Morphological typology of languages- the most developed area of typological research. Typological linguistics began to develop precisely with morphological classification languages, that is, among other areas of typological research, morphological typology is chronologically the first.
In the languages of the world, there are two main groups of ways of expressing grammatical meanings- synthetic and analytical.
For synthetic methods expressions of grammatical meanings are characterized by the connection of a grammatical indicator with the word itself. Such an indicator that introduces the grammatical meaning "inside the word" can be prefix, suffix, ending, internal inflection(alternation of sounds in the root: lie down - lie down - bed), stress change ( ss?ypat - pour), suppletivism (child - children, take - take) (see A.A. Reformatsky, 1997, pp. 263–313). The term "synthetic" is motivated, from the Greek. synthesis- "combination, compilation, association."
For analytical methods characteristic expression of grammatical meaning outside words, separately from it: with the help of prepositions, conjunctions, articles, auxiliary verbs, other auxiliary words; using word order through general intonation statements. Recall that analytical - from the Greek. analysis- "separation, decomposition, dismemberment" - this is a separating, decomposing into its component parts; associated with analysis.
Scientists distinguish the following ways of expressing grammatical meanings:
affixation(attachment to the root of grammatical morphemes - affixes);
internal flexion(significant alternation of phonemes in the root of the word, such as English. sing–song or Russian lie down - lie down);
stress;
intonation;
reduplication(repetition of a root morpheme or a whole word);
official words(prepositions, conjunctions, particles, articles, auxiliary verbs, etc.);
word order.
Sometimes this list is added composition(although this grammatical method does not serve for inflection, but for the formation of new words) and suppletivism- using a different root to convey grammatical meaning, like Russian. man - people, put - put or English. good-better).
In principle, each language uses different grammatical methods from among those named, but in practice they are grouped in a certain way, combined with each other. Namely: in some languages, grammatical meaning is expressed mainly within the (significant) word itself: with the help of affixation, internal inflection, stress. Lexical and grammatical meanings appear here in a complex, jointly forming the semantics of the word. Such languages are called synthetic languages. Examples are ancient Latin, and from modern languages– Finnish, Estonian, Lithuanian, Polish. In other languages, grammatical meaning is expressed outside the significant word: with the help of function words, word order, intonation. In such languages, grammatical and lexical meanings are presented separately, they are embodied in different material means. This is analytic languages; these include modern English, French, Danish, Bulgarian, etc.
Many languages combine in their grammatical structure features of analyticism and synthesis. In particular, modern Russian belongs to the languages mixed order(with some preponderance in the direction of synthetism, although the share of analytical tools in it is steadily increasing); they also include the German language (although elements of analyticism predominate in it), see about this: (B.Yu. Norman, 2004, p. 205).
There are languages in which there are almost no synthetic methods. These are Chinese, Vietnamese, Lao, Thai, Khmer. AT early XIX in. some linguists have called them amorphous(formless), that is, devoid of form. W. von Humboldt clarified that these languages are not formless, he called them isolating. It was found that these languages are not devoid of grammatical form, but grammatical meanings are expressed in them separately, in isolation from the lexical meaning of the word. The "morphemes" of such languages are extremely isolated from each other, independent, that is, the morpheme is both a root and a separate word. How are words formed in such languages? Do they only contain words like write but no rewrite, nor letter? New words in isolating languages are formed according to a different principle. To form new words, in such languages, you just need to put the roots (words) side by side and you get something in between a compound word and two words. For example, this is how Chinese words are formed from the word write:
rewrite = write + remake, letter = write + subject etc. (on isolating languages, see: N.V. Solntsev, 1985).
On the other hand, there are languages in which the root of the word is so heavily overloaded with various auxiliary and dependent root morphemes that such a word, growing, turns into a sentence in meaning, but at the same time remains shaped like a word. Some words in such languages seem to be introduced into others. At the same time, complex alternations often occur at the junctions of morphemes. Such a word-sentence device is called incorporation(lat . incorporation - inclusion in its composition, from lat. in- in; corpus- the body, a single whole), and the corresponding languages incorporating, or polysynthetic. Polysynthetic languages are Eskimo-Aleut, Chukchi, Koryak, most of the Indian languages of North and Central America.
