Theory of parts of speech in Russian linguistics. Parts of speech and their history
Modern classification parts of speech in the Russian language is basically traditional and is based on the doctrine of eight parts of speech in ancient grammars.
The first grammar of the Russian language was " Russian grammar» Mikhail Vasilyevich Lomonosov (1755). It was the first to comprehensively examine the lexical and grammatical nature of the word.
All parts of speech by M.V. Lomonosov divided them into significant and official. Two parts of speech - name and verb - were called main, or significant, the remaining six - pronoun, participle, adverb, preposition, conjunction and interjection (in M.V. Lomonosov "interjection") - auxiliary.
Basic provisions of M.V. Lomonosov entered the Russian grammatical tradition and were revealed and supplemented in the works of A.Kh. Vostokova, F.I. Buslaeva, A.A. Potebnya, F.F. Fortunatova, A.M. Peshkovsky, A.A. Shakhmatov, V. A. Bogoroditsky, L.V. Shcherba and V.V. Vinogradova.
In “Russian Grammar” by Alexander Khristoforovich Vostokov (1831), the traditional eight parts of speech were preserved. However, from the name as a special part of A.Kh.’s speech. Vostokov singled out the adjective (in M.V. Lomonosov the names were not differentiated), but participles were considered as a type of adjective (“active adjectives”), and numerals were also classified as adjectives. All definitions of parts of speech by A.Kh. Vostokov are based on their meaning. To illustrate the main points, many examples are given from the living Russian language of that era. However, grammar retains a purely practical role as a “guide to correct use words in conversation and writing."
Fyodor Ivanovich Buslaev in “Experience historical grammar Russian language" (1858) outlined the doctrine of parts of speech in the second part - "Syntax", thereby pointing to syntactic basis this teaching. Following his predecessors F.I. Buslaev distinguishes parts of speech into significant and auxiliary. He classifies three parts of speech as significant words: a noun, an adjective and a verb (with the exception of the auxiliary, which, in his opinion, is a function word). Included service units speeches by F.I. Buslaev names five: pronouns, numerals, prepositions, conjunctions and adverbs. Moreover, he divides adverbs into two groups: 1) formed from significant words, for example, again, obliquely, and 2) formed from function words, for example, here, there, twice. The former should be considered as part of significant parts of speech, the latter - as part of function words. “An interjection in its meaning,” points out F.I. Buslaev, “forms a special department, because it expresses not logical relationships and not the variety of objects of speech, but the sensations of the speaker.” Thus, in total, he identified nine parts of speech. This definition of interjections alone indicates that the basis for the understanding of each part of speech was based on the logical and grammatical views that were dominant at that time.
Alexander Afanasyevich Potebnya played a major role in the development of grammatical theory, who deepened the doctrine of the word, grammatical form and grammatical category. However, he considered syntax to be the most important thing in the field of grammar, therefore in his book “From Notes on Russian Grammar” (1874) there are only isolated comments about parts of speech (in their comparison with members of a sentence). Criticizing F.I. Buslaev for the logical substantiation of grammatical categories, A.A. Potebnya went to the other extreme - the denial of the logical principle in grammar. He considered language to be a special “form of thought” that is not found in anything other than language, i.e. laid the foundation for the psychological direction in grammar.
All words by A.A. Potebnya divides into real (lexical) and formal. He calls the first significant parts of speech, the second - auxiliary. Nouns: noun, adjective, numeral, verb, adverb. Functional verbs include conjunctions, prepositions, particles and auxiliary verbs. Analyzing the verb, A.A. Potebnya classified the infinitive and participle as intermediate parts of speech on the grounds that they had special forms. He considered pronouns separately from all parts of speech, considering them a category of demonstrative, generalizing words, combining the characteristics of lexical and formal words.
Philip Fedorovich Fortunatov, founder of the Moscow Linguistic School, in the course “Comparative Linguistics” (1901-1902) sets out a formal grammatical point of view on parts of speech (later it will be developed by Fortunatov’s followers: M.N. Peterson, D.N. Ushakov, etc. .). The works of representatives of the formal direction outline the doctrine of grammatical classes of words, which are distinguished according to formal indicators: words that have inflectional forms (inflected, conjugated); words that do not have inflectional forms. Based on this, F.F. Fortunatov, instead of the traditional doctrine of parts of speech, considers complete words, partial words and interjections. He connects the concept of a complete word with its definition as an object of thought and with “the presence of forms in individual complete words,” which forms “formal, or grammatical, classes of individual complete words.” These include 1) words that have inflectional forms, for example: a) conjugated words - verbs, b) inflected words - nouns, c) inflected words... with gender agreement - adjectives and 2) words without inflectional forms: adverbs , infinitive Numerals and pronouns of special classes, according to F.F. Fortunatova, do not make up.
