home

The theory of parts of speech in Russian linguistics. Classification of parts of speech. The history of the development of the theory of their classification in foreign and domestic linguistics

LINGUISTICS

UDC 81 (091) + 81 "36 + 81" 373.46

O. V. Lukin

Terminology of the theory of parts of speech: ancient origins

The author analyzes the features of the formation of the terminology of the theory of parts of speech. The terms that appeared in the ancient philosophy of Plato and Aristotle, which had a philosophical and logical content, are transferred to linguistic studies, where they receive a completely different meaning. The terminology of Greek and Roman scientists, describing the phenomena of their native language, is subsequently uncritically transferred to the soil of languages with other typological characteristics, which only complicates their adequate study and description. However, the familiarity of this terminology, the widespread use of ancient labels makes it necessary not to abandon them, but to give them a real typological explanation.

Key words: parts of speech, terminology, ancient philosophy, Plato, Aristotle, Stoics, Alexandrian grammarians, Roman grammarians.

Parts of speech terminology: antique origins

In this article the author analyzes peculiarities of the appearance of parts of speech terminology. Antique philosophy of Plato and Aristotle being the origin of parts of speech terms, they used to be philosophical in content. Over time the terms were transferred from philosophical to linguistic studies receiving a different meaning. Terminology of Greek and Roman scientists which reflected the phenomena of their native languages were later unreasonably used in studies of the languages with different typological features, hampering their adequate description. However, the customary regular use of this terminology makes us explain their real typological meaning instead of dropping them altogether.

Keywords: parts of speech, terminology, antique philosophy, Plato, Aristotle, stoics, Roman and Alexandrine linguists (grammarians).

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, human world, the conceptual apparatus of humanity, 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

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 terms, gives "indications" of their connection.

Traditional part-of-speech terms behave in a similar way,

formed in various languages, not without the influence, if not of the Greek-Latin terms themselves, then at least of the ancient mechanism of their formation. Latin terms not only speak for themselves, but also indicate the direction of interpretation of a particular term. So, the terms name, verb, numeral point in the semantic direction, the terms union, preposition, adverb - in the direction of the syntactic function, the pronoun - the textual function, the interjection - the pragmatic function, etc.

What we now call parts of speech, the great ancient thinker Plato considered as parts of a logical judgment. Greek ^owo^ (Compare: "With the ambiguity of the word ^owo^ with its various uses as a logical, rhetorical, grammatical and philosophical term, the indefinite translation of the "part of speech" does not convey the specific content of this concept in ancient language theory" .) and Latin oratio denoted both speech and sentence at the same time, □vo^a - both naming, and proper name, and words

in, and name (noun and / or adjective) . The common translation of the ancient Greek terms ^otsa and □ □tsa, which Plato was the first to introduce into scientific use, as “name” and “verb”, is therefore, unfortunately, too incorrect: ^otsa denotes a real substratum, thing, figure, subject of speech, something being, □ □ tsa, on the contrary, an abstract concept, practice or action, subordinate activity and participation in some idea (cf.). Plato identified parts of speech not only and not so much with the logical categories of human consciousness as a subject and a predicate, but also with the phenomena of extralinguistic reality - with actions and their carriers. According to L. Paul, the categorization of parts of speech had its origin in the self-justification of dialectical thinking and its reflexive analytics and cannot be subjected to theoretical understanding in isolation from its systematic origin.

Since the relationship between philosophy and linguistics in ancient times, of course, looked completely different than now, the terms used by Plato in relation to the parts of a logical judgment cannot be linguistic terms, cf.: “The terms that make up the statement are traditionally divided into subject (in logical forms, its position is indicated by the letters "a" and "8") and the predicate (the position is indicated by the letter "P"). ... In this case, these two terms are signs not of linguistic objects as constituent parts of a sentence, but of something outside these sentences, that is, existing in that area of objective reality that these sentences describe. ... It is clear that such use of the terms "subject" and "predicate", when, on the one hand, they are used to designate linguistic objects, and, on the other hand, non-linguistic, real objects, is ambiguous and undesirable. True, one could distinguish between these two uses, each time specifying what is at stake - the semantic or syntactic sense of the terms, or use their own terminology for each case: for example, designate the corresponding linguistic objects with the phrases "subjective expression" and "predicate expression", and those realities with which they correlate - phrases

"subject (subject) of the statement" and "predicate of the statement"".

The further development of part-speech terminology was undoubtedly influenced by the philosophy and logic of the famous student of Plato - Aristotle. Thus, the second principle of Aristotelian logic - the principle of forbidden contradiction - is that two statements that contradict each other cannot be true at the same time. From this principle, in particular, it follows that the terms used in different contexts can refer to different denotations, and this, in turn, leads to considerable terminological confusion.

The third principle - the principle of the excluded middle - is that one element or concept falls under one or the other concept, or that a statement about something is either true or false. The principle of the excluded middle 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 vaguely formulated the relationship between language and logic and that he often had the same concepts of being, speaking and thinking. A. G. Sayce wrote that if Aristotle had been a Mexican, his system of logic would have taken a very different form. And, perhaps, F. Mautner expressed these thoughts most sharply: “The whole logic of Aristotle is nothing more than an examination of Greek grammar from one interesting point of view. If Aristotle spoke Chinese or the language of the Dakota Indians, he would inevitably come to a different logic ”(our translation. - O. L.).

At the same time, it should be emphasized that Aristotle himself did not use either the term sTOi%sDa toP ^oyoy (elements of speech) or 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 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 perfectly speak and write Greek, everything Greek was in fashion, ancient Greek was an exemplary language for the Romans, the grammar of Dionysius the Thracian was exemplary grammar. The culture of the Roman Empire was bilingual: 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 samples (see) and on Greek terminology.

The Greek-Latin terminology, which has dominated part-speech theory for two millennia, continues to play the role of a conductor of those ideas that ancient philosophers expressed on the material of their native languages. Moreover, the understanding of the part-of-speech problem still largely remains captive to ancient ideas about the language and ancient needs in its study. The description of many languages in one way or another resembles the “fitting” of their material to the requirements dictated by Latin terminology: the adverb (ayerbum) stands out only as the word that stands with the verb (yeerbum) and 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 a preliminary analysis of the systemic significance of both each individual part of speech among all the others, and the system of parts of speech itself in the language system of ancient Greek and Latin, such attempts are simply unlawful, 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.

