The emergence of language is brief. The uniqueness of parts of speech in different languages

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

For the first time, parts of speech were identified by ancient Indian grammarians. Yaska and. Panini (V in do. Ne), who distinguished in Sanskrit such parts of speech as noun, verb, preposition, conjunction and proportion. However, the Indian theory was not known for a long time. Europe. European parts theory there's talk from. Aristotle (IV century BC), who identified four parts of speech: name, verb, member (article) and conjunction. The science of parts of speech was finally formed in the Alexandrian school (II century BC). Aristarch. Samothrace and his disciple. Dionysius. Thracian was the first to identify eight parts of speech: noun, verb, adverb. Article, pronoun, preposition, participle, conjunction. The adjective was combined with the noun in one part of speech because in ancient Greek they had common system declination. The classification of sli into parts of speech was based on two principles: morphological (“The name is a declensional part of the language”) and semantic (“what the body or thing means”). This system of parts of speech was borrowed by Roman scientists and, however, they made minor changes to it: the article, which is not in the Latin language, was eliminated from the parts of speech, and vigunema was added to the Latin language, and viguk was added.

Later this classification spread to all European and then to other languages. This is how the classification of parts of speech was formed, which is usually called school and essentially became universal. They try to squeeze grammatical classes of words from different languages ​​into a pre-selected ancient scheme, without taking into account the differences that exist in different speeches.

According to the school classification, there are ten parts of speech, which are divided into independent (those that can be parts of a sentence) and auxiliary (those that express the relationship between words in a sentence). Independent parts of speech include noun, adjective, numeral, pronoun, verb and adverb. For official ones - preposition, conjunction, share, etc. Article.

Exclamations that cannot be members of a sentence, but can form sentences themselves, are distinguished.

The classification of parts of speech is widely known. BB. Vinogradova. According to this scientist, only significant words are parts of speech. His classification identifies four categories of words: parts of speech, modal words, parts of the tongue and exclamations. He includes names (noun, adjective, numeral), pronoun, verb, adverb and state category as parts of speech. To private languages, for. The Vinogradovs own their share and connections, prepositions and alliances. Graphically this classification looks like this:

Parts of speech in different languages

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

So, the differences in the parts of speech of different languages ​​concern both the composition itself and the volume of individual parts of speech. If the main parts of speech - name and verb - are distinguished in all languages ​​of the world, this is a reflection of the universality of the functional-semantic categories of substance and process (i.e. subject and action), then in other parts of speech there are significant differences. Yes, in some languages. Northern. America and i. Africa does not distinguish between an adverb and an adjective. In Chinese, there are parts of speech such as a name, which includes a noun and a numeral, a predicate, which includes verbs and adjectives, and an adverb. Adjectives are combined with verbs into one part of speech based on the ability to be predicated without an auxiliary connection. There is something similar in the Burmese language. In some languages, only k and the verb are distinguished, as, for example, in the Indian language Yumi Yuma.

In English, the contrast between adjective and noun is kept to a minimum. In Turkic languages ​​there is a problem with the interpretation of so-called “figurative words”, that is, those that imitate sound or are “figurative” like separate part Tongues I'll okremu part of the movie.

The classification of words into parts of speech is also complicated by the phenomenon of words transitioning from one part of speech to another, which indicates the existence of more or less stable intermediate links between parts of speech. In the Turkic, Mon-Ngolic and Tungus-Manchu languages, the transition of nouns into adjectives and adverbs and vice versa is widespread.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Onomatopoeic words have sounds and forms that already exist in the language. That's why a duck screams for a Russian quack-quack (quacks), for an Englishman kwak-kwak (quack), for the Frenchman kan-kan (sapsaper), and for the Dane pan- pan (rapper). The calling words that a person uses to address a domestic animal, such as a pig, duck, or goose, are also different.

(Digression on phonosemantic research.)

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

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

Onomatopoeic and interjection theories prioritize the study of the origin of the speaking mechanism, mainly in psychophysiological terms. Ignoring the social factor in these theories led to a skeptical attitude towards them: the onomatopoeic theory began to be jokingly called the “woof-woof theory”, and the interjection theory - the “tfu-tfu theory”. And indeed, in these theories the biological side of the issue is exaggerated, the origin of language is considered exclusively in terms of the origin of speech. What is not taken into account with due attention is the fact that man and human society arise that are essentially different from the animal and its herd.

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

This passage outlines the theory of the social contract: language is seen as a conscious invention and creation of people. In the 18th century it was supported by J. du Bellay and E.B. de Condillac, ASmit and J-J. Rousseau. Rousseau's theory of the social contract is associated with the division of human life into two periods - natural and civilized.

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

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

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

When working together, shouts and exclamations facilitate and organize work activities. When women spin and soldiers march, they "like to accompany their work with more or less rhythmic exclamations." These cries, at first involuntary, gradually turned into symbols of labor processes. The original language was a set of verbal roots.

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

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

Marxist idea of ​​the origin of language.

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

Among the first we will have to include the separation of the functions of the fore and hind limbs of our ancestors, highly developed apes, the freeing of the hand for labor and the associated adoption of a straight gait; biological factors include the high development of the brain in our ancestors, and their use of a certain “set” of inarticulate sound signals, which served as the physiological basis for human sound speech.