Partial words are used only “functionally”, i.e. to denote something in the semantics of complete words, since "the meanings of partial words do not exist separately from the meanings of complete words." Partial words include: a) connecting words - preposition, connective, conjunction; b) intensifying words (such as in the combination I, even, and), c) partial words denoting negation or question (not, whether); d) words denoting the speaker’s known attitude to a given sentence (yes, no; of course, they say). A special class is made up of interjections, which “do not express ideas, but... express the feelings experienced by the speakers.”
Alexander Matveevich Peshkovsky in his work “Russian syntax in scientific coverage” systematically and consistently (in traditional understanding) did not consider parts of speech. However, A.M. Peshkovsky expressed interesting thoughts about the meaning of a noun, adjective, verb and adverb. The scientist defined parts of speech “as the main categories of thinking in their primitive national stage of development.” This was especially clear psychological approach to the phenomena of grammar.
A separate chapter A.M. Peshkovsky paid attention to pronouns. He considered them a non-independent part of speech and considered (depending on the meaning) pronominal nouns (I, you, he, who, what), pronominal adjectives (my, yours, etc.), pronominal adverbs(in my opinion, here, there, etc.). “Pronouns are the only group of words in the language and completely paradoxical in grammatical terms, in which the ungrammatical parts of words (roots) have a subjective-objective meaning, i.e. denote the attitude of the thinker himself to what he thinks about.” Numerals A.M. Peshkovsky considers only in syntactic terms, proposing to replace the term itself with a new one - “counting words”, highlighting among them counting nouns (one, pair, hundred, etc.), counting adjectives (single, double, triple, etc.), counting adverbs ( twice, two, four, etc.).
Function words, or partial words, A.M. Peshkovsky does not classify parts of speech as parts of speech and reveals their role only in syntactic terms.
Alexey Aleksandrovich Shakhmatov sets out the doctrine of parts of speech in “Syntax of the Russian Language” (1913) and thereby also narrows the concept of parts of speech, defining them as “a word in its relation to a sentence...”. But, as academician notes. V.V. Vinogradov, “attempt by A.A. Shakhmatov’s attempt to remove the doctrine of parts of speech from morphology and transfer it to the full and exclusive jurisdiction of syntax did not and could not succeed. It only led to a confusion of syntax with morphology and a weakening of the grammatical positions of morphology, which left only the material part of inflection.”
A.A. Shakhmatov identified fourteen significant, non-significant and auxiliary parts of speech. He classified nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs as significant. Non-nominal ones include numerals, pronominal nouns, pronominal adjectives, pronominal adverbs. For service ones - preposition, connective, particles, conjunction and prefix. Especially A.A. Shakhmatov considered interjections.
In the traditional teaching about parts of speech, after this and other works
- A. Shakhmatov, the separation of particles was established.
- A. Bogoroditsky, like many of his predecessors, builds on the basis of syntactic relations, as evidenced by the very division of words into independent and subordinate.
After the work of L.V. Shcherby began to distinguish in grammar a special group of words such as sorry, time, ready, must, etc. Her L.V. Shcherba called it a category of condition.
Wide use in linguistics received a structural-semantic classification of parts of speech proposed by Viktor Vladimirovich Vinogradov: 1) parts of speech, 2) particles of speech, 3) modal words, 4) interjections. The largest structural-semantic categories - parts of speech and particles of speech - are each divided into several groups.
To the parts of speech of V.V. Vinogradov classifies names by highlighting the noun, adjective and numeral; pronouns; verb; adverbs; condition category. He includes prepositions, conjunctions, actual particles and connectives as particles of speech. Modal words and interjections were allocated to special classes.
Most of modern textbooks And teaching aids in the Russian language is based on the teachings of V.V. Vinogradov about parts of speech.
“Russian Grammar” (1980) and “Brief Russian Grammar” (1989) preserve the traditional classification of parts of speech, but make some changes to the composition of pronouns and numerals. The pronoun includes noun pronouns that replace a person or thing (I, you, he, myself, we, you, they, who, what, etc.), and adjective pronouns (your, yours, his, theirs, etc.) and pronouns-adverbs (in my opinion, in your opinion, in our opinion, in your opinion, in their opinion, etc.) are considered as categories of words within adjectives and adverbs. The category of numerals consists only of quantitative (one, two, three, etc.) and collective (two, three, five, etc.). Ordinal numbers are included in adjectives (first, second, etc.).
