What is the basis of the morphological classification of languages. The emergence of a new system

Typological (morphological) classification of languages

The typological (morphological) classification of languages is based on morphological data, regardless of genetic or spatial proximity, relying solely on the properties of the linguistic structure. The typological classification of languages seeks to cover the material of all the languages of the world, reflect their similarities and differences, and at the same time identify possible language types and the specifics of each language or group typologically. similar languages, while relying on data not only from morphology, but also from phonology, syntax, and semantics.

The basis for including a language in the typological classification of languages is the type of language, that is, a characteristic of the fundamental properties of its structure. However, the type is not implemented absolutely in the language; in fact, each language has several types, that is, each language is polytypological. Therefore, it is appropriate to say to what extent this or that type is present in the structure of a given language; on this basis, attempts are made to give a quantitative interpretation of the typological characteristics of the language.

The following typological classification of languages is most accepted:

1. Isolating (or amorphous) languages: they are characterized by the absence of forms of inflection and, accordingly, formative affixes. The word in them is "equal to the root", which is why such languages are sometimes called root languages. The connection between words is less grammatical, but word order and their semantics are grammatically significant. Words devoid of affixal morphemes are, as it were, isolated from each other as part of an utterance, therefore these languages are called isolating languages (these include Chinese, Vietnamese, languages South-East Asia and etc.). In the syntactic structure of the sentences of such languages, word order is extremely important: the subject always comes before the predicate, the definition - before the word being defined, direct object- after the verb (cf. in Chinese: gao shan "high mountains", but shan gao - "mountains are high");
2. Affixing languages, in the grammatical structure of which important role affixes play. The connection between words is more grammatical, words have affixes of formation. However, the nature of the connection between the affix and the root and the nature of the meaning conveyed by the affix in these languages may be different. In this connection, in affixing languages, languages of the inflectional and agglutinative types are distinguished:
- a) Inflectional languages are languages that are characterized by the multifunctionality of affixal morphemes (cf. in Russian, inflection -a can convey grammatical meanings of a number in the declension system of nouns: singular wall and plural city; case: im. p singular country, birthplace of the city, winery of the ox and clan: spouse-spouse). The presence of the phenomenon of fusion, i.e. interpenetration of morphemes, in which drawing a boundary between the root and the affix becomes impossible (cf. muzhik + -sk --> muzhik); "internal inflection", indicating grammatical form words (cf. German Bruder "brother" - Brueder "brothers"); big number phonetically and semantically unmotivated types of declension and conjugation. All Indo languages are inflectional languages. European languages;
- b) Agglutinative languages are languages that are a kind of antipode of inflectional languages, because they have no internal inflection, no fusion, therefore morphemes are easily distinguished in the composition of words, formatives convey one grammatical meaning, and only one type of inflection is presented in each part of speech. Agglutinative languages are characterized by a developed system of inflectional and derivational affixation, in which affixes are characterized by grammatical unambiguity: sequentially “gluing” to the root, they express one grammatical meaning (for example, in Uzbek and Georgian, number and case are expressed by two different affixes, cf. dates. n.pl of the noun "girl" in the Uzbek language kiz-lar-ga "to girls", where the affix -par- conveys the meaning plural, and the suffix -ga is the meaning dative case, in Russian, one inflection -am conveys both of these meanings), therefore, in such languages there is a single type of declension and conjugation. Agglutinative languages include Finno-Ugric, Turkic, Tungus-Manchurian, Japanese, Korean, and other languages;
3. Incorporating (or polysynthetic) languages are languages that are characterized by the incompleteness of the morphological structure of the word, which allows the inclusion of other members of the sentence in one member (for example, a direct object can be included in the verb-predicate). The word "acquires structure" only in the composition of the sentence, i.e. here there is a special relationship between the word and the sentence: outside the sentence there is no word in our understanding, sentences constitute the main unit of speech, in which words are “included” (cf. the Chukchi word-sentence myt-kupre-gyn-rit-yr-kyn "we save networks" , which incorporates the definition of "new" tour: myt-tur-cupre-gyn-rit-yr-kyn "we save new networks). These sentence words contain an indication not only of the action, but also of the object and even its attribute. Incorporating languages include the languages of the Indians North America, Chukchi-Kamchatka, etc.

The typological classification of languages cannot be considered final, mainly because of its inability to reflect all the specifics separate language considering its structure. But it contains in an implicit form the possibility of its refinement by analyzing other areas of the language. For example, in isolating languages such as classical Chinese, Vietnamese, and Guinean, one-syllable words equal to a morpheme, the presence of polytony, and a number of other interrelated characteristics are observed.

