Teaching about parts of speech in Russian. Principles of classification of parts of speech in Russian grammatical science
Parts of speech and contaminants (general provisions)
“In the Russian language, words are divided into categories, or classes, which differ in their main meanings, in the nature of the grammatical categories associated with each of these categories, or classes, as well as in the types of word formation and form formation. These bits are called parts of speech. Parts of speech also differ in the functions they perform in connected speech” [Grammar–1960, vol. 1, p. 20]. “Parts of speech are grammatical classes of words characterized by a combination of the following features: 1) the presence of a generalized meaning, abstracted from the lexical and morphological meanings of all words of this class; 2) a complex of certain morphological categories; 3) a common system (identical organization) of paradigms and 4) a commonality of basic syntactic functions” [Russian Grammar–1980, vol. 1, p. 457]. The concept of parts of speech
The part of speech is admittedly one of the most general categories of language. They in a certain way group words with similar lexical and grammatical characteristics, with the same way of displaying objective reality. Therefore, the parts of speech have attracted and continue to attract special interest both in solving important theoretical issues and in the practical development of the language. However, despite a large number of work on this issue, the problem of parts of speech remains unresolved. For the science of language, the words spoken by O.P. Sunik about four decades ago: “A very old and very confusing question about parts of speech, about their linguistic nature, about their quantity and quality in languages various types and families, as you know, did not receive a satisfactory solution either in grammatical studies on individual languages, or in works on general linguistics ”[Sunik O.P. General theory of parts of speech. - M.: Nauka, 1966. - P. 34]. The part of speech in modern linguistics is defined by most linguists as a lexical and grammatical class of words with a set of individual differential features inherent in such a complex only for this part of speech. Term Part of speech- tracing paper from Latin (partes- parts, oratio- speech, utterance, verbal expression or sentence). In the textbook M.F. Guzhva parts of speech are defined as “extremely capacious grammatical categories of words, united by a common grammatical meaning and its formal expression” [Guzhva M.F. Modern Russian literary language. Part II. - Kyiv: Vishcha shkola, 1979. - P. 19]. In this work, the following definition of the part of speech is adopted: it is a lexical and grammatical class of words with a set of individual differential features. The list of parts of speech is constantly being revised, supplemented, refined with the advent of new information about the language . Brief history of the development of the issue
LINGUISTICS
UDC 81 (091) + 81 "36 + 81" 373.46
O. V. Lukin
Terminology of the theory of parts of speech: ancient origins
The author analyzes the features of the formation of the terminology of the theory of parts of speech. The terms that appeared in the ancient philosophy of Plato and Aristotle, which had a philosophical and logical content, are transferred to linguistic studies, where they receive a completely different meaning. The terminology of Greek and Roman scientists, describing the phenomena of their native language, is subsequently uncritically transferred to the soil of languages with other typological characteristics, which only complicates their adequate study and description. However, the familiarity of this terminology, the widespread use of ancient labels makes it necessary not to abandon them, but to give them a real typological explanation.
Key words: parts of speech, terminology, ancient philosophy, Plato, Aristotle, Stoics, Alexandrian grammarians, Roman grammarians.
Parts of speech terminology: antique origins
In this article the author analyzes peculiarities of the appearance of parts of speech terminology. Antique philosophy of Plato and Aristotle being the origin of parts of speech terms, they used to be philosophical in content. Over time the terms were transferred from philosophical to linguistic studies receiving a different meaning. Terminology of Greek and Roman scientists which reflected the phenomena of their native languages were later unreasonably used in studies of the languages with different typological features, hampering their adequate description. However, the customary regular use of this terminology makes us explain their real typological meaning instead of dropping them altogether.
Keywords: parts of speech, terminology, antique philosophy, Plato, Aristotle, stoics, Roman and Alexandrine linguists (grammarians).
Questions of the theory of parts of speech, which for more than two millennia have been among the key issues of the science of language and are characterized as its “unsolved problems”, “pain points”, cannot but attract the attention of a modern researcher. One of the central issues in this case remains the terminology of the theory of parts of speech. The “parts of speech” themselves are, of course, word forms, lexemes, and utterance components that play the role of its members in a sentence, reflecting the phenomena of objective reality, the human world, the conceptual apparatus of mankind, finally, themselves and much more. Unfortunately, only a few scientists distinguish all the named (and not only these) “hypostases” of parts of speech from each other, perceiving them as some kind of syncretic reality and describing and classifying it in accordance with this understanding. However, if it were only so, many unsolvable problems would
of the Terechka theory would not only disappear by themselves, they simply would not appear. It is much worse that each of these aspects of part-talk nature is brought to the fore in turn and is described and absolutized in various variations in accordance with certain actual needs.
One cannot but be surprised by the widest palette of terms of modern linguistics related to the “parts of speech”: this is only a faint echo of the terminological diversity inherited from the philosophers of antiquity to modern linguists, which the latter take as an absolute. It is also impossible not to ignore the quite obvious fact that the terms of ancient philosophy used by modern linguistics cannot have the same meanings as they had in the works of Greek philosophers: any term in a different scientific paradigm, a scientific paradigm of a completely different time
© Lukin O. V., 2012
cannot mean the same as now, cf. indicative in this sense is the statement of V. A. Zvegintsev about the language of V. von Humboldt: “We must not forget that Humboldt was a man of his time and he also spoke the language of his time.”
The scope of a particular linguistic term depends on a variety of factors, not least the language in which this term functions. Therefore, the terms of one language, denoting both the very concept of "parts of speech" and individual parts of speech, differ from the corresponding terms in other languages (cf. E. Coseriu's reasoning about the scope of the term "language"). This is only one of the reasons why part-of-speech problems in modern linguistics continue to be so complex and insoluble: in the literal and figurative sense, researchers speak different languages and invest in the term "parts of speech" a variety of meanings. In this regard, the theory of parts of speech always runs into almost insurmountable difficulties that have accompanied it throughout history. These difficulties are caused to a large extent by the traditional ancient terminology, which, by the very semantics of terms, gives "indications" of their connection.
Traditional part-of-speech terms behave in a similar way,
formed in various languages, not without the influence, if not of the Greek-Latin terms themselves, then at least of the ancient mechanism of their formation. Latin terms not only speak for themselves, but also indicate the direction of interpretation of a particular term. So, the terms name, verb, numeral point in the semantic direction, the terms union, preposition, adverb - in the direction of the syntactic function, the pronoun - the textual function, the interjection - the pragmatic function, etc.
What we now call parts of speech, the great ancient thinker Plato considered as parts of a logical judgment. Greek ^owo^ (Compare: "With the ambiguity of the word ^owo^ with its various uses as a logical, rhetorical, grammatical and philosophical term, the indefinite translation of the "part of speech" does not convey the specific content of this concept in ancient language theory" .) and Latin oratio denoted both speech and sentence at the same time, □vo^a - both naming, and proper name, and words
in, and name (noun and / or adjective) . The common translation of the ancient Greek terms ^otsa and □ □tsa, which Plato was the first to introduce into scientific use, as “name” and “verb”, is therefore, unfortunately, too incorrect: ^otsa denotes a real substratum, thing, figure, subject of speech, something being, □ □ tsa, on the contrary, an abstract concept, practice or action, subordinate activity and participation in some idea (cf.). Plato identified parts of speech not only and not so much with the logical categories of human consciousness as a subject and a predicate, but also with the phenomena of extralinguistic reality - with actions and their carriers. According to L. Paul, the categorization of parts of speech had its origin in the self-justification of dialectical thinking and its reflexive analytics and cannot be subjected to theoretical understanding in isolation from its systematic origin.
