Methods of studying parts of speech. Teaching about parts of speech in Russian. Principles of classification of parts of speech in Russian grammatical science
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. Terminology of Greek and Roman scientists describing the phenomena of their mother tongue, 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).
The issues 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 the 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-speech 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: literally and figuratively, researchers speak different languages and put various meanings into the term "parts of speech". 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 the 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 of non-linguistic objects as constituent parts proposals, but something that is outside these proposals, that is, existing in that area of objective reality, which is described by these proposals. ... 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 assumes 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 basis of which it is impossible not to see the □tots/PPets opposition, on the one hand, and the Aristotelian bivalent logic, on the other hand, mutually explain and determine each other.
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 did not clearly formulate the relationship between language and logic, and that the concepts of being, speaking and thinking often coincided with him. 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 cerptoI ^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 background 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 only 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 perfectly. Greek, everything Greek was in vogue, ancient Greek was the model language for the Romans, the grammar of Dionysius the Thracian was model grammar. The culture of the Roman Empire was bilingual: Greek and Latin were connected by a single ideological standard of mythological beliefs and practically common at the turn of our era. political history. 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 models (see) and on Greek terminology.
The Greco-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 its defining, 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 entire history of the existence of this issue - 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 able to describe 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 almost all parts of speech are defined, is nothing more than an intuitive terminological display of the formal features of parts of speech. Such concepts as "object", "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 one language or another 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 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, therefore 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.
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.
The modern doctrine of parts of speech has been formed for a long time and has traditions, the knowledge of which is necessary for a correct understanding of the system of parts of speech, the tendencies of its development. Russian linguists made a great contribution to the development of a general theory of parts of speech, creating a grammatical doctrine that correctly reflects the system of morphological classes of words in the Russian language.
In Russian linguistics, the doctrine of parts of speech arose under the influence of ancient grammars. However, already in the first Russian grammars, ways to improve this teaching, the desire for a more accurate reflection of the features of the Russian language, are outlined. For the first time, on the vast material of the Russian language, parts of speech were subjected to a deep analysis in the Russian Grammar (1755) by M. V. Lomonosov. Lomonosov distinguished 8 parts of speech: name, pronoun, verb, participle, adverb, preposition, conjunction and interjection. In his grammar, the most important morphological features of the words of all the named parts of speech are considered in detail.
OH. Vostokov, developing the teachings of M.V. Lomonosov, singled out adjectives in the Russian Grammar (1831) as an independent part of speech (in Lomonosov's grammar they constituted a single class of names with nouns). OH. Vostokov removed participles from the parts of speech, which he considered as a special category of adjectives. In adjectives A.Kh. Vostokov distinguished 5 groups: qualitative, possessive, relative, numerals (quantitative and ordinal) and active adjectives, that is, participles.
In the work of G.P. Pavsky "Philological observations on the composition of the Russian language" (1841-1842) contains valuable considerations about the grammatical nature of the verb, pronouns and other parts of speech. G. P. Pavsky substantiated the grammatical independence of numerals.
In the formation of the doctrine of parts of speech, an important place is occupied by the “Experience of the Historical Grammar of the Russian Language” (1858) by F. I. Buslaev, “From Notes on Russian Grammar” (vol. II, 1888) by A. A. Potebni. Fairly criticizing F. I. Buslaev, who attributed pronouns and numerals to functional words, A. A. Potebnya deeply reveals the grammatical essence of these parts of speech.
A significant contribution to the doctrine of parts of speech was made by F.F. Fortunatov, A.A. Shakhmatov, A.M. Peshkovsky, L.V. Shcherba, V.V. Vinogradov and others.
Based mainly on formal indicators, F.F. Fortunatov singled out full words (verbs, nouns, adjectives, infinitives, participles, adverbs, gerunds) as part of parts of speech, which he divided into conjugated, inflected and indeclinable, partial words (prepositions, conjunctions, connectives, particles, modal words), interjections.