The concept of linguistic relativity is the theory of the dependence of the style of thinking and fundamental worldview paradigms of a collective native speaker on the specifics of the latter. “The language of a people is its spirit, and the spirit of a people is its language,” and in this sense, “Every language is a kind of worldview” (Humboldt). So the typology public life can and should be explained in terms of the variability of cultures expressing themselves in various languages. In this regard, within the framework of the linguistic relativity of the concept, a hypothetical model of the development of world culture is being formed, which could be based not on the Indo-European language matrix and the corresponding European rational-logical deductivism and the linear concept of irreversible time, but on a radically different language material. It is assumed that this would lead to the formation of a world culture of a fundamentally different type.

Typical synthetic languages include ancient written Indo-European languages: Sanskrit, Ancient Greek, Latin, Gothic, Old Church Slavonic; now largely Lithuanian, German, Russian (although both with many active features of analyticism); to analytical: Romanesque, English, Danish, Modern Greek, New Persian, New Indian; from Slavic - Bulgarian.

Languages such as Turkic, Finnish, despite the predominant role of affixation in their grammar, have a lot of analyticity in the system due to the agglutinating nature of their affixation; languages like Arabic are synthetic because their grammar is expressed within the word, but they are rather analytic in terms of the agglutinating tendency of affixation. Of course, in this respect there are deviations and contradictions; so, in German article- an analytical phenomenon, but it declines according to cases - this is synthetism; the plural of nouns in English is expressed, as a rule, once, - an analytical phenomenon.

The most famous typological classification is morphological. It was the first classification of its kind, so it used to be called simply typological. Morphological classification divides all the languages of the world according to the way of expressing formative and inflectional meanings into four classes - isolating (amorphous), agglutinative, incorporating (polysynthetic) and inflectional.

Within these types, synthetic and analytical languages are distinguished. The former predominantly express morphological meanings within the word (first of all, by inflections), the latter, outside it (most often, by function words).

The beginning of the morphological classification was laid by Friedrich Schlegel (1772-1829). Comparing Sanskrit, Ancient Greek, Latin and modern Turkic languages, he distinguished two language types - inflectional and affixing. (Now affixing are called agglutinating). F. Schlegel's brother August-Wilhelm Schlegel (1767–1845) added an amorphous type to the classification, and showed synthetic and analytic subtypes in inflectional languages. The outstanding polyglot of his time, W. Humboldt (1767-1835), described the fourth type - incorporating. An important discovery of Humboldt was the indication that pure types do not exist. All languages use different techniques, giving priority to one.

Isolating (amorphous) languages are languages without auxiliary morphemes, with pure roots. On this basis, such languages were first called amorphous, i.e. shapeless. W. Humboldt rejected this term. A language cannot but have a form (grammar). It's just that the words of the isolating language do not have the grammatical forms familiar to the European consciousness. Without context, it is impossible to determine what part of speech a word is. In Chinese, ta can be used as a noun (size), an adjective (great), a verb (to increase), and an adverb (very). Grammatical meanings in Chinese are expressed by intonation, word order: whale. Mao pa gou ‘cats are afraid of dogs’ – Gou pa mao ‘dogs are afraid of cats’. When the word order changes, the syntactic roles, and consequently the meaning of the sentence, necessarily change: whale. Gen chī nǎilào ‘man eats cheese’ – Nǎilào chī gen ‘cheese eats man’.

Almost all languages of Southeast Asia, except for agglutinative Malay, belong to isolators: Chinese (classical or ancient Chinese), Vietnamese, Lao, Burmese. Tibetan is usually called an isolating language, but in the written monuments of all eras, and in modern Tibetan, features of agglutination are observed. Nouns and adjectives have acquired a significant degree of isolation in modern English, but the branched system of verb tenses makes it inflectional.

In agglutinating languages, single-valued affixes are sequentially glued to the root, expressing case, numerical and other meanings. These agglutinative languages are opposed to fusional languages. Fusion (or cumulation) is the contraction of several grammatical meanings words in one inflection. Russian ending expresses at once case, numerical and generic meaning: young man (the ending -oy expresses m.p., singular, sp.; null ending– m.r., units h., i.p.); young woman (ending -oy - f.r., singular, r.p.; ending -y - f.r., singular, r.p.). In agglutinative languages, one affix expresses one grammatical meaning. If it is necessary to use a form with several grammatical meanings, affixes are sequentially glued: Turkish. at ‘horse’, atlar ‘horses’, where lar is a plural affix, atlarda ‘on horses’, where da is a case affix.

Incorporating languages are also called polysynthetic, because in them the entire grammatical content of a sentence is sometimes formed on the basis of one verb stem. Agglutinative verbal affixes are added to it in a certain order, i.e. each affix expresses only one grammatical meaning. In the Chukchi language, ty-nmy-rkyn means ‘I kill’, where the stem is ‑nmy- ‘to kill’, you- is the verbal prefix of the 1st person, ‑rkyn is the verbal postfix of the present tense. It's not an incorporation yet. Grammatically unformed roots can be inserted into such a word: ty-ata-kaa-nmy-rkyn ‘I kill fat deer’. Here the verb is broken by insertions (incorporations) of other words: ‑ata‑ ‘fat’, ‑kaa‑ ‘deer’. Literally into Russian, this can be translated as follows: I-fat-deer-kill. On the Aztec language(nuatl) the sentence ‘I eat meat’ sounds Ni-naka-kva, where neither ‘I’, nacatl ‘meat’, kwa ‘eat’. Literally, it's something like I-meat-eat.