Bibliographic list

1. Amirova, T. A. History of linguistics [Text]: textbook. allowance for students. higher textbook institutions / T. A. Amirova, B. A. Olkhovikov, Yu. V. Rozhdestvensky; ed. S. F. Goncharenko. - M.: Academy, 2003. - 672 p.

2. Bocharov, V. A. Aristotle and traditional logic (Analysis of syllogistic theories) [Text] / V. A. Bocharov. - M.: Publishing House of Moscow University, 1984. - 136 p.

3. Zvegintsev, V. A. On the scientific heritage of Wilhelm von Humboldt [Text] / V. A. Zvegintsev //

Humboldt Wilhelm von Selected Works on Linguistics. - M.: Progress, 1984. - S. 356-362.

4. Tronsky I. M. Aristotle’s doctrine of parts of speech [Text] / I. M. Tronsky // Uchenye zapiski Leningrad State University. Ser. philol. Sciences. - 1941, Issue. 7. - No. 63. - S. 20-36.

5. Arens H. Sprachwissenschaft: der Gang ihrer Entwicklung von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart. - Freiburg in Breisgau: Alber (Orbis academicus), 1969. - 816 S.

6. Auroux S. Beauzee und die Universalität der Wortarten // Schlieben-Lange Brigitte, Ivo Hubert (Hrsg.) Wortarten. (Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik (LiLi), H. 76, 19/1988). - S. 56-75.

7. Cherubim D. Grammatische Kategorien: das Verhältnis von "traditioneller" und "moderner" Sprachwissenschaft. - Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag (Reihe Germanistische Linguistik, Bd. 1), 1976. - 196 S.

8. Coseriu E. Einführung in die Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft. - Tübingen: Franke (UTB für Wissenschaft: Uni-Taschenbücher; 1372), 1988. - 329 S.

9. Köller W. Philosophie der Grammatik. Vom Sinn grammatischen Wissens. - Stuttgart: J. B. Metzlersche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1988. - 460 S.

10. Linke A., Nussbaumer M., Portmann P. R. Studienbuch Linguistik. - Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag (Reihe Germanistische Linguistik; 121: Kollegbuch), 1996. - 463 S.

11.Lyons J. Einführung in die moderne Linguistik. -München: Verlag C. H. Beck, 1972. - 538 S.

12. Mauthner F. Beiträge zu einer Kritik der Sprache. 3. Bd. Zur Grammatik und Logik. - Stuttgart, Berlin: J. G. Cotta "sche Buchhandlung Nachfolger G. M. B. H., 1902. - 666 S.

13. Paul L. Geschichte der Grammatik im Grundriß: Sprachdidaktik als angewandte Erkenntnistheorie und Wissenschaftskritik. - Weinheim, Basel: Beltz Verlag (Pragmalinguistik; Bd 14), 1978. - 591 S.

14. Rijlaarsdam J. C. Platon über die Sprache. Mit einem Kommentar zum Kratylos. Mit einem Anhang über die Quelle der Zeichentheorie Ferdinand de Saussures. -Utrecht: Bohn, Scheltema & Holkema wetenschappelijke uitgeverij, 1978. - 350 S.

15. Sayce A. H. Introduction to the science of language. 2nd vol. - London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & CO. Ltd, 1900. - 421 p.

16. Steinthal H. Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft bei den Griechern und Römern (mit besonderer Rücksicht auf die Logik). 1. Bd. - Berlin, 1890. - XVIII, 374 S.

17. Trendelenburg A. Geschichte der Kategorienlehre: zwei Abhandlungen. - Berlin: Bethge, 1846. - XVI, 384 S.

18. Weizsäcker C. F. von Die Einheit der Natur. -München: Hanser, 1979. - 491. S.

Introduction

Chapter I. From the history of the doctrine of parts of speech

Chapter II. Criteria for the allocation of parts of speech in the works of various scientists

Chapter III. Parts of speech in Russian

Bibliography

Introduction

The question of parts of speech has occupied the minds of scientists since ancient times. Aristotle, Plato, Yaska, Panini were engaged in research in this area; in Russian linguistics, L.V. Shcherba, V.V.

Vinogradov, A. A. Shakhmatov and others.

The most common and necessary categories in the grammar of each language are the parts of speech. With clarification of the question of parts of speech, a grammatical description of any language begins. Speaking of parts of speech, they mean the grammatical grouping of lexical units of the language, i.e. the allocation in the vocabulary of the language of certain groups or categories, characterized by certain features. But on what basis are groupings of words called parts of speech distinguished, what is their role?

The problem concerning the essence of parts of speech and the principles of their allocation in various languages of the world is one of the most debatable problems of general linguistics.

Are separate parts of speech distinguished on the basis of one leading feature inherent in words related to a given grouping of words, or are they distinguished on the basis of a combination of various features, of which not one can be called the leading one? If the first is true, then what is the leading feature? Lexical meaning of the word? The logical category enclosed in it? Its connection with the grammatical category? Its morphological nature? Its syntactic function? His role in speech?

Knowledge in the field of the nature of the word, in particular its grammatical nature, is not yet deep enough to make it possible to construct a grammatical classification of words in the scientific sense of the word, and the distribution of words into parts of speech that gradually emerged and entrenched in the tradition is not yet a classification, but only a statement that among the words there are groupings united by one or another common and more or less significant, but not always clear signs.

There is another problem in determining the role, the essence of parts of speech. This is the problem of the universal nature of parts of speech, i.e. whether parts of speech are distinguished in all languages, whether the set of parts of speech is the same in all languages.

Analyzing research in the field of parts of speech, the purpose of this control work- determine the role of parts of speech.

ChapterI. 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, 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 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, 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"".

ChapterII. Criteria for the allocation of parts of speech in the works of various scientists

The remaining parts of speech are divided into significant (noun, adjective and verb) and service (pronoun, numeral, preposition, conjunction and auxiliary verb); adverbs according to this classification (as well as verbs, by the way) fall into two groups: those derived from service parts of speech belong to service units speeches, and those produced from significant to significant. Thus, it turns out that the division of words into significant and auxiliary ones does not coincide with their division into parts of speech.