All classes of words are described in detail in the Syntax of the Russian Language (1941) by A. A. Shakhmatov, who believed that parts of speech manifest themselves only in syntax. He distinguished between significant words (nouns, adjectives, verb, adverb), non-significant (pronouns, numerals, pronominal adverbs), auxiliary words (prepositions, conjunctions, particles, copulas, prefixes), interjections. In the system of parts of speech of A. A. Shakhmatov, the boundaries of adverbs are very broadly outlined. This part of speech includes modal words, words of the state category, and even individual interjections.
In clarifying the composition of parts of speech and developing the principles of their classification, great merit belongs to L. V. Shcherba. He outlined his views on the parts of speech in the article "On Parts of Speech" (1928). When characterizing parts of speech, L. V. Shcherba took into account both lexical meanings and grammatical properties of words. Based on a combination of lexical and grammatical indicators, he proposed to single out words of the category of state into a special part of speech. Here he included words like it is impossible, it is cold, it is necessary, ashamed, which, in his opinion, are incorrectly included in adverbs. Unlike adverbs, they do not adjoin the verb, they are the predicate of an impersonal sentence, they are combined into a special class of words and by meaning: they denote a state. According to L. V. Shcherba, the link is also an independent part of speech (to be).
Exclusively important role in the formation of modern ideas about parts of speech, the definition of their boundaries, the studies of V. V. Vinogradov played, especially his book "Russian language" (1947). Through the efforts of V. V. Vinogradov, the A complex approach to the distribution of words by parts of speech, to the characteristics of parts of speech. “The classification of words,” writes V.V. Vinogradov, “should be constructive. It cannot ignore any side of the structure of the word. But, of course, lexical and grammatical criteria... should play a decisive role. In the grammatical structure of words, morphological features are combined with syntactic ones into an organic unity. Morphological forms are settled syntactic forms. There is nothing in morphology that is not or was not previously in syntax and vocabulary.
V. V. Vinogradov distinguishes 4 main “grammatical-semantic categories of words”: 1) words-names (noun, adjective, numeral, verb, adverb, 1 category of state). Pronouns are attached to them. The words of this group are "the main lexical and grammatical foundation of speech." They act as members of the proposal and may constitute the proposal; 2) connective, i.e. service, words (particle-bundles, prepositions, unions). They are devoid of a nominative function, "their lexical meanings are identical to grammatical ones"; 3) modal words. They are also devoid of a nominative function, “do not express connections and relationships between the members of the sentence”, but denote “the modality of reporting reality”; 4) interjections.
In V. V. Vinogradov's book, for the first time, the category of state and modal words are included in the system of parts of speech and are thoroughly characterized as independent lexical and grammatical categories of words.
The theory of parts of speech by V. V. Vinogradov is widely used in scientific grammars, university courses of the Russian language. Proponents of this theory are gradually improving and developing it, attracting new data and making the necessary clarifications.
From the history of the doctrine of parts of speech. For a very long time, people intuitively, on the basis of a wide variety of criteria, established certain classes of words, which turned out to be convenient to establish when describing languages with a division of the vocabulary into parts of speech. In the history of the science of language, beginning with the ancient Indian linguists and Aristotle, there is a constant desire to characterize certain classes of words. Yaska and Panini (V - III 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 the preservation of the meaning outside the sentence (name, verb) or the loss of the meaning outside the sentence (preposition, particle). Name and verb in a sentence, i.e. as word forms of the speech chain, case and action were called. As a subgroup of names, Yaska singled out pronouns.
The semantic criterion was the leading one in establishing parts of speech in ancient Indian linguistics (Kochergina V. A 87). Aristotle (IV century BC) established three parts of speech in the ancient Greek language: the name, the verb and conjunctions (which also included articles, pronouns, copulas). Later Alexandrian grammarians established eight parts of speech: noun, verb, participle, article, pronoun, adverb, preposition, conjunction. Roman linguists, removing the article from the parts of speech (there was no article 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 the development of 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, etc. 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, linguists proceeded from the norms of the Latin language (Kochergina V. A 87-88). The view of parts of speech as logical and grammatical categories dominated until the end of the 18th - the middle of the 19th century. In the XIX - XX 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 principle of division in it.