J. Greenberg even identified language synthesis index.
During the XIX-XX centuries. another classification of languages is being developed, called typological, or morphological, classification. The main principle of this classification of languages is the position that all languages of the world, regardless of whether they are related to each other or not, can be divided into types according to some common features of their structure, primarily the morphological structure of the word. Therefore, the classification got its double name. Although the typological classification of languages at the beginning of its emergence was primarily morphological, in reality the first concept is somewhat broader than the second, since typological classification can take into account not only morphology, but also phonetic and syntactic features of the compared languages. Such classifications exist in modern linguistics. However, the most developed are typological classifications based on the analysis
End of page 265
¯ Top of page 266 ¯
morphological structure of the word, which is why they have a double name.
The question of the type of language arose for the first time among the German romantics, who believed that the originality of the language reflected the originality of the spirit of the people. One of the leaders of the German romantics, F. Schlegel (1772-1829), comparing Sanskrit with Greek and Latin, as well as with the Turkic languages, divided all languages into two types - inflectional and non-inflectional, or affixal, later called agglutinative. This division correctly reflected the structure of the studied languages. However, it remained unclear where to include languages such as Chinese, where there are neither inflections nor regular affixes. V. Schlegel (1767-1845) reworks his brother's classification, highlighting one more type of languages - languages without grammatical structure, later called amorphous. W. Schlegel shows two possibilities of the grammatical structure of inflectional languages - analytical and synthetic. The classification of the Schlegel brothers is specified by W. von Humboldt, which was greatly facilitated by his extensive knowledge of many languages of the world. He distinguishes the fourth type of languages - incorporating and notes the absence of "pure" representatives of one or another type of languages. In the future, typological classifications are refined, improved, carried out on new grounds, however, the most generally recognized is the typological classification of languages, represented by four morphological types: inflectional, agglutinative, amorphous and incorporating.
In languages inflectional type of inflection is a stable and essential feature of the morphological structure of the word. Inflectional languages are characterized by the widespread use of inflections expressing a variety of grammatical meanings. At the same time, inflection is most often polyfunctional, that is, it expresses several grammatical meanings at the same time. For example, in the word hand the ending -a expresses three grammatical meanings at once: feminine, singular, nominative. Affixes in inflectional languages can take a very different position in relation to the root, acting either as suffixes, or as prefixes, or as infixes. Inflectional languages are characterized by phonetically unconditioned
End of page 266
¯ Top of page 267 ¯
root changes (run - run, fly - fly, Buck - Bücher), the presence of a large number of types of declension and conjugation. A word in inflectional languages acts as an autonomous unit that carries indicators of its relationship to other words in a phrase or sentence.
Inflected languages are primarily Indo-European languages. For them, the division into languages of the analytical and synthetic systems is essential. Analytical structure involves a wider use of service words, as well as phonetic means and word order to express grammatical meanings. The languages of the analytical system are English, French, Bulgarian and some other languages. Synthetic tuning characterized by a greater role of word forms formed with the help of inflections, as well as formative suffixes and prefixes in the expression of grammatical meanings. Synthetic languages include Russian, Polish, Belarusian, Lithuanian and other languages.
The second morphological type of languages is agglutinative (from Latin agglutinare - to stick), or agglutinating, languages. Agglutination- this is a consistent gluing to the stem-root of special affixes, each of which expresses only one grammatical meaning. In the agglutinative type of languages, the boundaries of morphemes are clearly delimited from each other. The morphemes themselves remain meaningful in any combination and independently show their meaning. Agglutinative affixes do not change along with the change in the grammatical form of the word, for example, Bashkir:
im.p. units numbers bash (head)- pl. numbers bash-lar (heads)
genus.p. units numbers bash-tyn (heads) - pl. numbers bash-lar-tyn (goals)
win.p. units numbers bash-you (head) - pl. numbers bash-lar-you (heads).
For agglutinative languages, the phenomena of simplification and redistribution, phonetically unconditioned alternation of sounds, are not typical. For languages of this type, a single type of declension and conjugation is characteristic. Turkic, Finno-Ugric, Dravidian and other languages belong to agglutinative languages. At the same time, the degree of agglutination is not the same in all languages.