Thus, the parts of speech identified in modern Russian are the result of a number of compromises between the semantic, morphological and syntactic principles of word classification. It is precisely in the fundamentally compromising nature traditional classification, according to leading domestic scientists, lies the reason for the ongoing disagreements on certain issues of identifying parts of speech.
For a very long time, people intuitively, based on a wide variety of criteria, established certain classes of words, which turned out to be convenient to establish when describing languages with division vocabulary by parts of speech. In the history of the science of language, starting with ancient Indian linguists and Aristotle, there is a constant desire to characterize certain classes of words and clarify their role.
Jasca and Panini (V - III centuries BC) were installed in ancient Indian languages four parts of speech: name, verb, preposition and particle. They were combined in pairs on the basis of maintaining meaning outside the sentence (noun, verb) or losing meaning outside the sentence (preposition, particle). Noun and verb in a sentence, i.e. as word forms of the speech chain, they were called “case” and “action”. Yaska singled out pronouns as a subgroup of names. The semantic criterion was the leading one in establishing parts of speech in ancient Indian linguistics.
Aristotle (IV century BC) established three parts of speech in the ancient Greek language: name, verb and conjunctions (which also included articles, pronouns, connectives). Later, Alexandrian grammarians established eight parts of speech: noun, verb, participle, article, pronoun, adverb, preposition, conjunction. Roman linguists, having removed the article from among the parts of speech (there was no article in the Latin language), added an interjection. In the Middle Ages, the adjective began to be emphasized. The classification of parts of speech in ancient linguistics was compiled in close connection with the development of logic: parts of speech were identified with members of a sentence and became closer to members of a judgment, i.e. with categories of logic. 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).
Grammar ancient world, the Middle Ages and even the Renaissance dealt mainly with Greek and Latin; When developing grammars of new Western European languages, linguists proceeded from the norms of the Latin language.
In the XIX - XX centuries. The traditional system of parts of speech ceases to satisfy scientists.
In the 19th centuries. 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 parts of speech be distinguished and whether they are different in different languages. The identification of parts of speech is beginning 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 F. F. Fortunatov. F. F. Fortunatov identified the parts of speech that he called “formal classes” based on 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 one, the logical-syntactic criterion of approach to characterizing parts of speech continued to develop. 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 actual lexical meaning, parts of speech began to be designated as “lexico-grammatical categories of words.”
MORPHOLOGY. PARTS OF SPEECH
LECTURE No. 2
Define grammatical form.
8. What grammatical means expressions grammatical form You know?
9. What is the difference between grammatical meaning and lexical meaning?
10. What grammatical categories You know?
11. What branches of linguistics is grammar related to? Give examples.
12.What are corpus grammars?
The science of grammar is traditionally divided into two large sections - morphology and syntax. The division into morphology and syntax is to a certain extent arbitrary, since the grammatical meanings behind changes in word forms are fully revealed only when their syntactic functions are taken into account, i.e. functions within phrases and sentences. As part of morphology, there is an area associated with the formation of words as lexical units language, and the area associated with the formation of grammatical forms of words. The first area is called word formation (sometimes derivatology), and the second is called morphology itself. Traditional division grammar on morphology and syntax does not have absolute and universal significance. Morphology as a section of descriptive grammar arises simultaneously with the birth of the ancient linguistic tradition - oppositions are formed between the original form of the word (in the ancient linguistic tradition - “substance” and its paradigm (“accidents”), the traditional nomenclature of parts of speech and grammatical categories is created and permanently consolidated.
For a very long time, people intuitively, based on a wide variety of criteria, established certain classes of words. In the history of the science of language, starting with ancient Indian linguists, there is a constant desire to characterize these classes of words. Yaska and Panini (v - 3rd century BC) established four parts of speech in ancient Indian languages: name, verb, preposition and particle. They were combined in pairs based on the preservation of meaning outside the sentence (name, verb) or its loss (preposition, particle). Noun and verb in a sentence, i.e. as word forms of the speech chain, they were called “case” and “action”. Yaska singled out pronouns as a subgroup of names. The semantic criterion was the leading one in classification by parts of speech in ancient Indian linguistics.
Aristotle (4th century BC) identified three parts of speech in the ancient Greek language: name, verb and conjunctions, to which he included articles, pronouns, connectives.