Since the relationship between philosophy and linguistics in ancient times, of course, looked completely different than now, the terms used by Plato in relation to the parts of a logical judgment cannot be linguistic terms, cf.: “The terms that make up the statement are traditionally divided into subject (in logical forms, its position is indicated by the letters "a" and "8") and the predicate (the position is indicated by the letter "P"). ... In this case, these two terms are signs not of linguistic objects as constituent parts of a sentence, but of something outside these sentences, that is, existing in that area of objective reality that these sentences describe. ... It is clear that such use of the terms "subject" and "predicate", when, on the one hand, they are used to designate linguistic objects, and, on the other hand, non-linguistic, real objects, is ambiguous and undesirable. True, one could distinguish between these two uses, each time specifying what is at stake - the semantic or syntactic sense of the terms, or use their own terminology for each case: for example, designate the corresponding linguistic objects with the phrases "subjective expression" and "predicate expression", and those realities with which they correlate - phrases
"subject (subject) of the statement" and "predicate of the statement"".
The further development of part-speech terminology was undoubtedly influenced by the philosophy and logic of the famous student of Plato - Aristotle. Thus, the second principle of Aristotelian logic - the principle of forbidden contradiction - is that two statements that contradict each other cannot be true at the same time. From this principle, in particular, it follows that the terms used in different contexts can refer to different denotations, and this, in turn, leads to considerable terminological confusion.
The third principle - the principle of the excluded middle - is that one element or concept falls under one or the other concept, or that a statement about something is either true or false. The principle of the excluded middle suggests that the choice of one specific language expression means the simultaneous exclusion of another expression, which idealizes and simplifies actual linguistic and mental phenomena and processes. The duality of Aristotelian formal logic is justified by the following consideration: the duality or decomposability of reality into alternatives is not a property represented by the world without our participation, but a way in which we successfully influence the world (see. In accordance with the third principle of formal logic in linguistics, as it were already some binary oppositions are predetermined, including the most important opposition in the system of parts of speech "name / verb", as well as other binary oppositions proposed at different times by researchers in the theory of parts of speech.
Aristotle tried to reduce not only the world, but also language and knowledge to their "elementary" basic forms. Aristotle's ten categories, or ten cognitive patterns, were also created to classify our many conceptual formations (cf.). From these ten categories, a binary opposition was first created. The category of substance, denoting a being that can exist on its own and be a carrier of non-independent properties (see), is opposed to other nine categories - accidents. This opposition, on the one hand, and the Aristotelian bivalent logic, on the other hand, mutually explain and determine each other, at the basis of which it is impossible not to see the opposition of □tots/PPets.
It is curious to note that since the middle of the nineteenth century, Aristotle has been reproached for deriving his categories from the grammatical structure of the Greek language. At the same time, the great thinker is criticized both by philosophers and linguists. The first to point out that Aristotelian categories are a reflection of the grammatical structure of the Greek language, its parts of speech and sentence members, was A. Trendelenburg. Subsequently, Aristotle was criticized for mixing ontological, logical and grammatical. X. Steinthal also reproaches Aristotle for the fact that he vaguely formulated the relationship between language and logic and that he often had the same concepts of being, speaking and thinking. A. G. Sayce wrote that if Aristotle had been a Mexican, his system of logic would have taken a very different form. And, perhaps, F. Mautner expressed these thoughts most sharply: “The whole logic of Aristotle is nothing more than an examination of Greek grammar from one interesting point of view. If Aristotle spoke Chinese or the language of the Dakota Indians, he would inevitably come to a different logic ”(our translation. - O. L.).
At the same time, it should be emphasized that Aristotle himself did not use either the term sTOi%sDa toP ^oyoy (elements of speech) or cerp toP ^oyoy (parts of speech) (Some researchers associate the origin of the term cerptoi ^oyoy with the Stoics, cf. .) : the twentieth chapter of his "Poetics" is devoted to tserp tpd ^s^so^ (parts of verbal presentation, which included element, syllable, union, name, verb, member, case, sentence). All three of these terms, as well as the fourth - sTOixsna tpd A,8£,sog (elements of verbal presentation) - did not receive an absolutely unambiguous interpretation in ancient philosophy and were often identified, which was not surprising against the backdrop of the struggle of various philosophical schools of ancient Greece.
It is not without interest to emphasize that the views of Aristotle and Plato on the concepts of ^ouo^ and its relationship with nvo^,a and PPca did not coincide, as numerous researchers, both philosophers and linguists, write about, highlighting various criteria for comparison. So, for Plato, ^oyo^ consists of the smallest particles - ovo^ma (cf. according to Aristotle, ^oyo^ necessarily consists of two parts - nvo^a and PPca (cf.,).
Plato and Aristotle introduced the concepts □vopa and □ □ pa as elements on which the truth or falsity of a statement depends; the Stoics, who studied the questions of the subject's determination, divided □vopa into a proper name and a common noun (cf. ). First, the Stoics separated members (articles) from unions, then common nouns from names, and pronouns from names. Subsequently, adverbs were separated from verbs, and participles from common nouns, which completed the classical Alexandrian eight-term scheme of parts of speech. And the terms □vopa and □□pa themselves, which at the time of Plato and Aristotle in the colloquial language, respectively, "word" and "turn of speech", acquired a different, grammatical character among the Stoics and Alexandrians. At the same time, the logical-syntactic meaning of the opposition of □vopa as elements of a sentence (statement, judgment) was lost, and their opposition was reduced to morphological-semantic differences (cf. ).
The eight parts of speech of the Alexandrian grammar of Dionysius the Thracian were defined using unevenly distributed semantic, syntactic and morphological features:
1) name (Onoma) - a declined part of speech denoting a person or thing;
2) the verb (Rhema) - an indeclinable part of speech, but conjugated in time, person and number and denoting the performance or undergoing of an action;
3) participle (Metoche) - a part of speech that has signs of a name and a verb;
4) the article (Arthron) - a declined part of speech that precedes or follows a name;
5) pronoun (Antonymia) - a part of speech that replaces the name and indicates persons;
6) preposition (Prothesis);
7) adverb (Epirrhema) - an indeclinable part of speech that is attached to the verb or modifies it;
8) union (Syndesmos) - a part of speech that connects discourses.
With the creation of the Alexandrian grammar, the history of the development of the theory of parts of speech seemed to have reached that apogee, those peaks that would never be repeated later (for more than twenty centuries !!!): the entire subsequent history of the theory of parts of speech was somehow connected with eight parts of speech ancient Greek, proposed by Dionysius the Thracian.