In the 19th century In connection with the intensive development of linguistics, in particular morphology, with the study of many new languages, the question arises of what criteria should be used to distinguish parts of speech and whether they are different in different languages. The allocation of parts of speech is beginning to be based on morphological criteria, i.e. on the commonality of grammatical forms inherent in certain categories of words. An example of the allocation of parts of speech from a formal grammatical point of view is the definition of parts of speech by F. F. Fortunatov.
F. F. Fortunatov singled out the parts of speech that he called formal classes by the presence of certain forms of inflection in the corresponding words: inflected words, conjugated words, indeclinable and non-conjugated words. Proceeding from this, a noun is such a formal class (according to Fortunatov), which has a case form, and an adjective is such a formal class, which is characterized by the form of gender, number and case (Kochergina V. A 88). Along with the morphological criterion, the logical-syntactic criterion of approach to the characterization of parts of speech continued to develop. From a syntactic point of view, words that act as the same member of a sentence are combined into the same part of speech.
For example, those words that can act as definitions are adjectives.
Based on the narrow morphological or syntactic features of words, which are always somehow connected with their own lexical meaning, parts of speech began to be designated as lexico-grammatical categories of words (Kochergina V. A 88). 1.2
End of work -
This topic belongs to:
Parts of speech
Speaking of parts of speech, they mean the grammatical grouping of lexical units of the language, i.e. allocation in the vocabulary of the language of certain groups or .. Statements on the question of what the distribution of words in parts is based on .. Separate parts of speech are distinguished on the basis of one leading word inherent in the words belonging to this grouping of words ..
If you need additional material on this topic, or you did not find what you were looking for, we recommend using the search in our database of works:
What will we do with the received material:
If this material turned out to be useful for you, you can save it to your page on social networks:
For a very long time, people intuitively, on the basis of a wide variety of criteria, established certain classes of words, which turned out to be convenient to establish when describing languages with a division of the vocabulary into parts of speech. In the history of the science of language, starting with the ancient Indian linguists and Aristotle, there is a constant desire to characterize certain classes of words, to clarify their role.
Yaska and Panini (V - III 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 keeping the meaning outside the sentence (name, verb) or losing the meaning outside the sentence (preposition, particle). Name and verb in a sentence, i.e. as word forms of the speech chain, were called "case" and "action". As a subgroup of names Jaska singled out pronouns. The semantic criterion was the leading one in establishing the parts of speech in ancient Indian linguistics.
Aristotle (IV century BC) established three parts of speech in the ancient Greek language: the name, the verb and conjunctions (which also included articles, pronouns, copulas). Later Alexandrian grammarians established eight parts of speech: noun, verb, participle, article, pronoun, adverb, preposition, conjunction. Roman linguists, removing the article from the parts of speech (there was no article 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 the development of 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, etc. 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, linguists proceeded from the norms of the Latin language.
In the XIX - XX centuries. the traditional system of parts of speech ceases to satisfy scientists.
In the 19th century In connection with the intensive development of linguistics, in particular morphology, with the study of many new languages, the question arises of what criteria should be used to distinguish parts of speech and whether they are different in different languages. The allocation of parts of speech is beginning to be based on morphological criteria, i.e. on the commonality of grammatical forms inherent in certain categories of words. An example of the allocation of parts of speech from a formal grammatical point of view is the definition of parts of speech by F. F. Fortunatov. F.F. Fortunatov singled out the parts of speech that he called “formal classes” by the presence of certain forms of inflection in the corresponding words: inflected words, conjugated words, indeclinable and non-conjugated words. Proceeding from this, a noun is such a formal class (according to Fortunatov), which has a case form, and an adjective is such a formal class, which is characterized by the form of gender, number and case.
Along with the morphological criterion, the logical-syntactic criterion of approach to the characterization of parts of speech continued to develop. From a syntactic point of view, words that act as the same member of a sentence are combined into the same part of speech. For example, those words that can act as definitions are adjectives. Based on the narrow morphological or syntactic features of words, which are always in one way or another connected with their proper lexical meaning, parts of speech began to be designated as ""lexical-grammatical categories of words"".