Later, Alexandrian grammarians established eight parts of speech: noun, verb, participle, article, pronoun, adverb, preposition and conjunction. When identifying parts of speech, they took them into account syntactic role, morphological properties, in particular, inflection, as well as semantics. At the same time, unlike ancient Indian scientists, they did not go as far as analyzing the morphological structure of the word; the concepts of roots and affixes remained unknown to them. Roman linguists, having removed the article from the parts of speech (it was not in the Latin language), added an interjection.
In the Middle Ages, the adjective began to be emphasized. The classification of parts of speech in ancient linguistics was compiled in close connection with logic: parts of speech were identified with members of a sentence and came close to members of a judgment, i.e. with categories of logic. 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 change in numbers, tenses, persons and denote action). The grammar of the ancient world, the Middle Ages and even the Renaissance dealt mainly with Greek and Latin; When developing grammars of new Western European languages, scientists 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 and mid-19th centuries. In the 19th and 20th centuries, the traditional system of parts of speech ceased to satisfy scientists. There are indications of inconsistency and contradictions in existing classification, for the lack of a single criterion. In the 19th century, in connection with the intensive development of linguistics, in particular morphology, the question arose about the principles of identifying parts of speech and their universality. 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 classification of FFs. Fortunatova. Parts of speech, which he calls “formal classes”, F.F. Fortunatov distinguished by the presence of inflectional forms in the corresponding words: inflected words, conjugated words, indeclinable and inconjugated words. Along with the morphological one, the logical-syntactic approach to characterizing parts of speech continued to develop. Based on the narrow morphological or syntactic features of words, which are always somehow connected with their proper lexical meaning, parts of speech began to be designated as lexical-grammatical categories of words.
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. 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. 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 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 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 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 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. For the first time this was done by representatives 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 of them, using Aristotle’s term, as essences; given name it has the designation of a “special entity”, and common name- designation " common 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 in famous school 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 Raisonne ”, 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 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 these rationalistic traditions still dominate in school practice [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 certain objective factors contained in many, if not all, languages of the world, and in particular in the Russian language.
Chapter 1. History of the issue……………………………………………………………...pages 2-6
Chapter 2. Principles of classification of parts of speech………………………...pp. 7-11
Chapter 3. Tradition and innovation in the classification of parts of speech...pp. 12-13
CHAPTER 1
Background
Parts of speech are grammatical classes of words characterized by a combination of the following features:
· the presence of a generalized meaning, abstracted from lexical and morphological meanings all words of this class;
a complex of certain morphological logical categories;
· a common system (identical organization) of paradigms and commonality of basic syntactic functions.
In traditional Russian grammar, reflecting the influence of ancient and Western European grammars, at first there were eight, then nine, but now - with the inclusion of particles - there are usually ten parts of speech:
· Noun
· Adjective
· Numeral
· Pronoun
· Adverb
· Preposition
· Particle
· Interjection.
First 6 parts of speech - This significant(full or independent) words, i.e. words are lexically independent, naming objects and signs or pointing to them, and capable of functioning as members of a sentence. Prepositions, conjunctions and particles are official , i.e. lexically dependent, words, serving to express various syntactic relations, as well as to form analytical forms or to express the syntactic and modal meanings of a sentence. Interjections constitute a special group of words: they do not name anything and serve to express emotional attitude and subjective assessments.
In addition, participles and gerunds are either considered as part of verb forms, or belong to mixed, transitional parts of speech, or are considered special parts of speech (in this case, the number of parts of speech increases to twelve).
The number of parts of speech in the Russian language in the teachings of some linguists either increases even more, or decreases immeasurably. Thus, Academician Shakhmatov introduced a prefix into the circle of parts of speech (for example, pre-, most- etc.) and a bunch. He had fourteen parts of speech. If this list is supplemented with various other candidates for the role of parts of speech (for example, categories of state recognized in words possible, impossible, necessary, sorry etc., question words and particles, solitary particles, like and – and, neither – nor, or – or, relative words, etc.), then the number of parts of speech in the Russian language will exceed twenty. Many grammarians (Potebnya, Fortunatov, Peshkovsky) denied that numerals and pronouns have grammatical features special parts of speech, indicating that numerals and pronouns in their syntactic features are close to such grammatical categories as nouns, adjectives and adverbs. From this point of view, the number of basic, independent parts speech is already reduced by two and reduced to eight. However, among these eight parts of speech there are also dubious and incomplete ones. The easiest way to challenge the right to be called a part of speech is for interjections, pointing out that it represents a special form of speech - affective, emotional speech, or sometimes active, effective speech, which in any case remains outside the structure of intellectual speech. In addition to interjections, function words easily fall out of the group of parts of speech as expressers of purely grammatical relations (Vandries).