It was not by chance that Roman grammarians zealously continued the Hellenistic grammatical tradition: Roman aristocrats were inspired by the Greek cultural heritage, their children were brought up in such a way that they could speak and write Greek perfectly, everything Greek was in fashion, ancient Greek was an exemplary language for the Romans, the grammar of Dionysius the Thracian was exemplary grammar. The culture of the Roman Empire was bilingual: the Greek and Latin languages were linked by a single ideological standard of mythological beliefs and a practically common political history at the turn of our era. To master this spiritual culture, knowledge of two languages \u200b\u200bis necessary (see). Growing up in such an environment, the children of Roman aristocrats were inevitably influenced by prestigious Greek language patterns. Therefore, they had no choice but to transfer the structures of the ancient Greek language into Latin, because Latin grammarians were in every respect dependent on their Greek samples (see) and on Greek terminology.
The Greek-Latin terminology, which has dominated part-speech theory for two millennia, continues to play the role of a conductor of those ideas that ancient philosophers expressed on the material of their native languages. Moreover, the understanding of the part-of-speech problem still largely remains captive to ancient ideas about the language and ancient needs in its study. The description of many languages in one way or another resembles the “fitting” of their material to the requirements dictated by Latin terminology: the adverb (ayerbum) stands out only as the word that stands with the verb (yeerbum) and determines it, the numeral - as a word denoting a number, the preposition - according to its location before another part of speech, etc.
On the other hand, it should be recognized that the entire terminology of the theory of parts of speech throughout the history of the existence of this problem - from Plato to the present day - serves to a certain extent as a symbol, a convention in the procedure for describing any language of the world, a convention that often has little in common with the real world. linguistic reality. Therefore, it would be so important to really connect these terms with linguistic reality. The headings "verb", "noun", "adjective", "adverb", "pronoun", "preposition", "union", less often - "numeral", "interjection", "particle" can
but to be found in the grammars of almost all the described languages of the world (moreover, almost always in the listed sequence). At the same time, if we compare the grounds for identifying and describing the listed groups, one cannot fail to notice how irreducible they are to one or a system of commensurate "denominators". Nevertheless, the traditional terminology convenient and familiar from childhood successfully passes from textbook to textbook, from one theoretical treatise to another.
There is no need to dispute the convenience and familiarity of traditional terminology for certain purposes (and this includes, first of all, the goals of describing languages with leading signs of inflection for teaching these languages). But as soon as we move away from the languages of Europe and Asia, which are more familiar and familiar to us, difficulties arise both with isolating a word and with isolating and classifying these words according to headings known and familiar as “parts of speech”. If in the vast majority of languages with a relatively long history of description (and these are primarily Indo-European inflectional languages), the scheme of Dionysius Thracian, precisely because of their typological similarity with Greek and Latin, is more capable of describing their inherent patterns, then in languages with leading elements of isolation or polysynthetism such a scheme is hardly fully applicable as a tool for their adequate description. The extent to which traditional approaches and terms borrowed from the Greco-Roman tradition can be applied to such languages can be seen only after their unbiased study.
The lack of unambiguity in terminology gives rise to various kinds of arbitrariness and intuitiveness. Intuitiveness is characteristic in the interpretation of the classification criteria themselves: the understanding of the semantic criterion, which for most researchers seems to be the most important and with the help of which definitions are given to almost all parts of speech, is nothing more than an intuitive terminological display of the formal features of parts of speech. Such concepts as "subject", "action", "sign", "sign of action", which appear in the definitions formulated using the traditional so-called semantic criterion for classifying the main significant parts of speech, are as intuitive as they are fictitious due to their precisely semantic helplessness. By using them,
a trained native speaker could somehow explain the difference, for example, between the words whiteness, turn white, white and white, but they will hardly be able to reveal anything to a native speaker studying this language with completely different typological characteristics, for example, Chinese or Indian .
Reasoning about part-of-speech problems, carried out on the example and on the material of one language, is also theoretically, especially typologically, helpless and terminologically incorrect. The recognition in this or that language of those absolutely definite classes of words, once copied from the eight parts of speech of the grammar of Dionysius, still says nothing, except for the uncritical transfer by individual authors of the Greek system of parts of speech to the system of their native language. Without a preliminary analysis of the systemic significance of both each individual part of speech among all the others, and the system of parts of speech itself in the language system of ancient Greek and Latin, such attempts are simply unlawful, so they can be assessed as sticking ancient labels on matter, often of a different nature.
And since ancient terms, ancient labels are still used everywhere, the task is to give them a real typological explanation. Now our attention should be occupied most of all not by the search for new terms, but by bringing the generally recognized old ones to a more or less justified denominator. In the general and typological theory of parts of speech, one term must correspond to a certain concept, the scope of which may vary in different languages, but the essence remains comparable, in other words, so that we can say that there is a noun, or an adjective, or a pronoun, or a verb not intuitively , but relying on specific formal features.
Bibliographic list
1. Amirova, T. A. History of linguistics [Text]: textbook. allowance for students. higher textbook institutions / T. A. Amirova, B. A. Olkhovikov, Yu. V. Rozhdestvensky; ed. S. F. Goncharenko. - M.: Academy, 2003. - 672 p.
2. Bocharov, V. A. Aristotle and traditional logic (Analysis of syllogistic theories) [Text] / V. A. Bocharov. - M.: Publishing House of Moscow University, 1984. - 136 p.
3. Zvegintsev, V. A. On the scientific heritage of Wilhelm von Humboldt [Text] / V. A. Zvegintsev //
Humboldt Wilhelm von Selected Works on Linguistics. - M.: Progress, 1984. - S. 356-362.
4. Tronsky I. M. Aristotle’s doctrine of parts of speech [Text] / I. M. Tronsky // Uchenye zapiski Leningrad State University. Ser. philol. Sciences. - 1941, Issue. 7. - No. 63. - S. 20-36.
5. Arens H. Sprachwissenschaft: der Gang ihrer Entwicklung von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart. - Freiburg in Breisgau: Alber (Orbis academicus), 1969. - 816 S.
6. Auroux S. Beauzee und die Universalität der Wortarten // Schlieben-Lange Brigitte, Ivo Hubert (Hrsg.) Wortarten. (Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik (LiLi), H. 76, 19/1988). - S. 56-75.
7. Cherubim D. Grammatische Kategorien: das Verhältnis von "traditioneller" und "moderner" Sprachwissenschaft. - Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag (Reihe Germanistische Linguistik, Bd. 1), 1976. - 196 S.
8. Coseriu E. Einführung in die Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft. - Tübingen: Franke (UTB für Wissenschaft: Uni-Taschenbücher; 1372), 1988. - 329 S.
9. Köller W. Philosophie der Grammatik. Vom Sinn grammatischen Wissens. - Stuttgart: J. B. Metzlersche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1988. - 460 S.
10. Linke A., Nussbaumer M., Portmann P. R. Studienbuch Linguistik. - Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag (Reihe Germanistische Linguistik; 121: Kollegbuch), 1996. - 463 S.
11.Lyons J. Einführung in die moderne Linguistik. -München: Verlag C. H. Beck, 1972. - 538 S.