End of page 267
¯ Top of page 268 ¯
The third morphological type of languages - insulating, or amorphous, languages. These languages are characterized by the absence of inflection, for example, Chinese words cha- tea, in-I, boo-ne, he - drink, connected in sequence cha woo boo hae, designate I don't drink tea(literally I don't drink tea). The absence of formal indicators of the mutual dependence of words in a phrase or in a sentence led to the name of such languages - isolating languages. Grammatical meanings in isolating languages are expressed using functional words, word order, musical stress and intonation. Their other name - amorphous - comes from the fact that this type of language does not have a morphological form. Isolating languages are also called root languages, since the word in them is equal to the root, the stem. The absence of a affixes of form formation also affects the expression of the connection between words. In root languages this connection is less formal and more semantic than in affix languages. The languages of the isolating type include Chinese, Vietnamese and some other languages.
The last morphological type of languages - incorporating(from lat. incorporare - to attach, include in its composition), or polysynthetic(from Greek poly - many + syn-thetikos< synthesis - соединение, сочетание, составление = многообъединяющие), языки. Главная структурная особенность инкорпорирующих языков состоит в том, что предложение в них строится как сложное слово, то есть слова сливаются в одно общее целое, которое является и словом, и предложением. В результате возникают комплексы без формального выражения морфологии, сливающиеся в одно синтаксическое целое, начало которого - подлежащее, конец - сказуемое, а в середину инкор-порируются дополнения со своими определениями и обстоятель-ствами. Например, чукотское tyatakaanmyrkyn in one complex construction, he conveys a Russian sentence: I kill fat deer. The sentence in this incorporation is conveyed by merging together separate words: you - me, ata-fat, kaa- deer, nmy - to kill, rkyn - to do. In fact, here we have not a combination of words, but a fusion of them into one verbal form: I-fat-deer-killing-do. It contains the whole sentence formally conveyed by incorporation. Poly-
End of page 268
¯ Top of page 269 ¯
synthetism is inherent Indian languages, national languages Northeast Asia- Chukchi, Koryak, Kamchadal and other languages.
In any language or group of languages, features of other morphological types can be found. So, agglutination is not alien to the Russian and Belarusian languages. It manifests itself in the forms of the past tense of verbs, in the forms of the imperative mood of verbs in the plural, in the formation of passive voice verbs with the help of a postfix -sya (-s). Many languages occupy an intermediate position in the morphological classification, combining features of different types. For example, the languages of Oceania are classified as amorphous-agglutinative languages.
"Bear cub" In some scientific articles in linguistics, a special grammatical notation of examples is accepted, which is called gliding. It is located under the example: Storks-s catch-l-and frogs stork-IM.MNcatch-PROSH-MNfrog.VIN.MN Below are suggested options for gliding the sentence Heron was sleeping. Choose the correct option: (A) heron.NAME.EDsleep-PRESENT-F.ED (B) heron.NAME.EDsleep-PRES.F.ED (C) heron-NAME.EDsleep-PRESENT-F.ED (D) heron -IM.EDsleep-PRESENT.M.ED (D) heron-IM.EDsleep-PRESENT.F-ED
Inflection Reference property: the combination of several grammatical meanings in one morphological indicator (cumulation) is typical, for example. for nominal inflection Indo-European languages SGPL dog-dog-and dog-Nom.Sgdog-Nom.Pl dog-dog(-Ø) dog-Gen.Sgdog-Gen.Pl dog-dog-am dog-Dat.Sgdog-Dat.Pl dog-dog(- Ø) dog-Acc.Sgdog(-)Acc.Pl dog-Instr.Sgdog-Instr.Pl dog-dog-ah dog-Prep.Sgdog-Prep.Pl
Agglutination Reference property: each grammatical meaning is expressed by a separate indicator bright representative - Turkic languages SGPL artart-tar horsehorse-Pl art-tyart-tar-ny horse-Acchorse-Pl-Acc art-taart-tar-da horse-Lochorse-Pl-Loc art-tanart-tar-dan horse-Ablhorse-Pl-Abl Tofalar nominal paradigm (Rassadin 1978)
Inflectional + Some additional properties characteristic of inflectional languages the presence of several inflectional types (“declensions”, “conjugations”) - inflectional types NB: Tatar, Chuvash and many other languages also have, for example, different forms of case suffixes, but these are not inflectional types , as in Russian - why?
