How I got cancer. Rami Blekt Intro to number four...
MORPHOLOGICAL TYPES OF LANGUAGES
Morphological typology (and this is chronologically the first and most developed area of typological research) takes into account, firstly, the ways of expressing grammatical meanings and, secondly, the nature morpheme compounds in the word. Depending on the ways of expressing grammatical meanings, there are synthetic and analytic languages(§ 26; see also § 27). Depending on the nature of the connection, morphemes are distinguished agglutinative and fusional languages(§§ 28-29).
26. Analytic and synthetic languages
In the languages of the world, there are two main groups of ways of expressing grammatical meanings: 1) synthetic ways and 2) analytical. Synthetic methods are characterized by the combination of a grammatical indicator with the word itself (this is the motivation for the term synthetic). Such an indicator that introduces the grammatical meaning "inside the word" can be ending, suffix, prefix, internal inflection(i.e. alternation of sounds in the root, for example, flow - flow - flow), change accents (legs - feet), suppletive modification word stems ( I - me, go - go, good - better), transfix(in Semitic languages: a complex consisting of several vowels, which is "woven" into a three-consonant root, adding to it
Most languages have both analytical and synthetic means of expressing grammatical meanings, but their specific weight varies. Depending on which methods prevail, languages of a synthetic and analytical type are distinguished. Synthetic languages include all Slavic languages (except Bulgarian), Sanskrit, Ancient Greek, Latin, Lithuanian, Yakut, German, Arabic, Swahili and many others. others
The languages of the analytical system include all the Romance languages, Bulgarian, English, Danish, Modern Greek, New Persian and many others. etc. Analytical methods in these languages prevail, however, synthetic grammatical means are also used to some extent.
Languages in which there are almost no possibilities for the synthetic expression of a number of grammatical meanings (as in Chinese, Vietnamese, Khmer, Lao, Thai, etc.), in early XIX in. called amorphous("formless"), i.e. as if devoid of form, but already Humboldt called them insulating. It has been shown that these languages are by no means devoid of grammatical form, just a series of grammatical meanings (namely, syntactic,
relational meanings) are expressed here separately, as if "isolated", from the lexical meaning of the word (For details, see Solntseva 1985, Solntsev 1995).
There are languages in which a word, on the contrary, turns out to be so “overburdened” with various auxiliary and dependent root morphemes that such a word turns into a sentence in meaning, but at the same time remains formalized as a word. Such a "word-sentence" device is called incorporation(lat. incorporate- "inclusion in its composition", from lat. in- "in and corpus- "body, whole"), and the corresponding languages - incorporating, or polysynthetic(some Indian languages, Chukchi, Koryak, etc.).
Synthetic(from Greek. synthesis- combination, compilation, association) - based on synthesis, united.
The disappearance of impersonal constructions in the languages of Indo-European origin seems to us, first of all, a consequence of analysis, that is, the transition from a synthetic system to an analytical one. For languages that gravitate towards an analytical device (French, English, Italian, Spanish, Bulgarian, Danish), the expression of grammatical meanings is characteristic not by the forms of the words themselves, but by the intonation of the sentence, auxiliary words with significant words and the order of significant words. In synthetic languages (Russian, Ancient Greek, Latin, Old Slavonic, Lithuanian), on the contrary, grammatical meanings are expressed within the word itself (affixation, internal inflection, stress, suppletivism, etc.). A.V. Schlegel named the following main characteristics of analytical languages: 1) the use of a definite article; 2) the use of the subject-pronoun with the verb; 3) use of auxiliary verbs; 4) the use of prepositions instead of case endings; 5) the use of periphrastic degrees of comparison with the help of adverbs (Siemund, 2004, S. 170). Since many impersonal constructions are inherited from the synthetic Indo-European proto-language (see below), their structure implies the existence of an extensive case system that makes it possible to clearly distinguish between subject and object. With the disappearance of the corresponding inflections, the personal constructions that depend on them invariably fall out of use. Those that do not depend on the distinction between subject and object are preserved (in particular, the weather type Morosit), which contradicts the thesis about the replacement of the irrational type of thinking by rational, allegedly reflected in the disappearance of the impersonal.
If we compare modern English with much more synthetic Old English, it turns out that impersonal phrases that have almost disappeared today were used earlier in a disproportionately larger volume. Here are some of them.
Nature:
Hit friest (Freeze); Hit winterlamp;cep (It's getting cold, winter is coming); Nit hagolad (There is hail); Hit rind (It's raining); Hit smwd (It's snowing); Hit blamp; wd (Blowing (wind)); Hit styrmd (Stormy); Hit lieht (Sparkles (lightning)); Hitpunrad (Thunder (thunder)); Hit (ge) widerap (It cleared up); Hit leohtad/frumlieht/dagad (Dawn); Hit sefenlamp;cd famp;fnad (Evening), etc.
Physical and mental states:
Him camp;ld (He is cold); Him swiercd (It went dark before his eyes); Hit turnep abutan his heafod (He is dizzy); Hine sec(e)p (He hurts); Hit (be)cymd him to adle /geyfelad (He got sick); Hine hyngred (He wants to eat); Hine pyrst (ed) (He is thirsty); Him (ge) licad (He likes it); Him gelustfullad (Heamily); Him (ge)lyst(ed) (He wants to); Hine (ge) hriewd / hreowsad (He repents); Him (ge) scamap (He is ashamed); Hine priet (He is tired); Him ofpynced (He is sad, unpleasant); Him (ge)m^t(ed) / (ge)swefnad (He dreams); Him (ge)pync(e)d (It seems to him); Him mispync(e)d (He is delusional); Him (ge) tweod / (ge) tweonad (He doubts), etc.
Modal values:
(Hit) Behofad / (ge)neodad / bepearf (Need); Gebyred / gedafenad / be- lim(e)d /gerist (Should), Liefd (May), etc.
In total, in the book by N. Wahlen “Old English impersonal verbs”, from which these examples are taken, 121 verbs with impersonal meanings are described (some of them had several), of which 17 verbs are marked “uncertain impersonalia” (Wahlen, 1925). Enough detailed list impersonal verbs used in various periods of history in English language, can also be found in the book Diachronic Analysis of English Impersonal Constructions with an Experiencer (Krzyszpien, 1990, pp. 39-143). All verbs were used in the form of 3 l. units hours, that is, the same as in Russian (McCawley, 1976, p. 192; Pocheptsov, 1997, p. 482). Subjects with them, if any were present at all, stood in dative or accusative. Constructions that did not require dative and accusative subjects, for the most part, have survived to this day, while the rest, with rare exceptions, have disappeared because they did not fit into new order words “subject (nom.) gt; predicate gt; supplement (acc.)".