F. I. Buslaev's observation of the closed nature of the list of functional words and the open nature of the list of verbs, nouns, adjectives and adverbs, which, according to him, are "countless"; but he denies the open nature of the list of numerals.

The most important in relation to the definition of parts of speech (which F. I. Buslaev considered in syntax) is his statement that "" in order to form a complete concept of the individual words used in speech, they must be considered in two ways: 1) in relation to the dictionary 2) in relation to grammar. In the first respect, attention is drawn to the expression of representations and concepts in a separate word, and in the latter, to the meaning and belonging of each part of speech separately "". This statement is, in essence, the key to defining the concept of parts of speech in modern linguistics.

V. V. Vinogradov defended a synthetic approach to parts of speech based on an in-depth analysis of the concept of words, its form and structure in the language.

Classification cannot ignore any side in the structure of the word, although lexical and grammatical criteria, in his opinion, should play a decisive role, and morphological features are combined with syntactic ones in "" organic unity "", since there is nothing in morphology that is not or before it was not in syntax and vocabulary. An analysis of the semantic structure of a word led V. V. Vinogradov to distinguish four main grammatical and semantic categories of words:

1. Words-names, to which pronouns adjoin, form the subject-semantic, lexical and grammatical foundation of speech and are parts of speech.

2. Particles of speech, i.e. connective, auxiliary words, devoid of a nominative function, closely related to the technique of language, and their lexical meanings are identical with grammatical ones, words that lie on the verge of vocabulary and grammar.

3. Modal words and particles, devoid, like linking words, of the nominative function, but more ""lexical"": ""wedging"" into the sentence, marking the relation of speech to reality from the point of view of the subject of speech. When attached to a sentence, modal words are outside of both parts of speech and particles of speech, although ""in appearance"" may sound like both.

4. Interjections in the broad sense of the word, having no cognitive value, syntactically unorganized, unable to be combined with other words, having an affective coloring, close to facial expressions and gestures.

V. V. Vinogradov notes that the ways of expressing grammatical meanings and the very nature of these meanings are heterogeneous for different semantic types of words. In the system of parts of speech, according to V. V. Vinogradov, grammatical differences between different categories of words come out most sharply and definitely. The division of parts of speech into the main grammatical categories is due to:

1. Differences in those syntactic functions that different categories of words perform in connected speech, in the structure of a sentence;

2. Differences in the morphological standing of words and word forms;

3. Differences in the real (lexical) meanings of words;

4. Differences in the way reality is reflected;

5. Differences in the nature of those correlative and subordinating categories that are associated with one or another part of speech.

V. V. Vinogradov, noting that different languages may have different composition of parts of speech, emphasized the dynamism of the system of parts of speech in one language.

ChapterIII. Parts of speech in Russian

Parts of speech are groups of words united on the basis of the commonality of their features. The features on the basis of which words are divided into parts of speech are not uniform for different groups of words.

According to their role in the language, parts of speech are divided into independent and auxiliary parts.

Independent words can be divided into significant and pronominal. Significant words name objects, signs, actions, relations, quantity, and pronominal words indicate objects, signs, actions, relations, quantity, without naming them and being substitutes for significant words in a sentence (cf .: table - he, convenient - such, easy - so, five - how many). Pronominal words form a separate part of speech - the pronoun.

Significant words are divided into parts of speech, taking into account the following features:

1) generalized value;

2) morphological features;

3) syntactic behavior (syntactic functions and syntactic links).

There are at least five significant parts of speech: a noun, an adjective, a numeral (a group of names), an adverb and a verb.

Thus, parts of speech are lexico-grammatical classes of words, i.e., classes of words distinguished taking into account their generalized meaning, morphological features and syntactic behavior.

There are 10 parts of speech, grouped into three groups:

1. Independent parts of speech: noun, adjective, numeral, pronoun, verb, adverb.

2. Service parts of speech: preposition, union, particle.

3. Interjection.

The modern Russian language has a large number of morphological variant forms. Some of them are fixed in the literary language, are recognized as normative, while others are perceived as speech errors. Variants of forms can be associated with different meanings of the word. Also, variant forms may differ in stylistic coloring. Variants of forms associated with the categories of gender and number can also be stylistically colored.

Morphology - (Greek "morphe" - form, "logos" - science, word) - a section of grammar in which words are studied as parts of speech. And this means studying the general meanings and changes of words. Words can change by gender, number, case, person, etc. For example, a noun denotes an object and changes in numbers and cases, an adjective denotes a sign of an object and changes in genders, numbers and cases. But, there are words that do not change, for example, prepositions, conjunctions and adverbs.

In speech, independent and auxiliary words perform different work. In a sentence, independent words, naming objects, their signs, actions, etc., play the role of members of the sentence, and auxiliary words most often serve to connect independent words.

Noun

A noun is an independent significant part of speech that combines words that:

1) have a generalized meaning of objectivity and answer the questions who? or what?;

2) are proper or common nouns, animate or inanimate, have a constant gender and non-permanent (for most nouns) signs of number and case;

3) in the proposal most often act as subjects or additions, but can be any other members of the proposal.

A noun is a part of speech, in the selection of which the grammatical features of words come to the fore. As for the meaning of nouns, this is the only part of speech that can mean anything: an object (table), a person (boy), an animal (cow), a sign (depth), an abstract concept (conscience), an action (singing) , relation (equality). In terms of meaning, these words are united by the fact that you can ask them the question who? or what?; this, in fact, is their objectivity.

Adjective

An adjective is an independent significant part of speech that combines words that:

1) designate a non-procedural sign of the subject and answer the questions what ?, whose ?;

2) change by gender, number and case, and some - by completeness / brevity and degrees of comparison;

3) in a sentence there are definitions or a nominal part of a compound nominal predicate.

Adjectives depend on nouns, so questions to adjectives are asked from nouns. Adjectives help us to select the desired item from a variety of identical items. Our speech without adjectives would be like a painting painted with gray paint. Adjectives make our speech more accurate and figurative, as they allow us to show various signs of an object.

Numeral

The numeral is an independent significant part of speech that combines words that denote numbers, the number of objects or the order of objects when counting and answer the question how many? or what?.

