PREFACE

Mastering the material in the course “Morphology of the Modern Russian Language” presupposes not only possession of deep theoretical knowledge of traditional and modern interpretation of linguistic phenomena, but also the ability and solid skills of practical analysis of language, the formation in students of a creative independent understanding of linguistic facts, taking into account their development.

Manuals on the morphological analysis of a word as a model of a particular part of speech are a necessary component of educational literature for philological departments of higher educational institutions. Morphological analysis is included in some practical textbooks for higher education, as well as in current Russian language textbooks for secondary school. There are also special works containing diagrams and samples of analysis of all parts of speech (see literature).

The need for this manual is dictated primarily by the fact that the existing system of morphological analysis requires further development and clarification both in terms of its scientific and theoretical basis and in terms of the analysis methodology, and therefore the construction of the scheme itself.

MORPHOLOGICAL ANALYSIS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR IT

Morphological analysis in classes at a university is used as a technique both for teaching students to see linguistic facts in the text, to analyze them correctly, deeply and comprehensively, and for developing solid skills and abilities necessary for a future linguist, and also as a technique that helps the teacher control and evaluate these skills and abilities.

The effectiveness of this type of work depends directly on the scientific and theoretical basis embedded in the analysis scheme, as well as on the structural organization of the scheme and its construction. As for its scientific basis, the analysis scheme should require from the student a good (strong and extensive) knowledge of scientific theory (including recognized concepts regarding ambiguously assessed grammatical phenomena), the ability to prove or disprove its validity in practice, and see its strengths and weaknesses, argue your own position. It should contain the entire necessary scientific arsenal of information, allowing for a comprehensive, exhaustive description of the analyzed form.

Traditional in universities and schools is the following set and order of features in the analysis scheme of significant parts of speech: 1) part of speech, 2) initial form, 3) lexical and grammatical categories, 4) morphological categories, 5) syntactic features (4, 55; 5.55 ;15, 275)

The absence of a word-formation feature in this list can apparently be explained by the fact that word-formation analysis of a word exists as an independent type, and secondly, by the fact that this characteristic is present only in motivated words. However, following the features that form the basis for the division of significant parts of speech, the word-formation feature must be included in the morphological analysis scheme (20, 2; 22, 65). word-formation characteristics in morphological analysis mean the search for a formant and its meaning as indicators of the part-verbal semantics of the analyzed word form (cf. means of expressing part-verbal semantics in cognate words: black, blackness, blacken, black). In many cases, this type of work will help a student, who has retained a formal approach to identifying parts of speech since school, to understand in practice what place this feature occupies in identifying different parts of speech, to be convinced of the legitimacy of identifying the so-called main parts of speech among the significant parts of speech, to realize the close connection of word-formation and formal means of language.

It seems appropriate to include in the scheme one more feature that underlies the division of words into significant and non-significant. This is the semantic aspect of a word, revealing its connection with the concept, the presence of a nominative function in the word. In addition, the distinctive features of the connection with the concept, along with other features, underlie the allocation of pronouns to a special part of speech and to a special class of proper nouns.

The presence in the scheme of all the features that form the basis for the classification of words in a language makes it possible to verify that the existing system of parts of speech as a whole is distinguished on the basis of various features, that this is dictated by the properties of the words themselves, and that some elements of hierarchical relationships are noted in the system of parts of speech.

BUILDING AN ANALYSIS SCHEME

The current practice of constructing a scheme is based on the grammatical properties of words: lexical and grammatical features, morphological categories, the nature of change and syntactic function, located in the scheme, taking into account their interdependence and belonging directly to the field of morphology (which is why the syntactic function always completes the morphological analysis), and sometimes and taking into account whether this or that sign of a word is constant. It is quite natural that the scheme for analyzing words of different parts of speech differ (sometimes significantly) from each other in the number of categories and categories, their essence, and the nature of the change in the word. As a result, a practice has developed according to which each part of speech has its own analysis scheme, which in principle is naturally understandable.

Without speaking out against the existing tradition as a whole, we will nevertheless note some of its negative aspects. This is primarily because the student gets the impression that it is necessary to memorize as many schemes as there are parts of speech. In addition, compiled taking into account all the features inherent in a particular part of speech, which is justified by the task of repetition or testing knowledge of the material, schemes sometimes force and allow one to distract from the properties of the analyzed word form and approach the analysis formally (for example, determining the conjugation when analyzing the form of the past time shouted, answered requires focusing attention either on the form of the present/future tense ( screams), or on the infinitive ( answers - answer), and in addition, name a feature that the analyzed form does not have).

In our opinion, the scheme should be focused specifically on the analysis of a specific word form used in speech. With this approach, its analysis should be carried out based on the characteristics that form the basis for the classification of significant words (the second stage in the division, the first is the distinction between significant and non-significant), taking into account the interdependence of these characteristics, as well as taking into account the grammatical features and specific properties of the word form being analyzed. The scheme for analyzing significant word forms is a kind of general “grammatical framework”, which in its most general abstract basis unites word forms of different parts of speech into a class of significant ones, and in its particular, concrete content, distinguishes these word forms.

The structure of the scheme should be carried out taking into account the tasks facing the analysis, as well as the nature of the analyzed features. In this regard, it is necessary to determine the place of word-formation and syntactic features in the system of morphological analysis, since they essentially go beyond the scope of directly morphological properties, which are lexico-grammatical, categorical, as well as inflection characteristics. This can explain the absence of syntactic features in the new edition of the morphological analysis scheme proposed by L.D. Chesnokova (18, 58 et seq. Wed: 24 18). Undoubtedly, syntactic and word-formation features should be logically “woven” into the outline of the analysis and in this case be, as it were, “in the service” of morphology. Both of these features are united by one property that is important for morphological analysis - the ability to detect in many cases the part-speech status of the analyzed word form, which can be very important and even necessary. It is no secret that the weak school linguistic base of most students, the lack of skills in a reasoned approach to defining linguistic phenomena, insufficient attention or inattention to the text become the cause of gross errors in determining parts of speech, grammatical forms, and grammatical meanings.

Such prominent Russian linguists as A.A. wrote about the close connection between categorical semantics and syntactic properties of the main parts of speech. Potebnya, A.A. Shakhmatov, V.V. Vinogradov, L.V. Shcherba, A.M. Peshkovsky. So, L.V. Shcherba was inclined to believe that “nevertheless, the function of a word in a sentence is every time the most decisive moment for the perception” of it as a part of speech (26, 79). according to A.M. Peshkovsky, a significant role in determining parts of speech is played by the “syntactic beginning” (12.58), by which he meant, first of all, the environment of the word form. It should also be remembered that in general the study of the morphological properties of a word form is carried out on a syntactic basis, for “a word acts as a system of forms and meanings, only correlated with other semantic units of language” (6, 14). It is significant in this regard that A.A. Shakhmatov made the connection between a word and a sentence the basis for determining the part of speech (25, 420).