As can be seen from the translations, some impersonal constructions of the Old English language do not have exact equivalents in Russian, which is why personal constructions were used to convey their meaning. Although this list is far from complete, there is every reason to believe that the sphere of impersonality was still much less developed even in Old English than in modern Russian. This is due, however, not to the peculiarities of the national character of the Germans, but to a significant degree of analysis of Old English. There were not six cases in it, as in Old Russian, Russian and Proto-Germanic languages (Ringe, 2006, p. 233; Bukatevich et al., 1974, p. 119; Borkovsky, Kuznetsov, 2006, p. 177; Bomhard, Kerns, 1994 , p. 20), and not eight, as in the Indo-European language (nominative, vocative, accusative, dative, genitive, instrumental, ablative and locative) (“Atlas of World Languages”, 1998, p. 28; “The Cambridge History of the English Language", 1992. Vol. 1, p. 4748; Brugmann, 1904, S. 417-445; Mallory, Adams, 2006, p. 56; Hudson-
Williams, 1966, p. 46; Green, 1966, p. ten; Emerson, 1906, p. 160), but only four (with the remains of the fifth); even then, as can be seen from the examples from the first group, the formal subject it (OE hit) was used, although not always; even then articles and other functional words were born, and the dual number was found only in a few ossified forms (Jespersen, 1918, p. 24; Jespersen, 1894, p. 160; Emerson, 1906, p. 182; Moore, 1919, p. 49 ; Mitchell and Robinson, 2003, pp. 19, 106-107; Arakin, 2003, pp. 73-74, 143). Thus, it can be confidently asserted that even Old English is much further from the Indo-European proto-language than modern Russian. This circumstance is partly due to the smaller number of impersonal constructions. We emphasize, however, that the most active phase of analysis dates back to 1050-1350, and it is precisely the degree of synthesis / analyticism that Middle English most differs from Old English (Janson, 2002, p. 157; Meiklejohn, 1891, p. 317-318), also called “ a period of complete endings” (Krapp, 1909, p. 62).
According to the method of typological indices of J. Greenberg, the index of synthesis of the English language has a value of 1.62-1.68, Russian - 2.45-3.33 (for comparison: Old Church Slavonic - 2.29, Finnish - 2.22, Sanskrit - 2, 59, Pali - 2.81-2.85, Yakut - 2.17, Swahili - 2.55, Armenian - 2.15, Turkish - 2.86) (Zelenetsky, 2004, p. 25; Haarmann, 2004, S 79; Siemund, 2004, S. 193; Sargsyan, 2002, p. 10; Pirkola, 2001). The technique consists in the fact that on a segment of the text containing 100 words, all cases of a particular linguistic phenomenon are recorded and counted; in this case- the number of morphemes, which is then divided by 100. Languages with a value between 2 and 3 are considered synthetic, more than 3 - polysynthetic, less than 2 - analytic. The maximum of synthetism in European languages is observed in Gothic (2.31), in general in the languages of the world - in Eskimo (3.72), the minimum of synthetism - in Vietnamese (1.06). The calculations were not carried out for all languages. The analysis of some Indo-European languages is evident from the following data: in Old Persian, the synthetic index was 2.41, in modern Persian - 1.52; in ancient Greek - 2.07, in modern Greek - 1.82; in Old English the synthesis index was 2.12, in modern English it was a maximum of 1.68 (Haarmann, 2004, S. 72). The calculation of the systemic index of synthesism of verbs (temporal forms) showed that for Russian it is 0.8, for English - 0.5, for even more analytical Afrikaans - 0.2; in terms of the development of verbal analyticism, among the Indo-European languages, the German ones are in the lead (Zelenetsky, 2004, p. 182). The Indo-European parent language was synthetic, which, according to I. Balles, no one doubts at the current stage of research (Hinrichs, 2004 b, S. 19-20, 21; cp. Haarmann, 2004, S. 78; “The Oxford History of English”, 2006, p. 13).
According to the scale of inflection A.V. Shirokov's Russian belongs to the second group (inflectional languages with separate features of analyticism). AT this group includes most Slavic languages. English belongs to the fourth group (inflectional-analytical with a large number of analytical features) (Shirokova, 2000, p. 81). Altogether Shirokova distinguishes four degrees of analyticism. English belongs to the group of the most analyzed languages. The most inflectional (the first group) are only extinct languages: Old Indian, Old Iranian, Latin, Old Church Slavonic. The Lithuanian language is considered the most archaic in terms of the preservation of the case system (Comrie, 1983, p. 208; cp. Jespersen, 1894, p. 136), it uses seven cases.
Note that a reduction in the number of cases (and at the same time, inflections) is observed in all Indo-European languages, but in Slavic, Baltic, Armenian and Ossetian languages - to a lesser extent than, for example, in Romance and Germanic languages (Vostrikov, 1990, p. 43). The presumed reason for this conservatism is linguistic contacts with some non-Indo-European languages, which also have a rich system of inflections (according to G. Wagner, "each language is in typological relationship with the neighboring language" (cited in: Haarmann, 2004, S. 75)). In the case of Armenian and Ossetian, we are talking about contacts with Caucasian languages, in the case of Slavic and Baltic languages, with Finno-Ugric languages. It is also possible that there are other factors that will be discussed later. U. Hinrichs also points to the possible mutual influence of the Finno-Ugric languages (Estonian, Finnish, Hungarian and others) and Slavic (Russian, Slovene, Czech and others), thanks to which both groups managed to maintain a high degree of synthetism, comparable only to the synthetism of Icelandic outside this group. zones (Hinrichs, 2004b, S. 19-20). The Russian language turned out to be especially “anti-analytical”, according to some characteristics it even moves away from other Indo-European languages in the direction of greater synthetism. Hinrichs notes the maximum degree of analyticity in Creole languages, as well as in some African languages (Hinrichs, 2004 b, S. 21). This is an important remark, considering how often the analytical system was attributed to the expression of progressive thinking, rationality, an active attitude to life, and so on. For example, in the Yoruba language of the Benue-Congo family (West Africa), the Greenberg Synthetic Index is 1.09 (Pirkola, 2001).
H. Haarmann contrasts (on a global scale) highly synthetic languages such as Finnish, Russian and Basque with highly analytical types of English, French and Swedish (Haarmann, 2004, p. 76). Among the Baltic, he calls the Lithuanian language especially conservative, among the German ones - Icelandic; Slavic languages are, in his opinion, especially conservative in comparison with modern English due to the influence of the Uralic languages (Haarmann, 2004, S. 79, 83).