Chapter 1. Background……………………………………………………………...page 2-6
Chapter 2. Principles of classification of parts of speech………………………...page 7-11
Chapter 3. Tradition and innovation in the classification of parts of speech ... pp. 12-13
CHAPTER 1
Background
A part of speech is a grammatical class of words characterized by a set the following signs:
the presence of a generalized meaning, abstracted from the lexical and morphological meanings of all words of this class;
a complex of certain morphological categories;
· a common system (identical organization) of paradigms and commonality of basic syntactic functions.
In traditional Russian grammar, reflecting the influence of ancient and Western European grammars, at first there were eight, then nine, but now - with the inclusion of particles - ten parts of speech are usually distinguished:
· Noun
· Adjective
· Numeral
Pronoun
· Adverb
· Preposition
Particle
· Interjection.
First 6 parts of speech this significant(full-valued or independent) words, i.e. words are lexically independent, naming objects and signs or pointing to them, and capable of functioning as members of a sentence. Prepositions, conjunctions and particles are official , i.e. lexically independent, words, which serve to express various syntactic relations, as well as to form analytical forms or to express the syntactic and modal meanings of a sentence. Interjection constitute special group words: they do not name anything and serve to express an emotional attitude and subjective assessments.
In addition, participles and participles are either considered as part of the verb forms, or they belong to mixed, transitional parts of speech, or they are considered special parts of speech (in this case, the number of parts of speech increases to twelve).
The number of parts of speech in the Russian language in the teachings of some linguists either increases even more, or decreases exorbitantly. So, academician Shakhmatov introduced a prefix into the circle of parts of speech (for example, pre-, most- etc.) and a bundle. He had fourteen parts of speech. If this list is supplemented with various other contenders for the role of parts of speech (for example, categories of the state recognized in words it is possible, it is impossible, it is necessary, it is a pity etc., with interrogative words and particles, secluded particles, like and - and, neither - neither, or - or, relative words, etc.), then the number of parts of speech in Russian will exceed twenty. Many grammarians (Potebnya, Fortunatov, Peshkovsky) denied that numerals and pronouns have grammatical features of special parts of speech, pointing out that numerals and pronouns, in their syntactic features, are close to such grammatical categories as nouns, adjectives and adverbs. With this point of view, the number of basic, independent parts speech is already reduced by two and reduced to eight. However, among these eight parts of speech there are also doubtful, incomplete ones. It is easiest to challenge the right to be called a part of speech in interjections, indicating that it represents special form speech - affective, emotional speech, or sometimes active, active speech, which in any case remains outside the structure of intellectual speech. In addition to interjections, auxiliary words easily fall out of the group of parts of speech as exponents of purely grammatical relations (Vandries).
Researchers (for example, Prof. Kudryavsky), who adhered to Potebnya's view of the complete semantic parallelism of parts of speech and sentence members, always denied the title of parts of speech to service, connective words, that is, preposition, conjunction and particle. For such researchers, the number of parts of speech is limited to four main ones: noun, adjective, verb and adverb. If linguistic skepticism extends further, then the right of adverbs to be called an independent part of speech is questioned. After all, some categories of adverbs are in close connection with adjectives (cf. the inclusion of qualitative adverbs in -o in the system of adjective names by Prof. Kurilovich), others are with nouns, and still others do not have pronounced morphological features of a special category. At the heart of the once accepted by the followers of Acad. Fortunatov's grammatical division of words according to inflection differences into:
· Case ( fun)
Generic ( cheerful, oh, oh, merry, - oh, oh)
Personal ( have fun, have fun)
It was precisely such a distrustful attitude towards the “grammaticality” of the dialect that lay. Thus, only three parts of speech will survive: the noun, the adjective and the verb. But even in the ancient grammatical tradition, nouns and adjectives were brought under the same category of the name. And in modern languages, they often change roles. Vandries concludes: “Continuing this selection, we come to the conclusion that there are only two parts of speech: the verb and the name. All other parts of speech are reduced to them.