That there is no form presence(emphasized by V.S.) and whose function would be recognized otherwise than by its meaning. i.e. By connection with other words and forms in the speech of the language” (13, 36), manifests itself especially clearly in cases where, first of all, syntactic properties help a) distinguish between functional homonyms: how quiet everything is around. - The stream gurgles quietly. - The rooms are quiet and warm.; b) detect the transition of one part of speech to another: The girl bought a blue dress. - blue suits you; V) note the use of one part of speech in the position of another: Tomorrow we are going to the theater. - I know your tomorrow. In addition, an isolated word form can be polysemantic (cf.: forest- this is 1) “an area of ​​land overgrown with trees”, and 2) “cut down trees as a building material”) and multifunctional (for example, word form daughters in a sentence can express different grammatical meanings - r.p. units, d.p. singular, etc. unit, im.p. plural). and only the environment will help determine the specific form and its meaning.

All of the above convinces us that the syntactic properties of the word form must be present in morphological analysis. Syntactic features involve analyzing the compatibility of the analyzed word form and determining its function. The syntagmatic aspect must first of all reveal whether the analyzed word form occupies a dependent position, what part of speech it depends on, and what is the connection between them (cf.: write about the trip). This material is a preparation for functional analysis. It begins with posing a semantic (not formal, although the semantic may coincide with the formal) question from the word form being defined ( write) to the analyzed one ( trip), as a result of which its function in the sentence is determined. Returning to the analysis of the syntagmatic characteristics of the analyzed word form as a defined one ( about your trip) will allow us to discover new signs of its part-speech essence. For example, the categorical semantics of a noun presupposes the presence of engo as a dependent primarily an adjective (in the broad sense of understanding), only a noun is combined with a preposition, etc. This aspect of syntagmatic characteristics can be called the term environment, understanding its convention and justifying it only by the necessity and importance of distinguishing the connections of the analyzed word form with other word forms, either as a dependent or as a main (defined) one. In addition, the environment is sometimes also a position, for example, the position of an adjective between a noun and its preposition.

Considering the specificity of the features that form the basis for the classification of significant parts of speech, as well as the fact that morphological analysis is aimed at developing in the student solid skills in practical analysis, excluding annoying mistakes, at developing the ability, according to F.F. Fortunatov, “to think correctly” (21, 433), on the development of linguistic vigilance, which will help to understand the “secrets” of the grammatical structure of the language, we believe that the scheme can be presented in the form of two semantic parts, each of which includes a circle of features united by the theme of the corresponding parts of the diagram. The purpose of the first is to determine and argue the part-speech status of the analyzed word form. It does not consider such features that provide a basis for concluding what part of speech the word form proposed for analysis represents. These are the semantic aspect, formal features, word-formation formant (or method of formation) and syntactic properties. The second part includes an analysis of the actual morphological features of the word form - lexico-grammatical categories, morphological categories of the nature of inflection. Each feature is characterized according to plan. If everything that has been said is presented in full in the form of a diagram, then it will take the following form:

Analyzed word form:

semantic

formal

derivational

syntactic: A) syntagmatic functional environment

Part of speech

Lexico-grammatical categories: their semantic and grammatical characteristics;

Morphological categories: a) member of the category and its formal indicator, b) grammatical meaning, c) characteristics of the category in terms of quantity and quality (word forms or different words) of its members;

Paradigmatic: a) a particular paradigm of which the word form is a member, b) the nature of inflection.

As a result, we can propose to formulate a more complete definition of a part of speech, taking into account the morphological categories described in the second part, since the first gives the so-called school definition. A complete definition emphasizes the importance of morphological categories and the grammatical essence of part-speech semantics.

When getting acquainted with the analysis scheme, it may seem unnecessary to search for an argument for the part-verbal status of the analyzed word form. Indeed, in most cases, students recognize parts of speech just as, according to O. Jespersen, “at first glance we distinguish a cow from a cat” (9, 67), however, a philology student has to deal with more difficult cases when the real and the grammatical in a word are not symmetrical, when the force of the material meaning, like the flow of a river carrying away an object, will be obvious, and the force of the formal meaning, like the wind blowing against the current and holding the same object, will require special research techniques. Such cases are of particular interest to the student, as they force one to think and help to convince oneself of the difference between the concepts of subject and objectivity, feature and procedural feature. They also reveal the mechanism of interaction between the part-verbal meaning and the essence of grammatical categories as a whole, as well as grammatical categories among themselves; they reveal the connection between the real meaning and the grammatical meaning of individual categories, as well as the influence of context on the grammatical meaning of the word form.

NOUN

As already noted, the word form of any significant part of speech is analyzed according to one scheme, the specific content of which depends on the part-verbal affiliation of the word form and its individual characteristics.

SCHEME FOR ANALYSIS OF NOUN WORD FORMS

The scheme adjusted for the analysis of the noun takes the following form:

The main signs that reveal the part-speech status analyzed word form:

semantic: connection with the concept and nominative function;

formal: a) formal (part-speech) question for a word form, b) initial formal question and initial form, c) indicator of the analyzed form, d) its formation and structure;

derivational: a) motivated word, b) motivating word, c) derivational formant and its meaning;

syntactic: A) syntagmatic: dependence of the word form, its connection with the defined, b) functional: semantic question, function in a sentence, c) environment: the presence in the text of indicators of the part-verbal affiliation of the word form;

Part of speech: its definition based on identified features (part-speech semantics, part-speech question, primary syntactic function).

Lexico-grammatical, categorical and paradigmatic features:

Lexico-grammatical ranks: a) concrete (or material, collective, abstract), its semantic and grammatical features, b) common noun or own, its semantic and grammatical features, c) animate or inanimate, its semantic and grammatical features;

Morphological categories: genus: a) a member of the category and its formal indicator, b) grammatical meaning, c) characteristics of the category in terms of quantity and quality (word forms or different words) of its members; number: case: a) a member of the category and its formal indicator, b) grammatical meaning, c) characteristics of the category in terms of quantity and quality (word forms or different words) of its members;

Paradigmatic: a) the particular paradigm of which the word form is a member, its completeness, b) the type of declension, the nature of the stem, c) the concordant class.

SAMPLES OF ANALYSIS OF NOUN WORD FORMS

Analysis of the word form must be preceded by presentation in a sentence. In it you need to find a predicative basis, a word on which the analyzed word form depends, and the word form itself:

I remember the sea before the thunderstorm... (P.)

We believe that it is useful and interesting to compare samples of analysis of different nouns.