12. Mauthner F. Beiträge zu einer Kritik der Sprache. 3. Bd. Zur Grammatik und Logik. - Stuttgart, Berlin: J. G. Cotta "sche Buchhandlung Nachfolger G. M. B. H., 1902. - 666 S.
13. Paul L. Geschichte der Grammatik im Grundriß: Sprachdidaktik als angewandte Erkenntnistheorie und Wissenschaftskritik. - Weinheim, Basel: Beltz Verlag (Pragmalinguistik; Bd 14), 1978. - 591 S.
14. Rijlaarsdam J. C. Platon über die Sprache. Mit einem Kommentar zum Kratylos. Mit einem Anhang über die Quelle der Zeichentheorie Ferdinand de Saussures. -Utrecht: Bohn, Scheltema & Holkema wetenschappelijke uitgeverij, 1978. - 350 S.
15. Sayce A. H. Introduction to the science of language. 2nd vol. - London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & CO. Ltd, 1900. - 421 p.
16. Steinthal H. Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft bei den Griechern und Römern (mit besonderer Rücksicht auf die Logik). 1. Bd. - Berlin, 1890. - XVIII, 374 S.
17. Trendelenburg A. Geschichte der Kategorienlehre: zwei Abhandlungen. - Berlin: Bethge, 1846. - XVI, 384 S.
18. Weizsäcker C. F. von Die Einheit der Natur. -München: Hanser, 1979. - 491. S.
Hyperheading:
Content
Introduction
1 On the history of the study of parts of speech and the criteria for their establishment
1.1 From the history of the doctrine of parts of speech
1.2 Difficulty in identifying parts of speech
On the criteria for establishing parts of speech
2 Criteria for the allocation of parts of speech in the works of various scientists
3 Name system and verb system
3.1 Name system
3.2 Verb system
Conclusion
Table #1
Scheme No. 1
CATEGORIES OF WORDS
Bibliography:
Introduction 2
1 On the history of the study of parts of speech and the criteria for their establishment
1.1 From the history of the doctrine of parts of speech 3
1.2 Difficulty in identifying parts of speech 5
1.3 About the criteria for establishing parts of speech 8
Introduction
The question of parts of speech has occupied the minds of scientists since ancient times. Research in this area was carried out by Aristotle, Plato, Yaska, Panini, in Russian linguistics this issue was dealt with by L. V. Shcherba, V. V. Vinogradov, A. A. Shakhmatov and others.
The most common and necessary categories in the grammar of every language are the parts of speech. With clarification of the question of parts of speech, a grammatical description of any language begins. Speaking of parts of speech, they mean the grammatical grouping of lexical units of the language, i.e. the allocation in the vocabulary of the language of certain groups or categories, characterized by certain features (Maslov Yu. S., 155). But on what basis are groupings of words called parts of speech distinguished? Or otherwise - what is the traditional distribution of words based on parts of speech?
I'm late"" > ""The fact that I'm late..."". In this sense, sentences are sometimes viewed as ""the name of a fact or event"".
The nomination is natural, but the choice of the attribute is random, which explains the difference in the names of the same objects in different languages. Nevertheless, since the sign underlying the name itself already had a linguistic expression, names are always included in the lexico-semantic system, getting their place in a group of related names opposed to other groups. Due to the stability of oppositions, fields and the entire lexical-semantic system as a whole, it, and mainly the names, are a fact of the spiritual culture of the people, forming a stable framework of this culture - the names of kinship, power, law, economic relations, human, animals, etc. , reflect the deep traditions of culture, revealed during historical reconstruction (Yartseva V.N., 175).
The internal structure of the name, especially the non-derivative one, is quite fully characterized by the system of the so-called semantic triangle: the name (1) denotes a thing, (2) names a thing, (3) expresses the concept of a thing. In the history of the philosophy of language and linguistics itself, the relation "to name" was understood ambiguously - either as a link between a name and a thing, or as a link between a name and a concept.
In the new European philosophy of language, Plato, in his dialogue "Cratyl", sets out the second understanding: the name names the idea, the concept ( ""eidos"") and only as a result of this is it capable of naming a thing "of the same name" with him (Yartseva V.N., 175).
Gradually, the insufficiency of such an understanding of the name, generally recognized as correct, was discovered: it was proposed to single out a smaller set from the totality of all objectively distinguishable features of a thing - the direct subject of the name - denotation. In logic, to some extent parallel to this, the concept was introduced ""extension"" name corresponding to the class of objects directly referred to by the given name. A similar process of splitting was experienced by the concept of "the concept of a thing", in which in logic they began to single out the part directly structured by the language - ""intension"", and in linguistics - significat. In linguistics, the concept of "significance" (different from "meaning"), introduced by F. de Saussure, served as a prototype of significat and intension even earlier. C. I. Lewis in his work "Kinds of Meaning" introduced four components in the semantics of the name (at the same time they are also processes): signification- a set of features that serve as a conceivable subject of designation; volume, or "coverage" - all conceivable objects that correspond to such a signification (including those that do not really exist); denotation, or extension, - objects that really exist; connotation, or intension, is a conceivable subject of designation corresponding to such a denotation, or extension. Thus, intension, intension relates to extension, denotation in the same way as signification relates to coverage, volume (Yartseva V.N., 175).
With the expansion of semantic research, the sentence began to be interpreted as a kind of name with its own denotation, or extension, or reference, and, on the other hand, meaning, intension. The specificity of the name began to get lost, dissolving in the semantics of the sentence.
Classifications of names, in accordance with the scheme of the semantic structure (semantic triangle), can be carried out on three different grounds:
According to the form of the word, or morphological
By the type of value in the syntactic construction, or semantic-syntactic
By the type of meaning in the proposition, or logical-linguistic.
Semantic-syntactic classifications are of a more general, typological nature, they are based on the role of the name in the sentence, formally in its place as an actant in the predicate. Since such differences are by no means always expressed morphologically, their description and classification are more hypothetical than morphological classifications; to a large extent they depend on the chosen method of description. In most descriptions (and therefore quite objectively) names are emphasized denotative character, gravitating towards the direct designation of things and occupying in the sentence (ceteris paribus) the position of the subject, and names significative character, gravitating towards the designation, signification of concepts and occupying the position of the predicate in the sentence (including ""forbidden position"" - for example, Russian ""take part""). The formulations of regularities and headings in these classifications are of a statistical (i.e., not rigidly defined) character. These classifications intersect with morphological ones, since in languages of some types the difference in actants is associated with different case design of the name (Yartseva V.N., 176).
Logical-linguistic, universal classifications, completely abstracting from the morphological type of the name, correlate it with the logical construction, which is ultimately based on the relation of the name to the thing in the composition of the statement - reference. Rubrics such as referential names and non-referential names are distinguished; individual, general, metanames; names in direct and indirect contexts; real names and quasi-names –descriptions and others (Yartseva V.N., 176).