Incorporation can be practically without grammatical registration. For example, the phrase in the Yukagir language asa-midul-soromokh literally means "deer-taking-man". The only grammatical affix here is an indicator of the definiteness of the subject in the word soromo-kh ‘man’.

In typical incorporating languages of the Chukchi group (Chukotian, Koryak, Itelmen), agglutination is more common than incorporation.

They also have analytical and other ways of expressing grammatical relations. P.Ya. Skorik notes: “...Incorporating languages are called not because incorporation is the only or predominant way of expressing grammatical meanings in them, but because this way is their characteristic feature.”

4) Inflectional languages as a means of morphological variation of words (and form formation and inflection) use inflection and alternation (“internal inflection” in the terminology of German philologists of the 19th century): German. Baum ‘tree’ – Bäume ‘trees’. Semitic languages (Hebrew) have only "internal inflection" (infix, transfix).

There is another classification, which is based on the presence or absence of inflection. From this point of view, languages are divided into synthetic and analytical languages.

Synthetic languages have a developed system of inflections, through which most of the morphological values. Russian is a prominent representative of synthetic languages. According to the synthetic index, it surpasses all European languages, second only to Arabic. Slavic languages synthetic, with the exception of Bulgarian and Macedonian.

Analytic languages have a poor system of inflections, making up for their absence with prepositions, postpositions, and word order. To a large extent analytical English language, in French the index of analyticity is lower. German occupies an intermediate position between synthetic languages such as Russian and analytical languages such as French. The most analytical among the Indo-European languages is Afrikaans, which developed in the second half of the 17th century. based on the South Dutch dialect of the Dutch language.

The characteristic synthetism / analyticism is also compatible with other language types. Analyticism is more developed in agglutinating languages. Analyticism is strongly expressed in isolating languages, because isolation and analyticism presuppose each other. A pure root is obliged to express its grammatical indicators for the most part outside the word. In Chinese, grammatical meanings, in addition to the synthetic means - tone, are expressed using prepositions, conjunctions, auxiliary verbs and other service words, as well as word order.

The ancient languages - Indo-European, Sanskrit, Ancient Greek, Latin, Proto-Slavic - were more synthetic than modern ones. In other words, the languages of the world are developing in the direction of strengthening analyticity. The opposite trend is observed, perhaps, only in modern Chinese, which becomes more synthetic due to the complication of the morphemic structure of the word with "empty" elements and suffixes. One-syllable Chinese words are gradually being replaced by two-syllable ones: qin ‘relative’; mu ‘mother’ and fu ‘father’ changed to mu-qin and fu-qin. Suffixes appeared in Chinese: women ‘we’ In conclusion, we emphasize once again that there are no pure language types. For example, Finnish language- it is "an agglutinative language of the nominative system with significant elements of inflection". AT Japanese the naming system is agglutinative, while the verb is mostly inflectional. Elements of inflection are found even in isolating languages (qua languages).

German linguists of the nineteenth century. (W. Humboldt, A. Schleicher and others) introduced the idea of progress into the typological classification. Inflectional languages were presented as the highest type, all the rest were steps of ascent to it. Such ideas can easily be interpreted in a chauvinistic spirit. E. Sapir pointed out the ideological extremes of linguistic progressism: “One illustrious American expert on culture and language said publicly that, in his opinion, no matter how respectful of those who speak agglutinative languages, it is still criminal for a woman to marry a man. As if colossal spiritual values were at stake! The advocates of languages are accustomed to take pride even in the irrationalities of Latin and Greek except when it pleases them to extol the deep character of these languages. Meanwhile, the sober logic of the Turkish or Chinese language leaves them indifferent. They have no heart for the magnificent irrationalities and formal complexities of many languages.”

The Danish linguist O. Jespersen (1860-1943) saw the progress of the language in its economy - the ability to express the content with the least number of formal elements. In this case, isolating and highly analytic languages like English should be recognized as the highest language type. Today, the idea of linguistic progress is not supported by most linguists.