The Mazurka sounded. It happened

When the mazurka thunder roared,

Everything in the huge hall was shaking,

The parquet cracked under the roof,

The frames shook and rattled...(P.)

The main signs that reveal the part-speech status analyzed word form ( under) heel:

semantic

formal: a) formal question (under) what?, b) initial question What? and initial form heel -ohm, compare: heel, heel, heel...

derivational: there is no indicator, since the word is unmotivated;

syntactic: A) syntagmatic functional: semantic question (crackling) why?, performs the function of an adverbial cause with a touch of addition, c) environment: used with a preposition under, with it an adjective is possible ( under a strong heel);

Part of speech What?, primary function of the underlying (heel broke) or additions ( fix heel).

Lexico-grammatical, categorical and paradigmatic features:

Lexico-grammatical ranks: a) specific, since it denotes an object, it is combined with the pronominal collective numeral ( both heels), varies by numbers (heel - heels), b) common noun since it has a connection with a concept out of context, serves as the name of both an individual and an entire class of homogeneous objects, changes in numbers, c) inanimate, since it denotes an inanimate object, has the form v.p. plural, similar to the form im.p. plural ( I fixed my heels - the heels are clicking);

Morphological categories: genus: a) male, indicator – zero inflection in im.p. units when based on a solid consonant (not hissing), as well as inflection of a possible adjective ( strong heel), b) non-nominative meaning, c) three-member, classification category; number: a) singular, indicator - inflection -om, b) has the meaning of a collection of objects, c) two-term category, inflectional (heel - heels); case: a) instrumental verb, indicator – inflection -om and preposition under, b) circumstantial (reasons) and objective meaning, c) polynomial, inflectional category;

Paradigmatic: a) a member of the case-numeral paradigm, a complete paradigm, b) 2nd substantive declension, based on a hard consonant, c) 1st concordant class.

I don't know how to admire

And I wouldn’t want to disappear into the middle of nowhere,

But I probably have it forever

Tenderness of the sad Russian soul.(EU)

The main signs that reveal the part-speech status analyzed word form ( in the backwoods:

semantic: has a connection with the concept and a nominative function and, out of context, is a significant word;

formal: a) formal question (c) what?, b) initial question What? and initial form wilderness, c) indicator of the analyzed form - inflection -And, compare: wilderness, wilderness, wilderness..., d) formed using inflection, synthetic;

derivational: a) the word motivated, b) the motivating word deaf (place), c) derivational formant - a zero suffix with the meaning “name of a place based on the attribute named in the motivating basis,” that is, subjectivity;

syntactic: A) syntagmatic: depends on the verb, the connection with it is controlled, b) functional: semantic question Where?, a function of the circumstance of place with a touch of addition (in what?), V) environment: used with a preposition V, with it a pronominal adjective is possible ( in such a wilderness);

Part of speech: a noun, since it denotes objectivity, answers the question What?, primary function of the subject (I remember this wilderness) or additions ( I remember this wilderness).

Lexico-grammatical, categorical and paradigmatic features:

Lexico-grammatical categories: a) abstract, since it denotes an abstract concept, is not combined with cardinal numerals, does not change by numbers, b) common noun since it has a connection with a concept out of context, there are no other signs of a common noun, c) animate/inanimate neither grammatically nor lexically defined;

Morphological categories: genus: a) female, indicator – inflection – and r.p. singular, as well as inflection of a possible adjective (such a wilderness), b) non-nominative meaning, c) three-member, classification category; number: a) the only indicator is the zero inflection in the im.p., as well as the –th inflection of a possible adjective (such a wilderness), b) singularia tantum, non-nominative meaning, c) binomial category, here classification, case: a) prepositional verb, indicator – inflection –i, preposition V, and also a formal question in what?, b) adverbial meaning (places) with a connotation of the object, c) the category is polynomial, inflectional;

Paradigmatic: a) a member of the case-numeral paradigm, the paradigm is incomplete, since there is no particular plural paradigm, b) 3rd substantive declension, based on a hard consonant (sibilant), c) 3rd concordant class.

Part of speech.

The analysis can be completed with a more detailed definition of a word form as a part of speech. A noun is a significant part of speech that denotes objectivity and expresses it in the classification category of gender, mixed category of number and inflectional category of case, has the primary function of subject and object.

Morphological analysis must be preceded by preparatory work on the text, without which annoying errors occur. It begins with a careful reading of the sentence (less often the wider context) and highlighting the predicative basis in it. After this, it is determined on which word the analyzed word form depends and whether it has a preposition, an adjective (pronominal adjective, participle, ordinal number). All this can be visualized in the text of the sentence:

I was born for a life of peace(P.)

The word form for analysis is written out together with the preposition, enclosed in brackets. It is present in the formal question regarding the word form and participates in the expression of case relations, but is not an element of the analyzed word form of the noun (preposition is a auxiliary part of speech). The word being defined can also be placed in brackets; it will be necessary to search for a semantic question when determining the syntactic function of the word form - (born) (for) life.

Semantic aspect of word form. You should pay attention to proper names, most of which, unlike common nouns, acquire a connection with a concept in speech when used with common nouns (cf.: Vladimir is an old city, it was founded by the Kyiv prince Vladimir Monomakh), which should be pointed out during the analysis.

Formal features part-sentence of the word form. A formal question to the analyzed word form is its part-sentence question. It is determined by the word form itself and, in the presence of a preposition, can be added to an isolated word form: in the table - in what?, in the table - in what?. In its absence, the question is posed from the word being defined ( afraid of whom? – dogs, whose house? - father), since out of context a word form can be multifunctional: books - what? what?. For a formal question it is easy to find the initial part-speech question, and for it - the initial form.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://allbest.ru

1. The concept of “Particle” as a service part of speech

2. Homonymy: particles with independent parts of speech

3. Particles with functional parts of speech

Introduction

The relevance of the study is due to the recent increased interest in linguistics in function words, including particles as a means of providing semantic, structural and communicative organization of the text.

In connection with the discovery of implicit elements of meaning in the semantic structure of particles, the communicative properties of particles receive a new interpretation in the scientific literature.

The works of L. Vezhbitskaya, E. V. Paducheva, G. E. Kreidlin, T. M. Nikolaeva are devoted to this problem.

In all studies, it is undeniable that the information content of most particles is wider than the content of a single utterance, since the specificity of the functioning of particles in the text is their strict dependence on the implicit semantic component, which is included in the semantics of the utterance as a fund of general knowledge that unites the addresser and addressee of speech .

However, an analysis of the specialized literature on the communicative properties of particles indicates that the role of the particle in identifying implicit meanings in a literary text is not sufficiently covered. Linguists pay more attention to such particles, how, too, even, only.

