juggler divides into the root juggle- and suffix -yor under the influence of unproductive words boyfriend, conductor(borrowed again from the French language, but back in the 16th century). Wed: complication

juggler-– from a synchronic point of view

juggler - jongleur, French) – from a diachronic point of view

Decorrelation(term by N.M. Shansky) - a historical change in the word-formation structure of a word, in which the external structure of the base of the word remains unchanged, the correlation of the derived word with the generating one changes. For example, the word warrior from a synchronic point of view, motivated by a verb fight and accordingly divides into the root in-, suffix -in and zero ending. From a diachronic point of view, the word is formed from a noun howls“warrior”, subsequently lost, so the derived word entered into a motivational relationship with the cognate verb fight. At the same time, the segmentation of the word has not changed. Wed:

voj-in-– from a synchronic point of view

fight + -in

voj-in-– from a diachronic point of view decorrelation

V oj-i + -in(singularity suffix)

Analysis of a word, which involves comparing its diachronic segmentation and derivation with synchronic, identifying historical changes in the morphemic and word-formation structure of the word, the reasons for these changes, is called etymological. Note: if the word has not undergone historical changes, the morphemic, word-formation and etymological analyzes completely coincide.

Etymology as a branch of modern linguistics has the following goals:

Determine in which language and at what historical stage of its development the analyzed word arose;

Establish the primary motivation of the word, for which you need to find the generating word, the word-formation model and the original meaning of the word;

Find out the ways and reasons for changes in the primary semantics and historical morphemic composition of the word.

The direct object of etymology is mainly the so-called “dark words”, in which native speakers do not understand the connection between form and content. In most words existing in modern language, their internal form is clear, that is, we can answer the question “why is it called that?” Determining the internal form of a word is possible because the word as a name, when it appears, is always motivated. By naming this or that object of objective reality, people relate it to other phenomena of the world around them. However, over time, for various reasons, the motivation for the emergence of the meaning of a word may be lost, and then the words begin to function as purely conditional, unmotivated designations: mirror, soldier, week etc. And only etymological analysis restores what was forgotten by the speakers.

All words of the lexical system of a language can be subjected to etymological analysis, the word-formation analysis of which does not provide an answer to what their origin is. These are borrowed words that are not native to the lexical system of the Russian language. (pencil, station, pencil case), these are actually Russian words that have been de-etymologized and changed their morphemic composition (raspberry, bear, victory etc.).

Only lexemes whose origin is clearly indicated by their word-formation analysis do not require etymological analysis. These are most often words with a “transparent” word-formation structure, created according to word-formation models that are active in modern language (school student, co-author, artist, lioness, astronautics, etc.).

So, for example, the word sunset is still semantically related to the verb roll(the sun has set, rolls across the sky), sunrise– with verbs sprout And walk(the sun is rising, walks across the sky). And here is the noun west lost its semantic connection with the verb fall(we're not talking anymore the sun has set, fallen)4. The connection of the word is also considered lost train with verb ride(probably because ride now you can not only train)5.

You can build the following series of related words: sunset, roll up, roll, sloping etc.; sunrise– ascend, come in, walk, move etc.; west– west, Westerner; train– train, road train, electric train etc. Now, comparing related words, we highlight roots and service morphemes: for-cat-□, sun-move-□, west-□, train-□.

The material structure of a word changes over time. These changes also affect the morphemic composition of both the stem and the entire word. Science distinguishes three main types of historical changes in the morphemic structure of a word: a) simplification, b) re-decomposition, c) complication.

Simplification (the term of V. A. Bogoroditsky, a famous Russian linguist) is the transition of a word from a more complex composition of morphemes to a simpler one as a result of combining two morphemes into one. Thus, in the word rubakh, the ancient root rub- is no longer recognized separately from the ancient suffix -akh-, the root and suffix have merged into one new root morpheme rubah-; in the word red the ancient root kras- and the suffix -н- that followed it are no longer recognized; these two morphemes have merged into one - kras-.