More on the topic § 2. Morphological classification:

13. Grammatical form, grammatical meaning of the word, gramme, morphological category. Principles of classification of morphological categories

a classification based on similarities and differences in linguistic structure, as opposed to a genealogical classification of languages (See Genealogical Classification of Languages) . As long as the linguistic typology set as its goal the creation of a typological classification of languages (See Classification of languages) , all typological classifications were almost exclusively morphological, since morphology has long been the most developed area of linguistics. However M. to. I. initially it was not thought to be associated exclusively with the morphological level of the language (see Levels of language), but got its name due to the fact that the focus of its creators was the formal aspect of the language. Basic concepts M. to. I. - morpheme and word; the main criteria: the nature of the morphemes combined in the word (lexical - grammatical), the way they are combined (pre- or postposition of grammatical morphemes, which is directly related to syntax; agglutination - fusion, which refers to the field of morphonology); the relationship between the morpheme and the word (isolation, when the morpheme = the word, analytic / synthetism of word formation and inflection), associated with syntax. M. to. I. seeks to characterize non-specific languages, in which there are always several morphological types, and the main structural phenomena and trends in languages. M. to. I. was created and improved during the 19th century. German linguists A. Schlegel, H. Steinthal, W. Humboldt, A. Schleicher, and others. The American linguist E. Sapir tried to streamline the criteria for M. c. language to a greater or lesser extent (for example, language can be "almost amorphous" or "in the highest degree agglutinative"), and created a flexible classification scale, bringing M.'s data closer to. I. to the real state specific languages. Since the beginning of the 20th century, i.e., since the linguistic knowledge about the structure of the language as a whole and about the features of languages has significantly expanded various types and language families, the creation of a general typological classification is neither the main nor the most urgent task of typology. It became obvious that the classification, free from the shortcomings of the traditional M. to. I. (vagueness of basic concepts, non-delimitation of different types of classification criteria, undeveloped ideas about necessary and sufficient criteria, inconsistency with specific language structures) and also including phonological, syntactic, semantic characteristics of the structure of the language, currently cannot be created yet. However, there are some directions in typology that fruitfully use M.'s data to. I. Thus, the American linguist J. Greenberg introduces a number of new criteria and the principle of quantifying the properties of a language into Sapir's classification. The Czech linguist V. Skalichka and other representatives of the so-called characterological typology explore intrastructural patterns, according to which some typological features are combined in one language, i.e., they develop a characteristic language type. Soviet linguist B. A. Uspensky classifies linguistic elements and their groups according to ordered criteria, followed by languages according to the presence / absence of certain groups of elements in them, and languages are characterized with respect to some reference language, structured in accordance with general principles M. to. I., interpreted accordingly.

Lit.: Sapir E., Language, trans. from English, M., 1934; Kuznetsov P. S., Morphological classification of languages, M., 1954; New in linguistics, c. 3, M., 1963; Morphological typology and the problem of language classification, M. - L., 1965; Uspensky B. A., Structural typology of languages, M., 1965; Skalichka V., On the question of typology, "Issues of Linguistics", 1966, No. 4; New in linguistics, c. 5, Moscow, 1970; Linguistic typology, in: General linguistics, vol. 2, M., 1972; Horne, K. M., Language typology, 19th and 20th century views, Wash., 1966.

M. A. Zhurinskaya.

Big soviet encyclopedia. - M.: Soviet Encyclopedia. 1969-1978 .

See what the "Morphological Classification of Languages" is in other dictionaries:

MORPHOLOGICAL CLASSIFICATION OF LANGUAGES. Language classification, based on differences in the morphological structure, i.e., in the methods of formation of forms individual words. According to these differences, languages \u200b\u200bare usually divided into the following classes: 1. root (see) or ... ... Literary Encyclopedia

Classification of languages according to the features of their morphology (mainly the structure of the morpheme and the word). Initially, the morphological classification of languages underlay the typological classification of languages (using data and other levels of the language) ...

Morphological classification of languages- MORPHOLOGICAL CLASSIFICATION OF LANGUAGES. Classification of languages based on differences in the morphological structure, i.e., in the ways in which the forms of individual words are formed. According to these differences, languages \u200b\u200bare usually divided into the following classes: 1. root (see) ... ... Dictionary of literary terms

morphological classification of languages- Classification of languages based on differences in the morphological structure, i.e., in the ways in which the forms of individual words are formed. According to these differences, languages are usually divided into the following classes: 1. root (see) or isolating languages; 2.agglutinative… … grammar dictionary: Grammar and linguistic terms

Based on characteristic features their external formal (morphological) structure. It relies only on some of the features that distinguish one language from another, while the rest (the general direction of dynamic sound processes, various ... ... Encyclopedic Dictionary F.A. Brockhaus and I.A. Efron

Morphological classification of languages- Morphological classification of languages 1) designation of linguistic typology in the 19th and early 20th centuries; 2) classification of languages, carried out at the morphological level (see Linguistic typology, Typological classification of languages) ... Linguistic Encyclopedic Dictionary

- (typological) classification of languages. The division of languages into groups based on differences in the ways in which grammatical forms are formed. Languages are distinguished: 1) amorphous, or root-isolating, 2) agglutinative, 3) inflectional 4) incorporating, ... ... Dictionary of linguistic terms

Studying and grouping the languages of the world according to various criteria: genetic classification languages (genealogical) on the basis of kinship, i.e. common origin from the alleged base language (Indo-European, Turkic, Uralic families, etc.); ... ... Big Encyclopedic Dictionary

The study and grouping of the languages of the world according to various criteria: genetic classification of languages (genealogical) on the basis of kinship, that is, common origin from the alleged base language (Indo-European, Turkic, Uralic families, etc.); ... ... encyclopedic Dictionary

Typological (morphological) classification (hereinafter - TC) involves the division of languages into groups based on differences in the ways of forming grammatical forms (not dependent on their genetic relationship).