Inflection + syncretism: the same indicator is used for different combinations of grammatical meanings; more broadly (conditionally - polyfunctionality): the same indicator is used in different “cells” different words change types -Ø - Gen.Pl and Acc.Pl of the first declension, Nom.Sg (and Acc.Sg inanimate) of the second declension -y - Dat.Sg of the second declension and Acc.Sg of the first declension -i - infinite in different declensions in different NB forms: a problem for computational linguistics
Agglutination+ Characterized by long sequences of morphological indicators Udege (Perekhvalskaya): ihi-i-du-fi walk-PRP-DAT-1PL.INCL when we approached ei bua-lA tiŋme-lA-isi-ni ñuu-gi-i-jaza this place-LOC fall-SING-PC.DS-3SG exit-REV-PART.PRS-INEXP when she suddenly sinks to this earth, …
Agglutinative prototype: rules of thumb, names Nominative case has no material expression Singular has no material expression No different types of declensions Once again: different sets of endings for different classes of nouns in agglutinative languages are possible, but they have a significantly different nature morphological context The adjective has the same forms of declension as the noun in agglutinative languages, the adjective most often does not agree at all - what does this mean?
Agglutinative prototype: rules of thumb, verbs Personal numerical indicators are the same in all tenses and moods Indicators in the imperative mood may differ There are no different types of conjugations and “thematic” elements The category indicator does not depend on the morphological context topic is a morphological indicator characteristic of the class of verbs that manifests itself in terms of forms and distinguishing these verbs from others, but not carrying its own meaning.
Type or prototype? Languages often do not represent a homogeneous morphological type, but combine several strategies be-Pst-F.Sg?) be-l-o = be-Pst-N (or be-Pst-N.Sg?) be-l-i = be-Pst-Pl
Examples of deviations from the Karelian agglutinative prototype: (Makarov 1966) SgPl hammaš tooth(.Nom.Sg?) hambaha-t tooth.Der- hambaha-n tooth.Der-Gen hambah-i-n tooth.Der-Obl.Pl-Gen hambaha- h tooth.Der-Ill hambah-i-h tooth.Der-Obl.Pl-Ill hambaha-na tooth.Der-Ess hambah-i-na tooth.Der-Obl.Pl-Ess -Der- "indicator of morphological complexity" derivational basis -Obl- "non-nominative" (indirect basis) Nom.Pl
Some problems: morphological zero art = horse or art = horse.Nom.Sg or art-Ø = horse-Nom.Sg dogs-Ø = dog-Gen.Pl, dog-Acc.Pl Why do you want a zero in Russian, but don't want to in Tofalar? a) "Typological non-marking" of the zero expression - hence nothing in Tofalar b) Paradigmatic considerations in Russian
The problem of interpretation One can insert here an example from Archin - on different representations of the paradigm One can discuss the topic of paradigmatization of categories in agglutinative languages - positions and their semantics, how to interpret this (by this moment the Azerbaijani problem should be solved) - what is in one position, then is a single category (grammar of positions) It is possible to transfer some of this to structuralism in the Introduction
Fusion Bonding of morphemes on the borders, the impossibility of "putting a hyphen" between indicators; cf. arch.: hiba-t:u-r good (girl) be.good-Atr-2 hiba-t:u-b good (bull) be.good-Atr-3 hiba-t:u-t good (bunny) be.good-Atr- 4 hiba-t:u good (boy) be.good-Atr.1 *hiba-t:u-w
Some problems: “together or separate”? For some categories, it is not entirely clear whether their gluing together is a real violation of the agglutinative prototype. Lezginsky (Haspelmath 1991): "Semantic glue" tu-r leave-Imp leave! ta-mir leave-Proh don't leave!
Terminology: ending, inflection, cumulation The term ending (and its translation inflection) is poorly applicable to agglutinating languages - the ending is a chain of morphemes, but the term ending is not customary to apply to a chain If two grammatical meanings merge inside a word form, and then more indicators follow (Archin negative potentialis), then it is awkward to talk about inflection: the term is too closely associated with the endings of IE languages - and usually nothing follows after inflection
Terminology: ending, inflection, cumulation Therefore, neither the term ending nor the term inflection is used in typology (or rather, it is not universal). is a language dominated by cumulation
Important terms: Agglutination: the expression of grammatical meanings in separate morphemes Cumulation: the expression of several grammatical meanings in one morpheme
Seminar: The Russian language as a whole is inflectional; give examples of agglutination "Teddy Bear" Zero in the nominative and singular? Why the presence of different indicators of case and number in Turkic languages not the same as having different inflectional types? Inflection = cumulative ending - come up with an example when "ending" is followed by another indicator Accusative plural (compared to Latin) Russian verb tense (compared to Latin) at home - read LGR
According to the definition given above, morphology as a branch of the science of the Russian language studies the grammatical classes of words (parts of speech), the grammatical (morphological) categories and forms of words belonging to these classes.