The particle remains on the periphery of the study of linguistic means involved in the actualization of implicit textual meanings. The active use of the particle in written texts is explained, in our opinion, by the ability of a given linguistic unit to interact with “beyond-text” information and serve as a means of “compression” of information.

The purpose of the work is to analyze derived particles in the modern Russian language.

To achieve the goal of the work, the following tasks are set:

give the concept of “Particle” as a functional part of speech;

study homonymy: particles with independent parts of speech;

consider particles with auxiliary parts of speech;

study adverbial particles based on the materials of the National Corpus of the Russian Language;

consider homonymous particles with auxiliary parts of speech and non-nominal parts of speech.

When analyzing the material, we used the following methods:

statistical processing, observation of material;

descriptive;

comparative (in particular, a comparison of data from Explanatory Dictionaries and Grammars about the lexico-grammatical nature and one’s own observations on the functional-semantic specificity);

linguistic experiment (synonymous replacement or its exclusion from the syntactic structure).

The study of the functional-semantic features of the word here and its derivatives within the boundaries of a closed speech work at all levels of its syntactic system makes it possible to explain the modifications of the lexical and grammatical invariant meaning of the word here by the influence of functional contexts and the author’s style of writing M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin.

The theoretical significance of the scientific research is due to the fact that the new approach to the analysis of function words allows us to expand the information available in linguistics about the lexical and grammatical properties of the word here and its derivatives.

1. The concept of “Particle” as a service part of speech

The term particle (Latin particula), like most of the grammatical terminology, was inherited by Russian grammar from ancient grammar, which, in turn, adopted it from Eastern grammars (cf. Arabic harf - particle). This term is used in two meanings - general and specific. Particles in the broad sense of the word are the same as “particles of speech.” “Particles of speech,” which include, among other things, conjunctions and prepositions, are contrasted with “parts of speech.”

This general concept of "particles" embraces all classes of so-called "functional", "formal" or "partial" words. Particles are classes of words that usually do not have a completely independent real or material meaning, but mainly introduce additional shades into the meanings of other words, groups of words, sentences, or serve to express various kinds of grammatical (and therefore logical and expressive) relationships. The lexical meanings of these words coincide with their grammatical, logical or expressive-stylistic functions.

Therefore, the semantic scope of these particles is very wide, their lexical and grammatical meanings are very flexible, they are at the mercy of syntactic use. “These are, as it were, affixes detached from the basics, moving freely across the surface of the language (although historically it’s just the opposite: the affixes themselves come from such words clinging to full words).”

The grammatical development of the question of particles of speech in modern times constitutes an integral merit of the Fortunat school (if A. M. Peshkovsky is included in it). But A. A. Shakhmatov contributed especially a lot of new things to the understanding of particles. The term particles in the broad sense (or “partial words”) corresponds to the concept of “linking words” (“syntaxeme words”, to use the term of Academician I. I. Meshchaninov).

Linking words are very numerous and productive. Statistical calculations of stenographers show that the largest place among the most common words is occupied by prepositions, conjunctions, particles and pronouns. Thus, the French stenographer Estou calculated that in a French text of 20,000 words, 12 words (members and prepositions) are repeated 8,000 times (i.e., they make up 40% of the total text); in a text of 30,000 words, 23% were new words in the second thousand, 9% in the tenth, and 4% in the thirteenth. Keding, who was engaged in statistics of the frequency of use of different words and categories of words in the German language, found that in the material he examined from 11,000,000 words, the member der, die, das, the conjunction und and the prepositions zu and in are repeated 1,292,149 times and thus amount to 12 % of the total composition of German speech. Russian linguistic word language

In relation to the Russian language, preliminary statistical calculations show that in the text (variously selected excerpts of book and colloquial language) out of 54,000 words (54,338 words), prepositions are most often found: in (1881 times), on (770 times), with (578 times ), to (267 times), for (259 times), for (236 times), from (202 times), from (174 times), to (108 times), at (80 times). N. A. Morozov in his article “Linguistic Spectra” also came to the conclusion that in the Russian language the most commonly used prepositions are in, on, with. Among the conjunctions, they are distinguished by frequency of use and (1963 times in a text of 54,000 words) and a (740 times). Conjunctions and prepositions, especially as part of book speech, play a huge organizing role.

Thus, among connective words, among particles of speech, two sharply defined categories stand out most clearly - prepositions and conjunctions; and in addition, there are still several small groups of words that are united by the common properties of a hybrid-semi-grammatical, semi-lexical type and an intermediate position between adverbs and modal words, on the one hand, and conjunctions, on the other hand. It is these groups of “partial” words that usually retain the title of “particles” in the proper sense. There is no particular need to replace this traditional term with some neologism, although the internal inconsistency of dividing “particles of speech”, or function words, into prepositions, conjunctions and particles is obvious. According to the definition of academician A. A. Shakhmatova, particles include “words that enhance or emphasize in one way or another grammatical forms or predicates.” The overwhelming majority of particles in the Russian language reveal modal shades in their meaning and gravitate towards the category of modal words.

V. N. Sidorov in his “Essay on the Grammar of the Russian Literary Language” made an attempt to contrast particles with function words (prepositions, conjunctions, connectives). “Depending on what kind of formal meanings - syntactic or non-syntactic - are expressed by non-independent words, they are divided into two categories - function words and particles.” “Unlike function words, particles express non-syntactic formal meanings, adding additional semantic shades to the real meaning of independent words of various kinds (he will come; only he will come; he will come, etc.). Consequently, in their grammatical role and meaning, particles are close to word-forming affixes-prefixes and suffixes, which also add additional meanings to the real meaning of independent words.” But here the distinction between syntactic and non-syntactic meanings lacks fundamental depth and certainty: it is internally contradictory. This internal inconsistency and lack of differentiation of the concept - “syntactic meaning” in V. N. Sidorov’s grammar - immediately affects the definition of particles and their classification.

Particles are “non-independent words that usually express different shades of the speaker’s attitude to what is expressed in the sentence.” Further, the use of interrogatives (is it, really, really), exclamatory (how, what), intensifying (that, even, here, after all), emphasizing (only, only, only) and negative particles is noted. Thus, here all ways of expressing modal relations in the structure of a sentence are taken beyond the limits of syntax. The superficial formalism and lack of thought of this point of view are very clearly evident even in those illustrative examples that explain the functions of particles: “not a friend, but an enemy”; “you know that”; “Do you know this?”; “not far, but not close”; “What a strange case!” and so on.

The syntactic nature of the functions of all these particles is beyond doubt. There is no similarity, analogy or parallelism between them and word-forming affixes. Particles (no matter how vague this term is) have to be considered as a special type of words, but in the same grammatical-semantic circle to which prepositions, conjunctions and connectives belong.