About a million years ago, at the end of the Tertiary period of the Cenozoic (new) era, highly developed monkeys lived in herds in certain places of the Earth, scientifically called Australopithecus (or close to them). These monkeys, as can be judged from their fossil remains, walked on the ground (rather than climbed trees), and their forelimbs were used for grasping various objects. They had a shortened jaw, indicating an increase in the ability to produce sounds, a large brain, indicating the complication of its activities, and other signs that allow scientists to consider Australopithecus as a higher animal on the eve of transformation into a human.

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

Back to top Quaternary period Scientists attribute the existence of ape-men (Pithecanthropus, Sinanthropus and the like) to the Cenozoic era. The study of their fossil remains suggests that they knew how to make tools and adopted an upright gait (the latest archaeological data obtained during excavations in Africa allow us to hypothesize about the formation of ape-people and their still primitive language even earlier than indicated here ).

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

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

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

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

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

Pointing out that, under the influence of their lifestyle, the monkeys began to wean themselves from using their hands when walking and began to adopt an increasingly straight gait, Engels says: “This made a decisive step in the transition from ape to man."

The second biological factor in the development of language is the presence of sound signals in monkeys, the ancestors of humans. The study of modern highly developed monkeys has shown that they use certain “sets” (up to two or more dozen) of undifferentiated sounds, which they use as involuntary signals of their emotional states. The monkey signals feelings of joy, hunger, enmity, desire, pain, fear, pleasure and others with a more or less consistently defined sound or their inarticulate fusion. Moreover, as a rule, these sounds are used when the monkey is with other monkeys. It has been established that, along with sounds, monkeys also use pointing signals and gestures, involuntarily conveying their internal states with them.

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

These sound signals of the ancestors were used by emerging people to gradually “organize” their language. Sound signals were gradually comprehended and turned into the first units of communication among members of the human collective, that is, into elements of speech. Our ancestors did not have any other “building material” from which to “make” the first words and statements.

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

By themselves, the biological prerequisites for human speech could not create it, because in addition to them, a powerful push was needed that could bring it to life, and this push turned out to be work and the need for communication continuously generated by it. But work, from its very origins to the present day, has been work in a team, in society and for society. It requires the coordination of the working efforts of many people, it requires the organization and distribution of their responsibilities, that is, it requires, first of all, the exchange of thoughts, communication through language. Making fire, hunting an elephant, fishing in ancient times, or producing synthetic fibers and electronic devices in our time equally require the coordination and organization of the labor efforts of many team members.

However, there is no need to imagine the matter in such a way that there were some periods of time between the emergence of labor, language and thinking. Labor, language and thought were formed simultaneously, in unity and interaction with each other, in unity and interaction they are still developing. The leading force of this trinity was and remains labor. The development of tools, the enrichment of labor skills, the expansion of the sphere of application of human labor efforts - all this forced human thought to work more intensively and improved human consciousness. But the strengthening of the activity of thought, the improvement of consciousness led the language forward, enriched and clarified the system of its meanings, and influenced the totality of its formal elements.

The development and improvement of thought and speech had the opposite effect on labor, made it more effective and precise, led to the creation of new tools, the discovery of new materials, and a change in the sphere of application of labor efforts. But the development of labor again influenced thought and speech. Thus, for tens and hundreds of thousands of years, the mutually stimulating influence of labor, thought and language on each other has been realized. This is the picture of the emergence of language accepted by Marxist science (a major role in substantiating Marxist views on the emergence of language was played by the work of F. Engels “The Role of Labor in the Process of Transformation of Ape into Man”).

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

· Classification of lexemes and word forms

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

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

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

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

Another group of scientists believes that parts of speech are functional-semantic classes of words; when classifying, the general semantics of words should be taken into account.

In modern linguistics, the most accepted is A complex approach to the selection and description of parts of speech, while identifying several features and principles of classification.

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

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

Significant words (parts of speech) include 7 categories:

1. nouns,

2. adjectives,

3. numerals,

4. pronouns,

5. verbs:

Communions,

Participles,

6. adverbs,

In addition to the fact that they are members of the proposal, they have a number of important features:

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

2) have a nominative (nominal) function. Can function as a sentence.

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

– prepositions,

– particles .

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

Special groups are allocated modal words, interjections And onomatopoeic words.

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

Not included in the category of modal words:

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

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

3) words indicating the connection of thoughts, the order of their presentation, the method of design, similar in function to conjunctions (firstly, finally, on the contrary, it means and etc.).

Interjections also lack the naming function. They are expressors of certain feelings (oh! chu! fu! alas!) and expressions of will (out! stop!).

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

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

In this case, certain difficulties arise: where to include words like bakery, daily allowance.

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

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

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

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

Thus, nouns of the Russian language have morphological categories of gender, number, case, as well as morphological categories of proper and common nouns, collective and material nouns, and some others. The Russian verb has morphological categories of aspect, voice, tense, person, mood, etc., as well as categories of personal and impersonal verbs, reflexive verbs. Morphological features of one part of speech may appear to varying degrees in another part of speech.

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

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

According to morphological criteria, the Russian language distinguishes between unchangeable words, for example, adverbs, and changeable words, for example, nouns and verbs, which have a system of inflectional forms.

Morphological features when identifying parts of speech are not universal; they are significant only for inflectional and agglutinative languages.