Researchers (for example, Prof. Kudryavsky), who adhered to Potebnya’s view of the complete semantic parallelism of parts of speech and members of a sentence, always denied the title of parts of speech to functional, connective words, that is, preposition, conjunction and particle. For such researchers, the number of parts of speech is limited to four main ones: noun, adjective, verb and adverb. If linguistic skepticism extends further, then the right of adverbs to be an independent part of speech is questioned. After all, some categories of adverbs are in close connection with adjectives (cf. the inclusion of qualitative adverbs with -o in the system of adjectives by Prof. Kurilovich), others - with nouns, and others do not have pronounced morphological features special category. At the heart of what was once accepted by the followers of Acad. Fortunatov's grammatical division of words according to differences in inflection into:
· Cases ( fun)
· Generic ( cheerful, oh, oh, cheerful, ah, oh)
· Personal ( having fun, having fun)
This was precisely the basis for this distrustful attitude towards the “grammaticality” of the adverb. Thus, only three parts of speech will survive: noun, adjective and verb. But even in the ancient grammatical tradition, nouns and adjectives were brought under one category of name. And in modern languages they often change roles. Vandries concludes: “Continuing this selection, we come to the conclusion that there are only two parts of speech: the verb and the name. All other parts of speech are reduced to them.”
None of the Russian grammarians has yet reached such a limitation of parts of speech, but in the Fortunat school the opinion was expressed that the verb is not correlated with nouns and adjectives and that morphology can be managed without the category of the verb. Prof. Peterson, in his early works on Russian grammar in his presentation of inflection, did without the doctrine of the verb as a special grammatical class. Only in the later Lectures on Modern Russian literary language“He was forced to recognize the verb as a category “denoting a characteristic extended in time.”
Such are the fluctuations in the doctrine of parts of speech. Between different views linguists on this issue - “distance huge size" Meanwhile, one has to resort to some kind of word classification system when presenting the grammar of any language. Therefore, it is not uncommon for grammarians to make statements like the following: “The doctrine of parts of speech is one of the least developed parts of grammar. Traditional interpretation parts of speech is considered unsatisfactory in modern linguistics. However, the absence of any established scientifically substantiated new points of view on this issue forces us to remain within the framework of tradition in this regard.”
Identification of the main structural and semantic types of words helps to bring some clarity to the doctrine of parts of speech. Neither modal words, nor interjections, nor connective words or particles of speech belong to parts of speech. The range of parts of speech is limited to words that can perform a nominative function or be demonstrative equivalents of names.
Parts of speech are primarily divided into two large series of words, differing from one another in the degree of nominative independence, systems of grammatical forms and the nature of syntactic use.
In one series there are the categories of names, the category of pronouns and the category of verbs, in the other - the category of adverbs. In modern Russian, adverbs are correlative with the main categories of names and verbs. But the connection of adverbs with names is closer than with the forms of verbal words. In the modern Russian language there is a constant movement nominal forms into the adverb system.
Changes in the structure of the Russian language associated with the history of the copula ( auxiliary verb), led to the formation of a special part of speech – the category of state. This part of speech arose on the basis of the grammatical transformation of a number of forms, which began to be used exclusively or primarily as a linking predicate. “Predicative adverbs” began to be subsumed under this category of state (it is possible, ashamed, ashamed, etc.), separated from the category of adjectives short forms(glad, much), some forms of nouns that have undergone rethinking (impossible, time, etc.).
Since the copula retained some formal properties of the verb word, the development of the state category was noticeably affected by the influence of the verb category.
As for the category of names, the Russian language clearly indicates the differences between nouns and adjectives. From these categories in the history of the Russian language (especially from the twelfth – thirteenth centuries) the category quantitative words– category of numeral name. On the contrary, the ancient rich class of demonstrative words and pronouns in the history of the Russian language has undergone decay and decomposition. Most of pronominal words merged with the categories of adjectives and adverbs or turned into particles of the oven, into grammatical means of the language. In system modern language Only relics of pronouns as a special part of speech (subject-personal pronouns) have been preserved.
Vinogradov presents the system of basic parts of speech characteristic of the modern Russian language as follows:
1) noun,
2) adjective,
3) numeral.