Of the Russian grammarians, no one has yet reached such a limitation of parts of speech, but in the Fortunatov school the opinion was expressed that the verb is not correlated with nouns and adjectives and that morphology can be managed without the category of the verb. Prof. Peterson, in his early works on Russian grammar, in the presentation of inflection, did without the doctrine of the verb as a special grammatical class. Only in the later "Lectures on the Modern Russian Literary Language" was he forced to recognize the verb as a category "denoting a sign extended in time."
Such are the fluctuations in the doctrine of the parts of speech. Between different views of linguists on this issue - "distance huge size". Meanwhile, one has to resort to some kind of word classification system when presenting the grammar of any language. Therefore, in grammars, it is not uncommon for a statement like the following: “The doctrine of the parts of speech is one of the least developed parts of grammar. The traditional interpretation of parts of speech is considered unsatisfactory in modern linguistics. However, the absence of any established scientifically substantiated new points of view on this issue forces us to keep within the framework of tradition in this respect.
Isolation of the main structural-semantic types of words helps to bring some clarity to the doctrine of parts of speech. Neither modal words, nor interjections, nor connective words or particles of speech belong to parts of speech. The range of parts of speech is limited by the limits of words that can perform a nominative function or be demonstrative equivalents of names.
Parts of speech are primarily divided into two large series of words, differing from one another in the degree of nominative independence, systems of grammatical forms, and the nature of syntactic use.
In one series are the categories of names, the category of pronouns and the category of the verb, in the other - the category of adverbs. In modern Russian, adverbs are correlated with the main categories of names and verbs. But the connection of adverbs with names is closer than with the forms of verb words. In modern Russian, there is an incessant movement of nominal forms into the system of adverbs.
Changes in the structure of the Russian language associated with the history of the link (auxiliary verb) led to the formation of a special part of speech - the category of state. This part of speech arose on the basis of the grammatical transformation of a number of forms, which began to be used exclusively or mainly as a linking predicate. Under this category of state, “predicative adverbs” (it’s possible, ashamed, ashamed, etc.), short forms that have broken away from the category of adjectives (glad, much), some forms of nouns that have undergone rethinking (it’s impossible, it’s time, etc.) ).
Since the copula retained some of the formal properties of the verb word, the development of the category of state was noticeably affected by the influence of the category of the verb.
As for the category of names, the differences between nouns and adjectives are clearly marked in Russian. From these categories in the history of the Russian language (especially from the twelfth - thirteenth centuries) the category of quantitative words - the category of the numeral - stood apart. On the contrary, the ancient rich class of demonstrative words, pronouns in the history of the Russian language has undergone disintegration, decomposition. Most of the pronominal words have merged with the categories of adjectives and adverbs or turned into oven particles, into the grammatical means of the language. In the system of the modern language, only relics of pronouns as a special part of speech (subject-personal pronouns) have been preserved.
Vinogradov presents the system of the main parts of speech characteristic of the modern Russian language as follows:
1) noun
2) adjective,
3) numeral.
4) pronoun (in a state of decomposition)
6) adverb
The system of parts of speech in the structure of a sentence is combined with a system of particles of speech:
Particles in proper sense
Particles-bundles
· Prepositions
Vinogradov classifies modal words as particles of speech, separating them into a special structural-semantic type of words.
A. Belich thinks that modal words should be combined with particles, prepositions, conjunctions in the category of relational words-particles.
In a living language there is no ideal system with monotonous, sharp and deep lines between different types of words. Grammatical facts move and move from one category to another, often adjoining different categories on different sides.
Conclusions:
In order to classify parts of speech, it is necessary to clearly identify and justify the principles for separating a certain group of words into a separate part of speech;
The problem of isolating parts of speech is the problem of isolating word forms. If we imagine parts of speech as a classification of lexemes, then the lexemes themselves should be obtained as a result of a morphological analysis of word forms;
The semantic criterion in its most generalized meanings distinguishes four classes of full-valued word forms - a noun, an adjective, a verb and an adverb;
The morphological criterion singles out nine classes of formed word forms and unformed word forms;
The syntactic criterion makes it possible to single out nouns, adjectives, adverbs, comporative, category of state and modal words among unformed word forms.