In the TC, languages are combined on the basis of common features that reflect the most significant features language system.

Linguistic typology is a comparative study of structural and functional properties languages, regardless of the nature of the genetic relationship between them. The typological study of languages aims to establish the similarities and differences of languages (language structure), which are rooted in the most common and most important properties language (for example, in the way of connecting morphemes) and do not depend on their genetic relationship.

TC appeared after the genealogical one (at the turn of the XVIII-XIX centuries.), although the material began to appear as early as the 16th century. If the genealogical classification is due to the common origin of languages, then the TC is based on the commonality of the linguistic type and structure (ie, the commonality of the word).

August-Wilhelm and Friedrich Schlegel are considered the founders of the TK.

F. Schlegel compared Sanskrit with Greek, Latin, and also with Turkic languages and came to the conclusion:

that all languages can be divided into two types: inflectional and affixing,
that any language is born and remains in the same type,
that inflectional languages are characterized by "wealth, strength and durability", and affixing "lack of living development from the very beginning", they are characterized by "poverty, poverty and artificiality".

August-Wilhelm Schlegel, taking into account the objections of F. Bopp and other linguists (It is clear that all languages of the world cannot be divided into two types. Where to include, for example, Chinese, where there is neither internal inflection nor regular affixation?), reworked the typological classification of his brother’s languages (“Notes on the Provencal Language and Literature”, 1818) and identified three types: 1) inflectional, 2) affixing, 3) amorphous (which is typical Chinese), and in inflectional languages, he showed two possibilities of grammatical structure: synthetic and analytical.

He went much deeper into the question of the types of languages and finally theoretical positions formulated - W. von Humboldt (1767 – 1835).

Humboldt explained that Chinese is not amorphous, but isolating, i.e. the grammatical form in it is manifested differently than in inflectional and agglutinating languages: not by changing words, but by word order and intonation, thus this type is a typically analytical language.

In addition to the three types of languages noted by the Schlegel brothers, Humboldt described a fourth type; the most accepted term for this type is incorporating.

Humboldt noted the absence of "pure" representatives of one or another type of language, which is constructed as an ideal model.

A significant contribution to the development of this typology was made by A.Schleikher, G.Steinthal, E.Sapir, I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay, I.I. Meshchaninov.

A. Schleicher considered isolating or amorphous languages to be archaic, agglutinating languages to be transitional, ancient inflectional languages to be the era of prosperity, and inflectional new (analytical) languages to be attributed to the era of decline.

F.F. Fortunatov very subtly showed the difference in the formation of words in Semitic and Indo-European languages, which until recently was not distinguished by linguists: Semitic languages are “inflectional-agglutinative” and Indo-European languages are “inflectional”.

According to this classification, types of (morphological) languages are distinguished:

inflectional,
agglutinative,
insulating (amorphous),
incorporating (polysynthetic).

Four types of languages.

inflectional(inflectional) languages (hereinafter - FL) are languages that are characterized by inflectional inflection, i.e. inflection through inflection (ending), which can be an expression of several categorical forms. For example, the ending -y in the form of write-y combines the meaning of the 1st person singular. present tense numbers indicative mood; the ending -a in the form of a board-a indicates the nominative case singular feminine.

The main features of this type of languages are: the presence of internal inflection and fusion (alternations are widely used); ambiguity and non-standard affixes, i.e. polyfunctionality of grammatical morphemes; zero affixes are used both in semantically original and semantically secondary forms (hands, boots);

the stem of the word is often dependent: red-, zva-;

phonetic changes in the composition of the morpheme are performed by word-formation and

inflectional functions (phonetically unconditioned root changes);

a large number of phonetically and semantically unmotivated types of declension and

conjugations.

Usually FL are divided into two subclasses: with internal and external inflection.

Inflectional languages include Indo-European languages (Russian, Belarusian, Ukrainian, Czech, Polish, etc., i.e. all Slavic languages, except Bulgarian, languages, Latin, Lithuanian), Semitic languages.

Agglutinative (agglutinating) languages- languages in which word forms

are formed not by changing flexion, but by agglutination.