The numeral is a part of speech in which words are combined based on the commonality of their meaning - relation to number. The grammatical features of numerals are heterogeneous and depend on which category the numeral belongs to in terms of meaning.

Number words play an important role in people's lives. Numbers measure the number of objects, distance, time, size of objects, their weight, cost. In writing, words-numbers are often replaced by numbers. In the documents, it is necessary that the amount be written in words, and not just in numbers.

Pronoun as a part of speech

A pronoun is an independent non-significant part of speech that indicates objects, signs or quantities, but does not name them.

The grammatical features of pronouns are different and depend on which part of speech the pronoun acts as a substitute in the text.

Pronouns are classified by meaning and by grammatical features.

Pronouns are used in speech instead of nouns, adjectives, numerals and adverbs. Pronouns help to combine sentences into a coherent text, to avoid repetition of the same words in speech.

An adverb is an independent part of speech denoting a sign of an action, sign, state, rarely an object. Adverbs are invariable (with the exception of qualitative adverbs in -о/-е) and adjoin the verb, adjective, another adverb (run fast, very fast, very fast). In a sentence, an adverb is usually an adverb.

In rare cases, an adverb can adjoin a noun: racing (the noun has the meaning of action), soft-boiled egg, Warsaw coffee. In these cases, the adverb acts as an inconsistent definition.

Classification of adverbs is carried out on two grounds - by function and by meaning.

A verb is an independent significant part of speech denoting an action (read), a state (get sick), a property (limp), an attitude (equal), a sign (turn white).

The grammatical features of the verb are heterogeneous in different groups of verb forms. The verb word combines: an indefinite form (infinitive), conjugated (personal and impersonal) forms, non-conjugated forms - participial and participle.

Verbs for speech are very important because they allow you to name various actions.

Participle

Participle as a morphological phenomenon is interpreted in linguistics ambiguously. In some linguistic descriptions, the participle is considered an independent part of speech, in others it is a special form of the verb.

The participle denotes a sign of an object by action, combines the properties of an adjective and a verb. AT oral speech participles are used less frequently than in writing.

gerund

Like the participle, the participle can be considered as an independent part of speech or as special form verb.

A gerund is a special form of a verb that has the following features:

1. Indicates an additional action, answers the questions what by doing? or doing what?

2. Has the grammatical features of a verb and an adverb.

Service parts of speech

Service parts are those parts of speech that independent parts speeches cannot form a sentence and serve to connect independent units or to express additional shades of meaning.

A preposition is an official part of speech that serves to connect a noun, pronoun and numeral with other words in a phrase. Prepositions can denote relationships between an action and an object (looking at the sky), an object and an object (a boat with a sail), a sign and an object (ready for self-sacrifice).

Prepositions do not change, they are not independent members of the sentence.

Linking independent words with each other, prepositions express, together with the endings of independent words, various semantic meanings.

The union is a service part of speech that serves to communicate homogeneous members sentences, parts of a complex sentence, as well as individual sentences in the text.

Unions do not change, are not members of the proposal.

A particle is a service part of speech that serves to express shades of meanings of words, phrases, sentences and to form word forms.

In accordance with this, particles are usually divided into two categories - semantic and formative.

Particles do not change, are not members of the sentence.

Interjection

Interjection is a special part of speech that does not belong either to the group of independent or to the group of service ones.

An interjection is a part of speech that combines words that express feelings, an impulse to action, or are formulas of speech communication (speech etiquette).

findings

At the end of this work, the following conclusions can be drawn:

The question of parts of speech in linguistics is debatable. Parts of speech are the result of a certain classification, depending on what is taken as the basis for the classification. So, in linguistics there are classifications of parts of speech, which are based on only one feature (generalized meaning, morphological features or syntactic role). There are classifications using several bases. School classification is of this kind. The number of parts of speech in different linguistic works is different and ranges from 4 to 15 parts of speech. But the most productive and universal approach seems to be the approach to parts of speech as lexico-grammatical categories of words, taking into account their syntactic role.
Language belongs to those social phenomena that operate throughout the existence of human society. Being a means of communication between people, language is closely connected with the life of society. Changes in social life are reflected in the language: in grammar, in phonetics, in vocabulary, in the morphology of the language. Language is used to convey certain information. The role of parts of speech in the language is undeniably great, since with the help of them we can exchange information, express emotions, describe actions, name objects, etc.

Bibliography:

1. Vinogradov VV Russian language (Grammatical doctrine of the word). M.,

Higher School, 1986. 639s.

2. Kochergina V. A. Introduction to linguistics. M., ed. Moscow State University, 1970. 526 p.

3. Maslov M. Yu. Introduction to linguistics. M., Higher School, 1997. 272p.

4. Rakhmanin L.V. Stylistics of business speech and editing official documents. Uchebn. allowance. M., Higher school, 1998. 239p.

5. Rosenthal D.E. Practical stylistics of the Russian language. Textbook for high schools. M., Higher school, 1977. 316s.

The linguistic basis of the methodology for working on parts of speech in schools is the doctrine of parts of speech as categories of words, "united by common grammatical properties that reflect the commonality of their semantics."

The distribution of words according to lexico-grammatical categories (parts of speech) is carried out on the basis of three features: a) semantic (generalized meaning of an object, action or state, quality, etc.), b) morphological (morphological categories of a word) and c) syntactic ( syntactic functions of the word)3.

The work, therefore, should be aimed at students' awareness of the commonality in the language of certain groups of words, their role in people's communication.

The leading linguo-methodological provision that determines the sequence of studying parts of speech is the provision on the expediency of an interconnected study of similar linguistic phenomena in any respect. In the primary grades, such an order of studying nouns, adjectives and verbs has been adopted, according to which, from a general "familiarization with all parts of speech, students proceed to the study of each of the indicated lexical and grammatical groups. This approach creates favorable conditions for comparing parts of speech already at the initial stage their study and thus contributes to a clearer identification of the main aspects of the formed grammatical concepts.

Nouns, adjectives and verb learners primary school understand from five angles:

1) what the word means (an object, a sign of an object or an action of an object),

2) What questions does he answer?

3) how it changes or what are the constant categories,

4) which member of the proposal most often appears in the proposal,

5) what endings it has; how it is most often formed.

According to the indicated five parameters, students also compare the studied parts of speech.