Consider the difference between analytic and synthetic languages with specific examples. To express identical semantic content in an English text, approximately 10% more words are required than in synthetic Armenian, since in English texts one-third of all words are functional words, and in Armenian - one quarter (Sarkisyan, 2002, p. 5). Prepositions make up 12% of words in an average English text and
- % - in Armenian. L. Weisgerber in his book “On the Picture of the World of the German Language” cites the following data: French translations of German poetry usually contain 11% more words than the original. This is explained by the fact that the French language is much more analytical, and therefore prone to the use of functional words instead of case endings. Instead of the genitive and dative, translators use the prepositions de and a; German composites are replaced by phrases, also fastened with prepositions (Eisenbahn gt; chemin de fer - “ Railway”) (Weisgerber, 1954, S. 251). Similar transformations can be observed when translating from Old English into Modern English:
- instead of case endings, prepositions or conjunctions are used: metodes ege gt; fear of the Lord - “fear of the Lord” (the genitive changed to the preposition of), dages ond nihtes gt; by day and night - “day and night” (the genitive changed to the preposition by), dare ylcan nihte gt; in the same night - “on the same night” (the dative changed to the preposition in), lytle werode gt; with a small band - “with a small detachment” (the instrumental case has changed to the preposition with), py ilcan geare gt; in the same year - “in the same year” (the instrumental case changed to the preposition in); sunnan beorhtra gt; brighter than the sun - “brighter than the sun” and Ic eom stane heardra gt; I am harder than stone - “I am harder than stone” (in both cases, the dative was offset by the conjunction than) (Mitchell, Robinson, 2003, p. 105-106; cp. Kington Oliphant, 1878, p. 8; Crystal, 1995, p. 44; Kellner, 1892, p. 17);
- Old English composites break up into their component parts in modern English or are paraphrased: hell-waran gt; inhabitants of hell, storm-sa gt; stormy sea, ar-dag gt; early day, eall-wealda gt; ruler of all, hdah-gerdfa
- high reeve (chief officer) (Mitchell and Robinson, 2003, p. 56; Bradley, 1919, p. 105-106); many fell out of use under the pressure of the French vocabulary: fore-elders gt; ancestors, fair-hood gt; beauty, wanhope gt; despair, earth-tilth
- agriculture, gold-hoard gt; treasure, book-hoard gt; library, star-craft gt; astronomy, learning-knight gt; disciple, leech-craft gt; medicine (Eckersley, 1970, p. 428; Bradley, 1919, p. 118-119).
On the other hand, synthetic languages are more likely to use affixation (Zelenetsky and Monakhov, 1983, pp. 109, 173-174, 190; Schneider, 2003, pp. 76, 123; Grinberg, 1963). According to L.V. Sargsyan, in the average Armenian text, the number of models of morphemic structure used in
- times more than in English (49 models in Armenian, 32 models in English) (Sarkisyan, 2002, p. 8). After reviewing detailed statistics on various parts speech, the author comes to the conclusion: “Thus, the restriction of affixation, at least materially expressed, in analytical English is a general trend and applies to both significant and functional words, which is clearly revealed in comparison with Armenian” (Sarkisyan, 2002, p. 10). If the class of German verbal prefixes is represented by only 8 units, then the Russian Grammar literary language"(M., 1970) lists 23 units: if there are about 100 suffixes in the class of nouns in the Russian language, then in German there are less than 50; for adjectives, this ratio is 30 to 9 (Zelenetsky, Monakhov, 1983, pp. 181-182). In English, there are about 50 more or less commonly used prefixes and somewhat fewer common suffixes (Crystal, 1995, p. 128), that is, in English, about the same number of affixes are used for all parts of speech as in Russian only for nouns (about 100). According to K.K. Shvachko, out of 100 nouns formed by adding a suffix and a prefix to the generating stem, on average, there are 1-2 in English, 4-5 in Russian and Ukrainian; both suffixation and prefixation are more widely represented in Russian and Ukrainian (Shvachko et al., 1977, p. 32). If in German diminutive suffixes are still found (although infrequently compared to Russian), then in more analytical Swedish (also one of the Germanic languages), diminutive forms are almost completely absent (Weisgerber, 1954, S. 46). However, the fact that diminutive suffixes were almost never used in Synthetic Old English (Bradley, 1919, p. 138) may serve as evidence of the initial disinclination of some Germanic linguistic communities to certain types of derivation, due, perhaps, to the peculiarities of the mentality or alternative ways of expressing those the same values. The disinclination to affixation is compensated to some extent by active compounding. Thus, the frequency of the use of composites in English fiction is approximately twice as high as in Russian and Ukrainian (Shvachko et al., 1977, p. 33). Aversion to affixation is also manifested in the prevalence of grammatical homonymy. For example, in the average Armenian text, homonyms are potentially possible in 20.8% of words, in the English text - in 34.4% (Sarkisyan, 2002, p. 6). There are more homonyms in English than in German (Pirkola, 2001).
ought to, used to; the last four are called semi-modal (McArthur, 1998, p. 57). The largest German dictionary “Muret-Sanders e-GroBworterbuch Englisch” lists 12 English and 4 German auxiliary verbs. M. Deutschbein believes that the English verb to want (to want) in contexts like the following is also used as a modal: It wants to be done with patience (This must be done patiently); The collars want washing (Collars need to be washed); What he wants is a good beating (Deutschbein, 1953, S. 100).
The degree of synthetism is also directly related to the average word length (due to the more active use of affixation and endings in synthetic languages): in Russian it is 2.3 syllables, in more analytical German - 1.6 syllables, in even more analytical French - 1 ,5 syllables, in English - 1.4 syllables (Zelenetsky, 2004, p. 65) (according to L.V. Sargsyan, the average length of an English word is 1.34 syllables (Sarkisyan, 2002, p. 15)). Even more "laconic" isolating Chinese, where there are no inflections at all, that is, case, gender and number are practically not marked (Yinghong, 1993, S. 36, 38; Jespersen, 1894, p. 80), composites are almost never found (Champneys, 1893, pp. 58-59), and each word consists of one syllable and two or three primary phonemes (Bloomfield, 2002, p. 192; Jespersen, 1894, p. 80). If the Greek Gospel has 39,000 syllables, the English Gospel has 29,000, then the Chinese Gospel has only 17,000 (Jungraithmayr, 2004, p. 483). The isolating languages, of which Chinese is one, are often regarded as the most complete expression of the analytic order. J. Micklejohn noted that there is a whole layer of English children's literature, where all words consist of one syllable (to facilitate understanding), and that it is incommensurably easier to write such books in English than in other Indo-European languages (Meiklejohn, 1891, p. 322; cp. Bradley, 1919, pp. 50-51, 77; Shirokova, 2000,
with. 137). According to L.V. Sargsyan, simple words in the English text are
4/
they put almost /5 of all the words of the text, while in Armenian only half of all words belong to simple words (Sarkisyan, 2002, pp. 7-8). For nouns, these figures are 75% in English and 30% in Armenian, for verbs - 80% and 6%. In Armenian, a word can contain up to 7 morphemes (for frequent words - no more than four), in English - up to 5 morphemes (for frequent words - no more than two). The range of word length in synthetic Armenian is greater than in analytical English: up to 7 syllables in Armenian, up to 5 in English (Sarkisyan, 2002, p. 13). In the Russian language, there are relatively few monosyllabic words, although in the Slavic languages there was a death of inflections: first, when final consonants fell off due to the operation of the law of an open syllable, then due to the fall of reduced short vowels - er, which took place at the end of the Common Slavic period (Ivanov, 2004, p. 40 ). For comparison: for every 100 word forms in English, on average, there are 56 monosyllabic ones, while in Russian and Ukrainian their number is 10 (Shvachko et al., 1977, pp. 13-14). The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics notes that words in inflected languages are longer than words in isolating languages and shorter than words in agglutinative languages; the average length of words in inflectional languages is 2-3 syllables (“Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics”, 2006, p. 6952). One of the universals of the “Archive of Universals” of the University of Konstanz says: “Words tend to be longer if constituent order is free than if it is rigid” (“The Universals Archive”, 2007), which we observe in the case of a rigid word order in English and relatively free in Russian.