Re-decomposition (the term of V. A. Bogoroditsky) is a movement of the boundary between morphemes, as a result of which the appearance of the morpheme changes, and sometimes its function. Thus, in ancient times, the plural case forms rivers, rivers, rivers had a border between the base and the ending after the sound [a], but now the border passes after the sound [k]. In the word clearly, the boundary between the prefix and the root passed before the sound [a] (я), now it passes before the sound [n] (compare the words clearly, clearly, entertainingly, etc.). Re-decomposition can lead to the emergence of new, previously non-existent morphemes, for example, the suffixes -enie, -inc-, -teln-, etc.

A complication is the appearance of a boundary between morphemes in a place where there was none; this is the division of one morpheme into two. The word Zonnedek - umbrella, borrowed from the Dutch language - was divided by the consciousness of Russian people into umbrella and ik under the influence of Russian words like little house, leaf and the like. In the words academician, chemist, the suffix -ik stands out noticeably (cf. academy, chemistry). By analogy, we tend to highlight the same suffix in the words botanist, logician, comedian, physician, tragedian, physicist, etc. But etymology seems to provide no basis for this. Borrowed integral fundamentals are already “complicated” on the basis of the Russian language.

Word formation.

Methods of word formation are those actions that the language performs when producing a new word. Let's consider the main method - affixation

The method of affixation consists of attaching affixes to the roots (or stems). Affixes are morphemes with grammatical meaning. Affixes do not exist in languages ​​outside of words; they accompany the root, serving for word formation and inflection. Based on their position relative to the root, affixes can be divided into prefixes, which come before the root, and postfixes, which come after the root.

There are languages ​​that do not use prefixes (Turkic, Finno-Ugric), and express all grammar with postfixes; in such languages, all words begin with a root, which can be followed by a chain of postfixes; other languages ​​prefer prefixes and do not use (with rare exceptions) postfixes; for example, in the Swahili language the verb form wa-ta-si-po-ku-ja [watasi-pokuja] - “if they do not come”, where wa means the 3rd person plural, ta is the future tense, si is negation, ro - convention, ki - verbal prefix - expander of a monosyllabic root and ja [ja] - root with the meaning “to come”. Indo-European languages, to which Russian also belongs, use both prefixes and postfixes, but with a clear preference for the latter; Wed pre-sta-i-tel-n-y, where there is one prefix and four postfixes.

The division of postfixes into suffixes and inflections is not based on their location; It is not necessary that the suffix be behind the root before the inflection, but the inflection is at the end of the word, for example in German Kind - “child”, Kinder - “children”, and Kinderchen - “children”, where -er is plural inflection, and -chen - suffix with the meaning of diminutive; Wed in Russian there are “reflexive forms”, where the inflection does not end the word, and behind it there is still a reflexive suffix -sya, which does not change by case: workers, workers, workers, etc.
In addition to prefixes and suffixes as such (which is most often found in the languages ​​of the world), there are also other types of affixes.

1) Interfaces are service morphemes that do not have their own meaning, but serve to connect roots in complex words. They are used exclusively in word-formation function. These are, for example, the connecting vowels in Russian: lob-o-trya, sheep-e-bull, kash-e-var, blood-o-drinker, or the German “connecting consonant” -s- in such cases as: Ort -s-kunde - “local history”, Alter-s-heim - “nursing home”, where in masculine and neuter words (der Ort, das Alter) the connective -s- goes back to the inflection of the genitive case (des Orts, des Alters) .

2) Confixes - combinations of two affixes: a prefix and a postfix, which, although they represent two morphemes, act together; for example, in German verb forms: loben - “to praise” and ge-lob-t - “praised”, where the prefix ge- and postfix -t “surround” the root and together form the word - this is the same in German as the confixation of the prefix ge- and postfix -en in participial forms: ge-fund-en - “found”, etc. used in the formation of the complex past tense.

3) Infixes are affixes inserted into the middle of the root. This is, for example, in the Tagalog language (Indonesian family of languages) the infix -it- in the examples: s-um-ulat - “write” from sulat - “letter”, p-um-asok - “enter” from pasok - “entrance” "or in the same language the infix -in- to denote a verb in the passive form: s-in-ulat - “was written” or p-in-ataj - “was killed” from pataj - “dead man”; There are similar infixes in other Indonesian languages.