Agglutination(from Latin agglutinare - to stick) - a way of forming word forms and derivative words by mechanically attaching standard affixes to unchangeable, devoid of internal inflection, bases or roots (note that each affix has only one grammatical meaning, as well as each meaning is always expressed by one and with the same affix). In Turkish, the word form dallarda "on the branches" includes the following morphemes dal - branches, lar - plural. number, da - local case. On the branch can be translated to Turkish language like dalda.

Signs of languages of this type:

highly developed derivational and inflectional affixation;
they have an unchanging root,
weak connection between morphemes,
standard and unambiguous affixes,

the variation of affixes is regular and is caused by the laws of phonemic alternations (the laws of vowel harmony, vowel harmony and consonant assimilation), the boundaries of morphemic segments are characterized by clarity,

the phenomena of simplification and re-decomposition are not typical.

The agglutinative languages are Turkic, Finno-Ugric, Altaic, Uraliclanguages, Bantu languages, Japanese, Korean and some other languages.

insulating(amorphous (Greek amorphos from a- - non-, without- + morphē - form), formless, root, root-isolating) languages - languages \u200b\u200bthat do not have affixes and in which grammatical meanings (case, number, time, etc. .) are expressed either by adjoining one word to another, or with the help of auxiliary words. Since in the languages of this group the word consists of one root, there are no affixes, therefore, there is no such grammatical structure as affixation (the word is equal to the root). For example, in Chinese, the same sound complex can be different parts of speech and, accordingly, different members of a sentence. Therefore, the main grammatical ways are stress and word order in a sentence. The semantic function in this language is performed by intonation.

Something like this is how words are formed in Chinese from the word write: rewrite = write - remake, letter = write - subject.

Its main characteristics:

immutable words,
underdeveloped vocabulary,
grammatically significant sequence of words,
weak opposition of meaningful and functional words.

Isolate languages are Chinese, Burmese, Vietnamese, Lao,Siamese, Thai, Khmer.

Incorporating (polysynthetic) languages- languages whose grammatical structure is based on incorporation.

incorporation(Latin incorporatio - association, inclusion in its composition) (holophrasis, encapsulation, agglomeration, incorporation) - a way of forming sentence words by adding stem roots (in these languages, the root is equal to a word) of individual words and service elements.

The peculiarity of this type of languages (Indian in America, Paleo-Asiatic in Asia) is that the sentence is built as a compound word, i.e. unformed word roots are agglutinated into one common whole, which will be both a word and a sentence. Parts of this whole are both the elements of the word and the members of the sentence. The whole is a word-sentence, where the beginning is the subject, the end is the predicate, and additions with their definitions and circumstances are incorporated (inserted) into the middle. Humboldt explained this with a Mexican example:

ninakakwa, where ni is “I”, naka is “ed-” (i.e. “eat”), kwa is the object “meat-”. In Russian, three grammatically formed words are obtained, I am meat-about, and, conversely, such an integrally formed combination as an anteater does not constitute a sentence. In order to show how it is possible to “incorporate” in this type of languages, we will give another example from the Chukchi language: ty-ata-kaa-nmy-rkyn - “I kill fat deer”, literally: “I-fat-deer-killing -do”, where the skeleton of the “body” is: you-nmy-rkyn, into which kaa is incorporated - “deer” and its definition is ata - “fat”; The Chukchi language does not tolerate any other arrangement, and the whole is a word-sentence, where the above order of elements is also observed.

Thus, incorporating languages are characterized by the following features: along with independent words, these languages have complex complexes: the verb form includes an object, a circumstance of an action, sometimes a subject.

Incorporating languages are close to agglutinating languages by the principle of combining morphemes, and to inflecting languages by the presence of an internal form.

This type of language is Paleoasian, Eskimo, Indian languages.

The typological classification of languages is a classification that establishes the similarities and differences of languages in their most important properties of the grammatical structure (not dependent on their genetic relationship) in order to determine the type of language, its place among other languages of the world. In a typological classification, languages are combined on the basis of common features that reflect the most

essential features of the language system, i.e. the language system is the starting point on which the typological classification is built.

The most famous of the typological classifications is the morphological classification of languages, which operates with such a concept as a way of connecting morphemes expressing a particular grammatical meaning. According to this classification, the languages of the world are divided into three main types:

1) isolating (or amorphous) languages: they are characterized by the absence of forms of inflection and, accordingly, formative affixes. The word in them is "equal to the root", which is why such languages are sometimes called root languages. The connection between words is less grammatical, but word order and semantics are grammatically significant (for example, the Chinese word hao in a different position in a sentence can act as different parts speech and have different meanings, cf. hao zhen"good man", zhen hao"man loves me" xiu hao"to do good", hao dagwih"very expensive", ie. it can act as an adjective, verb, noun, adverb, without being morphologically any of these parts of speech). Words devoid of affixal morphemes are, as it were, isolated from each other as part of an utterance, therefore these languages are called isolating languages (these include Chinese, Vietnamese, the languages of Southeast Asia, etc.). In the syntactic structure of the sentences of such languages, word order is extremely important: the subject always comes before the predicate, the definition - before the word being defined, the direct object - after the verb (cf. in Chinese: gao shan"high mountains", but shang gao- "mountains are high");