CHAPTER 2
Principles of classification of parts of speech
Morphology is that part of the grammatical structure of a language that unites the grammatical classes of words, the grammatical categories and forms of words belonging to these classes.
In the process of developing the science of the Russian language over the past two and a half centuries (from Lomonosov to the present day), when describing parts of speech, scientists proceeded from different classifications. The most important of them: semantic, formal-grammatical, structural-semantic . Representatives of the semantic direction (Lomonosov, Vostokov, Potebnya, Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky) when classifying parts of speech came from the content, from the meaning of words to their grammatical form, representatives of the formal grammatical direction (Peterson, Peshkovsky, Ushakov) - from grammatical form words to their meaning, which eventually gave not a partial classification of words, but their division into changeable and unchangeable. The third group of linguists (Vinogradov, Galkina-Fedoruk, Gvozdev, Pospelov) proceeded from the internal unity of the content (meaning) and form of the word. Their classification, called lexico-grammatical and now traditional, has received wide recognition in the scientific world. However, it has a very significant drawback: not all words (in particular, pronouns, interjections, modal and auxiliary words) are recognized as nominative.
The structural-semantic direction, reflected in the "Russian Grammar" (AN USSR, 1980), is based on the interdependence of the form and content, structure and semantics of the classified words. Similar - functional-semantic - the approach to the allocation of parts of speech in the Russian language was previously carried out by A. M. Peshkovsky. And Peshkovsky tended to single out four independent parts of speech in Russian: the noun, the adjective, the verb, and the adverb. However, M. V. Panov, based on the consideration of the semantic-functional categories of lexemes he singled out, managed to find a tense place in the system of Russian parts of speech distinguished in this way. He considers phrases run a race And race run. The first phrase is natural both lexically and grammatically. The second phrase is also lexically natural. But it's grammatically incorrect: race- an adverb, that is, a sign of a sign, but run- a noun, that is, grammatically not a sign and not a process. phrase run fast- both lexically and grammatically. phrase fast run grammatically also regular, but lexically - no, because lexically run is not something objective. Thus, the opposition of adjectives and adverbs in this aspect is somewhat blurred. According to some researchers (M.F. Lukin), the purely morphologization of parts of speech is unnecessary here, that is, an extremely narrow understanding of parts of speech, which leads to the fact that numerals are significantly impoverished (for example, fractional and ordinal numbers fall out of their system, and words thousand, million, billion incorrectly treated as nouns), most of pronouns are split up and included in other parts of speech (nouns and adjectives), the system of adjectives is unreasonably expanded, etc.
The classification of lexemes can be based on the expression of the same morphological categories. In this case, lexemes house, animal, winter form one group, because all their word forms express the morphological categories of number, case, and only these categories. On the other hand, all these lexemes will be opposed to lexemes kind, old, big, since all the word forms of the latter express such morphological categories as gender, number, case, brevity-completeness. However, the classification according to the principle "the expression of the same set of morphological categories" does not always lead to such clear results as in the case of opposition of nouns and adjectives described above. Fundamental difficulties arise when different word forms of one lexeme express different sets of morphological categories. In this regard, the word forms that are traditionally included in the verb are arranged in the most difficult way in the Russian language. Another circumstance complicates the application of this criterion: among Russian lexemes there are many that consist of a single word form and, therefore, do not express a single morphological category.
If the only feature, the presence of common morphological features expressed in the word form itself, were taken as the basis for the selection of independent parts of speech, it would look like this:
Nouns (express case and number), quantitative and collective numbers also got here.
· Adjectives (express case, number, gender and brevity / completeness).
· Infinitives (express aspect and voice).
· Participles (kind).
Participles (case, number, gender, brevity-completeness, aspect, pledge, tense)
· Verbs of the indicative mood of the present-future tense (number, type, voice, tense, person, mood).
· Verbs of the indicative mood of the past tense (number, gender, type, voice, tense, mood).
Subjunctive verbs (number, gender, type, pledge, mood).
· Imperative verbs (number, type, pledge, person, mood).