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

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

For example, in the sentence The birches are green again We can denote each word by morphological terms “noun”, “verb”, “adverb”, but we can also denote the same words by syntactic terms – “subject”, “predicate”, “adverbial”. This means that both morphological and syntactic (naturally, semantic) features can exist in the same word.

· Parts of speech of different languages

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

The presence of several acceptable features for identifying parts of speech has led to the fact that in the list of parts of speech of one language in the same historical period different numbers of parts of speech were established. For example, for the Russian language A.A. Shakhmatov established 14 parts of speech, D.N. Kudryavsky – 4 parts of speech, and in the “Academic Grammar of the Russian Language” they write about eight parts of speech.

In modern Arabic Some scientists identify three parts of speech (noun, verb, particle), others – six parts of speech (nouns, adjectives, pronouns, numerals, verb, particle), others – eleven parts of speech (noun, numeral, pronoun, verb, adverb, prepositions , conjunctions, particles, modals and interjections.

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

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

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

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

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

As evidenced by studies of parts of speech in a wide variety of related and unrelated languages, parts of speech in languages various types act as the most general and universal phenomena in grammatical system languages. It is impossible to name a single language that does not have, for example, a noun or a verb. The presence of parts of speech is a universal phenomenon. Universal system The parts of speech are as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

This is universal system parts of speech.

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

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

IN various benefits you can find the following definition:

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

DICTIONARY OF TERMS FOR THE COURSE “INTRODUCTION TO LINGUISTICS”

Linguistics. Big encyclopedic Dictionary. – Moscow: Great Russian Encyclopedia, 1998. – 685 p.

ACCOMMODATION- one of the types of combinatorial changes in sounds; (from Lat. accommodatio - device). It occurs between sounds of different types (vowel and consonant), so it can only be partial. With A., the excursion of the subsequent sound adapts to the recursion of the previous one (progressive A): "myat" - [m"at]. If the recursion of the previous one adapts to the excursion of the subsequent one - regressive A.: "mother" - [mat"]. For modern Russian language characteristic of A. vowels [a], [o], [y] with soft consonants. After soft vowels, these vowels become more frontal and audibly higher.

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

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

EXCERPT- the middle (second of three) stage of sound articulation, the presence of the speech organs in the state necessary to pronounce a given sound.

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

DEFONOLOGIZATION- transformation of different phonemes into positional variants of one phoneme, loss of the semantically distinctive character of any feature. For example, the difference between long and short vowels for Latin is phonologically essential feature, which has been lost in French. The opposite of phonologization.

DIACHRONY- historical development of the language system as a subject of research, the study of language in time, in the process of its development on the time axis. Correlates with the concept of synchrony.

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

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

DIERESES- one of the types of combinatorial changes, loss of sound when pronouncing the word: “honest” > [honest], “sad” > [grusn].

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

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

INTEGRAL FEATURES OF PHONEMS- non-distinctive features of phonemes in a given language. For example, in Russian, the integral feature for vowels will be the long/short feature, on the contrary, in English or Lat. language this sign is differential. For Russian consonants, the integral sign is aspirated/unaspirated.

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

METHODS OF LINGUISTICS are divided into general and private. General methods are certain theoretical guidelines, language research techniques associated with a specific linguistic theory. Native methods linguistics appeared in the 19th century, the first general method- comparative-historical, also general ones include comparative, descriptive, structural methods, text interpretation. Particular methods are individual techniques, techniques, tools for studying one or another aspect of language ( statistical method, component analysis method, experimental methods in phonetics, linguogeographical method, etc.).

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

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

OCCASIONALISM- from lat. occasio - "case". This is a word or phrase used by the speaker once, for a given case, this is the meaning given to the word in a specific context speech use. In occasionalism, its abnormality and situationality always come to the fore. As a rule, the reason for the appearance of occasionalism is the author’s desire to express a specific meaning (sometimes to combine several meanings), which cannot be expressed with existing ones. language means Examples of occasionalisms: hammer (Mayak.), maple (Es.), wolf (Tsvet.), mediocrity (Northerner). Lexical, morphological, semantic and other types of words are distinguished. Ok-we are characterized by certain characteristics and unique functions.

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

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

PROSTHESIS- appearance of additional sound in absolute beginning words. The prosthetic consonants are [v], [j], [g fricative]: Russian. "eight" - cf. Bulgarian "osm", lat. "octo"; rus. "lamb" - cf. strsl. "lamb". As prosthetic vowels - [i], [e]: dial. ishla (walked), Ilvovna (Lvovna), French. esprit< лат. spiritus.

REDUCTION- (from Middle Latin reductio - reduction, reduction) - a change in the articulatory and acoustic characteristics of a vowel sound, caused by a reduction in its duration or a weakening of tension, in unstressed syllables. All unstressed vowels are characterized as vowels with an underfulfilled articulatory program. There are quantitative and qualitative reductions. Quantitative is a reduction in the duration of a sound without changing its timbre. The vowels u, y are subject to quantitative reduction in the Russian language. High-quality reduction is not only a reduction in the duration of a sound, but also a change in its timbre. High-quality reduction The vowels a, o, e are exposed in unstressed syllables: “sun” - [sonc], “iva” - [iv]. The absence of reduction is perceived as a deviation from literary norm(in Russian; in French, for example, reduction of unstressed vowels is practically absent).