Let's talk about the connection of the impersonal with the number of cases. S. Grimm writes in the article “Subject-marking in Hindi/Urdu: A study in case and agency” that studies of impersonal constructions in various languages of the world allow us to see the following universal trend: if a case system is developed in a particular language, then there is a high probability framing a subject with low agency or a subject subject to some kind of influence in an alternative case that is not the standard case of the subject (Grimm, 2006, p. 27). In particular, subjects prone to non-standard design may lack one of the following qualities or a combination of them: volition, awareness of the action being performed, impact on something while maintaining their qualities, movement. Native speakers of any language question the agentivity of the subject if he is not aware of his actions (or is in some state against his will), does not act intentionally, at his own will, is noticeable to others, with a clear result for whom -something of the object and without visible feedback on itself (Grimm, 2006, p. 29). If the subject is framed with a dative, this may indicate a relatively passive character of the subject, awareness of the impact on him and a change in some of his qualities. For example, in Hindi and Urdu, subjects are dative when verbs of perception, mental activity, obligation, coercion, need, need, etc., are formed, that is, when a person is clearly influenced from the outside by some circumstances, forces or other people. Often one can choose one of two variants of the same construction, where the nominative one means, depending on the context, the presence or absence of volition, and the dative one only the absence of volition: Hindi Tusaar khus huaa (Tushar became happy) (nom.) - Tusaarko khusii huii (Touchard became happy), literally (Touchard became happy) (Dat.) (Grimm, 2006, p. 34). It is important to note that the nominative does not mark agency at all, but only implies it in a certain context; Grimm writes about this: “Unlike other cases, the nominative can mark any degree of agency, that is, it is not a marker of agency” (Grimm, 2006, p. 35). This remark will allow us to further understand why nominative languages such as English are not at all as agentive as many modern ethnolinguists claim, based solely on the design of subjects by the nominative. The decisive role is played not by the case of the subject, but by the context, and this context may indicate the non-volitionality of the action or state of the subject, despite the design in the nominative or common case. The fact that nominative languages cannot mark this difference in meaning grammatically indicates the limitations of linguistic means, the pressure of the language system on the speakers of the corresponding language, but not their greater agency. It is noteworthy that in languages where ergative and nominative structures are mixed, the ergative case is often used to express a greater degree of volition / agentivity.
M. Onishi reports on the following universal regularities in the use of impersonal constructions. In languages where the case system makes it possible to distinguish between standard and custom design subject, non-standard framing often occurs in the case of so-called low transitivity, that is, when, for example, the subject is inanimate or obscure, indefinite, as well as in the imperfect, with a stative meaning, in the subjunctive mood (Onishi, 2001 a, p. 5; cp. Haspelmath, 2001, p. 56). By static meaning, the author means the description of states as opposed to the description of actions. In order to experience some state, the subject does not need as much will and influence on the external world as for the production of some action; moreover, the subject of the state can often be inanimate at all (the Stone was lying), which is rather an exception in the case of the producer of the transitional action (sentences like the Stone broke the glass usually imply that the action was nevertheless performed by someone animate through some inanimate tools). In stative constructions, adjectives and adverbs are often used instead of verbs.
Further, M. Onishi mentions groups of verbs with modal values(“need”, “should”, “be able”, “seem”, “want”), verbs with a clear effect on the subject, having physical consequences for him (“have a headache”, “freeze”, “feel hungry”, “get sick”, “sweat”, “shake”), verbs with weak agentivity of the subject and little or no effect on the object (“see”, “hear”, “know”, “remember”, “think”, “like”, “hate”, “sympathize”, “miss”, “be like”), verbs of mental states, feelings and emotions (“get angry”, “sad”, “be ashamed”, “surprise”), verbs related to fate and occasion, verbs of possession, lack, existence (Onishi, 2001 a, pp. 25, 28). If in certain language there are impersonal constructions with the semantics of fate and chance, then it will also contain impersonal constructions of mental states, feelings, emotions, constructions of perception and mental activity (“see”, “hear”, “know”, “remember”), constructions of sympathy (“ like”, “hate”, “sympathize”, “miss...”), constructions of desire (“want”), necessity (“need”, “should”, “be necessary”) and constructions of possession, existence, lack (“lack”, “have”) (Onishi, 2001 a, p. 42). If in a certain language the subject can be marked non-standardly with verbs of desire, then in the same language impersonal constructions of the internal state, feelings and emotions will certainly be common; the prevalence of impersonal constructions of physical state and perception is also high (Onishi, 2001 a, p. 43). Most often, the subject is marked in an alternative way if the action is performed without his desire, regardless of his consciousness and will, if the subject does not control some action or state (Onishi, 2001 a, p. 36). If the subject is formed in a non-standard way, the verb usually does not agree with it, but is put in the most neutral form such as Russian 3 l. units hours (Onishi, 2001 a, pp. 6-7; cp. Bauer, 2000, pp. 95). It should be emphasized that M. Onishi has in mind the tendencies not only of the Indo-European languages, but also of all languages of the world. Even in isolating languages, where there are usually no inflections, the possibility of expressing the dative in some way implies the presence of impersonal constructions in the same meanings as indicated above, cf. Japanese Kare ni wa sake ga nome nai (He can't drink Japanese wine, literally: He can't...); "cases" here are marked with particles after nouns, if in this case it is generally legitimate to speak of cases.