Parts of speech are distinguished on the basis of semantic, morphological and syntactic commonality: a common feature of the lexical meanings of words combined into a given class (for example, the subject of nouns; the procedural feature of verbs); general morphological categories and forms of inflection; identical functions in a sentence and a text [Vinogradov 1972: 38; RG-80: 455-456].
Russian morphology is usually described in the system of parts of speech, but there is also a description of the "categorial" morphology of the Russian language. For example, in the Prague "Russian Grammar" (1979), morphological categories are described not by parts of speech, but by "bundles" in which they appear in different parts of speech. For example, the category of gender is considered in one section as a category of nouns (“inconsistent non-pronominal words”), pronouns and “agreeable words” (adjectives, participles, past tense verb forms and subjunctive) [RG 1979: 316-323].
A grammatical (morphological) category is formed by homogeneous (i.e., united by a general categorical meaning) opposed (both in form and meaning) series of morphological forms. The categorical meaning of one of the opposed series of morphological forms is the grammeme [Zaliznyak 1967/2002: 26-27; Melchuk 1998: 250-261]. So, the forms of the number of nouns with the help of endings express the grammes of the singular or plural, which are the realization of the general categorical meaning of the number.
In Russian (as in other inflectional-synthetic languages), meanings opposed within the same category cannot be expressed in one word form, i.e., grammemes are mutually exclusive [Plungyan 2000: 107, 115]. For example, a noun can contain either singular or plural inflection, and a verb can express either the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd person. In other words, “the grammatical meaning of a word form can contain no more than one gramme of the same grammatical category” [Zaliznyak 2002: 27].
However, the principle of mutual exclusion for grammatical meanings is not universal for all languages. According to language experts South-East Asia, the mutual exclusion of grammes is generally uncharacteristic of the grammatical categories of isolating languages - Chinese, Thai, Khmer. Forms of the same category in isolating languages "are contrasted not because they convey mutually exclusive meanings, but because they carry different meanings" [Solntseva 1985: 203]. also in English language the formal indicators of the contrasted past and future times are compatible, cf. "future in the past" (would work). The indicators of the forms Perfect and Continious (have been working) are also compatible, which in some works are considered forms of time, in others - forms of the aspect. If we consider the mutual exclusion of grammes as a universal mandatory feature of a grammatical category, then we must admit that the English forms Past and Future (as well as Perfect and Continious) are included in different grammatical categories. V.
A. Plungyan, considering the future tense outside the category of time [Plungyan 2000: 269]. An analysis of the semantics and use of the present and future tenses in Russian (see Chapter 3) shows that the interpretation of the future outside the grammatical category of tense is unacceptable for the Russian language.
Morphological categories can be polynomial structures (cf., for example, the category of case in Russian) or binomial, binary, organized according to the principle of opposition (cf. verb aspect). Among morphological categories, there are categories with a nominative component of meaning and categories without such a component - non-nominative. The former include categories that represent and interpret objects of the extralinguistic world or relations between them: quantitative relations of objects, the degree of manifestation of a feature, the reality or unreality of an action, its relation to the moment of speech, the speaker and other participants in the act of speech, etc .; such, for example, are the categories of the number of nouns, the degrees of comparison of adjectives, the verbal categories of mood, tense, person, aspect. Non-nominative categories are realized syntagmatically - in syntactic compatibility, i.e. through the forms of agreed words (for example, the category of gender of nouns) or depending on the grammatical features of words with which these forms are consistent (categories of gender, number and case of adjectives) [Zaliznyak 2002: 22-27; RG-80: 457].