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

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

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

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

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

SUPRASEGMENTAL UNITS- (prosodic) - units, thanks to which smaller segmental units are combined into larger ones (sounds - into syllables, syllables - into words, etc.). Superimposed on segment units. Suprasegmental (supersegmental, supersegmental) units include stress and intonation. Intonation is the unity of interconnected components: melody, intensity, duration, tempo of speech and timbre of pronunciation. It is an important means of forming a statement and identifying its meaning. Stress is the emphasis in speech of one or another unit in a sequence of similar units using phonetic means.

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

UZUS- established practice, custom. Linguistic usage is the use of words, forms, fixed in speech (the meaning of the word, which is known to everyone, the forms of the word, its word-formation structure), this is what is known to everyone. Contrasted with occasional.

LANGUAGE LEVELS- some “parts” of language, subsystems of the general language system. A level is characterized by a set of specific units and rules that govern the use of these units. (Phonemic level - unit phoneme; morphemic - morpheme; lexical - word; syntactic - sentence). For language levels Hierarchy is characteristic: units of one level can only be combined with similar ones, but when combined, they form units of the next level (phoneme + phoneme = morpheme; morpheme + morpheme = word, etc.).

PHONEME- the minimum insignificant unit of language, which serves to recognize and distinguish significant units - morphemes and words. The main function of a phoneme is to distinguish meaning. Phonemes in the language system are in a relationship of opposition (opposition) with each other. The basis of oppositions are differential (distinctive) features. The phoneme as an abstract unit is contrasted with sound as a concrete unit in which the phoneme is materially realized in speech. One phoneme can correspond to several realizations (allophones). Each allophone corresponds to a specific position; different allophones do not occur in the same position. For example, the phoneme [o] can be represented in the form of sounds [o] - under stress: [vo dy], [a] - in the first pre-stressed syllable or at the absolute beginning of a word: [v dA], [ъ] - in overstressed syllables , in the second, third, etc. pre-shock: [въд вО с] (“water carrier”). The coincidence of two phonemes in one sound is called neutralization. Neutralization is possible in weak positions(for vowels this is an unstressed position, for consonants it is the end of the word): [pruT] - “pond” and “prut” - in the sound [t] the phonemes [d] and [t] are neutralized.

PHONETICS- (from the Greek рhonetikos - sound, voice) - a section of linguistics that studies the sound side of language. F. the material side of its object: the work of the speech apparatus and the acoustic characteristics of sounds, as well as their perception by native speakers. Physics is associated with anatomy and physiology, as well as acoustics. There are general and specific phonetics. General studies the conditions of sound formation, based on the capabilities of the human pronunciation apparatus, and also analyzes the acoustic characteristics of sound units, creates universal classifications of speech sounds, etc. Particular philosophy considers all of these problems in relation to a specific language.

PHONETIC UNITS- see SEGMENTAL UNITS, SUPRA-SEGMENTAL UNITS

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

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

LANGUAGE FUNCTIONS- the role (use, purpose) of language in a given society. The functions of language are a manifestation of its essence, its nature and are those characteristics without which language cannot be itself. The main functions of language are communicative (to be the most important means of human communication) and cognitive (cognitive, associated with consciousness, the formation of thoughts). There are also emotional (to be a means of expressing feelings and emotions), metalinguistic (to be a means of studying and describing language in terms of the language itself). The remaining functions are particular, derived from the main ones, with which they are correlated. The communicative function includes contact-establishing (phatic), conative (assimilation), voluntative (influence), as well as accumulative, the function of storing and transmitting self-awareness and traditions. Nominative and non-nominative are combined with cognitive. etc. From the emotional - poetic. Also distinguished are the ethnic function (to be a means of communication in a certain ethnic group), the magical function (to create spells, spells, etc.), etc.

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

EPENTHESIS- one of the types of combinatorial changes in sounds; the appearance in a word (most often due to dissimilation) of an additional, non-etymological sound (consonant or vowel). E. occurs when mastering borrowings with combinations of sounds unusual for the native language. For example, gaps (conjunctions of vowels) that are uncharacteristic for the Russian language lead to the appearance of [j] Persia< Persia. Чаще встречается в ненормиро-ванной речи (простор., диал., детск.): радиво, страм.

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

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

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

A little later, ancient scientists (and Indian scientists - almost simultaneously with Plato) began to distinguish four categories that were specific in their semantics. Indian linguistics developed along a very special path, not always similar to European ones, in many ways anticipating the linguistic ideas that began to be developed in European linguistics only in our time. But the ancient Indians also distinguished classes and categories of words. So, in V - IV centuries BC. ancient Indian grammarians Yaska (in relation to the reading and interpretation of sacred texts) and Panini (in relation to the norms of Sanskrit) identified four classes of words: 1) name, 2) verb, 3) prefix-preposition, 4) conjunctions and particles. Panini's grammar consists of many short poetic rules (sutras) and is very different from European grammars with their paradigm tables. The concept of “part of speech” was also used in the later developed, at the end of the first millennium AD, Arabic grammar, which was influenced by the Greek and Indian grammatical systems.