3.2 Verb system
A verb is a part of speech that expresses the meaning of an action (i.e., a sign of a mobile, realized in time) and functions primarily as a predicate. As a specifically predicative word, the verb is opposed to the name (noun); the very separation of parts of speech in ancient (already Plato), ancient Indian, Arabic and other linguistic traditions began with a functional distinction between the name and the verb. At the same time, the shaping of the verb (conjugation) is not clearly opposed to the shaping of the name (especially the adjective) in all languages, and the set of grammatical categories of the verb is far from being the same in different languages. Many languages distinguish between verbs and so-called verboids. The verb itself, or the finite verb, is used in a predicative function and, thus, in languages like Russian it denotes "action" not abstractly, but at the time of its occurrence from the acting person, at least in a particular case and ""fictitious"" ( e.g. "lights up"). In accordance with its function, a finite verb is characterized by one or another set of specifically predicative grammatical categories (tense, aspect, voice, mood), and in many languages also by concordant categories (repeating some categories of name and pronoun). Verboids combine some features and grammatical categories verb with features of other parts of speech - nouns, adjectives and adverbs. Verboids act as various members of the sentence, as well as in the composition of analytical finite forms and some constructions close to them. Verboids include infinitives (and other "action names" - gerund, masdar, supin), participles and participles. Some languages have no morphological opposition finite and non-finite forms; the form of the verb, acting in a non-predicative function, receives a special syntactic design (Yartseva V.N., 104)
Semantic-grammatical categories of verbs are distinguished on the basis of various signs. Significant verbs oppose official(so-called copulas) and auxiliary verbs used in analytical verb forms. On the basis of the semantically determined ability to "open vacancies" for actants, all verbs are also divided into a number of valence classes corresponding to the formal-logical classes of single and multi-place predicates. This is how monovalent verbs are distinguished ("sleeps" - who?), bivalent ("reads" - who? what?), trivalent ("gives" - who? to whom? what?), etc. A special group is made up of the verbs "nullvalent" denoting a certain indivisible situation and therefore unable to have at least one actant ("it is dawning") (Yartseva V.N., 104).
Others intersect with the above classification - according to the ability of the verb-predicate to have a subject (the so-called personal and impersonal verbs) and by the ability to accept an object ( transitional and imperishable Verbs).
Personal verbs, i.e. capable of being used with the subject, make up the majority of verbs of very different semantics. Impersonal, i.e. inconsistent with the subject, is zerovalent verbs and all those mono- and multivalent, the first actant of which does not receive the status of the subject (for example, ""I'm lucky"").
Transitive verbs receive a direct object ("I sew a coat"). The transitive also include those monovalent verbs, the only actant of which takes the form of a direct object (""I am shivering""). Intransitive verbs do not combine with a direct object ("brother is sleeping""), but they can also have other types of additions (""I admire the sunset"", ""I deviate from the rules""), called indirect ones (Yartseva V.N., 104 -105).
In another plane lies the division of verbs into dynamic and static. Dynamic means actions in the literal sense of the word ("ruble", "run"") or events and processes associated with certain changes ("the cup has broken", "the snow is melting""). Static ones denote states that depend on the will of the subject ("I am standing") or not dependent on it ("I am cold""), relations ("I am superior""), manifestations of qualities and properties ("The grass is turning green"") ( Yartseva V.N., 105).
Conclusion
The question of the principles of establishing parts of speech is still relevant in modern linguistics. Now more and more languages of the world are involved in linguistic research and, thus, the criteria for establishing classes of words (parts of speech), based mainly on data from the study of the languages of the Indo-European and Turkic families, turn out to be completely unacceptable for the languages of other families.
Although the features that characterize the words of a particular part of speech do not coincide in different languages, they are due to general meaning given class of words, i.e. are conditioned by a certain general category under which lexical meaning the words.
In some cases, the main formal feature of a certain part of speech is one or another combination of the corresponding words with others.
When comparing languages, the syntactic functions of parts of speech show much greater similarity than the types of word formation and form formation. Nevertheless, the leading and defining moment is the general grammatical meaning. The remaining moments are somehow subordinate to it and should be considered as its direct or indirect manifestations specific to each language.
The principle of common grammatical meaning underlies the traditional classification of parts of speech. Only this principle is not carried out consistently in it, different types of common grammatical meanings are not distinguished. The task is not to discard the traditional system of parts of speech and replace it with some completely new classification, but to reveal the oppositions fixed by the traditional classification, to clean this classification from inconsistencies, to separate the essential from the random features that change from language to language.
Thus, modern linguistics highlights the description of the system of parts of speech according to principles that, being unified, would cover all known structural types of languages, reducing their description to common initial ideas.
Table #1
| shaped words | Shapeless the words |
|||
| Formed words with syntactic and non-syntactic forms | Uniforms words with some non-syntactic forms
| |||
| Names | Verbs |
|||
| Names of creatures body |
||||
Scheme No. 1
1 noun
3 Name numeral
2 adjective
6
H
E
7
To
states
4 Pronoun
5 Verb
And
Scheme No. 2
PARTS OF SPEECH
Modal
The words
Particles
Speeches
Interjection
NAMES
State category
Name
Noun
Adverb
Unions
Prepositions
Adjective
Verb
Bundles
Name
numeral
Pronoun
Particles
Bibliography:
Ministry of Education of the Republic of Bashkortostan
Municipal state institution department of education of the Administration of the municipal district Bizhbulyak district
Municipal educational budget institution
secondary school with. Kistenli-Bogdanovo
Performed:
Antonova Yulia Olegovna
4th grade student MOBU SOSH
With. Kistenli-Bogdanovo
Supervisor:
Russian language teacher MOBU SOSH
With. Kistenli-Bogdanovo
Antonova Olga Vitalievna
2016
Table of contents
Introduction……………………………………………………………………3
The first appearance of the names of parts of speech…………………………… 4
The emergence of parts of speech…………………………………………. four
Interpretation of terms naming parts of speech…………………… 6
Statements of scientists about different parts of speech………………………. 7
Creation artistic image different parts of speech………...7
Fairy tale version - a story about the origin of the name of the adjective………………………………………………………… 9
Conclusions………………………………………………………………10
Literature…………………………………………………………. eleven
Applications……………………………………………………………12
Introduction
When we study Russian, we encounter different parts of speech almost at every step. I have always wondered where they came from, why they are called that way and whether these names have their own interpretations. I endlessly teased my mother with my questions, and she agreed to help me understand this topic. Since there were not so many books on this topic in the library, I sat down on the Internet. And so, what are parts of speech and what is their nature? It turns out that there is no single answer to these questions even among linguists. Some believe that parts of speech are lexical categories of words; others think they are grammar classes; others see lexico-grammatical groups of words in parts of speech. These "contradictions are more of a terminological nature, i.e., they are associated with differences in the names of equally, essentially, understood phenomena," - this is how the famous linguist of the 20th century B.V. Golovin.
The purpose of my work:
To study the works of scientists on parts of speech;
Find out the origin of the names of parts of speech.
Tasks:
Systematize the material on the origin of the names of parts of speech;
Create a slide project and speak to the students of the school.
1. The first appearance of the names of parts of speech.
Let's remember what parts of speech are.