4) Transfixes are affixes that, breaking a root consisting of only consonants, themselves break and serve as a “layer” of vowels among consonants, defining the word form and formalizing it grammatically, i.e., they have a certain grammatical meaning. This phenomenon is characteristic of Semitic languages ​​(Hebrew, Akkadian, or Assyro-Babylonian, Phoenician, Arabic).

5) In many languages, zero affixes play an important role (0 as we already discussed above in connection with the concept of a negative form). A zero affix is ​​the absence of an affix in one form of a paradigm when there are affixes in other forms of the same paradigm.

Thus, for the word horn, zero inflection is an indicator of the nominative singular, since all other singular cases and all plural cases have positive inflections. For short adjectives, for example beautiful, zero inflection shows the masculine gender and the singular (there is no case in this case, since short adjectives in Russian are not inflected). In the declension of names in Turkic languages, the zero affix is ​​an indicator of the singular for all cases, which is opposed to the postfix -lar (with its phonetic varieties) for the plural (bala - “child”, balaga - “child”, balada - “in the child” and etc.)

In modern Russian, the main organizing element of word formation is the stem (non-derivative and derivative).

In the process of historical development of the language, the method of forming stems changed, and in some cases the morphological composition of the word also changed: many morphemes lost their role in the composition of the stem of the word. Thus, at the base of the word west, the morpheme lost the meaning of a prefix, and this base became non-derivative. A change in the morphological composition of a word is not obligatory for all stems; it is observed only in isolated cases. Many words in modern language are divided into morphemes in the same way as they were divided in the past. However, in modern language there are many cases when a word has lost connection with the base from which it was formed, or has begun to correlate not with the generating base as a whole, but only with part of it. In these cases, the morphological composition of the word has changed.

Changes in the morphological structure of a word are caused by the following reasons:

1. A change in the lexical meanings of stems, which were previously correlated as productive and derivative. In contrast to Old Russian, there is no semantic correlation between the words wing (birds) and porch (part of the house), since these words have different meanings. Consequently, the stems of the words wing and porch do not correlate as productive and derivative stems, and the stem porch-o is a non-derivative stem.

2. Changing the sound composition of words. The words drag, pillowcase, envelop, shell, cloud are words with the same root, but their morphological structure is different: the first three words are derived stems (po-volok-a, na-voloch-k-a, ob-volak-iva-t), the last two words became non-derivative stems due to a phonetic change in the basis of these words - the loss of sound in (cf.: cloud - enveloping, shell - wire).

3. Loss of correlative generating stems or related words from the dictionary. The words shirt, winch, coachman in modern Russian are examples of non-derivative stems. Correlative derivatives (rub - a piece of fabric, swan - a shaft with a cranked handle, yam - a stop on the Yamskaya road) have dropped out of the dictionary of the modern Russian language.

4. The influence of the morphological structure of words of a productive type on the morphological structure of words of unproductive types, or etymologically isolated. The complex foreign word umbrella was interpreted first as a root word, and then by analogy with the words ponytail, mouth, etc. began to be divided into the non-derivative base umbrella- and the suffix -ik.

All these phenomena in the history of the morphological composition of a word are called simplification, re-decomposition and complication of the base.

Simplification is the transformation of the derived stem of a word into a non-derivative one, the loss of the word’s division into morphemes.

Thanks to simplification, the language is enriched with non-derivative, root words, and forms new lexical centers of word formation (cf.: sing - ripe, etc. - haste - hasty, etc. - success - successful, etc.). On the other hand, the result of simplification is the transition of word-forming suffixes to the category of unproductive, and sometimes their complete disappearance. In the stems of the words dobry-y, old-y, which are non-derivative in modern Russian, the suffix -r- is not isolated; in the word brother the suffix -r- dropped out (cf. brotherhood in the Ukrainian language).