Aristotle in IV century BC distinguished such “parts of verbal presentation” as a name, a verb, a member, a conjunction (or a copula), however, also including among them individual sounds, syllables and “cases”, i.e. a form of the name and verb that is different from the original one. Aristotle divided all categories of words into “meaningful” (name and verb) and “insignificant” (all others).
The doctrine of parts of speech in Ancient Greece was continued by the Stoics ( III - I centuries BC), who identified five parts of speech: 1) proper name, 2) common noun, 3) verb, 4) conjunction (actually conjunction and preposition), 5) member (pronoun and article). The achievement of the Stoics, lost after the cessation of their tradition, should be considered the distinction in the name of the “name” in the proper sense, the name of the individual, and the general, or common, name, which is fully consistent with modern logical concepts [Stepanov 1985].

Further observations of the vocabulary made it possible to differentiate eight classes of words later. This was first done by representatives of the Alexandrian school, philologists Aristarchus of Samothrace and his student Dionysius of Thracia ( II - I centuries BC), which, based on morphological and syntactic features words, the following were highlighted in “Grammar”: “ partes orationis ": 1) name, 2) verb, 3) participle, 4) member (article), 5) pronoun, 6) preposition, 7) adverb and 8) conjunction. Apollonius Discolus ( II V. BC) established the hierarchy of parts of speech and determined their properties and functions. Thus, among Alexandrian scientists, the grammatical properties of words took a full place in the classification of parts of speech.
Dionysius of Thracia, polemicizing with the Stoics, refuses the sharp division of names into proper and common (common nouns) and considers both, using Aristotle’s term, as essences; given name it has a designation of "special essence", and a common name - a designation of "general essence". This is a break with the traditions of the Stoics and the formulation of the philosophy of name as a “philosophy of essence” [Stepanov 1985].

B I century BC Varro's Roman grammar used a formal criterion to divide words into classes - the presence or absence of case or tense forms in words. Thus, a name (noun, adjective, numeral, pronoun) is a word that has a case and does not have tense, a verb is a word that has tense and does not have a case, a participle has both, and an adverb has neither , nor anything else.

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

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


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

1. History of the issue of parts of speech. Criteria for establishing parts of speech.

2. Principles of identifying parts of speech

3. Parts of speech in the languages ​​of the world

The question of parts of speech has occupied the minds of scientists since ancient times. Research in this area was carried out by Aristotle, Plato, Panini and others.

The most common and necessary categories in the grammar of each language are parts of speech. The grammatical description of any language begins with clarification of the question of parts of speech. Speaking about parts of speech, we mean the grammatical grouping of lexical units of a language, i.e. highlighting in the vocabulary of a language certain groups or categories characterized by certain characteristics. But on what basis are groups of words called parts of speech distinguished? Or otherwise - What is the traditional distribution of words into parts of speech based on?

The problem concerning the essence of parts of speech and the principles of their identification in various languages ​​of the world is one of the most controversial problems in general linguistics. Statements on the question of what the distribution of words into parts of speech is based on are numerous, varied, but very often unclear and contradictory.

Are individual parts of speech distinguished on the basis of one leading feature inherent in words belonging to a given group of words, or are they distinguished on the basis of a combination of various features, not one of which can be called leading? If the first one is true, then what is the leading sign? Lexical meaning of the word? Imprisoned in it logical category(object, subject, predicate)? Its connection with the grammatical category? Its morphological nature? Its syntactic function? etc. Are parts of speech distinguished on the same or different grounds?

Knowledge in the field of the nature of the word, in particular its grammatical nature, is not yet deep enough to be able to construct a grammatical classification of words in scientifically of this word, and the distribution of words into parts of speech that gradually emerged and became established in tradition is not yet a classification, but only a statement of the fact that among words there are groupings united by certain common and more or less significant, but not always clear, features.

There is another problem in determining the essence of parts of speech. This is a problem with the universal nature of parts of speech, i.e. Do all languages ​​have parts of speech? Is the set of parts of speech the same in all languages?

The tradition of forming the concept of parts of speech in different languages ​​of the world has a long history. The principles of identifying parts of speech are one of the most controversial problems in general linguistics.

Starting from the first known grammars and even earlier, long before linguistics arose as a special scientific discipline, classifications of words were more logical-semantic and philosophical than grammatical in nature. In connection with the rapid development of philosophy and rhetoric in Ancient Greece, scientists became interested in various aspects of language, in particular in the question of the nature of the connection between a word and the object it denotes. Initially, two classes of words began to be distinguished. Thus, Plato in the V-IV centuries. BC. isolated in his philosophical dialogues such components as subject and predicate, associated with a name and a verb.

A little later, ancient scientists (and Indian scientists almost simultaneously with Plato) began to distinguish four categories that were specific in their semantics. Indian linguistics developed along a completely special path, not always similar to European ones, in many ways anticipating linguistic ideas that began to be developed in European linguistics only in our time. But the ancient Indians also distinguished classes and categories of words. So, in the V-IV centuries. BC. ancient Indian grammarians Yaska (in relation to the reading and interpretation of sacred texts) and Pánini (in relation to the norms of Sanskrit) identified four classes of words: 1) name, 2) verb, 3) prefix-preposition, 4) conjunctions and particles. Panini's grammar consists of many short poetic rules (sutras) and is very different from European grammars with their paradigm tables. The concept of “part of speech” was also used in the Arabic grammar that developed later, at the end of the first millennium AD, and was influenced by the Greek and Indian grammatical systems.