As you study, knowledge of the grammatical features of each part of speech gradually deepens. Class I, according to the school curriculum, includes the classification of words, taking into account the morphological question they answer. Class II is central in the formation of the concept of "part of speech". Students get acquainted with a set of lexical and grammatical features characteristic of each part of speech: role in the language, generalized lexical meaning, category of gender, number, tense (for verbs), function in a sentence. In grade III, knowledge about the morphological and syntactic side of each part of speech is deepened: changing nouns and adjectives by cases, verbs by persons. Also in grade III, a large place is occupied by the formation of spelling skills of endings.

The following table shows the amount of knowledge of primary school students about parts of speech (in comparison):

Noun	Adjective	Verb
1. Designates an object	1. Indicates a sign of an object	1. Indicates the action of the subject
2. Answers the question who? what?	2. Answers questions what? which? which? which?	2. Answers questions what to do? what is he doing? and etc.
3. It happens masculine, feminine or neuter	3. Changes by gender in the singular	3. Past tense verbs change by gender
4. Changes by numbers	4. Changes by numbers	4. Changes by numbers
	5. Changes in cases (declines)	5. Changes in faces (conjugates)
6. In a sentence, it is most often a subject or minor member	6. Refers to a noun in a sentence and is most often a minor member	6. In a sentence, it is most often a predicate

The ability to recognize parts of speech is formed in students based on the possession of a set of features. For example, to find out what parts of speech are the words friendship, friendly, friendly, a student of grade II argues like this: what? - friendship, the word denotes an object, feminine, it is a noun; the word friendly answers the question what?, denotes a sign of an object, changes by gender: friendly, friendly, friendly, in a sentence it is used with a noun: friendly class, friendly family, friendly link; it's an adjective; what have you been doing? - was friends, the word denotes the action of an object, changes at times: friends - the present, let's be friends - the future; it's a verb.

The program for elementary grades does not provide for special familiarization of students with the division of parts of speech into independent and service ones, but in practice the teacher draws the attention of children to the signs according to which parts of speech are divided into these two groups. So, students learn that a noun, an adjective, a verb, a pronoun, an adverb are always members of a sentence, and words such as a preposition and conjunction are not members of a sentence.

One of the main tasks of studying the parts of speech is the development of oral and written speech of students, including enriching the vocabulary of children with new nouns, adjectives, verbs, clarifying the meaning of words that children used earlier, and developing the ability to accurately use words in coherent speech.

For a more successful solution of this problem, the program recommends that in the process of studying parts of speech, work on synonyms, antonyms (without terms), acquaint students with the polysemy of words, the use of words in the literal and figurative sense. At the same time, a necessary condition is the connection of learning with the life experience of students, with what they directly see around them, hear on the radio, and learn from books.

Forming in students the ability to observe, notice the essential, raising the level of students' knowledge about the world around them, the teacher simultaneously carries out the tasks of developing their speech.

The system of studying nouns in elementary grades

The system of work on the topic "Noun" (as well as on another grammatical topic) is a purposeful process that involves a strictly defined sequence of studying grammatical features and a generalized lexical meaning of a given part of speech, a scientifically based relationship of knowledge components, as well as a gradual complication of exercises that have its ultimate goal is the formation of skills for the exact use of nouns in speech and their correct spelling.

The volume of material in each class, the sequence of work on it are determined by the peculiarities of nouns as a linguistic phenomenon, the tasks of studying this part of speech and the age capabilities of younger students.

Tasks of studying nouns in grades I-III:

1) the formation of the grammatical concept of "noun";

2) mastering the ability to distinguish between animate and inanimate nouns (without a term);

3) the formation of the ability to capitalize the surnames, first names and patronymics of people, nicknames of animals, some geographical names;

4) familiarization with the gender of nouns, the use of ь in nouns with hissing at the end;

5) development of the ability to change nouns by numbers, to recognize the number;

6) developing the skill of spelling case endings of nouns (except for nouns in -myag -iya -iy -iet and also in addition to the instrumental case of nouns with a basis in hissing and c: a candle, a cloak, a cucumber);

7) enrichment of students' vocabulary with new nouns and development of skills for using them accurately in speech (in particular, observation of the polysemy of nouns, familiarization with nouns - synonyms and antonyms);

8) mastering the operations of analysis, comparison of words and generalization.

Each of the tasks is not solved in isolation, but in interconnection. However, at certain stages of work on the topic, much attention is paid to one of the tasks. So, for example, in grades I and II in the center is the assimilation of signs of nouns as parts of speech (what they mean, what questions they answer, gender, change in numbers), in grade III the main place is given to work on the spelling of case endings. But this does not mean a break in the work on the features of nouns as parts of speech and the spelling of endings. On the contrary, work in grades I and II on the grammatical features of nouns creates the basis of theoretical knowledge for the conscious formation of spelling skills. And in the formation of the spelling skill of case endings in grade III, knowledge about the gender, number and case of nouns is constantly deepened.

The third and fourth tasks (development of speech and thinking of students) are solved during all years of study. The whole process of studying grammatical material and developing spelling skills is aimed at enriching the vocabulary of students, at developing coherent speech skills and mental abilities.

A noun as a part of speech is characterized by a certain lexical meaning and grammatical features. Common to the lexical meaning of all nouns is objectivity. From the semantic point of view, nouns are very diverse. They can denote specific objects (book, cupboard, glass), living beings (brother, beetle, pilot), natural phenomena (thunderstorm, downpour, storm, hail, snowstorm), events (war, revolution), qualities (kindness, courage , whiteness), actions (running, walking, transition), state (sleep, joy), etc.

Grammatical signs of nouns: nouns are masculine, feminine or neuter, change in numbers and cases, can be animate or inanimate; in a sentence they are more often used as a subject or object, less often as a predicate or circumstance; an adjective agrees with a noun in gender, number and case, and a verb in number (a past tense verb in gender and number).

The semantic and grammatical features of nouns are quite complex, and therefore gradually in the process of implementation practical tasks students accumulate specific material for further generalizations of knowledge about the noun as a part of speech.