4) pronoun (in a state of decomposition)
6) adverb
The system of parts of speech in the structure of a sentence is combined with a system of particles of speech:
· Particles in the proper sense
Bundle particles
· Prepositions
Vinogradov classifies modal words as particles of speech, distinguishing them into a special structural-semantic type of words.
A. Belich thinks that modal words should be combined with particles, prepositions, and conjunctions in the category of relational particle words.
Not in living language ideal system with monotonous, sharp and deep boundaries between different types of words. Grammatical facts move and move from one category to another, often different sides adjacent to different categories.
Conclusions:
To classify parts of speech, it is necessary to clearly define and justify the principles of selection certain group words into a separate part of speech;
The problem of isolating parts of speech is the problem of isolating word forms. If we imagine parts of speech as a classification of lexemes, then the lexemes themselves should be obtained as a result of morphological analysis of word forms;
The semantic criterion, in its most generalized meanings, distinguishes four classes of full-meaning word forms - noun, adjective, verb and adverb;
The morphological criterion distinguishes nine classes of formalized word forms and unformed word forms;
The syntactic criterion allows us to distinguish among unformed word forms nouns, adjectives, adverbs, comparatives, state categories and modal words.
CHAPTER 2
Principles of classification of parts of speech
Morphology is that part of the grammatical structure of a language that unites grammatical classes of words, grammatical categories and forms of words belonging to these classes.
In the process of developing the science of the Russian language over the past two and a half centuries (from Lomonosov to the present day), when describing parts of speech, scientists proceeded from different classifications. The most important of them: semantic, formal-grammatical, structural-semantic . Representatives of the semantic direction (Lomonosov, Vostokov, Potebnya, Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky) when classifying parts of speech went from the content, from the meaning of words to their grammatical form, representatives of the formal grammatical direction (Peterson, Peshkovsky, Ushakov) - from the grammatical form of words to their meaning , which ultimately resulted in not a partial classification of words, but their division into mutable and unchangeable. The third group of linguists (Vinogradov, Galkina-Fedoruk, Gvozdev, Pospelov) proceeded from the internal unity of the content (meaning) and form of the word. Their classification, called lexico-grammatical and which has now become traditional, in scientific world received wide recognition. However, it has a very significant drawback: not all words (in particular, pronouns, interjections, modal and function words) are recognized as nominative.
The structural-semantic direction, reflected in “Russian Grammar” (USSR Academy of Sciences, 1980), is based on the interdependence of form and content, structure and semantics of classified words. Similar – functional-semantic – the approach to identifying parts of speech in the Russian language was previously carried out by A. M. Peshkovsky. And Peshkovsky was inclined to highlight in Russian language of four independent parts of speech: noun, adjective, verb and adverb. However, M.V. Panov, based on an examination of the semantic-functional categories of lexemes he identified, managed to discover a tense place in the system of Russian parts of speech identified in this way. He looks at phrases run a race And running a race. The first phrase is natural both lexically and grammatically. The second phrase is also lexically natural. But grammatically it is illegal: race– adverb, that is, a sign of a sign, but run– a noun, that is, grammatically not a sign or a process. Collocation run fast– both lexically and grammatically consistent. Collocation fast run grammatically it is also natural, but lexically it is not, because lexically run is not something objective. Thus, the opposition of adjectives and adverbs in the aspect under consideration turns out to be somewhat blurred. According to some researchers (M.F. Lukin), a purely morphologization of parts of speech is unnecessary here, that is, an extremely narrow understanding of parts of speech, leading to the fact that numerals are significantly impoverished (fall out of their system, for example, fractional and ordinal numbers, and words thousand, million, billion are wrongfully treated as nouns), most of pronouns are fragmented and included in other parts of speech (nouns and adjectives), the system of adjectives is unjustifiably expanded, etc.
The classification of lexemes can be based on the expression of the same morphological categories. In this case, the lexemes house, animal, winter form one group, because all their word forms express the morphological categories of number, case, and only these categories. On the other hand, all these lexemes will be opposed to the lexemes kind, old, big, since all word forms of the latter express such morphological categories as gender, number, case, brevity-completeness. However, classification according to the principle of “severity of the same set of morphological categories” does not always lead to such clear results as in the above-described case of contrasting nouns and adjectives. Fundamental difficulties arise when different word forms of one lexeme express different sets of morphological categories. The most complex structure in this regard in the Russian language is the word forms traditionally included in the verb. Another circumstance complicates the application of this criterion: among Russian lexemes there are many that consist of one word form and, therefore, do not express a single morphological category.