M. Haspelmat largely repeats what M. Onishi said. Here we note his explanation of the non-standard labeling of the subject-experiencer in the languages of the world. Haspelmath believes that standard marking, regardless of language, refers primarily to the agent, more precisely, to the active subject in the transitive verb of action (Haspelmath, 2001, p. 59). It is such a subject that is prototypical, and all deviations from it are usually marked in some way. This is usually done either by dative subjects like fr. Ce livre luiplait (He likes this book), Gr. (modern) Tu aresi afto to vivlio (He likes this book) (experiencer is in the dative, the second noun is in the nominative, and the form of the verb depends on it), or the experiencer is formed by the usual object in the accusative, and the second noun is the subject -pseudoagent, cf. German Dieses Problem beunruhigt mich (I am worried about this problem); or the experiencer is framed as if he is an agent, cf. English He hates this book (He hates this book); "he" is in the nominative, that is, in the standard case of the agent, although the subject does not carry this semantic role. The first experiencer is called dative, the second is patient, and the third is agentive (Haspelmath, 2001, p. 60).
European languages prefer to use the agentive variant; Celtic, Caucasian and Finno-Ugric - to the dative, which is explained by the multifunctionality of the nominative in European languages and the presence of a developed case system in the rest (Haspelmath, 2001, p. 61). The multifunctionality of the nominative means that it plays the role of not only an agent, but also an experiencer (I like her - I like her), and an owner (I have it - I have it), and a recipient (I got it - I got it), and location (The hotel houses 400 guests) (Haspelmath, 2001, p. 55). Haspelmat also cites interesting statistics showing the distribution of agentive and other experiential speakers in 40 European languages (however, the “Europeanness” of some languages can be called into question). Verbs with the meanings “see”, “forget”, “remember”, “freeze”, “be hungry”, “thrive to drink”, “have a headache”, “rejoice”, “regret” and “like” were tested. Dative experimenters were not separated from patients. All languages were distributed on a scale, where "0" means that all the tested subjects in the macrorole of the experimenter are made in the agentic, "5" - that all the experimenters are made in the dative or accusative (like Rus. I want, I feel sick). Here are the results: English (0.0)
- French (0.12) = Swedish (0.12) = Norwegian (0.12) lt; Portuguese (0.14)lt; Hungarian (0.22)lt; Breton (0.24) = Basque (0.24) lt; Greek (0.27)lt; Spanish (0.43)lt; Turkish (0.46)lt; Italian (0.48) = Bulgarian (0.48) lt; Dutch (0.64) lt; Maltese (0.69)lt; German (0.74)lt; Serbo-Croatian (0.75) lt; Chettian (0.76) lt; Mari (0.79) lt; Lapland (Sami) (0.81) lt; Lithuanian (0.83) = Estonian (0.83) lt; Finnish (0.87)lt; Polish (0.88)lt; Welsh (0.92) lt; Albanian (1.02)lt; Udmurt (1.09) lt; Mordovian (1.16) (obviously meaning Erzya or Moksha) lt; Latvian (1.64) lt; Russian (2.11) lt; Irish (2.21)
- Romanian (2.25)lt; Icelandic (2.29) lt; Georgian (3.08)lt; Lezgi (5.0) (Haspelmath, 2001, p. 62).
Speaking about the large number of impersonal constructions in the Russian language, one should also mention its uniqueness in terms of adherence to the synthetic system, since it is the development of the case system that makes alternative marking of the subject possible. It is well known that many synthetic languages of Indo-European origin have either become analytic or have died out over the last five or six thousand years. For example, in the "Fundamentals of the Science of Language" A.Yu. Musorin (Musorin, 2004) cites only three extinct analytic languages (Bactrian from the Iranian group, Dalmatian from the Romance group, Cornish from the Celtic group, now artificially revived) and 19 synthetic languages (see Appendix 1 b). Since many Indo-European languages of the synthetic system have already died out and a number of others are dying out, and the movement from analytical languages towards synthetic ones in the Indo-European family is not observed at all (cp. Zhirmunsky, 1940, p. 29; Hinrichs, 2004 b, S. 17-18; Haarmann, 2004, S. 82; van Nahl, 2003, S. 3; Melnikov, 2000; Emerson, 1906, pp. 160, 164; Shirokova, 2000, p. 81; Ryadchenko, 1970), it can be assumed that a pronounced The synthetic nature of the Russian language, combined with its prevalence, is a single and unique phenomenon for this group of languages.
Since the end of the twentieth century. in Russia, there is a renaissance of ethnolinguistic theories that associate various negative characteristics of the Russian mentality with the synthetic system or its individual features: passivity, lack of will, totalitarianism, disrespect for the individual, etc. Below we will repeatedly dwell on such statements in order to show their unfoundedness. Here we confine ourselves to one thing: Russian passivity is somehow connected with the synthetic structure of the language. The inconsistency of this opinion is already visible from the geographical distribution of this system (see the list in Appendix 1 a). It is not clear, for example, why a passive attitude to life is not attributed, say, to the Icelanders, whose language is also weakly subject to analysis and therefore, in many grammatical characteristics, including the development of the impersonal, is similar to Russian. Moreover, if we admit high level analyticism as a measure of an active attitude to life, then we will be forced to classify some African and Papuan tribes as the most active (agentive) peoples of the Earth, and among the speakers of Indo-European languages - the inhabitants of the Republic of South Africa who speak Afrikaans (the most analyzed Indo-European language) .
Let us add that some non-Indo-European languages are currently developing from an analytical system to a synthetic one, that is, analysis is not a universal process inherent in all languages. V.V. Ivanov notes, for example, that Ancient Chinese was a synthetic language, modern Chinese is analytical, but gradually begins to return to a synthetic system (Ivanov, 1976; cp. Ivanov, 2004, p. 71; Trombetti, 1950, p. 164; Jespersen, 1894 , p. 83). He also argued that there is no reason to assume always one direction of movement - from synthesis to analysis; The author argues that modern linguistics unable to look deep enough into linguistic history (Ivanov, 2004, p. 72).
Further development of syntheticity is observed in the Finno-Ugric languages (Veenker, 1967, p. 202; Comrie, 2004, p. 422). For example, already in the historical period, the number of cases in Finnish and Hungarian increased. H. Haarmann writes that the Uralic languages, to which the Finno-Ugric languages belong, are not moving towards an isolating type, like Indo-Europeans, but from isolating to agglutinative (Haarmann, 2004, S. 78). B. Comrie speaks of the growth of synthesis in Basque (Comrie, 2004, p. 429). In Lithuanian, after the separation from Indo-European, the illative, allative and adessive developed, and in this case, too, the influence of the Finno-Ugric substratum is assumed (Comrie, 2004, p. 421). In French, the modern synthetic form of the future tense was formed from the merger of the analytical forms of folk Latin and the stem of the semantic verb (habere (“to have”) + infinitive), that is, sometimes a movement towards synthetism can be observed in modern analytical languages of Indo-European origin (Bailey, Maroldt , 1977, p. 40). In the Indian languages, over a chronological interval of a little over two millennia, a cyclic process of transition from the synthetic to the analytical system and vice versa took place (Klimov, 1983, p. 167). G.A. Klimov postulates the cyclical transformation of various language types from one to another (including inflection and analysis), therefore, as he believes, there is no reason to talk about the progress of French or English, which allegedly manifests itself in a greater degree of analysis (Klimov, 1983, p. 139 -140). In confirmation of his words, G.A. Klimov cites the following quote from E. Benveniste: all types of languages “acquired an equal right to represent human language. Nothing in past history, no modern form of language, can be considered "original". A study of the most ancient languages attested shows that they are as perfect and no less complex than modern languages; analysis of the so-called primitive languages reveals their highly differentiated and ordered organization” (Klimov, 1983, p. 150).