In the modern Russian language, the following eight main categories of particles are especially clearly and sharply distinguished:

reinforcing-restrictive, or excretory;

connecting;

definitive;

index;

uncertain;

quantitative;

negative;

modal-verb.

Question and exclamation words also come close here, but these categories are more closely related to the category of modal words. The class of particles is deeply embedded in the category of modal words, and here new, hybrid types of particles take shape and develop. The history of the Russian dictionary presents vivid examples of the transformation of modal words into particles.

However, it is impossible to connect all particles, minus prepositions and conjunctions, with the category of modality. The fact is that some of these particles are close to conjunctions, while the functions of others sometimes go beyond the boundaries of modal relations. Therefore, the opinion that particles do not carry any syntactic functions and are grammatically opposed to conjunctions and prepositions should be recognized as erroneous and accidental.

“Particles include function words that serve in speech to express various semantic shades of a single word or a whole sentence” [Grammar-1960, vol. 1, p. 639].

“The class of particles combines unchangeable non-nominal (functional) words, which, firstly, participate in the formation of morphological forms of words and forms of sentences with different meanings of irreality (motivation, subjunctiveness, convention, desirability); secondly, they express a wide variety of subjective-modal characteristics and assessments of the message or its individual parts; thirdly, they participate in expressing the purpose of the message (interrogativeness), as well as in expressing affirmation or negation; fourthly, they characterize an action or state by its course in time, by the completeness or incompleteness, effectiveness or ineffectiveness of its implementation” [Russian Grammar-1980, vol. 1, p. 723].

The term particle is the Russian translation of the Latin particula. It is used in a broad and narrow sense. Particles in the broad sense of the word include classes of words that do not have an independent real meaning, but serve to express various grammatical relations and introduce additional shades into the meanings of other words, phrases, and sentences (“linking words”). “These are, as it were, affixes detached from the basics, moving freely across the surface of the language (although historically it’s just the opposite: the affixes themselves come from such words clinging to full words)” [Peshkovsky A.M. Russian syntax in scientific coverage. - M., 1938. - P. 67].

The term particle in the broad sense of the term was used by linguists back in the 18th century, and primarily in the works of M.V. Lomonosov. This interpretation continued into the 20th century. in the works of V.V. Vinogradov and some other linguists.

In modern linguistics, a narrow understanding of the term “particle” is accepted as an auxiliary part of speech along with prepositions and conjunctions. Prepositions indicate the syntactic dependence of names on other words. Conjunctions join words, phrases and sentences. Particles have a special function: they serve to convey different semantic shades of words, phrases and sentences. Therefore, some linguists talk about the grammaticality of prepositions and conjunctions and the semantics of particles.

In modern linguistics, particles are one of the most controversial parts of speech.

In the Russian Grammar-1980, particles are distinguished by function: 1) formative (let's, would, let, let, yes); 2) negative (not, nor); 3) interrogatives (and, whether, really, perhaps, for, what, or what, how); 4) characterizing the action in terms of time or effectiveness (it was, it happened, almost, like, just not, no, no (yes) and, so and); 5) modal (and, after all, there, here, just, yes, also, and, or, precisely, only, well, it, simply, directly, to you, only, really, this, give, give (those), yes, they say, only, yet, exclusively, well, and, for myself, etc.); 6) affirming or denying remarks (yes, no, exactly, yes, really, exactly, that’s good, okay, it’s going, well, etc.).

The classification presented in the grammar of N.M. seems more convincing. Shansky and A.N. Tikhonov. The authors distinguish the following categories of particles by value.

Particles with semantic meanings:

demonstrative: here, there, it, etc.;

defining-clarifying: exactly, exactly, exactly, just, truly, almost, approximately, almost, etc.;

excretory-restrictive: only, only, everything, exclusively, only, at least, at least, etc.

Adjacent to this group are intensifying particles, which can also act as a selection function: even, even and, same, and after all, not, nor, yet, then, simply, directly, positively, definitely, decisively, etc.

Emotionally expressive particles: what for, how, that’s how, where, that, that, and, about, etc.

Modal particles:

affirmative: yes, yes, exactly, definitely, how, yeah, yeah, etc.;

negative: not, nor, no, not at all, not at all, etc.;

interrogative: is it, is it, is it really, is it possible, what, and, yes, etc.;

comparative: as, as if, as if, as if, exactly, like, etc.;

particles indicating someone else's speech: - de, they say, supposedly.

Traditionally identified word-forming particles (- then, -or, -something, not -, neither-, something -), according to N.M. Shansky and A.N. Tikhonov, should be considered in word formation; formative particles (let, let, yes, would, let) - when studying the grammatical category of mood; postfix in the formative function - in morphology (as a voice-forming morpheme).

This classification is based on the achievements of linguistics in this area, but also needs to be improved.

Let's name another classification - A.M. Shelyakina. He identifies the following semantic categories of particles:

1. Particles that serve to express the relationship of the whole or a particular statement to reality:

affirmative (confirming) (yes, that’s right, okay, good, that’s right, that’s it);

negative (not, neither, no, not at all);

interrogative (whether, really, really);

incentive (let, let, come on, well, come on);

subjunctive mood (would);

excretory-restrictive (only, only, precisely);

excretory-indicative (here (here), here (there));

excretory-enhancing (after all, even, and, well, already, and);

defining-characterizing (just, almost, almost, completely);

comparative (as if, as if, as if, as if);

particles of authenticity (supposedly, they say, de, they say).

II. Particles that express the speaker’s attitude towards what is being communicated.

Particles with the meaning of doubt, uncertainty (hardly, sort of, as if);

expressing preference (better);

emotional assessment (well, that’s it, just, what the, that’s it).

[Shelyakin M.A. Handbook of Russian grammar. - M.: Rus. lang., 1993. - P. 216-217].

3. Classification of particles by structure, use and location

All particles can be divided into two groups according to their structure:

simple (well, after all, simple, not, etc.): Well, how is your health, treasure? (A. Kron);

compound (after all, almost, as if, etc.): Yes, as you can see. Excellent... (A. Kron).

Particles used may include:

a) to the whole sentence as a whole: I’m just used to telling the truth (K.S.);

b) by the way: We followed a barely noticeable path and came out onto a hayfield (K.P.). Only sometimes, flashing past the late dawn fading over the forest, a flock of wild ducks lands on the lake with a whistle and splash (Yu.B);

c) to the phrase: Tkalenko was only twenty-three years old (K.S.). And in this sense, the Oryol land comes out almost in first place (V. Pes.);

e) can be used as indivisible sentences: - Let me fly. - Sokolov, without sitting down, put his hand to his helmet. - Come on (K.S.).