Aristotle in the 4th century BC distinguished such “parts of verbal presentation” as a name, a verb, a member, a conjunction (or a copula), however, also including among them individual sounds, syllables and “cases”, i.e. a form of the name and verb that is different from the original one. Aristotle divided all categories of words into “meaningful” (noun and verb) and “insignificant” (all the rest).
The doctrine of parts of speech in Ancient Greece was continued by the Stoics (III-I centuries BC), who identified five parts of speech: 1) proper name, 2) common noun, 3) verb, 4) conjunction (the actual conjunction and preposition), 5) member (pronoun and article). The achievement of the Stoics, lost after the cessation of their tradition, should be considered the distinction in the name of the “name” in the proper sense, the name of the individual, and the general, or common, name, which is fully consistent with modern logical concepts.
Further observations of the vocabulary made it possible to differentiate eight classes of words later. This was first done by representatives of the Alexandrian school, philologists Aristarchus of Samothrace and his student Dionysius of Thracia (2nd-1st centuries BC), who, based on the morphological and syntactic features of words, identified the following “partes orationis” in the “Grammar”: 1) name, 2) verb, 3) participle, 4) member (article), 5) pronoun, 6) preposition, 7) adverb and 8) conjunction. Apollonius Discolus (2nd century BC) established a hierarchy of parts of speech and defined their properties and functions. Thus, among Alexandrian scientists, the grammatical properties of words took a full place in the classification of parts of speech.

Dionysius of Thracia, polemicizing with the Stoics, refuses the sharp division of names into proper and common (common nouns) and considers both, using Aristotle’s term, as essences; its own name is a designation of a “special essence”, and its common name is a designation of a “general essence”. This is the break with the traditions of the Stoics and the formulation of the philosophy of name as the “philosophy of essence.”
In the 1st century BC. Varro's Roman grammar used a formal criterion to divide words into classes - the presence or absence of case or tense forms in words. Thus, a name (noun, adjective, numeral, pronoun) is a word that has a case and does not have tense, a verb is a word that has tense and does not have a case, a participle has both, and an adverb has neither , nor anything else.

In the middle of the 1st century AD. in Palemon's “Grammar Guide”, for the first time, the interjection was highlighted as an independent part of speech and the article, which was absent in the Latin language, was excluded.

In medieval Europe, the grammatical model of late antiquity was preserved, presented in the works of Probus and Donatus (IV century AD) and in Priscian’s Course of Grammar (VI century), to which Peter of Helius gave a commentary in the middle of the 12th century, which became a significant contribution into grammatical theory. It is possible that it was Peter of Helium who first distinguished names into nouns and adjectives.

IN mid-17th century century at the famous school of the Abbey of Port-Royal, the French philosopher and philologist A. Arnaud prepared, together with P. Nicol, a textbook of logic (later known as the “Logic of Port-Royal”), and together with C. Lanslot “Grammaire Générale et Raisonnée”, which was accepted call it the “Grammar of Port-Royal”. The concepts of both books were based on the principles of rationalism (a direction in epistemology opposite to empiricism). The philosophical views of Arno, Lanslot and Nicolas were close to the teachings of R. Cartesius-Descartes. This teaching recognized the only criterion of truth to be the logical correctness of speculative constructions leading to this truth, and not its verification by observation and experience. The scholastically described Latin categories (number, case, person, etc.) were perceived as “natural”, “logical”, corresponding to the immutable and unified (universal) laws of reason. Ars grammatica was understood by Arnauld and Lanslot as the art of correctly “expressing one’s thoughts through signs that people have invented for these purposes” (here a direct continuation of ancient concepts and the medieval teaching of nominalists was found). In the “Grammar of Port-Royal”, which in its settings and methods was actually a philosophical introduction to the study of the logic of languages, for the first time the doctrine of the members of a sentence was expounded separately from the doctrine of the parts of speech. But the sentence itself was understood as an expression using words of a logical judgment (the laws of which are the same for all languages). This a priori approach seemed convenient for teaching. School teaching adapted to grammars of this kind, and it can be said that in many countries these rationalistic traditions still dominate in school practice.

In general, the system of parts of speech, isolated on the material of the ancient Greek and Latin languages, was adopted later in Slavic grammars. Eight parts of speech (until the 19th century the term “part of a word” was used) are preserved in the grammars of Lavrentiy Zizaniy (1596) and Meletius Smotrytsky (1619), however, Lavrenty Zizaniy, following the Greek examples, retained the article (“difference”), and Meletius Smotritsky, who followed the Roman their predecessors, excluded the article, but introduced an interjection.

Thus, the doctrine of parts of speech arose in completely different grammatical schools.

The classification of parts of speech in ancient and medieval linguistics and linguistics of the Renaissance was compiled V close connection with the development of logic: parts of speech were identified with the members of a sentence and became closer to the members of a judgment, i.e., with the categories of logic. But the members of a judgment do not always coincide with the parts of speech. For example, a predicate can be expressed in East Slavic languages ​​by almost any part of speech: He was sad (verb). He sad (adjective). I'm sad because you're having fun(predicative adverb, state category). My usual state is sadness (noun). But still, this classification was partially grammatical, since some parts of speech were established by the presence of certain grammatical forms and meanings (for example, verbs are words that vary in numbers, tenses, persons, etc. and denote an action). The grammar of the ancient world, the Middle Ages and even the Renaissance dealt mainly with Greek and Latin languages; when developing new grammars Western European languages linguists proceeded from the norms of the Latin language.