If we open the "Russian Grammar" published by M.V. Lomonosov in 1755, we read the following:It was in this book that Lomonosov not only defined the foundations and norms of the Russian language, but also developed concepts about parts of speech. As you can see, Lomonosov singled out 8 parts of speech, and now there are 10 of them in Russian:1. Noun; 2. Adjective; 3. The name is numeral;4. Pronoun; 5.Verb; 6. Adverb; 7. Suggestion; 8.Union; 9. Particle; 10. Interjection.Sometimes the following groups are distinguished separately:1. Words of the category of states (considered as a group of adverbs);2. Participles and participles (we consider and how special forms verb);3. Onomatopoeia (a small category of words that are considered together with interjections);4. Modal words (a small group of words that perform the function of introductory elements in sentences).
2. The emergence of the names of parts of speech.
The doctrine of parts of speech has its roots in antiquity. Scientists of the Alexandrian school (for example, Dionysius of Thrace) established 8 parts of speech for the ancient Greek language: name, verb, participle, member (article), pronoun, preposition, adverb, union.The Romans adopted the teachings of the Greeks, replacing only the article, which was not in the Latin language, with an interjection.The doctrine of the eight parts of speech was also presented in the first grammars of the Church Slavonic language of the 16th-17th centuries. The most significant is the grammar of Melenty Smotrytsky.In Lomonosov we find the same eight parts of speech as in the Latin version, however, in his "Grammar" Lomonosov went further than the scientists of antiquity and distinguished between significant and auxiliary parts of speech. Significant parts of speech serve as a designation of objects, phenomena, processes, the real world, that is, they perform a nominative function - the function of naming. The service parts of speech do not perform a nominative function, but serve to express relationships and give shades to words.The departure from the ancient scheme begins with the grammar of A.Kh. Vostokov, in which the participle as part of speech was replaced by an adjective.G.P. Pavsky and F.I. Buslaev introduced a numeral.The last, already in the 19th century, particles were strengthened in the parts of speech, after which the system acquired the following structure:1. Significant parts of speech. These include:
a) words-names: noun, adjective, numeral, verb and its forms, adverb, words of the state category;
b) demonstrative - pronoun.2. Modal words that are not members of the sentence and associated with the sentence as a whole.3. Interjections that are not members of the sentence and express emotions.4. Service parts of speech - particles of speech (preposition, union, particle).Significant parts of speech are distinguished on the basis of three features:1) general categorical value;2) grammatical features;3) syntactic properties (that is, what they are in a sentence).Service parts of speech are distinguished on the basis of two features:1) the general semantics of the class;2) functional purpose in speech.So, according to the most common point of view, parts of speech are classes of words that are distinguished on the basis of their meaning and grammatical features.Common grammatical features include gender, number, person, and case. Separate parts of speech also have their own special grammatical features. For example, nouns still have declension, animation, names (proper/common).
3. Interpretation of terms that name parts of speech.
Verb - "verb" - to speak important (speech, word). It is fixed as a term from the "Grammar" by M. Smotrytsky (1619).Adverb - literally "verb", "verbal", "speech". The name of the part of speech is explained by the fact that the words that make it up in most cases determine the verb. Borrowed from the Old Church Slavonic language, "speech" in the meaning of "verb", that is"variants of dialects" - adverbs, are used casually, between important noticeable words.
The noun - "existing" - to be.Adjective - literally "to join", "attach".Pronoun - is a literal translation of the Latin pronomen (pro "instead of", nomen"name"). In the Old Russian language there was a combination "place name" in the same meaning.Numeral - from the word "number", which came from the common Slavic "clean" - "count, read."Interjection - a literal translation from the Latin grammatical term interjectio - frominter"between",iectio"throwing"."Interjections" literally - "words thrown between other (full-valued) words."
Participle - literal translation from Latinparticipiym(frompars
4. Sayings of scientists about different parts of speech.
The verb is the most fire-breathing, most lively part of speech. In the verb flows the scarlet, freshest blood of the tongue. Why, the purpose of the verb is to express the action itself!(A.K. Yugov) The pronoun is a convenient link in the structure of the language. Pronouns allow you to avoid boring repetitions of speech, save time and space in the statement. (A.A. Reformed ) The adjective is the most descriptive part of speech. adjectives can describe the color, smell, shape of any object, tell about our feelings, character, mood. (V.V. Vinogradov) According to scientists, nouns are the first to appear in a child's speech, as they name one or another object.(A.N. Gvozdev) Words are combined into sentences, sentences into text. And only inside the text ordinary words enter into a new context: a new alchemy is created - the magic of words.
5. Creation of an artistic image by different parts of speech.
Let's observe how different parts of speech can paint a picture.
1) ... that's really on Tverskaya
The wagon rushes through the potholes.
Flickering past the booth, women,
Boys, benches, lanterns,
Palaces, gardens, monasteries,
Bukharians, sleighs, vegetable gardens,
Merchants, shacks, men,
Boulevards, towers, Cossacks,
Pharmacies, fashion stores,
Balconies, lions on the gates
And flocks of jackdaws on crosses.
(A.S. Pushkin)
(Appendix)
Each part of speech paints a picture in its own way, and they are completely different from each other, but each time the picture comes to life.
From some nouns or adjectives (or other parts of speech) you can write a story or a poem.
2. Given the combination "the dog is barking."
This is a simple suggestion. Let's try, step by step, adding just one word or a word with a preposition, to increase the sentence. Let's describe each step, what it gives in terms of understanding the text, creating an image.
The big dog is barking. hairy, big dog barks.Grey, furry, big dog barks. Angry, gray, furry, big dog barks.
The dog barks loudly. The dog barks loudly and angrily. The dog barks loudly, angrily, angrily. The dog barks loudly, angrily, angrily, furiously.3. Here are two versions of the same poem by A.S. Pushkin.
Draft
Crushing on the cold rocks,
Shafts rustle and foam,
And eagles soar above me
And the forest murmurs
And slumber in the wavy haze
Mountain tops.
final version
Crushing against the dark rocks,
Shafts rustle and foam,
And the eagles are screaming over me
And the forest murmurs
And shine in the wavy haze
Mountain tops.
And now let's try to explain why the poet made such a replacement.In the final version, the poet replaced the adjective "cold" with "gloomy", and the verb "slumber" with "shine" in order to more accurately and vividly present the beauty of this picture before his eyes.
5. And now Let's read the fabulous version - a story about the origin of the name of any one part of speech.
Words are artists.
In the country of Linguine, on the shores of the Sea of Knowledge, there is an amazing city of Morphology. The inhabitants live in it - words of different parts of speech. They live happily among themselves, amicably, help each other in everything. But it wasn't always like that.
Somehow a lone word wandered into the city. The inhabitants of the city met him not friendly.
"Who are you?" - Verb, Numeral, Adverb attacked him.
“I am an independent part of speech and can make speech bright and colorful,” the word answered.
Only the Noun stood up for the word: “I will take you as my friend, you will be attached to me. I designate the subject, and you will be my sign. You will change with me by gender, by numbers and by cases. With the light hand of the Noun, the word was given the name Adjective. Tries an adjective for a friend, obeys and attaches to him. The Adjective began to decorate the Noun, to praise it. It is kind, smart, beautiful, independent, merciful. Together - service, together - friendship! Over time, other residents of the city realized that in vain they attacked the word. They became friends with him. How the city has changed! He became cozy, colorful. Scarlet, fragrant poppies bloom in the flower beds. From the bright, radiant sun, the sky turned golden. The sea became azure and gentle. In autumn, the leaves on the trees are golden and crimson. And in winter, not just snow falls, but soft and fluffy.