As part of the morphological categories of the Russian language, there are inflectional categories, the members of which are forms of the same word (for example, verbal categories of mood, tense, person), and non-inflective (or classifying) categories, the members of which are forms of different words (for example, verb aspect category). Form formation as “the formation of grammatical forms of a word” [LES 1990: 558] is represented by 1) inflection, or the formation of inflectional-synthetic forms (for example, personal forms of a verb); 2) the formation of analytical grammatical forms such as I will work, I would work; 3) correlative forms of different words (for example, the forms of the verbs SV and NSV) [РЯ 1979: 379].
Within the parts of speech, lexico-grammatical categories are also distinguished, reflecting the interaction of vocabulary and grammar. These are subclasses of words of one or another part of speech, which are characterized by a common element of lexical meaning that determines their fammatical properties. For example, the following verbal lexical and grammatical categories are distinguished: transitive and intransitive verbs (which determine the possibility or impossibility of forming forms of the passive voice); personal / impersonal verbs (having a different set of forms of the person category); limit / non-limit (or, in other terminology, terminative / non-terminal) verbs that affect the formation of aspect pairs (see § 11). Lexico-grammatical categories differ from grammatical categories in the absence of a general categorical meaning that has specific realizations in individual categories, and in the absence of a system of morphological forms of expression of these realizations.
Morphology is the science of the behavior of a word, which manifests itself in two aspects: in the aspect of interaction with other words and in the aspect of the expressed meaning.
The concept of a grammatical method (already a morphological method), or a morphological technique, is associated with the opposition of grammar and vocabulary.
Both vocabulary units and grammatical units are symbolic, that is, form (expression) and content (meaning, meaning, semantics) are conjugated in them.
In grammar, the selection of a unit turns out to be a very non-trivial procedure. Moreover, grammatical units themselves, due to regularity and obligation grammatical meanings are not self-sufficient, they are a manifestation of grammatical ways, techniques, types of expression.
The grammatical method is associated with linguistic typology, with the idea of the grammatical structure of the language. The method is associated with the means. A method is a certain mechanism, and a means is a representing material, more precisely, symbolic unit.
Can be distinguished 5 major morphological ways used in modern Russian literary language. What makes them basic is that they have a segmental expression, that is, with the exception of "isolation" as immutability, a material carrier of a grammatical meaning or its position can be presented. In addition, these methods are used very regularly.
1. Inflectional method (inflection). The tool used in this method is flexion. Flexion is a system morpheme. This means that if a word has a position for inflection, then it must be filled. At the same time, different filling in the general case expresses different meanings, opposed to each other as private ones, together forming a common, single meaning. Particular values in the aggregate meaningfully exhaust this general meaning. Thus, inflection actually, in a statement, operates and exists alone, but potentially, in a paradigm, a word or system of forms has at least two inflections.
The second feature of inflection is its ability to express several particular meanings at once. Thus, the inflection of a noun simultaneously expresses the particular meaning of number and case. The paradigm of inflectional inflection is, as a rule, a two-dimensional matrix in which all word forms are opposed to each other.
Since inflection expresses several meanings at once, it cannot be said that potentially, in the language system, a particular grammatical meaning is expressed by only one inflection or one word form. Therefore, for inflectional languages, a special term is required, denoting a part of a paradigm that, in the aggregate, expresses a particular grammatical meaning within a categorical meaning. Such a term exists: it is a gramme, a series of forms united by a particular grammatical meaning and opposed to other series of forms expressing other particular meanings within a categorical meaning. For example, the gramme of the genitive case of a noun Spring consists of words spring and spring, opposed to other case grammes. Therefore, it is theoretically incorrect to say that the preposition in fit with form accusative case of a noun, there are two such forms, it is correct to say that it is combined with the gramme of the accusative case of a noun.
Inflection, thus, expresses all the grammatical meanings necessary for the full functioning of the word, being, as it were, a closing morpheme that complements an agrammatic or incompletely grammatically formed stem to a full-fledged word form. This leads to what E. Sapir called fusion: fusion, merging of the stem and inflection into a single word form, perceived as an integral unit. Therefore, in the school practice of declension, it is not a basis with a matrix that includes the entire set of inflections, but a matrix that includes the word forms of the word.
In addition, a feature of the inflectional method is that it expresses the categories of dependence, that is, the subordination of a word to other words in a syntagma, forming syntactic links.
2. Agglutination - attachment to the root, stem or inflection of an affix that has one grammatical meaning: suffix, prefix (prefix), postfix. The attached affix expresses this meaning, the absence of the affix indicates that this meaning does not exist or that the meaning assigned to the word "default" is accepted.