The view of parts of speech as logical-grammatical categories prevailed until the end of the 18th century. mid-19th century V.

In the XIX – XX centuries. traditional system parts of speech ceases to satisfy scientists. There are indications of inconsistency and contradictions in the existing classification, and the absence of a single principle of division in it. In the 19th century In connection with the intensive development of linguistics, in particular morphology, with the study of many new languages, the question arises on the basis of what criteria should be used to distinguish parts of speech and whether they are different in different languages. The identification of parts of speech begins to be based on morphological criteria, i.e., on the commonality of grammatical forms inherent in certain categories of words.

An example of identifying parts of speech from a formal grammatical point of view is the definition of parts of speech by Philip Fedorovich Fortunatov. The scientist identified parts of speech, which he called “formal classes,” according to the presence of certain forms of inflection in the corresponding words: inflected words, conjugated words, indeclinable and inconjugated words. Based on this, a noun is a formal class (according to Fortunatov) that has a case form, and an adjective is a formal class that is characterized by a gender, number and case form.

Along with the morphological, it continued to develop logical-syntactic criterion approach and to the characteristics of parts of speech. From a syntactic point of view, words that act as one and the same member of a sentence are combined into the same part of speech. For example, those words that can act as definitions are adjectives. Based on the narrow morphological or syntactic features of words, always somehow connected with their proper lexical meaning, parts of speech began to be designated as “lexico-grammatical categories of words.”

The hierarchy of features underlying the identification of parts of speech is understood differently in different linguistic schools.

Traditionally, they have come to the fore morphological characteristics, which is due to the orientation of European linguistics towards inflectional and agglutinative languages. The expansion of the typological perspective has led to the recognition of the non-universal nature of morphological characteristics. Semantic properties, which are essential primarily for identifying parts of speech in different languages, also act as additional ones.

The morphological approach to identifying parts of speech cannot be completely satisfactory. When identifying parts of speech by grammatical forms, even in languages ​​rich in inflectional forms, words devoid of these forms remain outside, since in all languages ​​known to science there are unchangeable words of heterogeneous composition (among them, for example, adverbs, particles, interjections). Even in languages ​​rich in inflectional forms, identifying parts of speech through particular grammatical categories is not always possible. For example, is it possible to say, as we are used to, that a noun is characterized by a category grammatical gender, if most languages ​​of the world do not have this category. Or another example: despite the undeniable presence of adjectives in the Russian and Turkish languages, they are different in particular grammatical categories and in morphological structure. The particular grammatical categories of an adjective in the Russian language are the categories of case, number and concordant class (as a combination of the grammatical categories of gender and animate-inanimate), i.e. the same particular grammatical categories that are characteristic of the Russian noun. The Turkish adjective does not have a single grammatical category characteristic of a Russian noun (for example, the categories of gender, number, definiteness-indeterminacy).

Morphological characteristics of parts of speech may, to a certain extent, be identification marks parts of speech, but not a general criterion for their establishment.

Criterion inflections when establishing parts of speech, it partially justifies itself in morphologically developed languages, primarily in Indo-European, Semitic and Turkic. This criterion is not suitable for Sino-Tibetan and some other languages Far East, as it even leads some researchers to deny parts of speech in these languages. In Chinese, Thai, and Vietnamese there are words that do not differ morphologically, about which they usually say that, depending on the syntactic function, the same word acts either as a noun, or as an adjective, or as a verb.

Word formation processes do not always affect whether a word belongs to one or another part of speech. Words of different production may refer to the same part of speech ( forest, forester, forester, coppice, forestry etc.), and words similar in word formation may not belong to the same part of speech ( good, sighted, big– adjectives; worker, forester, canteen– nouns) (Kochergina V. A., 91).

Syntactic The criteria for identifying parts of speech are based on the fact that members of the sentence and parts of speech are identified according to the same grammatical categories. But if, for example, a noun as a part of speech is associated with a category grammatical subject, and through it with the category of the subject of a logical judgment, then it should be noted: the subject is expressed in speech most often by the form of a grammatical subject, and the functions of nouns are wider and more diverse. In most languages, nouns can appear as any part of a sentence. At the same time, various parts speech there are similarities in syntactic functions. Thus, in the Russian language, the circumstance of the manner of action can be expressed by an adverb or a construction with a noun. Or, for example, adjectives Chinese language similar in syntactic function to verbs, nouns and especially numerals.

Thus, neither the particular grammatical forms and meanings of words, nor their types of word formation, nor their syntactic functions themselves are decisive when assigning a word to a certain part of speech. Parts of speech - each in its own way and in different languages ​​in different ways - are morphological or non-morphological, syntactic, in in a certain sense logical.

In modern English and American linguistics, there are 2 approaches to the grammatical division of vocabulary. The first involves identifying parts of speech, and the second - word classes. “Parts of speech” is a traditional term used to describe the different types of words that form a sentence: noun (N), pronoun (Pr), verb (V), adjective (Adj), adverb (Adv), preposition (Prep), conjunction (Conj), interjection (Interj). The criteria for their identification are considered to be meaning, form and function. This approach is not flawless; native speakers experience certain difficulties in identifying individual words to parts of speech.