Ch.-J. Bailey and K. Maroldt, when considering the analysis of English, also speak of the cyclical nature of the transformation of synthetic languages into analytical ones and vice versa. In the first case, we are talking about the result of an excessive complication of the system, leading to its collapse, or a mixture of languages, in the second, the transformation of auxiliary parts of speech into affixes as a result of merging (Bailey, Maroldt, 1977, pp. 40-41). I. Balles also speaks about the cyclicity of the synthetic and analytical system (Balles, 2004, S. 35). Chaos theory, described by H. Haarmann, calls into question a certain direction of language development, emphasizing the impact on each language of random and unpredictable factors (Haarmann, 2004, S. 77).
Thus, there is no reason to tie any mentality traits or the level of evolutionary / civilizational development to a certain grammatical structure or the degree of its preservation in comparison with related languages.
In the languages of the world, there are two main groups of ways of expressing grammatical meanings: 1) synthetic ways and 2) analytical. Synthetic methods are characterized by the combination of a grammatical indicator with the word itself (this is the motivation for the term synthetic). Such an indicator that introduces a grammatical meaning "inside the word" can be ending, suffix, prefix, internal inflection(i.e. alternation of sounds in the root, for example, flow - flows - flow), change accents(legs - legs)suppletive modification word bases (I - me, I go - I go, good - better),transfix(in Semitic languages: a complex consisting of several vowels, which is “woven” into a three-consonant root, adding lexico-grammatical and syntactic meanings to it and thus completing the root to the required word form), repeat morphemes.
A common feature of analytical methods is the expression of grammatical meaning outside the word, separately from it - for example, using prepositions, conjunctions, articles, auxiliary verbs and other auxiliary words, as well as using word order and the general intonation of the statement.
Most languages have both analytical and synthetic means of expressing grammatical meanings, but their specific weight varies. Depending on which methods prevail, languages of a synthetic and analytical type are distinguished. Synthetic languages include all Slavic languages (except Bulgarian), Sanskrit, Ancient Greek, Latin, Lithuanian, Yakut, German, Arabic, Swahili and many others. others
The languages of the analytical system include all the Romance languages, Bulgarian, English, Danish, Modern Greek, New Persian and many others. etc. Analytical methods in these languages prevail, however, synthetic and grammatical means are used to some extent.
Languages in which there are almost no possibilities for the synthetic expression of a number of grammatical meanings (as in Chinese, Vietnamese, Khmer, Lao, Thai, etc.) at the beginning of the 19th century. called amorphous("formless"), i.e. as if devoid of form, but already Humboldt called them insulating.
It was proved that these languages are by no means devoid of grammatical form, just a number of grammatical meanings (namely, syntactic, relational meanings) are expressed here separately, as if “isolated”, from the lexical meaning of the word.
There are languages in which a word, on the contrary, turns out to be so “overburdened” with various auxiliary and dependent root morphemes that such a word turns into a sentence in meaning, but at the same time remains shaped like a word. Such a device "word-sentence" is called incorporation(lat. incorporatio-"inclusion in one's composition", from lat. in- "in and corpus-"body, whole"), and the corresponding languages - incorporating, or polysynthetic(some Indian languages, Chukchi, Koryak, etc.).
4. Morphological typology of the languages of E. Sepir.
The new typological classification belongs to the American linguist E. Sapir (1921). Considering that all previous classifications are “a neat construction of a speculative mind”, E. Sapir made an attempt to give a “conceptual” classification of languages, based on the idea that “every language is a formalized language”, but that “a classification of languages, built on the distinction of relations, purely technical” and that it is impossible to characterize languages from only one point of view. Therefore, E. Sapir puts the expression of different types of concepts in the language as the basis of his classification: 1) root, 2) derivational, 3) mixed-relational and 4) purely relational (See Chapter IV, § 43.). The last two points should be understood in such a way that the meanings of relations can be expressed in the words themselves (by changing them) together with lexical meanings - these are mixed relational meanings; or separately from words, for example, word order, auxiliary words and intonation - these are purely relational concepts. The second aspect of E. Sapir is that very “technical” side of expressing relations, where all grammatical methods are grouped into four possibilities: a) isolation (i.e. ways of function words, word order and intonation), b) agglutination, with) fusion (the author deliberately separates the two types of affixation, since their grammatical tendencies are very different) (Ibid.) and d) symbolization, where internal inflection, repetition and stress are combined. (In the case of tone stress, for example in the language of Shilluk (Africa), jit with a high tone is "ear", and with a low tone - "ears" - a very similar fact with vowel alternation). The third aspect is the degree of "synthesis" in grammar in three stages: analytical, synthetic and polysynthetic, i.e. from the absence of synthesis through normal synthesis to polysyntheism as "over-synthesis" (from the Greek polys- "many" and synthesis- "connection"). From all that has been said, E. Sapir obtains a classification of languages, shown in the table:
|
Basic type |
Degree of synthesis | ||
|
A. Simple purely relational languages |
1) Isolating 2) Isolating with agglutination |
Analytical |
Chinese, Annamese (Vietnamese), Ewe, Tibetan |
|
B. Complex purely relational languages |
1) Agglutinating, isolating |
Analytical |
Polynesian |
|
2) Agglutinating |
Synthetic |
Turkish |
|
|
3) Fusion-agglutinating |
Synthetic |
Classic Tibetan |
|
|
4) Symbolic |
Analytical | ||
|
B. Simple mixed-relational languages |
1) Agglutinating |
Synthetic | |
|
2) Fusion |
Analytical |
French |
|
|
B. Complex mixed-relational languages |
1) Agglutinating |
Polysynthetic | |
|
2) Fusion |
Analytical |
English, Latin, Greek |
|
|
3) Fusion, symbolic |
Slightly synthetic |
Sanskrit |
|
|
4) Symbolic-fusion |
Synthetic |
The analytical structure involves a wider use of service words, phonetic means and word order to form word forms, phrases and sentences. The languages of the analytical system are English, French, Italian, Spanish, Persian, Bulgarian and some other Indo-European languages. The synthetic structure is characterized by the fact that along with the use of service words, word order and intonation, a large role belongs to the forms of words formed with the help of affixes - inflections and formative suffixes and prefixes. The languages of the synthetic system are Russian, Polish, Lithuanian and most other Indo-European languages; all ancient written Indo-European languages were synthetic, for example, Latin, Greek, Gothic. 50. Typological K. I.