I class (12 hours). Preparatory stage The sequence of work coincides with the period of teaching literacy by grade and precedes a special study of the topic in grade I. Preparing students to understand the concept of “noun” consists in the fact that children learn to distinguish between an object and a word as the name of this object, attention develops to the semantic meaning of a word (each word means something), the ability to classify words into groups, taking into account their meaning (words for birds, vegetables, fruits, shoes, clothes, etc.). The classification of words according to their semantic meaning develops the ability to compare words, establishing something similar, the ability to abstract.

However, for the formation of a grammatical concept, it is not enough for students to realize the specific meaning of the word - it is necessary to master the grammatical features of the word in unity with the awareness of its lexical meaning.

The next stage (the second half of the first grade) is characterized by special work on the lexical meaning of nouns and their grammatical features (they answer the question who? or what?, designate objects). Students learn to distinguish words that answer the question who? from words that answer the question what? At this stage, first-graders rise to a higher level of generalization than it was when classifying words only on a semantic basis. In grade I, children begin to develop the ability to capitalize some proper nouns.

II class (28 hours). In grade II, students' knowledge of the lexical meaning of nouns, proper and common nouns, animate and inanimate nouns (without a term) is deepened and systematized; Children learn about gender and number.

To form the concept of "noun", it is important to identify the main lexical groups of words that are combined into a given part of speech, indicate the features that are characteristic of all nouns, and reveal their role in our speech. To this end, already at the first lesson on the topic, the systematization of words denoting objects is carried out, groups of words denoting people, plants, animals, things, natural phenomena, events are distinguished. The signs common to all these words are established: they answer the question who? or what? designate objects.

Nouns denoting actions and qualities differ in their originality. In meaning, they are similar to verbs and adjectives (although nouns denote actions and qualities without connection with the subject, that is, actions and qualities are thought of as something independent). In order for students to distinguish between these parts of speech, it is necessary to draw the attention of children to the signs by which such nouns differ from adjectives and verbs, in particular to questions and endings. The most appropriate task for this is the formation of single-root words of different parts of speech. For example, a teacher writes words on the blackboard: runs, jumps, screams, knocks. Students explain that these words answer the question what does? and indicate the actions of objects. Then the task follows: name the same-root words that answer the question what ?, and write them together with the question (children write what? - run, move, jump, shout, knock). Similarly, work is carried out with the words kind, greedy, modest, cunning, white, from which students form single-root words that answer the question what? - kindness, greed, modesty, etc.

Students compare written verbs and nouns, adjectives and nouns, find out that they can be distinguished by questions, by endings.

In order for students to visualize how great the role of nouns is in our speech, the teacher can offer to find nouns in the text of the Book for Reading, then read the text without these words. Thought is impossible to understand. Nouns are the names of objects that surround us in life, and without these words we cannot convey our thoughts to each other.

As noted in the linguistic literature, for most nouns, the gender is determined by the end. Naturally, it is difficult for younger students to use endings to recognize the gender of nouns, since there are many words in Russian with no percussive endings(apple, log, dish); in addition, nouns of different kinds can have the same endings (piano, tulle - m. p.; lilac, carrot - f. p.).

In school practice, it has become a tradition to teach to recognize the gender of nouns by substituting the possessive pronouns my, my, or by replacing nouns with personal pronouns he, she, it. However, this technique does not guarantee students from mistakes. To determine the gender of a noun using pronouns, students must use pronouns correctly in their speech (portfolio - he, mine; report card - he, mine; furniture - she, mine; shoe - she, mine; apple - it, mine, etc. .). Therefore, it is advisable to carry out oral exercises to replace nouns with pronouns already during the period of literacy (especially when compiling oral stories).

In grade II, in the process of getting to know the gender of nouns, special attention is paid to the formation of the skill of spelling endings. The program sets the task of teaching how to correctly write the generic endings of neuter nouns (gold, swamp, dish, log, sun, heart, etc.).

As an example, we give a variant of work on the gender of nouns.

Teacher(takes the bag from the student). Whose portfolio?

Student. My portfolio. (Students write down the sentence: My portfolio.)

Teacher. Make another portfolio proposal. Name the first and second sentences. (Children call: My briefcase. The briefcase is black.)

Teacher. What word should be used in the second sentence so as not to repeat the same word portfolio? (Students write: He is black.)

Teacher. What other items can be added to the name of the word mine or replaced by the word he? (Students give examples of words.) Nouns that can be accompanied by the word my or replaced by the word he refer to nouns male.

Similar observations are made on the nouns notebook, pen. Children make a generalization about which nouns are feminine and which are neuter, give examples, perform a series of exercises that form the ability to use the substitution or substitution technique to recognize gender.

When selecting exercises, the teacher takes into account the clarity of the support of students' actions on landmarks: om, mine, she, mine, it, mine. For example, at the initial stage of work on the gender of nouns, children argue as follows: the surname is she, mine, which means feminine, the potato is he, mine, which means masculine, etc. Later, the need for such justification disappears.

The teacher also takes into account the complexity of the conditions in which the problem is solved. First, separate words in the nominative case are used to recognize the gender. Then it is proposed to work with a text in which nouns are naturally used in oblique cases, both in the singular and in the plural. The student calls the noun in the initial form and then recognizes the gender (for example: in the camp ... camp, he, mine - masculine).

When studying the gender of nouns, it is necessary to use words whose gender recognition causes difficulties for students and they make mistakes: report card (m.), furniture (f.), caramel "(f.), vermicelli (f.), tulle (m. ), film (m.), medal (female), tomato (m.), shoe (female), galosh (female), ice-hole (female), poplar (female), carrot (female).

Good to bring to class dictionary and show how, in cases of difficulty, using a dictionary, you can find out the gender of nouns. Special lessons are devoted to observing the generic endings of nouns and, in particular, to exercises in writing unstressed endings neuter (tree, swamp, jam, log, bedspread, heart, towel, etc.). Attention is drawn to the agreement of the noun and adjective: marshy swamp, deep lake, blue dish, etc.

The subject of special study are masculine and feminine nouns that end in hissing (reeds, wilderness)

Considering that students already know about the role of ь as an indicator of the softness of consonants and as a dividing one, they should be contrasted with the role of ь after hissing ( soft sign plays a grammatical role in these words: it shows that the noun is feminine). The rule about the use of ь after hissing is not particularly difficult, and students are able to independently deduce it by comparing two groups of words, for example:

1) knife, rook, raincoat, pencil;

2) rye, night, thing, mouse.