2) affixing languages, in the grammatical structure of which affixes play an important role. The connection between words is more grammatical, words have affixes of formation. However, the nature of the connection between the affix and the root and the nature of the meaning conveyed by the affix in these languages may be different. In this connection, in affixing languages, languages of the inflectional and agglutinative types are distinguished:

a) inflectional languages (< лат. flexio"bending", i.e. languages of a flexible type) are languages that are characterized by the multifunctionality of affix morphemes (cf. in Russian inflection -a can convey the grammatical meanings of a number in the declension system of nouns: singular. wall and pl. cities; case: im.p.sg. the country, genus.p. cities, win.p. ox and kind: spouse - spouse); cash-

which phenomena of fusion, i.e. interpenetration of morphemes, in which it becomes impossible to draw a boundary between the root and the affix (cf. muzhik + -sk -> muzhik);"internal inflection", indicating the grammatical form of the word (cf. German. Bruder"brother" - Bruder"brothers"); a large number of phonetically and semantically unmotivated types of declension and conjugation. Inflectional languages include all Indo-European languages;

b) agglutinative languages (< лат. agglutinare"glue", i.e. gluing) are languages that are a kind of antipode of inflectional languages, because they have no internal inflection, no fusion, therefore morphemes are easily distinguished in the composition of words, formatives convey one grammatical meaning, and only one type of inflection is presented in each part of speech. Agglutinative languages are characterized by a developed system of inflectional and derivational affixation, in which affixes are characterized by grammatical unambiguity: sequentially “gluing” to the root, they express one grammatical meaning (for example, in Uzbek and Georgian, number and case are expressed by two different affixes, cf. dates. n.pl of the noun "girl" in Uzbek kiz-lar-ha"girls", where is the affix -steam- conveys the meaning of the plural, and the suffix - ha- the meaning of the dative case, in Russian there is one inflection -am passes both of these values; the same in Georgian language: cf. word form "home" sahlabs, where is the affix -eb- plural indicator, and inflection -with- dative case), therefore, in such languages there is a single type of declension and conjugation. Agglutinative languages include Finno-Ugric, Turkic, Tungus-Manchurian, Japanese, Korean, and other languages;

3) incorporating (or polysynthetic) languages (< лат. in"in", corpus genus.p. from corporis"body", i.e. "insertion, incorporation of something into the body", incorporo"insert") are languages that are characterized by the incompleteness of the morphological structure of the word, which allows the inclusion of other members of the sentence in one member (for example, a direct object can be included in the verb-predicate). The word "acquires structure" only in the composition of the sentence, i.e. here there is a special relationship between the word and the sentence: outside the sentence there is no word in our understanding, sentences constitute the main unit of speech, in which words are “included” (cf. the Chukchi word-sentence myt-cupre-gyn-rit-yr-kyn"we save networks", which incorporates the definition of "new" tour: myt-tour-cupre-gyn-rit-yr-kyn"new

we save networks"). These sentence words contain an indication not only of the action, but also of the object and even its attribute. The incorporating languages include the languages of the Indians of North America, the Chukchi-Kamchatka, etc.

Many languages, according to the scale of morphological classification, combine the features of different types of languages, for example, the Russian language belongs to the languages of the inflectional type, but agglutination is not alien to it, cf. forms read-l, read-l-a, read-l-i, in which the suffix -l consistently conveys the meaning of the past tense, and the meaning of gender and number is expressed by inflections; or Chinese, which is a classic example of an isolating language, however, elements of agglutination are also found in it, especially during the formation compound words built according to certain word-formation models. In this regard, even W. Humboldt pointed out the absence of "pure" representatives of one or another type of language as an ideal classification model.

One of the essential criteria for the typological classification of languages, which A. Schleicher drew attention to in his time, is the analyticity and syntheticity of the grammatical structure of the language. Depending on how grammatical meanings are transmitted in the language and relations are expressed, he singled out synthetic and analytical subtypes in each of the typological classes. Synthetic languages are languages whose structure is characterized by the union within one word of morphemes of different types - lexical, derivational, inflectional, i.e. grammatical meaning, connecting with lexical and derivational, is, as it were, synthesized within the word. Significant words of these languages have formal indicators (inflections or formative affixes) that indicate the grammatical meaning of the word (for example, in Russian, the meaning of a person can be conveyed verb ending -u, -eat, -o, -eat etc., while in French it is only a pronoun, i.e. analytically, cf. je perds"I'm losing" tu perds"you lose"). In languages of a synthetic type, synthetic forms predominate, they are characterized by a large word length (cf., for example, verb form Uzbek language tanishtirolmadingiz"you could not introduce", in which tani-"know", -sh- - return suffix, -dir- - causative suffix, i.e. verb meaning "to make someone do something", -ol-- opportunity suffix, - ma-- negative suffix -di- past tense suffix, - ng- - suffix 2 persons, -from- - plural suffix). One-

but in synthetic languages such long words are quite rare, in a Russian word, for example, the average number of morphemes = 2.4 units.