If the basis for identifying independent parts of speech were based on a single feature - the presence of common morphological features expressed in the word form itself, it would look like this:
· Nouns (express case and number), cardinal and collective numerals are also included here.
· Adjectives (express case, number, gender and brevity/completeness).
· Infinitives (express aspect and voice).
· Participles (type).
· Participles (case, number, gender, brevity-completeness, aspect, voice, tense)
· Verbs indicative mood present-future tense (number, aspect, voice, tense, person, mood).
· Verbs of the indicative mood of the past tense (number, gender, aspect, voice, tense, mood).
· Verbs subjunctive mood(number, gender, aspect, voice, mood).
· Verbs imperative mood(number, type, voice, person, mood).
· Word forms that are not grammatically characterized: indeclinable nouns and adjectives, comparatives and adverbs.
Within the morphological approach to identifying parts of speech, another classification is possible. It can be based on the structural features of the paradigm. It is clear that in this case nouns, for example, would be opposed to adjectives. After all, the paradigm of the latter includes the opposition of word forms by gender, which is absent in nouns. In this case, neither nouns nor adjectives would be able to maintain their unity. Such fragmentation would occur not only due to unchangeable nouns and adjectives. For example, in the category of lexemes like the youth numerals should also be included - collective and quantitative, as well as personal and interrogative pronouns, because all these lexemes have word forms of only one number.
When applied to unchangeable words, that is, to lexemes consisting of one word form, it turns out to be very effective syntactic principle .
The essence of this principle is to determine those types of lexemes with which the words of interest to us can or cannot be combined, as well as to understand the functions that these words perform in a sentence. And the semantic criterion easily distinguishes adverbs among unchangeable words. However, only the application of a syntactic criterion introduces various gradations among adverbs.
However, within one lexeme, differently morphologically formed word forms coexist. In exactly the same way, different word forms of the same lexeme can perform different syntactic functions. Therefore, classification based on the principle of “syntactic function” for lexemes is impossible in principle, just as classification based on homogeneous morphological design is impossible for lexemes.
Thus, the semantic criterion in its most generalized meanings distinguishes four classes of full-meaning word forms - noun, adjective, verb and adverb. The morphological criterion distinguishes nine classes of formalized word forms and unformed word forms. The syntactic criterion applied to a morphologically uncharacterized group makes it possible to distinguish among the latter nouns, adjectives, adverbs, comparatives ( comparative degree), state category and modal words. It is in principle possible to apply the syntactic criterion to word forms, but its results will conflict with the results of morphological and semantic analysis. The morphological and syntactic criterion is in principle inapplicable to lexemes.
As we see, when classifying parts of speech, there was a persistent desire to group parts of speech according to one single-aspect principle, as a result of which the content was separated from the form or the form from the content, which inevitably led scientists to failure. Therefore, looking for any one principle of partial classification is a hopeless matter.
Another one interesting feature of the named partial-speech classifications is that they all proceed primarily from their specificity of the words themselves language system: either from their content, or from their form, or from the unity of content and form, as if the linguistic system is immanent, that is, contained in itself and for itself, as if its object are only words and their relationships with each other. The nomination in them is ignored or fades into the background.
Lukin proposes a multi-aspect nominative-grammatical principle. The essence of this principle is that it is necessary to define and classify parts of speech not by content, not by form, not by their unity, but primarily on three grounds:
· Nominations (naming not only objects, phenomena of objective reality, but also our inner world. one should distinguish between six generic categories: lexical, grammatical, situational, modal, emotional-imperative, direct.
· Partial object
· Unity of content and form
Following the proposed principle, we can distinguish thirteen parts of speech.
However, the generally accepted number of parts of speech is reflected in Russian Grammar-80. These are the ten parts of speech listed in the previous section, among which the first six are significant, that is, words that are lexically independent, naming objects and signs or indicating them, and capable of functioning as members of a sentence. Prepositions, conjunctions and particles are service words, that is, lexically dependent words that serve to express various syntactic relations, as well as to form analytical forms or to express the syntactic and modal meanings of a sentence. Interjections constitute a special group of words: they do not name anything and serve to express an emotional attitude and subjective assessments. Here parts of speech are understood as grammatical classes of words, characterized by a combination of the following features:
· The presence of a generalized meaning, abstracted from the lexical and morphological meanings of all words of a given class.
· A complex of certain morphological categories.
· General system(identical organization) paradigms.
· Commonality of basic syntactic functions.