Having found out how all the written words are similar and on what basis they are divided into groups, the children conclude in which nouns the end is written ь. To prevent the erroneous spelling of ь for nouns (feminine) in the genitive case (tasks, clouds, etc.), it is advisable to note that ь is written after the hissing of feminine nouns answering the question who? or what? i.e. for nouns in the nominative case.

Introduction to the number of nouns.

In the process of working on the number of nouns in grade II, students develop skills:

1) to distinguish between words in the singular and plural in meaning and at the end;

2) form from the singular form the form plural the most common nouns in children's speech and from the plural form the singular form (city - cities; streams - stream);

3) use the noun correctly in speech, taking into account the connection of words in the sentence.

Students learn the essence of the category of the number of nouns on the basis of a comparison of words denoting one and several homogeneous objects: apple - apples, notebook - notebooks, newspaper - newspapers. It turns out how many objects denote the noun apple and the noun apples. (The work is similar with other words.) Generalization and conclusion is quite simple: if a noun denotes one object, it is used in the singular, if two or more objects, then in the plural.

It is known that in Russian not all nouns change in numbers. Program elementary school does not provide for familiarization with groups of nouns that are used only in the singular or only in the plural. However, it is not uncommon for students in grades II and III to come up with questions like the following: “How do I change the word scissors so that it is in the singular?” There is a need to inform the children that in our language there are nouns that are used only in the plural: scissors, tongs, sleigh, ink, cabbage soup, gates, glasses, holidays, etc. If you need to indicate in the sentence how many sledges, scissors were and other items, then the words are added: one, two, many (one sled, two glasses, many scissors, etc.). Nouns that are used only in the plural have no gender.

There are also nouns in our language that are used only in the singular: sour cream, milk, sugar, potatoes, gold, purity, courage, walking, sadness, etc. (you can say these words to students in grade II).

In the process of working on the form of the number of nouns, it is necessary to systematically practice students in recognizing the gender. There is a kind of interaction between these two operations: in order to determine the gender, you need to put the noun in the singular. Mastering this interaction forms the basis for the further formation of students' ability to recognize the type of declension of nouns.

Observations on the change of nouns by numbers actually represent the initial stage of work on the form of the word (singular form and plural form). Changing the noun by numbers, that is, changing the ending, students are clearly convinced that the lexical meaning of the word remains the same.

The declension case of a noun expresses the relation of the noun to other members of the sentence. Therefore, the assimilation of the case is based on the students' understanding of the connection of words in the sentence. Work on cases can begin only after students learn how to highlight words in a sentence that are related in meaning and grammatically (phrases). And in the future, all work on cases is work on the connection of words in a sentence. The student must clearly know which word in the sentence the given noun is associated with.

Initial observations on the change of noun endings depending on another word in a sentence begin to be carried out before students get acquainted with the case. In fact, already in the first grade, children get acquainted with the change in the form of the word. In primary school, before studying the topic "Declination", it is important to draw the attention of children to the fact that, including words in a sentence, it is often necessary to change the letter or letters at the end of the word. The change is necessary in order to establish a connection between the words in the sentence. The meaning of the word does not change at the same time.

However, in the first grade, children are not yet aware of the form of the word, but only lead to it. The element of awareness introduces familiarity with the ending in the second grade. Observing the change in the end of the word depending on the other member of the sentence, students identify the changeable part in the word and find out that it serves to link words. A relationship is established between the question that the noun answers and the ending of the word (the question changes - the ending also changes).

The main task of working on nouns in grade III is to teach you to consciously use the case forms of nouns to express thoughts and write case endings correctly.

In school practice, the most traditional is the way of work, according to which, at first, students learn to write the case endings of nouns of the 1st declension, then the 2nd and, finally, the 3rd.

In the course of a study in Leningrad, the expediency of simultaneously studying nouns of all three declensions in the following order was confirmed:

1. Nominative case of nouns of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd declension.

2. Genitive case.

3. Dative case.

4. Comparison of the genitive and dative cases.

5. Accusative case.

6. Comparison of the genitive and accusative cases.

7. Instrumental case.

8. Prepositional case.

9. Comparison of accusative and prepositional cases.

10. Comparison of dative and prepositional cases.

11. Comparison of genitive, dative and prepositional cases.

In accordance with this sequence, students first learn characteristics one case of nouns of all three declensions, and then this case is compared with another case, in any respect similar to or opposed to the previously studied one. At the same time, those features that are characteristic of the noun only in this case are highlighted. So, for example, attention is drawn to the fact that the question is from where?, the prepositions from, to, from, without, for are indicators of only the genitive case. At the same time, students are warned against recognizing the case on only one basis (for example, on semantic questions where? where?).

The indicated order of studying cases creates conditions for the differentiation of similar and distinctive features of such cases that are difficult for students to recognize (genitive, dative and prepositional, genitive and accusative, etc.).

The system of work on nouns in grade III is conditionally divided into four stages.

First step (1-15th lessons)- the concept of declension as a change in the endings of nouns on questions, depending on the connection of words in a sentence; study of the features of each of the cases.

At this stage, students get acquainted with the name of the cases, questions and prepositions of each of the cases, learn to decline nouns with stressed endings, master the sequence of actions that must be performed in order to recognize the case of a noun according to the totality of its main features.

Based on the nature of the case, familiarization with the declension is carried out in the process of analyzing sentences, the basis of the sentence (subject and predicate) and phrases are highlighted. Observing the change in the endings of the same noun in combination with different words, students are led to the conclusion that changing the endings of nouns in questions is called case change, or declension. The initial form of the noun is the nominative singular. A noun in the nominative case does not depend on its other members in a sentence and most often acts as a subject.

The preposition influences the case form of a word in a sentence. Prepositions and case endings are means of expressing the connection of words combined into a phrase. The interaction of preposition and ending necessitates special work on prepositions in the process of studying cases. Students get acquainted with the most common prepositions of each of the cases, learn the prepositions that are used with only one case. The results of observations on the use of prepositions with a certain case are summarized in the form of a table, which is compiled in the process of analyzing sentences2. Students start compiling the table "Cases and prepositions" already in the second lesson. (The table is a type-setting canvas with six strips, each of which has movable parts: cards with the first letter of the case name, cards with prepositions and cards with questions of this case.)