(see also Morphological Classification of Languages) arose on the basis of morphological data, regardless of genetic or spatial proximity, relying solely on the properties of the linguistic structure. Typological K. I. seeks to cover the material of all languages of the world, to reflect their similarities and differences, and at the same time to identify possible language types and specifics of each language or group of typologically similar languages. Modern typological K. I. relies not only on morphological data, but also on phonology, syntax, and semantics. The basis for the inclusion of the language in the typological K. I. is the type of the language, that is, the characteristic of the fundamental properties of its structure. However, the type is not implemented absolutely in the language; in fact, each language has several types, that is, each language is polytypological. Therefore, it is appropriate to say to what extent this or that type is present in the structure of a given language; on this basis, attempts are made to give a quantitative interpretation of the typological characteristics of the language. The main problem for typological K. I. is the creation of descriptions of languages, sustained in a single terminology and based on a single concept of linguistic structure and a system of consistent and sufficient criteria for a typological description. The most accepted typological type is the isolating (amorphous) type - invariable words with the grammatical significance of the word order, a weak opposition of meaningful and auxiliary roots (for example, ancient Chinese, Vietnamese, Yoruba); agglutinating (agglutinative) type - a developed system of unambiguous affixes, the absence of grammatical alternations in the root, the same type of inflection for all words belonging to the same part of speech, a weak connection (the presence of distinct boundaries) between morphs (for example, many Finno-Ugric languages, Turkic languages, Bantu languages); the inflectional (inflectional) type combines languages with internal inflection, that is, with grammatically significant alternation at the root (Semitic languages), and languages with external inflection, fusion, that is, with the simultaneous expression of several grammatical meanings with one affix (for example, hands - instrumental case, plural), a strong connection (lack of distinct boundaries) between morphs and heterogeneity of declensions and conjugations (to some extent - Somali, Estonian, Nakh languages); in ancient and some modern Indo-European languages, internal inflection and fusion are combined. A number of typologists also distinguish incorporating (polysynthetic) languages, where there are "sentence words", complex complexes: the verb form includes (sometimes in a truncated form) nominal stems corresponding to the object and circumstances, the subject, as well as some grammatical indicators (for example, some languages of the American Indians, some Paleo-Asiatic and Caucasian languages). This typological language, which is basically morphological, cannot be considered final, mainly because of its inability to reflect all the specifics of a particular language, taking into account its structure. But it contains in an implicit form the possibility of its refinement by analyzing other areas of the language. For example, in isolating languages such as classical Chinese, Vietnamese, and Guinean, one-syllable words equal to a morpheme, the presence of polytony, and a number of other interrelated characteristics are observed. 51. Parts of speech - the main classes of words of the language, distinguished on the basis of the similarity of their syntactic, morphological and logical-semantic properties. Significant Ch. river differ. (noun, verb, adjective, adverb) and service (conjunction, preposition, particle, article, etc.). To Ch. r. traditionally also include numerals, pronouns and interjections. Words can be classified according to the positions they occupy in a phrase. To one Ch. include words that can stand in a sentence in the same syntactic positions or perform the same syntactic functions. In this case, not only the set of syntactic functions is important, but also the degree of specificity of each of the functions for a given Ch. in Russian, both a noun and a verb can act both as a subject (“a person loves”, “smoking is harmful to health”), and as a predicate (“Ivanov is a teacher”, “a tree is burning”), however, for a verb, the function of the predicate is primary, and the function of the subject is secondary, for a noun, the function of the subject is primary, and the predicate is secondary, for example, the verb can be the subject only with a nominal predicate, and a noun with a predicate of any type. Each Ch. its own set of grammatical categories is characteristic, and this set covers the absolute majority of the words of a given Ch. in Russian, a noun is characterized by number, case and gender (as a word-classifying category), an adjective - degrees of comparison, number, case and gender (as an inflectional category). In the Burmese language, for example, the adjective and the verb are not opposed in this respect (words corresponding to both adjectives and verbs of other languages have the category of degree of comparison). CH system. modern school grammars goes back to the works of Alexandrian philologists (Dionysius of Thracia, Apollonius Diskol), who distinguished on mixed morphological, semantic and syntactic grounds a name, a verb, a participle, an adverb, an article, a pronoun, a preposition, a union, and nouns, adjectives and numerals were combined in the name (as opposed to Plato, who connected, based on logical-syntactic relations, an adjective with a verb). The system of the Alexandrian philologists also influenced the Arabic grammatical tradition. are inherent in all languages, while at the same time avoiding the difficulties that arise in the morphological approach (cf. the lack of morphological features when classifying Russian immutable nouns like "coat"). Composition Ch. in different languages different. The differences relate both to the set of pure blacks and the volume of individual blacks. So, in Russian, French, Latin, a noun, an adjective, a verb, an adverb are distinguished. The most constant in languages is the opposition of name and verb, but the universality of this distinction remains unproven. 52.Syntax(from other Greek σύνταξις - “construction, order, compilation”) - a branch of linguistics that studies the structure of sentences and phrases. The syntax deals with the following main questions: Connection of words in phrases and sentences; Consideration of types of syntactic connection; Definition of types of phrases and sentences; Determining the meaning of phrases and sentences; Compound simple sentences into complex ones. The syntax is static, the object of study of which are structures that are not related to the context and situation of speech: a sentence (as a predicative unit) and a phrase (non-predicative unit) and, most importantly, a member. Syntax communicative The object of study of which are such problems as the actual and syntagmatic division of a sentence, the functioning of phrases in a sentence, the communicative paradigm of sentences, the typology of an utterance, etc. Text syntax The objects of study of which are the structural diagrams of a phrase, a simple and complex sentence, a complex syntactic whole, and various kinds of statements related to the situation of speech, as well as the structure of a text that goes beyond the complex syntactic whole. The study of these phenomena has great importance for linguistic-stylistic and psycholinguistic text analysis. Syntax functional A type of syntax that uses the “from function to means” approach as a research method, that is, finding out by what grammatical means spatial, temporal, causal, target, etc. relations are expressed (cf.: the traditional “from means to function” approach, that is, finding out what functions a certain grammatical unit performs). 