Analytical languages are languages whose structure is characterized by a separate expression of the main (lexical) and accompanying (word-forming and grammatical) meanings of a word, i.e. the grammatical and derivational meanings of a word are outside it, separate from it. In these languages, in the morphological structure of significant words, there are no indicators of the connection of one word with another; for this, function words are used that accompany the significant word (prepositions, articles), cf. in French case meaning is conveyed by special prepositions du livere genus.p. "books" au livere dt.p. "book". The analyticity of these languages is manifested in the morphological immutability of the word and in the presence of complex (analytical) constructions, which include, along with significant words, auxiliary or other full-valued words (cf. the formation of degrees of comparison in French, where adverbs are used for this purpose plus"more" and moins"less": long"long" - plus long"longer" and in Russian, where special affixes are used: long - longer) those. in analytic languages, grammatical or derivational meaning is expressed by dissected analytic word forms, and sometimes by word order. Most analytical languages are considered agglutinative languages, less inflectional and isolating. Weak degree synthesis (an average of 1-2 morphemes per word) is observed, for example, in Chinese, Vietnamese, English, French.

After the work of the American linguist E. Sapir "Language", in which he argued the need to distinguish between the grammatical types of languages according to the degree of their syntheticity, i.e. According to the number of morphemes in a word that convey different grammatical meanings, polysynthetic languages began to stand out in modern linguistics. A classic example of such a language is the Eskimo language, in which within a single word different suffixes can convey a whole complex of grammatical meanings, cf. verb anisaxtuxtqßaRatapixnaqagjaRaqa, meaning "I wanted to make him go for snow many times", which includes the following morphemes: ani- root "snow", -sax--suffix with the idea "to send", -tux-- multiple suffix, -tafka-- causative suffix, -Rata-- transitive suffix, -pix-- suffix intense-

sti action, -naqag-- intent suffix, -ja-- desire suffix, -Ra- perfect suffix -qa--"suffix 1 person subject and 3 person object".

AT pure form analyticism and synthetism are not represented in any language of the world, since each language has elements of analyticism and synthetism, although their ratio may be different (cf. in Russian, along with the predominance of synthetism, there are pronounced features of analyticism, cf. the expression of the category of person in past tense verbs, the formation of future tense forms of imperfective verbs, analytical forms of the comparative and superlative degree of adjectives and adverbs, etc.).

General patterns The development of languages has not yet been studied, although certain trends in their evolution can be traced. Many languages in their history demonstrate a transition from a synthetic system to an analytical one (for example, Romance languages, a number of Germanic, Iranian). But their linguistic development does not stop there, and very often auxiliary words and parts of speech, agglutinating with the stem significant word, again create synthetic forms. In this regard, the grammatical fate of the Bengali language is extremely interesting: from an inflectional synthetic type, it gradually passed to an analytical type (the old declension disappeared, and with it grammatical category cases, numbers, grammatical gender, internal inflection, but analytical forms became widespread), however, due to the contraction of the analytical forms of the name and the verb, new synthetic forms with agglutinative affixes began to appear (cf. the verb form korchilam"I did", in which £or is "root" -chi- a morpheme that goes back to a service verb with the meaning "to be" -/- past tense suffix, -am- inflection of the 1st person"), even a new declension of four cases appeared. The history of languages shows that often in the grammatical system of the same language, synthetic constructions can be replaced by analytical ones (for example, case forms prepositional-case and further prepositional in the absence of declension, as, for example, in Bulgarian) or on the basis of analytical constructions, synthetic ones can be formed due to the loss of a service element (cf. in other Russian language forms of the past tense xm x ° D NL and in modern Russian walked). Synthetic and analytical forms can coexist even within the same paradigm (cf. Rus. no one, no one). Moreover, in languages, formations of the analytical type are constantly being formed, since combinations of words are

They are the simplest, most motivated way of designating objects and phenomena of the external world. However, in the future, these formations can be transformed into synthetic forms (cf. the designation of blueberries in Russian: black berry -> blueberry).

In the XX century. the typological classification of languages began to be supplemented by other classifications, taking into account not only morphological, but also phonetic, word-formation, syntactic and even lexical criteria (see, for example, the works of V.M. Chekman, T.I. Vendina, A.F. Zhuravlev). From a morphological classification, it gradually turns into a general grammatical one, in which such features as the massiveness and fragmentation of the structure of the word, the presence of morphonological changes at the junctions of morphemes, the functioning of formal grammatical elements act as relevant. different levels language, syntagmatics, etc.