Based on their location, particles are divided into:

a) prepositive: (yes, well, come on, let, let, no, neither, etc.): I asked Taganrog flower growers about the moonflower, but none of them knew about it (K.P.). The relationship with the boss is purely business (K.S.). What, showed up again? (K.S.);

b) postpositive: (same, whether, would, -ka): You’re not listening to me! If only you knew how beautiful the evenings are in Crimea!;

c) particles whose place is not constant: (after all, already, perhaps, etc.): But now can this have at least some significance? (K.P.).

Based on their formation, particles can be divided into two groups:

primitives (non-derivatives): well, not, neither;

derivatives formed by transition from other parts of speech: simply, decisively, that, itself, it, etc.

The pronouns it, everything, everything, how, that, this, yourself, etc. have become particles; For example:

- Who came from the regional museum? (D.Gr.).

“This is not how these issues are resolved,” he said, increasingly annoyed, looking at her faded hair (D.Gr.).

He just wanted to see how the guys were happy (D.Gr.). Let him go to the dacha... (Yu.G.). Oh, this is my youth! (K.P.);

Adverbs literally, quite, in general, only, yet, precisely, okay, definitely, truly, simply, directly, evenly, decisively, precisely, only, really; for example: ...there was literally nowhere to sit (K.S.).

Then during the day I talked for quite a long time with several sailors of our timber carrier (K.S.). It was not just a dugout, but a large two-room room (K.S.). ... there was absolutely nothing at the studio to film a fight scene (K.S.);

The verbs were, happened, after all (to know), you see (you see), give, give, they say, let, let, perhaps, etc.; for example: Let one of them come, but come (D.Gr.). Figurovsky started to walk, but stopped (D.Gr.). In your places, - she smiled, - almost all my life (Yu.N.);

Nouns good; for example: Welcome, come, we are waiting for you;

Numerals are the same; for example: The workers left, the building was empty, only the cleaners were hardworkingly cleaning, washing, and putting away everything unnecessary.

Particulation as a process of replenishment of particles due to the transition of words from other parts of speech can be called a productive process, if we keep in mind the quantitative ratio of particles in general and particles formed through diachronic transformation. When turning into a particle, the original word loses its denomination (the ability to have a nominative or pronominal way of reflecting reality), the ability to change (if it possessed it), to be a member of a sentence or its component, etc.; acquires the ability to express different shades of meaning (emotionally expressive, modal, etc.).

2. Homonymy: particles with independent parts of speech

It is also necessary to take into account the derivative nature of some particles, their correlation with other parts of speech (pronouns, numerals, adverbs, verbs, conjunctions, interjections). When establishing a part of speech, you can use the method of asking questions and the method of synonymous replacement. You can ask a question about the significant part of speech, but not about the particle. A particle can be replaced by another particle, the word of the significant part of speech - by the word of the corresponding part of speech.

For example: The britzka drove straight, but for some reason the mill began to move to the left(A. Chekhov) and It was scary: my heart just stopped(S. Smirnov).

In the first sentence the word directly - adverb, as it denotes a sign of action, indicates the direction of movement, answers a question Where?, replaced by an adverb forward and in a sentence it is a circumstance of place.

In the second sentence the word directly - the particle, since it serves to emphasize the semantic expressiveness of the statement, allows its removal from the sentence.

In a sentence Everywhere you look, everything sparkles, everything sparkles(D. Zuev) word All- a pronoun, since it points to an object, answers a question What?, replaced by a noun (for example, snow), acts as the subject in a sentence.

In a sentence Through the brown leaves, the high sky above the steppe spread out a canvas, and the sun descended lower and lower(A. Sofronov) word All - particle, since it serves to emphasize the semantic expressiveness of the statement, introduces an additional amplification value, it can be removed from the sentence, and can also be replaced with another particle (for example, same).

Particles must be distinguished not only from significant ones, but also from auxiliary parts of speech, in particular from conjunctions.

Wed: As soon as the sun splashes in a sweeping manner, thunder hides at the gates again...(S. Ostrovoy) and Over water, lightning flashes occurred only in the upper layers of the atmosphere, between the clouds(V. Ardamatsky).

In the first sentence the word only- a conjunction, since it serves to connect parts of a complex sentence, is replaced by a conjunction When. In the second sentence the word only - particle, since it serves to highlight, limit, is replaced by a particle only.

In addition, one should distinguish between the homonymy of the particle no (I don’t know, I wasn’t) And consoles not- (not stupid, nowhere); particles not (not a penny) consoles no- (nobody, never) and union neither (there is no wind or snow outside); particles - That. (Have you learned the words?) union then (it rains, then it snows) and postfix -that (someone, somewhere).

Many particles are related in origin to significant words. For example, the particle ish (the earlier form - vysh) is historically related to the verb to see, and the particle -s, widely used in the 19th century to express respect (yes, sir, no, sir, etc.), was formed as a result of the abbreviation of the noun sir .

In these cases, the formation of the particle was accompanied by significant transformations in the phonetic form of the original word; but there are also many particles that sound the same as the original significant words and are their functional homonyms.

For example, the particle itself emphasizes the free nature of the action, independent of external circumstances: “Yes, you, in general,<...>Don’t upset yourself with these questions. Live for yourself, go for a walk” (M.A. Bulgakov). This particle is homonymous to the form of the dative and prepositional cases of the reflexive pronoun: “Sergei Lvovich coldly replied that<...>brother Vasily decided to keep the money with himself” (Yu.N. Tynyanov).

The particle simply has the meaning “really, in fact”, “only; nothing more than”: “There is no hope for this” (M.A. Bulgakov); “You’re just a fool, let me tell you” (N.V. Gogol). This particle is homonymous to the adverb simply: “And I couldn’t figure out how to open it: but the casket just opened” (I.A. Krylov).

This particle indicates the connection of the predicate with the subject, for example: “Literature is the conscience of society, its soul” (D.S. Likhachev), and also emphasizes and strengthens one or another word in the sentence: “It was because of you that Ikonnikov came out, because of you they drove him away” (Yu.N. Tynyanov). This particle should be distinguished from the homonymous pronoun: “It’s enough that he maintained decent calm all this time” (N.V. Gogol).

To differentiate between particles and significant words, the analyzed word is replaced with a word synonymous with it, which would clearly indicate what part of speech it is, or with a phrase indicating that the word being replaced is a member of a sentence (since a particle cannot be a member of a sentence). For example, in the sentence “Sorry for the immodesty,” continued Rudolphi, “but how do you do that you have such a parting?” (M.A. Bulgakov) the adverb how can be replaced with the phrase how. In sentences “How the Cossacks jumped up! How everyone got involved! How the kuren chieftain Kukubenko began to boil when he saw that his better half was gone!” (N.V. Gogol) such a replacement is impossible; here the word how is a particle characterizing the intensity of the action.