However, changes in language and its grammatical stand are manifested in various transformation processes, including the transition of words from one lexical-grammatical category to another. The views of scientists on this phenomenon differ significantly even in the nomination of this phenomenon (some distinguish between complete and incomplete transitions, some call it lexical-grammatical substitution). They also distinguish between stable and unstable transition within the framework of incomplete transition.
CHAPTER 3
Traditions and innovations in the classification of parts of speech
The 90s of the 20th century were marked in the history of modern Russian linguistics by the growing attention of researchers to cognitive aspects linguistic phenomena and funds. The cognitive function of language is its role in supporting the thinking process. Some provisions of cognitive grammar have much in common with the interpretation of words by A.F. Losev, explaining parts of speech not only as a linguistic expression of logical categories, but also as a result of an interpretative act that transforms the abstract conceivability of objects into communicated objectivity.
The topic of parts of speech “is by no means new” and parts of speech “belong to the best described categories of words” are considered from a cognitive point of view, and their nature and reasons for isolation and development are also analyzed. This is prompted by fundamental changes in the field of theoretical linguistics, primarily by the achievements of the two main scientific paradigms of modern linguistics - communicative and cognitive. The methodological basis for explaining parts of speech, created by Kubryakova, is based on a cognitive approach to parts of speech as prototypical categories with all the properties inherent in these categories, primarily the presence of a core and diffuseness, which arises as a result of subsequent transformations and semantic shifts.
A number of authors known in modern linguistics for their the latest research in the field of functional-semantic categories, remains true to traditional approaches to the system and criteria for identifying parts of speech. Mak, Maslov in his later works writes that the syntactic functions of parts of speech reveal greater similarities when comparing languages than the types of form and word formation.
The principle of common grammatical meaning underlies traditional system parts of speech. Only this principle is not carried out consistently in it, it is not differentiated different types general grammatical meanings, as a result of which some headings that actually intersect are located in this system in one line.
The classification of words from a purely functional point of view in one of Shvedova’s latest works is presented as follows: “words that signify (pronouns), words that name (names, verbs, adverbs, predicates), words that connect (prepositions, conjunctions) and words that actually qualify (particles, modal words, interjections)". The author does not call this division a classification of parts of speech; he emphasizes that this is a classification of words, but in the end the qualification of words almost completely coincides with the classification of parts of speech itself. It is noteworthy that in this system, consisting of four classes, the leading role is assigned to pronouns as the main expressers of linguistic meaning.
“New approaches to understanding what a part of speech is are found within the framework of the ontological-energy concept of language,” Kamchatnov and Nikolina write in one of their textbooks on language theory. Following Losev's concept, the authors put forward completely new approaches to understanding parts of speech. In their opinion, the nature of language is not reflection, but interpretation, interpretation of reality.
"Communicative Grammar of the Russian Language", published in 1998, is a new approach to language, follows the integrative trends of linguistic trends. Emphasizing functionality and communicativeness as the essential properties of language, the authors place a person at the center of grammar as a person speaking and writing and the text as a specific implementation of the language system. Since the main object of study is text, sentences and various communications, parts of speech are presented as ways of expression various types proposals.
!!! Each part of speech is characterized by a purpose to serve in a sentence or in a text, a purpose that is potential in the language system and realized in the speech space.
Fundamentally important property the inherent purpose of each part of speech to serve in a sentence or in a text is deduced, a purpose that is potential in the language system and realized in the speech space.
The general pathos of breaking into parts of speech, according to Plungyan, can be defined as a sequential classification of lexemes according to their grammatical and ungrammatical compatibility, based on the principle of “concentric decrease in grammaticality.”
Summarizing what has been said, it should be noted that parts of speech are considered as a projection into the world of language of objects of reality that are different in their essence or in their perception by a person, that is, as a means of expressing thoughts.
In our opinion, despite certain differences in interpretation. The above theses about the new understanding of parts of speech have much in common with onomasiological and cognitive approaches to classes of words. Parts of speech are considered as projections into the world of language of objects of reality that are different in essence or in human perception, i.e. as a means of expressing thoughts. The desire to avoid opposition between structural-systemic and functional-communicative approaches to language, a kind of “synthetic” concept, in our opinion, is one of the most undoubted advantages modern linguistics, allowing for a new and at the same time – in a sense – traditional look at eternal problem parts of speech.
Notes on the stones. Lev Shlosberg. Notes on stones Main works of Vsevolod Petrovich Smirnov
When was the Russian Caucasus exercise announced?
Events of the Russian-Japanese War in the initial period