The basic words palace, red, shame were simplified and became non-derivative because in the process of use these words lost their connection in meaning with the words on the basis of which they were formed: palace - courtyard, red (color) - beauty, shame - vigilant.

The simplification of the bases of the words privilege, petal, necessary, expressed in the transition of these words into non-derivatives, is explained by the fact that in the modern Russian literary language there are no generating bases correlative with them: privilege - lzya (cf. impossible), petal - petal, necessary - need .

The bases of the words deceased, oar, motley underwent phonetic changes, lost contact with the generating bases and ceased to be divided into morphemes (cf. deceased - asleep, oar - to carry, motley - to write).

The reasons causing the simplification of the fundamentals can intersect and appear simultaneously. Thus, the lack of correlation between the bases sound - ringing, core - food - poison, ties - knot - union - language is the result of not only a semantic gap between these words, but also the result of phonetic changes in the bases of these words.

Re-decomposition is a redistribution of morphemes within a word, leading to the fact that the base, while remaining derivative, distinguishes other morphemes in its composition.

From the point of view of living word-formation connections, the bases of the words ardor, liveliness are distinguished by the suffix -part (and not -ost), since the adjectives from which these bases are derived (hot, lively) are not commonly used in modern language. The suffix -nost is derived from the suffix -ost and represents a combination of the suffix -n-, cut off from the base of the adjective, and the suffix -ost.

The formation of the suffix -nost, derived from -ost, is an expression of a peculiar process that accompanies the re-decomposition of the bases. This process consists in the absorption of one word-forming element by another, representing part of the formative stem, or in the dissolution of such an element in the root. The word udi-lishche is based on the suffix -lish-, which includes the suffix -l-, which belongs to the word udilo, which has been lost in modern language (cf. settlement, gathering).

The process of re-decomposition of stems enriches the language with new word-formation affixes and new word-formation models, which become productive over time.

In this way, new suffixes are most often formed: -nost (essence), -ink- (ardor-ink-a), -ochk- (bone-point-a), -nicha- (carpenter-nicha-t), much less commonly, prefixes (nedo-, nebez-, obez-) as a result of the merger of two prefixes (nedo-look, not without-talent, obez-volet).

Very often, various types of analogy lead to simplification and reorganization of the basics, by which we mean the likening of the forms of one word to the forms of another, grammatically related. By virtue of analogy, unproductive types of word and form formation are assimilated to productive types of words and forms, while losing their derivative nature or their former division into morphemes. A number of forms of modern Russian literary language owe their origin to the action of analogy.

So, for example, the endings of masculine and neuter nouns -om, -ami, -ah (dom-am, sel-am, dom-ami, dom-ah, sel-ah) arose under the influence of the analogy of the corresponding forms of the feminine noun (book-am - table-am instead of table-om; cf. the preserved form in the adverb serves it right). The result of this analogy was a reorganization of the basis (books instead of books).

The word open, formed from the root vor- (cf. gate, collar - watchman at the gate) through the prefix ot-, was influenced by the word create. The analogy to open - to create led to the fact that the basis of the word open was subjected to re-decomposition and was interpreted as a formation with the prefix o-. As a result of this rethinking of the basis (about-to-create), a new, independent base of word formation arose in the language (cf. to create, to create, to dissolve, etc.).

The effect of analogy or the appearance of words related to words that have a non-derivative base, in some cases leads to a complication of the base, as a result of which the previously non-derivative base begins to be divided and becomes derivative.

Thus, the word anarchy, which was Greek in origin, had a non-derivative base, but due to the presence of related words anarchist, anarchic, anarchic, etc., its base began to be divided into the non-derivative base anarch- and the suffix -andj-.

In addition to these phenomena in the morphological composition of a word, there is an overlap of morphemes, which occurs when parts of combined morphemes coincide: for example, parts of the stem and suffix (Sverdlovsk + skiy - Sverdlovskiy; Dynamo + ovets - Dinamovets). However, such an overlap does not occur when a prefix and a root are combined (Transamur region, Irtysh region).

Changes in the morphological structure of a word (simplification, re-elaboration, complication) indicate that the morphological structure of a word is a historical phenomenon.