Word classes are groups of words that perform a similar function. Words are combined into these groups according to their combinatorial functions, morphological features, etc. Most typical groups words are parts of speech: noun, verb, adjective, pronoun, preposition, article, conjunction, interjection, demonstrative, etc.

But in scientific publications in the UK and the USA, sometimes there is a terminological indistinction between word classes and parts of speech. The opinion is expressed that the term “parts of speech” is outdated and does not reflect its essence, i.e. combining individual words into classes, taking into account the commonality of their morphology, semantics and role in the structure of the sentence. This point of view is based on the views of L. Bloomfield on a broader understanding of classes of words, including traditional parts of speech, as well as various structural constructions (complex forms: infinitive, participle, gerund).

Principles of isolating parts of speech

Lexico-grammatical the principle takes into account four categorical features, with the first two features being the most universal, as they are applicable to most languages.

According to the semantic feature, which is determined primarily by lexical meaning: nouns have the meaning of objectivity and answer the question who? What?; verb means a process, action or state, answers the questions what to do? etc.

The syntactic function of parts of speech in different languages ​​is the most general: nouns primarily serve as subjects or objects, verbs as predicates, adjectives as modifiers or act as part of a compound predicate. Meanwhile morphological feature acts as an additional one, since, for example, the grammatical categories of gender and case are not characteristic of all languages.

The word-formation feature applies only to derived words. In addition, it is unsuitable for Sino-Tibetan and some other languages. Thus, categorical features manifest themselves differently in different languages.

Thus, a part of speech as a general lexico-grammatical category of words is characterized not by one, but by four categorical features:

1. semantic feature parts of speech are its general grammatical meaning (for example, nouns have the meaning of objectivity);

2. syntactic - this is its usual, primary syntactic function (noun in the role of subject and object, this is its primary function);

3. word-formation feature is a set of its word-formation models and an inventory of word-formation means for replenishing the vocabulary of a given part of speech, as well as the ability to identify the bases for replenishing the vocabulary of other parts of speech (nouns are characterized by intra-substantive suffix word formation);

4. morphological - an inventory of its word forms and paradigms, a system of morphological categories and categories. According to this feature, part of speech can cover words that are changeable and unchangeable.

Classification the principle underlies the distribution of words into two groups: significant and auxiliary parts of speech. However, it must be emphasized that interjections are not included either in the group of significant words or auxiliary words. This is explained by the fact that “they differ from significant words in the absence of a nominative meaning<…>; and unlike auxiliary parts of speech, interjections do not have a connecting function.

Historical-typological principle - the recognition that the very presence of parts of speech is universal and constant. The composition of parts of speech and their features are historically mobile and different not only in languages ​​of different types, but also in related languages.

The usual scheme of parts of speech in Russian and other European languages ​​is not suitable for many languages ​​of Asia and Africa. In Chinese, what we define as adjectives and verbs are combined under the broader category of predicative. In Ukrainian they are combined into names as opposed to verbs. There are nouns in Russian and Tatar languages. General property- the meaning of objectivity, special suffixes of word formation and variability in numbers and cases. However, the composition of suffixes, the formation of number forms and cases show noticeable differences. In Tatar there are other cases, there is no gender, there is a category of possessiveness. The originality of parts of speech in different languages ​​does not deny their universality; this originality only requires that when describing each part of speech of a particular language, not only its typological universal properties are taken into account, but also the specific originality and individuality characteristic of a given language.

The distribution of words into parts of speech in each language is subject to its own semantic, grammatical and syntactic patterns. As a result, the uniqueness of languages ​​is manifested in the structure of one or another part of speech, as well as in their very set. In the Ukrainian and Russian languages, for example, among the significant parts of speech there are noun, adjective, verb, adverb, pronoun, numeral, in Chinese - name, predicative (i.e. verb and adjective) and adverb, in a number of languages ​​of North America and Africa adverbs and adjectives are combined within one part of speech, etc.

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

The originality can also be traced in the organization of such a part of speech as a verb: in the Bulgarian language, for example, the verb has a more developed system of tense forms than in Russian, especially this applies to the past and future tense (compare, for example, such forms of the past tense as the aorist “past perfect”, imperfect “past indefinite”, plusquaperfect “past preliminary” or future: “future preliminary”, “future in the past”, etc.). The situation is even more complicated in the English language, where there are twenty-six tense forms of the English verb, which can convey the relationship of the action denoted by the verb not only to the moment of speech, but also differentiate between the definiteness/indeterminacy of the action, completeness/incompleteness, duration/instantaneity, etc. .; in Turkic languages, a verb other than active and passive voice, known in all Slavic languages, also has reflexive, reciprocal, forced voices, each of which (except for the active one) has its own formative affixes; in addition, in addition to the indicative and imperative moods, the Turkic verb distinguishes the desirable and conditional, which have their own formal expression; in the Abkhaz-Adyghe languages, the verb has such rare morphological categories as the category of union (with the help of which the idea of ​​​​committing an action with someone is expressed), compulsion (causative), version (conveying the relation of the action to its subject or indirect object); in the Lezgin language, the verb has the category of tense and mood, but does not change in persons and numbers.

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

©2015-2019 site
All rights belong to their authors. This site does not claim authorship, but provides free use.
Page creation date: 2017-11-23