53. Offer - the minimum syntactic construction used in acts of speech communication, characterized by predicativity and implementing a certain structural scheme. Since any syntactic construction is usually a group of words, the definition of a sentence through a syntactic construction does not lose the information reported in the traditional definition. However, the definition of a sentence as a syntactic construction is more precise: a syntactic construction is a group of words, but not every group of words constitutes a syntactic construction. Having characterized the sentence as a syntactic construction, we named the property that unites the sentence with some other syntactic units, showed the generic affiliation of the sentence. A sentence is a minimal syntactic construction used in acts of speech communication, characterized by predicativity and implementing a certain structural scheme. a sentence (even a one-word one), in contrast to a word and a phrase, denotes some actualized situation, i.e., in a certain way correlated with reality. The most important combatant, otherwise structural, feature of the sentence is the closeness of the mutual syntactic links of the components of the sentence. Not a single word of this sentence can act as a main or dependent element in relation to words outside it. This phenomenon is based on the correspondence of each sentence to a certain structural scheme, the set of which is finite and specific for each language. In the typological characteristics of inflectional languages, a special place is occupied by the determination of the proportion of synthetic and analytical forms of the language, the role of function words in the formation of word forms, phrases and sentences. Russian has a synthetic structure, English has an analytical one. Analytical structure involves a wider use of service words, as well as phonetic means and word order for the formation of word forms and phrase forms. The languages of the analytical system are English, French, Hindustani, Persian, Bulgarian. Affixation, for example, in English is used mainly for word formation (past tense suffix ed). Nouns and adjectives are characterized by the poverty of inflection forms; on the contrary, the verb has a developed system of tense forms, which are formed almost exclusively analytically. Syntactic constructions are also distinguished by analyticism, since the main role in the expression of syntactic meanings, it belongs to functional words, word order and intonation. Synthetic tuning characterized by a greater role of word forms formed with the help of affixes - inflections and formative suffixes and prefixes. The languages of the synthetic system are Russian, Polish, Lithuanian and most other Indo-European languages; all ancient written Indo-European languages were synthetic, for example, Latin, Greek, Gothic. Morphological types of languages: 1. Insulating (root isolating, amorphous) type (aging). These languages are characterized by a complete or almost complete absence of inflection and, as a result, a very large grammatical significance of the word order (subject - definition of the subject - definition of the predicate - predicate), each root expresses one lexical meaning, weak opposition of meaningful and service roots. The root isolating languages are Chinese, Vietnamese, Dungan, Muong and many others. etc. Modern English is evolving towards root isolation. 2. Agglutinative (agglutinative) type. Languages of this type are characterized by a developed system of inflection, but each grammatical meaning has its own own indicator, the absence of grammatical alternations in the root, the uniformity of inflection for all words belonging to the same part of speech (i.e. the presence of a single type of declension for all nouns and a single type of conjugation for all verbs), the number of morphemes in a word is not limited. These include Turkic, Tungus-Manchurian, Finno-Ugric languages, Kartvelian, Andaman and some other languages. The principle of agglutination is also the basis of grammar artificial language esperatno. For example, let's take the instrumental plural of the Komi-Permyak word "sin" (eye) - "synnezon". Here the morpheme "nez" is an indicator of the plural, and the morpheme "on" is an indicator of the instrumental case. 3. Inflectional (inflectional, fusional). Languages of this type are characterized by a developed system of inflection (diversity of declensions and conjugations: in Russian - three declensions and two conjugations, in Latin - five declensions and four conjugations.) and the ability to convey the entire gamut of grammatical meanings with one indicator: Internal inflection, that is, with grammatically significant alternation at the root (Semitic languages), External inflection (ending), fusion, that is, with the simultaneous expression of several grammatical meanings with one affix (for example, in the Russian word "home" the ending of the word "-a" is both a masculine and plural and nominative case). Also in these languages, one affix can express different meanings (suffix -tel-: person teacher, device switch, abstract factor, substance blood substitute), the number of morphemes in one word is limited (no more than six; the exception is German), the presence of proper and common nouns, the presence of different types of stress. These include Slavic, Baltic, Italic, some of the Indian and Iranian languages. 4. A number of typologists also highlight incorporating (polysynthetic) languages where there are "word-sentences", complex complexes: the verb form includes (sometimes in a truncated form) nominal stems corresponding to the object and circumstances, the subject, as well as some grammatical indicators. These include languages Chukotka-Kamchatka family, some languages of the Indians of North America. A feature of this type of language is that the sentence is constructed as a compound word, i.e., unformed word roots are agglutinated into one common whole, which will be both a word and a sentence. Parts of this whole are both the elements of the word and the members of the sentence. The whole is a word-sentence, where the beginning is the subject, the end is the predicate, and additions with their definitions and circumstances are incorporated (inserted) into the middle. For the Mexican example: ninakakwa, where ni- "I", naka- “ed-” (i.e. “eat”), a kwa- object, "meat-". In Russian, three grammatically designed words are obtained I eat meat, and vice versa, such a fully-formed combination as ant-eater, does not constitute an offer. In order to show how it is possible to “incorporate” in this type of languages, we will give one more example from the Chukchi language: you-ata-kaa-nmy-rkyn- “I kill fat deer”, literally: “I-fat-deer-kill-do”, where is the skeleton of the “body”: you-nmy-rkyn, which incorporates kaa- "deer" and its definition ata- "fat"; The Chukchi language does not tolerate any other arrangement, and the whole is a word-sentence, where the above order of elements is also observed. Some analogue of incorporation in Russian can be the replacement of the sentence "I fish" with one word - "fishing". Of course, such constructions are not typical for the Russian language. They are clearly artificial. Moreover, in Russian, in the form compound word it is possible to present only a simple non-extended sentence with a personal pronoun as the subject. It is impossible to "fold" into one word the sentence "The boy is fishing" or "I am catching good fish." In incorporating languages, any sentence can only be represented as a single compound word. So, for example, in the Chukchi language, the sentence “We guard new networks” will look like “Mytturkupregynrityrkyn”. It can be said that in incorporating languages the boundary between word formation and syntax is blurred to a certain extent. Speaking about the four morphological types of languages, we must remember that just as there is no chemically pure, unadulterated substance in nature, there is not a single completely inflectional, agglutinative, root-isolating or incorporating language. Thus, the Chinese and Dungan languages, which are predominantly root-isolating, contain some, albeit insignificant, elements of agglutination. There are also elements of agglutination in inflected Latin (for example, the formation of forms of the imperfect or the future first tense). And vice versa, in agglutinative Estonian we encounter elements of inflection. So, for example, in the word töötavad (work), the ending "-vad" denotes both the third person and the plural. This typological classification of languages, which is basically morphological, cannot be considered final, mainly because of its inability to reflect all the specifics of a particular language, taking into account its structure. But it contains in an implicit form the possibility of its refinement by analyzing other areas of the language. For example, in isolating languages such as classical Chinese, Vietnamese, and Guinean, one-syllable words equal to a morpheme, the presence of polytony, and a number of other interrelated characteristics are observed. Russian language is inflectional language of the synthetic structure . We recommend reading
Luck is one of the most unpredictable phenomena in a person's life. Its impossible... 
The other world is a very interesting topic that everyone thinks about at least ... |