Adjectives are the words of artists that make our speech bright, colorful and expressive.
Conclusions.
After doing this research, I was overwhelmed by the diversity and richness of the Russian language. It turns out that only with the help of one part of speech you can draw a verbal picture, description, make a portrait of a person. I learned many names of linguists, their searches, disputes. And I realized the importance of the meaning of each part of speech. Because each part of speech is like a puzzle in a picture, and only the presence of all the details makes the picture complete. So the parts of speech, interacting with each other, make up all the beauty and richness of the great and mighty Russian language.
It has always been important to preserve the beauty and diversity of the native language, but this is especially true today, when our speech is literally littered with foreign words, the meaning of which is often not even tried to penetrate. Moreover, such words appear even in textbooks. Of course, I did not discover new rules, but for me this work became important for understanding not only the language, but also myself, my roots, because language is the soul of the people.
Literature
1. Ozhegov S.I. and Shvedova N.Yu. Dictionary Russian language: 80,000 words and phraseological expressions / Russian Academy Sciences. Institute of the Russian Language. V. V. Vinogradova - 4th revised edition. - M .: LLC "ITI Technologies", 2008. 944 pages.
2. Pushkin A.S. Poems. - Ufa: Bashkir book publishing house, 1986, 248 p.
3. Fet A.A. Poems / Comp., entry. article and note. V. Korovin. – M.: Sov. Russia, 1979. -368s.
4. Encyclopedic dictionary of a young philologist (linguistics) / Comp. M. V. Panov. -M.: Pedagogy, 1984, -352s.
5. Etymological dictionary of the Russian language for schoolchildren / comp. M.E. Ruth. - Yekaterinburg: U-Faktoria, 2007. - 427 (5) p.
Applications
Examples of an artistic image by different parts of speech
1) There is another wonder in the world:
The sea rages violently
Boil, raise a howl,
Will rush to the empty shore,
Will spill in a noisy run,
And find themselves on the shore
In scales, like the heat of grief,
Thirty-three heroes.
(A.S. Pushkin)
2) This morning, this joy,
This power of both day and light,
This blue vault
This cry and strings
These flocks, these birds,
This voice of the waters
These willows and birches
These drops are these tears
This fluff is not a leaf,
These mountains, these valleys,
These midges, these bees,
This tongue and whistle
These dawns without an eclipse, this sigh of the night village,
This night without sleep
It is the darkness and the heat of the bed,
Etr This is a fraction and these trills
Ete It's all spring. (A.A. Fet)
3) I am looking for melodious words,
Folk, traditional,
seething, combustible,
Bottomless, ringing,
Yes, to fall into the soul,
Like a grain in a field.
So that good and fine,
They shone like the sun.
Yes, they would warm the radiant ones,
Yes, they would call pretty
On thoughts would be clean
Yes, good things.
(V. Vyrkin)
4. Read the passages:
1) The officer raised his pistol and began to aim. Tibul walked along the cornice to the place where the wire began, separated from the wall and moved along the wire to the lantern. The crowd gasped.
He walked very slowly, then suddenly started almost running, stepping quickly and carefully, swaying, arms outstretched. Every minute it looked like he was going to fall. Now his shadow appeared on the wall. The more he approached the lantern, the lower the shadow fell along the wall, and the larger and paler it became. There was an abyss below.
2) The doctor was sitting on the drum and examining the room. A kerosene lamp burned on the box. On the walls hung hoops covered with tissue paper, white and pink, long striped whips with shiny metal handles, costumes strewn with golden circles, embroidered with flowers, stars, multi-colored patches. Masks peeked from the walls. Some had horns sticking out; others had a nose like a Turkish shoe; still others had a mouth from ear to ear. One mask featured huge ears. The funny thing was that the ears were human, only very large.
In the corner, in a cage, sat a small strange animal.
A long wooden table stood against one wall. Mirrors hung over it. Ten pieces. Near each mirror there was a candle, glued to the table with its own juice - stearin. The candles were not lit.
Boxes, brushes, paints, powder puffs, wigs lay on the table, pink powder lay, multi-colored puddles dried up.
From the life of unions.
Union is very ancient part speech and comes from the Greek language. By connecting words or sentences, unions indicate the relationship that exists between them, therefore, unions, like prepositions, refer to the phrases of relations.
V. Ivanova, Z. Potikha, D. Rosenthal
The preposition as the name of a part of speech has been found in the dictionary since 1636;
Comes from the Greek language. Literal translation of "before the word":
There are about 200 prepositions in Russian; ranks fourth in terms of frequency of use (after the noun, verb and pronoun):
Preposition B tops the frequency list.
Origin of Parts of Speech Names
Antonova Yulia, 4th grade student of MOBU secondary school
With. Kistenli-Bogdanovo MR Bizhbulyaksky district
Head Antonova O.V.
Purpose of the study : the study of the origin of the names of parts of speech.
Subject of study: parts of speech of the Russian language
Research methods: - studying the works of scientists on parts of speech;
Finding out the origin of the names of parts of speech.
Research objectives: 1. Systematize the material on the origin of the names of parts of speech;
2. Create a slide project and speak to the students of the school.
My work "The Origin of the Names of Parts of Speech" is devoted to studying the works of scientists on parts of speech and finding out the origin of their names. Today, our Russian language is replenished with numerous foreign words, the meanings of which are not always clear to us. Linguists say that you should not be afraid of other people's infusions. In order for a language to survive, it needs to adapt to modern times. We already need a translation into a modern language in order to comprehend the text messages, the obscene language of teenagers. A whole generation has already “grown up” on the Internet, not familiar with the rules of grammar and spelling. There were times when translations were introduced artificially in order to preserve the originality of the language. When we study Russian, we come across different parts of speech almost at every step. I have always wondered where they came from, why they are called that way and whether these names have their own interpretations. In the course of studying this topic, I came to suchconclusions:
Work protection
My work "The Origin of the Names of Parts of Speech" is devoted to studying the works of scientists on parts of speech and finding out the origin of their names.
The purpose of my work : - study the works of scientists on parts of speech;
Find out the origin of the names of parts of speech.
Tasks: 1. Systematize the material on the origin of the names of parts of speech; 2. Create a slide project and speak to the students of the school.
Today, our Russian language is replenished with numerous foreign words, the meanings of which are not always clear to us. Linguists say that you should not be afraid of other people's infusions. In order for a language to survive, it needs to adapt to modern times. We already need a translation into a modern language in order to comprehend the text messages, the obscene language of teenagers. A whole generation has already “grown up” on the Internet, not familiar with the rules of grammar and spelling. There were times when translations were introduced artificially in order to preserve the originality of the language. When we study Russian, we come across different parts of speech almost at every step. I have always wondered where they came from, why they are called that way.