· Grammatically uncharacterized word forms: indeclinable nouns and adjectives, comparative degree and adverbs.
Within the morphological approach to the allocation of parts of speech, another classification is also possible. It can be based on the structural features of the paradigm. It is clear that in this case nouns, for example, would be opposed to adjectives. After all, the paradigm of the latter includes the opposition of word forms according to gender, which is absent in nouns. In this case, neither nouns nor adjectives would be able to maintain their unity. Such fragmentation would occur not only at the expense of unchangeable nouns and adjectives. For example, in the category of lexemes like young people numerals should also be included - collective and quantitative, as well as personal and interrogative pronouns, because all these lexemes have word forms of only one number.
With regard to immutable words, that is, to lexemes consisting of one word form, it turns out to be very effective syntactic principle .
The essence of this principle is to determine those types of lexemes that may or may not be combined with the words of interest to us, as well as to clarify the functions that these words perform in a sentence. And the semantic criterion easily singles out adverbs among the invariable words. However, only the use of a syntactic criterion introduces various gradations among adverbs.
However, within the same lexeme, word forms differently designed morphologically coexist. In exactly the same way, different word forms of the same lexeme can perform different syntactically functions. Therefore, classification according to the principle of "syntactic function" for lexemes is impossible in principle, just as it is impossible for lexemes to classify on the basis of a homogeneous morphological arrangement.
Thus, the semantic criterion in its most generalized meanings distinguishes four classes of full-valued word forms - a noun, an adjective, a verb and an adverb. The morphological criterion distinguishes nine classes of formed word forms and unformed word forms. The syntactic criterion applied to a morphologically uncharacterized group makes it possible to distinguish among the latter nouns, adjectives, adverbs, a comparative (comparative degree), a state category and modal words. In principle, it is possible to apply the syntactic criterion to word forms, but its results will conflict with the results of morphological and semantic analysis. Morphological and syntactic criteria are in principle inapplicable to lexemes.
As you can see, when classifying parts of speech, there was a persistent desire to group parts of speech according to one single-aspect principle, as a result of which the content was separated from the form or the form from the content, which inevitably led scientists to failure. Therefore, to look for any one principle of partial classification is a hopeless business.
One more interesting feature of the named part-of-speech classifications lies in the fact that they all proceed, first of all, from their specificity of the words themselves of the language system: either from their content, or from their form, or from the unity of content and form, as if the language system is immanent, that is, enclosed in itself and for itself, as if its object were only words and their relations with each other. The nomination is ignored or fades into the background.
Lukin offers a multifaceted nominative-grammatical principle. The essence of this principle lies in the fact that it is necessary to define, classify parts of speech not by content, not by form, not by their unity, but, first of all, by three reasons:
Nominations (naming not only objects, phenomena of objective reality, but also our inner world. It is necessary to distinguish six of its generic categories: lexical, grammatical, situational, modal, emotional-imperative, direct.
Partial object
Unity of content and form
Following the proposed principle, thirteen parts of speech can be distinguished.
However, the generally accepted number of parts of speech is reflected in the Russian Grammar-80. These are the ten parts of speech listed in the previous section, among which the first six are significant, that is, words are lexically independent, naming objects and signs or pointing to them, and capable of functioning as members of a sentence. Prepositions, conjunctions and particles are auxiliary, that is, lexically non-independent words that serve to express various syntactic relations, as well as to form analytical forms or to express the syntactic and modal meanings of a sentence. Interjections constitute a special group of words: they do not name anything and serve to express an emotional attitude and subjective assessments. Here the parts of speech are understood as grammatical classes of words, characterized by a combination of the following features:
· The presence of a generalized meaning, abstracted from the lexical and morphological meanings of all words of a given class.
· A complex of certain morphological categories.
· General system (identical organization) of paradigms.
· Generality of basic syntactic functions.
However, the change in the language and its grammatical standing is manifested in various transformational processes, including the transition of words from one lexico-grammatical category to another. The views of scientists on this phenomenon differ significantly even in the nomination of this phenomenon (some distinguish between complete and incomplete transitions, some call it lexico-grammatical substitution). Also distinguish between stable and unstable transition within the incomplete.