Along with homonymy of particles and significant words, homonymy of particles and conjunctions is widely represented in the language, since conjunctions, losing their connecting function, can turn into particles. Comparative particles are especially characteristic in this regard. Coinciding in form with comparative conjunctions (except for the particle like, which coincides in form with the preposition), comparative particles, unlike conjunctions, do not introduce separate phrases or subordinate clauses; these particles warn that the words that follow them should not be understood literally, but as a means of figurative characterization based on similarity: “A steep climb up the mountain, through clay; here streams flow noisily in winding ditches, the water seems to have chewed up the road” (A.P. Chekhov). Very often, these particles lose the meaning of comparison and indicate the speaker’s uncertainty in what is being communicated, conjecture: “I definitely saw your eyes somewhere... but this cannot be!” (F.M. Dostoevsky).

Homonymic relationships with conjunctions are also characteristic of many other particles (for example, a, and, yes). During syntactic analysis, it is necessary to distinguish between conjunctions and homonymous particles, without which a correct understanding of the structure of a sentence is often impossible. So, in the sentence “When you wander, you return home, and the smoke of the Fatherland is sweet and pleasant to us” (A.S. Griboedov), the first is an intensifying particle (this is evidenced by the possibility of even replacing it with a particle), the second represents a conjunction.

3. Particles with functional parts of speech

Functional parts of speech are words that play an auxiliary role in significant parts of speech and serve significant words. Function words are characterized by a set of specific features:

do not have nominative semantics;

immutable;

are not a component of the utterance.

But function words are used in speech quite often and make up about 25% of the total number of words in speech.

Functional parts of speech include prepositions, conjunctions and particles.

Functional parts of speech are categories of words that serve to express the relationship between concepts that express significant words, and are used only in conjunction with them. They are not members of the sentence.

Functional parts of speech include:

prepositions, conjunctions, particles.

1. Prepositions are function words that, in combination with indirect cases of nominal parts of speech, express various relationships between forms of a name and other words.

By origin, prepositions are divided into:

primitives (unmotivated from the point of view of the modern Russian language): in, on, before, etc.;

derivatives (you can trace word-formation connections with the significant words from which these prepositions are formed).

Derivative prepositions, in turn, are divided into:

adverbial (along, around),

denominative (sort of, like),

verbal (excluding, thanks).

According to their structure, derived prepositions are divided into:

simple (except, about)

compound (at the time, for the reason).

Almost all prepositions are used with one specific case, but they can express different relationships:

spatial (living in a village),

temporary (wait in the morning),

objective (tell about what happened),

causal (to die from a wound),

targeted (send for repairs), etc.

2. Conjunctions are function words that express grammatical relationships between members of a sentence, parts of a complex sentence or individual sentences in a text.

Union ranks

By origin, unions are divided into:

non-derivative (unmotivated in modern Russian): and, or, yes;

derivatives (you can trace the formational connections with the significant words from which these conjunctions are formed): so that, as if.

According to their structure, derivative conjunctions are divided into:

simple (as if)

compound (since, in order to).

Conjunctions are distinguished by use:

single (or non-repeating): but, however;

repeating: and...and, neither...nor;

double (or paired): if...then, how...and.

Coordinating conjunctions and subordinating conjunctions.

According to their syntactic function, conjunctions are divided into:

a) - coordinating (linking syntactically equal units: homogeneous members of a sentence, simple sentences as part of complex sentences).

According to their meaning, coordinating conjunctions are divided into:

connective (express enumeration relations): and, yes (in the meaning and), and...and, too, also;

adversatives (express relations of opposition): a, but, however, same;

divisive (express relations of mutual exclusion): or, or...or, then...that;

explanatory (express explanatory relationships): exactly, like that;

connecting (expressing relations of accession) yes and, and also.

b) - subordinates (they connect syntactically unequal units: the main and subordinate parts of a complex sentence, members of a simple sentence).

By meaning, subordinating conjunctions are divided into:

temporary: when, as soon as, not yet;

explanatory: how, what, so that;

causal: since, because;

consequences: so;

concessive: let, although, despite the fact that;

comparative: as if, as if;

target: in order to, in order to;

conditional: if, once.

3. Particles are function words that give sentences additional semantic or emotional shades.

Particles are divided into:

demonstrative: here, there, this;

clarifying: just, exactly,

restrictive: only, only;

amplification: even, after all,

negative: not, neither; c) modal: yes, no;

interrogative: really, whether;

formative: would, let, -ka, etc.

4. Interjections, onomatopoeic words

An interjection is a special part of speech that combines unchangeable words that express our feelings, expressions of will, etc., without naming them. This is neither an independent nor an auxiliary part of speech; interjections have no lexical or grammatical meanings, they are not parts of a sentence.

Interjection categories:

emotional (express feelings of joy, sadness, anger, etc.): Oh! Oh! Aral;

imperative (express orders, greetings, prohibitions, etc.): Hey! Stop!

Based on their origin, interjections are divided into:

primitives: Ah! Hooray! Ogol;

derivatives: Trouble! Lid! Kaput!

A special group consists of onomatopoeic words, which are imitations of sounds; they are distinguished from interjections by the fact that they do not express any feelings: qua-qua, woof-woof.

Functional parts of speech, unlike independent ones, do not have a specific lexical and general grammatical meaning, do not change, are not separate members of the sentence, they perform only service functions in the sentence.

Prepositions are used to express the relationship of a noun, numeral and some pronouns to other words in speech. Prepositions help connect words in a phrase, clarify the meaning of a statement, and add adverbial meanings. So, in the sentence I’ll come to Moscow at five o’clock in the evening there are no excuses for the train being late. Although in general the phrase is understandable, still the prepositions from (expresses spatial relations - from Moscow), in (expresses temporal relations - at five in the evening), as a result of, because of (expresses circumstantial, causal relations - due to being late) would help understand what was said faster and more accurately.

The use of prepositions, taking into account grammatical norms, is a prerequisite for good and correct speech. Thus, the preposition in correlates only with the preposition from, and the preposition with correlates only with the preposition on. One can say (came) to school - from school (but not “from school”), (came) from the Caucasus - to the Caucasus (but not “from the Caucasus”); You can’t say “due to being late” - only because of being late.

We must remember that the prepositions according to, in spite of, thanks to are used with nouns in the dative case: according to the order, despite criticism, thanks to a friend. Prepositions usually come before | the word with which they are used. Conjunctions are function words that connect homogeneous members of a sentence or parts of a complex sentence. Coordinating conjunctions (and, neither--nor, also, also, but, but, however, or, either, that-and-that) connect homogeneous members of a sentence and parts of a complex sentence: A light breeze woke up and then subsided. (I. Turgenev.) Only the heart beats, and the song sounds, and the string quietly rumbles. (A. Surkov.) Coordinating conjunctions are divided into three categories according to their meaning:

1) connective (“and this and that”): yes (= and), and--and, neither--nor, also, also, not only-but and, as-and;

2) adversative (“not this, but this”): but, a, yes (= but), but, however; 3) dividing (“either this, or that”): either, either, this, not that, not that.