He was the first to define the foundations and norms of the Russian language, and developed concepts of parts of speechMikhail Vasilievich Lomonosov
in the book"Russian
grammar",
published in 1755, here we learn the following:
"The human word has eight significant parts: 1) a name for naming things; 2) a pronoun for abbreviating names; 3) a verb for naming deeds; 4) a participle for abbreviating the combination of a name and a verb into one utterance; 5) an adverb for a brief depiction of circumstances; 6) a pretext for showing that circumstances belong to things or deeds; 7) a union to depict the reciprocity of our concepts; 8) an interjection for a brief expression of the movements of the spirit ...
Lomonosov distinguished between significant and service parts of speech. He said:«
Significant parts of speech serve to designate objects, phenomena, processes, the real world, that is, they perform the function of naming, while the service parts of speech serve to express relationships and give shades to words. As you can see, Lomonosov singled out 8 parts of speech, and now there are 10 of them in Russian:
1. Noun; 2. Adjective; 3. The name is numeral;
4. Pronoun; 5. Verb; 6. Adverb; 7. Preposition; 8. Conjunction; 9. Particle; 10. Interjection.
The doctrine of parts of speech goes back to antiquity. Scientists of the Alexandrian school (for example,Dionysius of Thrace
) established 8 parts of speech for the ancient Greek language: name, verb, participle, member (article), pronoun, preposition, adverb, union.
Romans
learned the teachings of the Greeks, replaced the article with an interjection.
The doctrine of the eight parts of speech was also presented in the first grammars of the Church Slavonic language of the 16th-17th centuries.Melenty Smotrytsky
. Departure from the ancient scheme begins with grammarAlexander Khristoforovich
Vostokova
,
in which the participle as a part of speech was replaced by an adjective.
Gerasim Petrovich Pavsky and Fyodor Ivanovich Buslaev
entered a noun.
The last, already in the 19th century, particles were strengthened in the composition of parts of speech.
And so, parts of speech have their own interpretations: verb - from the word "verb" - to say important;adverb - literally "verb", "verb", "speech", that is, "variants of dialects" - adverbs; used casually, between important noticeable words;
noun
- "existing" - to be;
adjective
- literally "to join", "attach".
Pronoun
- is a literal translation of the Latin pronomen (pro "instead of", nomen"name"). In the Old Russian language there was a combination "place name" in the same meaning.
numeral -
from the word "number", which came from the common Slavic "clean" - "count, read."
Interjection
- literal translation from the Latin grammatical term interjectio - frominter"between",iectio"throwing." "Interjections" literally - "words thrown between other (full-valued) words."
Participle – literal translation from Latinparticipiym(frompars"part"). The participle is named that way because it is “participated” in both the adjective and the verb.
In the course of studying this topic, I came to suchconclusions:
After conducting this study, I was shocked by the diversity and richness of the Russian language, it turns out that with the help of only one part of speech, you can draw a verbal picture, description, make a portrait of a person.
I learned many names of linguists, their searches, disputes. And I realized the importance of the meaning of each part of speech. Because each part of speech is like a puzzle in a picture, and only the presence of all the details makes the picture complete. So the parts of speech, interacting with each other, make up all the beauty and richness of the great and mighty Russian language.
MORPHOLOGY. PARTS OF SPEECH
LECTURE №2
Define grammatical form.
8. What grammatical means of expressing the grammatical form do you know?
9. What is the difference between grammatical meaning and lexical meaning?
10. What grammatical categories do you know?
11. What branches of linguistics is grammar connected with? Give examples.
12. What are corpus grammars?
Grammar science is traditionally divided into two large sections - morphology and syntax. The division into morphology and syntax is somewhat arbitrary, since grammatical meanings, behind the change in word forms, are fully disclosed only when their syntactic functions are taken into account, i.e. functions within the phrase and sentence. As part of morphology, the area associated with the formation of words as lexical units of the language, and the area associated with the formation of grammatical forms of the word, are distinguished. The first area is called word formation (sometimes derivatology), and the second area is called morphology proper. The traditional division of grammar into morphology and syntax does not have absolute and universal validity. Morphology as a section of descriptive grammar arises simultaneously with the birth of the ancient linguistic tradition - oppositions of the original form of the word are formed (in the ancient linguistic tradition - “substances” and its paradigms (“accidents”), the traditional nomenclature of parts of speech and grammatical categories is created and fixed for a long time.
For a very long time, people intuitively, on the basis of a wide variety of criteria, established certain classes of words. In the history of the science of language, beginning with the ancient Indian linguists, there is a constant desire to characterize these classes of words. Yaska and Panini (v - 3rd century BC) established four parts of speech in ancient Indian languages: name, verb, preposition and particle. They were combined in pairs on the basis of preserving the meaning outside the sentence (name, verb) or its loss, preposition, particle). Name and verb in a sentence, i.e. as word forms of the speech chain, they were called “case” and “action”. As a subgroup of names Jaska singled out pronouns. The semantic criterion was the leading one in the classification by parts of speech in ancient Indian linguistics.
Aristotle (4th century BC) singled out three parts of speech in the ancient Greek language: the name, the verb, and conjunctions, to which he attributed articles, pronouns, and copulas.
Later Alexandrian grammarians established eight parts of speech: noun, verb, participle, article, pronoun, adverb, preposition, and conjunction. When highlighting parts of speech, they took into account their syntactic role, morphological properties, in particular, inflection, as well as semantics. At the same time, unlike the ancient Indian scientists, they did not reach the analysis of the morphological structure of the word, they remained unaware of the concepts of the root and affixes. Roman linguists, having removed the article from the number of parts of speech (it was not in Latin), added an interjection.
In the Middle Ages, the adjective began to be emphasized. The classification of parts of speech in ancient linguistics was compiled in close connection with logic: parts of speech were identified with the members of the sentence and approached the members of the judgment, i.e. with categories of logic. But still, this classification was partially grammatical, since some parts of speech were established by the presence of certain grammatical forms and meanings (for example, verbs are words that change in numbers, tenses, persons and denote an action). The grammar of the ancient world, the Middle Ages, and even the Renaissance dealt mainly with Greek and Latin; when developing the grammars of new Western European languages, scientists proceeded from the norms of the Latin language. The view of parts of speech as logical-grammatical categories dominated until the end of the 18th and the middle of the 19th centuries. In the 19th and 20th centuries, the traditional system of parts of speech ceases to satisfy scientists. There are indications of inconsistency and contradictions in the existing classification, the absence of a single criterion. In the 19th century, in connection with the intensive development of linguistics, in particular morphology, the question arises of the principles for distinguishing parts of speech and their universality. The allocation of parts of speech begins to be based on morphological criteria, i.e. on the commonality of grammatical forms inherent in certain categories of words. An example of the allocation of parts of speech from a formal grammatical point of view is the classification of FF. Fortunatov. Parts of speech, called by him “formal classes”, F.F. Fortunatov singled out according to the presence of inflection forms in the corresponding words: inflected words, conjugated words, indeclinable and non-conjugated words. Along with the morphological approach, the logical-syntactic approach to the characterization of parts of speech continued to develop. Based on the narrow morphological or syntactic features of words, which are always somehow connected with their own lexical meaning, parts of speech began to be designated as lexico-grammatical categories of words.