The means of agglutination are grammatical suffixes, postfixes and, to a lesser extent and with less obviousness, prefixes.
In agglutinative languages, inflection is the addition to a root (or stem) of a series of agglutinative affixes, each of which carries one meaning. There are two problems with this:
1) the problem of the integrity of the word, the presence of a clear boundary between the root, which can be used independently, and the sequence of affixes. In the Altaic languages, this problem is solved by the so-called vowel harmony: the vowels of all affixes take the same row (or rise) as the vowels of the root are characterized by;
2) the problem of the order of succession of affixes one after another, in connection with which the grammar of agglutinative languages is called the grammar of orders.
In inflectional Russian, agglutination is rare and extremely irregular. Consistently it is used only in the verb word and adjective. The categories formed by it have a disputable morphological status: type, pledge, degree of comparison. The only exception is, perhaps, the expression of the number of the verb imperative with the help of a postfix -those: go - go those , let's go - let's go those .
Agglutinative affixes, as a rule, mark systems of forms that are completely opposed to each other, for example, participles opposed to other systems of verb forms, or a past tense gramme of the indicative mood, opposed to grammes of other tenses, or isolated word forms that are not capable of inflectional change, for example, infinitive or gerund of a verb, analytical (invariant) comparative of an adjective.
3. Analyticism. A. Schleicher divided languages into three morphological types (systems): isolating, agglutinating and inflectional. A more formal quantitative classification used the concepts of analyticism, synthetism, and polysynthetism, given the existence of incorporating languages.
Analyticism is of two non-mutually exclusive types:
- "Isolation", immutability, widely represented, for example, in Chinese.
– The use of function words, which is typical, for example, for modern English.
In modern Russian, both possibilities are used: a) the composition of invariable words is constantly replenished, including adverbs, nouns and, less often, analytical adjectives, the question of the existence of which was raised, but not decided by M.V. Panov, b) four large classes of functional words are used and also replenished: prepositions, conjunctions, particles and bundles.
4. Supletivism. The means of this curious, from the point of view of the organization of the language, and asystemic method is the root, the name of which, more often in combination with affixes, opposes part of the word forms to another part of the word forms within the grammatical category. Since for a native speaker the root is the material basis of the word, the guarantor of its unity and integrity, suppletivism is found in the most archaic and most frequent part of the vocabulary, which is acquired in the unconscious period of life. However, there are also suppletive formations that are quite late from the point of view of the existence of the language, for example, the pronoun of the 3rd person: he/Æ – th. Etymologically, the gramme of the nominative case has the basis of a demonstrative pronoun he, and grammes of indirect cases go back to the demonstrative pronoun and. Nevertheless, this relatively new phenomenon in our language corresponds to the general trend towards suppletivism in the system of personal pronouns.
One case of suppletivism - in a species pair put throughout the life of several generations, it causes a whole war between “elitist” and “democratic” native speakers: the democratically minded part of the Russian language community demands the elimination of suppletivism and does not pay attention to the norm.
5. Syntagmatic way. This method is associated with language redundancy. The expression of some categories in the language is duplicated. This is primarily due to agreement, that is, the likening of the dependent word to the main one in the syntagma. Categories of dependence / assimilation / agreement - gender, number and case. For example, in the statement I pulled up in a beige taxi meanings of number, gender and case of an immutable noun Taxi are expressed by an adjective that agrees with it.
However, in addition to grammatical agreement, often of a formal nature, there is the so-called semantic, or semantic, agreement, in which semantic components coincide in the words that make up the syntagma. For example, in the statement We were in the city where the writer spent his childhood invariable pronoun where with spatial meaning agrees with the noun city semantically.
Thus, in addition to the affixal expression within a word, grammatical meanings are often expressed in neighboring significant words, their affixes (with formal agreement) or the lexemes themselves with identical semantic components. The first case represents an obvious syntagmatic expression, while the second case is less obvious.
Auxiliary methods, the action of which is not associated with segment, material means and / or irregularly, include
- word order: Mother(Them.) loves daughter(Vin.);
– accentuation, verbal and phrasal, So, verbs run through and run through having different kind, differ in terms of expression in most forms only by stress.
- repetition (reduplication), in Russian, which is a word-formation method, for example, red-red means 'very red'.