Subordinating conjunctions (that, that, because, as if) connect parts of a complex sentence: The sun was already high when I opened my eyes. (V. Garshin.)

Subordinating conjunctions are divided into categories according to their meaning:

1) explanatory (indicate what they are talking about): what, in order, as if, as if to others;

2) temporary: when, barely, how, as soon as, before, etc.;

3) causal: because, since, etc.;

4) targeted: in order to, in order to, in order to, etc.;

5) conditional: if, once, if, etc.;

6) concessional: although, despite the fact that, etc.;

7) investigative: so;

8) comparative: as, as if, as if, etc.

In complex sentences, the role of a conjunction connecting parts of a sentence can be played by relative pronouns (which, whose, which, who, what, how much) and adverbs (where, where, when, from where, why, why, why). They are called allied words. Unlike conjunctions, allied words are members of a sentence: We approached the house where my friend lives.

Particles serve to form the forms of words and to express different shades of meaning in a sentence: The same word, but I wouldn’t have said it that way. (Proverb.) - the particle would (say would) forms the conditional form of the verb; What a delight these tales are! (A. Pushkin.) - the particle expresses delight, adds an exclamatory meaning; Let everyone be happy! -- let the particle form the imperative mood of the verb to be.

The particles involved in the formation of verb forms are called formative.

Particles that convey different meanings are called modal. Modal particles can express*:

1) negation: no, neither;

2) strengthening: even, after all, after all;

3) question: really, really;

4) exclamation: so what?

5) doubt: unlikely, hardly;

6) clarification: exactly, just;

7) allocation, limitation: only, only;

8) indication: over there, here.

Particles neither and nor are often found in our speech. The particle does not convey negation: not you, couldn’t, not a friend, but in double negation (couldn’t help but know) and in interrogative-exclamation sentences (Who doesn’t know Pushkin’s fairy tales!, i.e. everyone knows) the particle does not lose its negative meaning .

The particle no most often has an intensifying meaning; it strengthens the negation when it is expressed by the particle not or words in the meaning “no, it’s impossible”:

Neither rain nor snow stopped us; that is, neither rain nor snow stopped us; There is not a cloud in the sky, that is, there are no clouds in the sky. The particle is not found in set expressions (neither alive nor dead), in the subordinate part of a sentence like

No matter how many times I read this book, I am always interested, that is, although I have read this book many times, I am still interested. Particles are not and are written separately from the words they refer to.

Posted on Allbest.ru

Similar documents

Signs of analyticism when expressing the lexical and grammatical meaning of a word in the Russian language. Consideration of the growth of analyticism in the system of verbs, nouns, adjectives, adverbs, numerals, prepositions, and particles of the Russian language.

abstract, added 01/29/2011


A study of synthetic and analytical ways of expressing lexical and grammatical meaning within a significant word. Analysis of the features of the use of affixation, alternation, reduplication, stress and suppletive forms in the Russian language.

abstract, added 10/23/2013


Meaning of the word. Structure of the lexical meaning of a word. Definition of meaning. Volume and content of meaning. Structure of the lexical meaning of a word. Denotative and significative, connotative and pragmatic aspects of meaning.

abstract, added 08/25/2006


Theoretical foundations for the study of words of the state category as an independent part of speech. The main problems of the doctrine of transition processes at the level of parts of speech. Analysis of the category of state as an independent part of speech in modern Russian.

course work, added 12/08/2017


Typology as a science. Fundamentals of typological analysis of parts of speech. Typological features of the interaction of parts of speech in modern English. Semantic, morphological and functional analysis of parts of speech in modern English.

thesis, added 06/25/2011


The grammatical division of the entire lexical composition of a language is at the heart of the question of parts of speech. Classification of parts of speech in Russian and English languages, conducting their comparative analysis. Typological criteria that exist for comparing parts of speech.

course work, added 10/28/2016


Interpretation of the lexical meaning of a word in language and artistic speech. Semantic structure of the words “ringing” and “sound” in modern Russian. Figurative understanding of the lexemes “ring” and “sound” and their role in reflecting the author’s picture of the world of Sergei Yesenin.

course work, added 10/03/2014


Words of the state category in the system of parts of speech of the English language, their concept and content, semantic groups. Comparative analysis of the frequency of words of the state category, their combinatorics and features of functioning in modern English.

thesis, added 11/11/2011


Definition of direct and figurative meanings of words in Russian. Scientific terms, proper names, newly coined words, rarely used words and words with a narrow subject meaning. Basic and derived lexical meanings of polysemantic words.

presentation, added 04/05/2012


Lexical ellipticisms. Words formed with the help of suffixes that have a colloquial coloring. Words formed by truncation. Figurative meanings of common words. Traditional lexicographic classification of vocabulary.

Analysis used to implement epidigmatic, paradigmatic and syntagmatic analysis.

• - See: marginalists...

  Dictionary of business terms

• - compared to the material-graphic level, information means have a more complex nature. Information is contained in the lexical, morphological and syntactic elements of the text...

  Explanatory translation dictionary

• - 1) epidigmatic analysis; 2) paradigmatic; 3) syntagmatic analysis...

  Terms and concepts of linguistics: Vocabulary. Lexicology. Phraseology. Lexicography

• - 1) Epidigmatic analysis; 2) paradigmatic; 3) syntagmatic analysis...

  Dictionary of linguistic terms T.V. Foal

• - ...
• - ...

  Spelling dictionary of the Russian language

• - le/xiko- - the first part of compound adjectives, written through...
• - ...

  Together. Apart. Hyphenated. Dictionary-reference book

• - GRAMMAR, -and...

  Ozhegov's Explanatory Dictionary

• - GRAMMARICAL, grammatical, grammatical. adj. to grammar. Grammar rules. ❖ Grammar error - spelling error, spelling error...

  Ushakov's Explanatory Dictionary

• - grammatical adj. 1. ratio with noun grammar, associated with it 2. Characteristic of grammar, characteristic of it. 3. Relating to grammar. 4. Having a mandatory formal expression in the language...

  Explanatory Dictionary by Efremova

• - seminal adj. 1. ratio with noun sema associated with it 2...

  Explanatory Dictionary by Efremova

• - ...

  Spelling dictionary-reference book

• - grammar "...
• - l "exico-grammat"...

  Russian spelling dictionary

• - With"...

  Russian spelling dictionary

"lexico-grammatical complete seme analysis" in books

Mentality and grammatical structure