CHAPTER 3
Traditions and innovations in the classification of parts of speech
The 90s of the 20th century were marked in the history of modern Russian linguistics by the growing attention of researchers to the cognitive aspects of linguistic phenomena and means. The cognitive function of the language is its role in providing the thought process. Some provisions of cognitive grammar have much in common with the interpretation of the words of A.F. Losev, who explains the parts of speech not only as a linguistic expression of logical categories, but also as a result of an interpretive act that turns the abstract conceivability of objects into communicated objectivity.
The theme of parts of speech “is by no means new” and parts of speech “belong to the number of the most described categories of words” are considered from a cognitive point of view, and their nature and grounds for selection and development are analyzed. This is prompted by cardinal changes in the field of theoretical linguistics, primarily the achievements of the two main scientific paradigms of modern linguistics - communicative and cognitive. The methodological basis for explaining parts of speech created by Kubryakova is based on a cognitive approach to parts of speech as prototypical categories with all the properties inherent in these categories, primarily the presence of a core and diffuseness that arises as a result of subsequent transformations and semantic shifts.
A number of authors, known in modern linguistics for their latest research in the field of functional-semantic categories, remain true to traditional approaches to the system and criteria for identifying parts of speech. Mak, Maslov in his later works writes that the syntactic functions of parts of speech reveal greater similarity when comparing languages than the types of form and word formation.
The principle of common grammatical meaning underlies the traditional system of parts of speech. Only this principle is not carried out in it consistently, different types of common grammatical meanings, as a result of which some headings that actually intersect appear to be located in this system in one line.
The classification of words from the functional point of view in one of Shvedova's recent works is presented as follows: “signifying words (pronouns), naming words (names, verbs, adverbs, predicatives), connecting words (prepositions, conjunctions) and proper qualifying words (particles, modal words, interjections). The author does not call this division a classification of parts of speech, he emphasizes that this is a classification of words, but as a result, the qualification of words almost completely coincides with the classification of parts of speech itself. It is noteworthy that in this system, consisting of four classes, the leading role is assigned to pronouns as the main exponents of linguistic meaning.
“New approaches to understanding what a part of speech is are found within the framework of the ontological-energetic concept of language,” Kamchatnov and Nikolina write in one of their teaching aids on the theory of language. Following Losev's concept, the authors put forward completely new approaches to understanding parts of speech. In their opinion, the nature of language is not in reflection, but in interpretation, interpretation of reality.
"Communicative grammar of the Russian language", published in 1998, is a new approach to the language, follows the integrative trends of linguistic trends. Emphasizing the functionality and communicativeness as the essential properties of the language, the authors put the person as a person who speaks and writes and the text as a specific implementation of the language system at the center of grammar. Since the main object of study is the text, sentence and various communications, parts of speech are presented as ways of expressing various types of sentences.
!!! Each part of speech is characterized by a purpose to serve in a sentence or in a text, a purpose that is potential in the language system and is realized in the speech space.
A fundamentally important property is the destination inherent in each part of speech to serve in a sentence or in a text, a destination that is potential in the language system and is realized in the speech space.
The general pathos of splitting into parts of speech, according to Plungyan, can be defined as a consistent classification of lexemes according to their grammatical and non-grammatical compatibility, based on the principle of "concentric decrease in grammaticality".
Summarizing what has been said, it should be noted that parts of speech are considered as a projection into the world of language of objects of reality that are different in their essence or in their perception by a person, that is, as a means of expressing thought.
In our opinion, despite certain differences in interpretation. The above theses about the new understanding of the parts of speech have much in common with the onomasiological and cognitive approaches to word classes. Parts of speech are considered as projections into the world of language that are different in their essence or according to the perception by a person of objects of reality, i.e. as a means of expressing thought. The desire to avoid opposing the structural-systemic and functional-communicative approaches to language, a kind of "synthetic" concept, in our opinion, is one of the most undoubted advantages of modern linguistics, which allows a new and at the same time - in a sense - traditionally take a look at eternal problem parts of speech.