The conscious use of a noun in a certain case, as well as the correct spelling of endings, first of all presupposes recognition of the case. Therefore, at the first stage, a large place is given to the formation of students' ability to distinguish one case from another.

Each case is characterized by a number of essential features. The main ones are questions, prepositions, meaning, endings, syntactic function. The difficulty for students in recognizing cases is that each case has several meanings, and questions, prepositions, and endings of different cases can be the same. Therefore, it is very important to learn to recognize cases by a combination of signs: question, preposition, ending, sentence member (the latter is important when recognizing nominative and accusative cases).

Students are just getting acquainted with the main meanings of cases, so they naturally find it difficult to focus on the meaning of the case in order to recognize it. Observations on the meanings of the case are important in the sense that it becomes possible (albeit elementary) to reveal the role of the case form of a word for conveying thought in the structure of a whole sentence. For example, students observe the use of nouns in the genitive case with the meaning of belonging to someone (a student's notebook, an eagle's nest, an artist's drawing), the material from which the object is made (a glass vase, an envelope made of paper), as well as nouns in the instrumental case , indicating the person with whom the action is performed (Olya with Lyuda), the tool with which the action is performed (digging with a shovel), etc.

In order for students to be able to use questions to recognize cases, it is necessary, firstly, that students pose a question to the noun from the word to which the noun refers in the sentence, is related in meaning (and not “tear out” the noun from the sentence), and secondly, so that students know the questions of cases well. To do this, it is advisable to compare the questions of all cases, while highlighting similar questions and peculiar to only one case (this can be clearly done using the table mentioned above). Students will learn that it is impossible to use the semantic question where is it to recognize cases, since it is repeated. On the contrary, the question of where? the noun answers only in the genitive case, and this question is an indicator of this case. All case questions except who? what?, help to distinguish one case from another.

The ending of the instrumental case is specific. This case can be recognized both by the question and by the ending.

In Russian, there are prepositions that are used with only one case and, therefore, are an indicator of this case. So, the prepositions from, to, from, without, y, for, about are used only with the genitive, to - only with the dative, about, through - with the accusative, over - with the instrumental, oh, about, with - with the prepositional. It is not advisable to require mechanical memorization of prepositions that are used with only one case. For conscious assimilation, it is useful to compare all the prepositions according to the table of prepositions and highlight the prepositions that are used with only one case. In addition, it is necessary to offer to inflect nouns with prepositions more often (at the same time, students should be specifically directed to use prepositions that are used with only one case).

It is advisable to establish, together with students, the sequence of actions in case recognition: first, establish the connection of words in a sentence and find the word on which the noun depends, then find out the case using the question and preposition. The recognition of the nominative and accusative cases (according to the member of the sentence; in the presence of a preposition - by the preposition), genitive and accusative is distinguished by its originality.

In order to create more favorable conditions for mastering the features of cases, the study of each case is carried out _ according to the general plan: 1. Meaning. 2. Questions answered by nouns in this case. 3. Prepositions that are used in this case. 4. The role of the noun in the sentence.

Studying taking into account a single plan makes it easier for students to compare cases, and therefore their recognition.

Second step. 1st, 2nd and 3rd declension of nouns. (Lessons 16-21.)

At this stage, students develop the ability to recognize the declension of nouns by gender and by the ending in the initial form.

In order to enhance the cognitive activity of students and more solid assimilation of the material, it is advisable to organize acquaintance with the three types of declension in such a way that students independently establish signs of nouns by which they are divided into declensions: gender and ending in the nominative case. The exercises develop the ability to recognize the type of declension, taking into account the gender and ending in the nominative case. To this end, the material of the exercises at first focuses the attention of children on each of the signs. For example, students are asked to determine the declension of nouns: autumn, winter, blizzard, blizzard, aspen, lilac. It turns out how nouns (feminine) are similar and how to determine their declension. Similar work is carried out with masculine nouns: boy, boy, grandfather, grandfather, Sergey, Seryozha, Volodya, Vladimir. Suggested for recognition of declension are also such groups of nouns that are similar in ending, but differ in gender. For example: bear, deer, lynx, ship, pier, rain, terrain, potatoes, carrots. By establishing the similarity and difference of words, students are better aware that in order to determine the declension, it is necessary to take into account both the gender and the ending in the initial form. Gradually, both the tasks and the material of the exercises become more complicated, the independence of students grows. Children themselves select nouns of the same gender, but of different declensions and, conversely, of different genders, but of the same declension. Nouns are also selected on a thematic basis: the names of animals, birds, trees, materials, natural phenomena, rivers, cities, etc. indicate declination.

It is more difficult for students to learn the declension of nouns in oblique cases. Therefore, after students have learned to determine the declension of nouns in the nominative case, texts are widely used. Students find nouns, put the word in the nominative case and determine the declension.

It is important that students succinctly prove how to determine the declension (for example, locality is a feminine noun with ь at the end, meaning the 3rd declension).

Third step. Spelling of case endings of nouns in the singular. (Lessons 22-50.)

The main task of this stage is the formation of the spelling skill of unstressed case endings and the development of the conscious use of nouns in different cases.

At the previous levels, students developed the ability to recognize cases and the type of declension of nouns. At the third stage, these skills interact with each other and on this basis the skill of spelling endings is formed.

In order for students to use the acquired grammatical knowledge to solve spelling problems, much attention is paid to the sequence of actions that must be performed to correctly write unstressed endings.

Working out the sequence of actions is accompanied by a recording.

1) The student puts a question to the noun from the word with which the noun in the sentence is associated, and writes the question in brackets.

2) He recognizes the case by the question and the preposition (indicates the case in brackets).

3) Recognizes the declension (marks the declension with a number and writes the ending as a result), for example: lives (where? in what? Eg, 1st fold, -e) in the village.

Later, operations proceed faster, so there is no need for a detailed record, on the contrary, it can slow down the solution of the problem. Students write down only case and declension. And finally, all operations proceed in mentally, i.e. without recording.

Hyperheading:
Content
Introduction
1 On the history of the study of parts of speech and the criteria for their establishment

1.1 From the history of the doctrine of parts of speech
1.2 Difficulty in identifying parts of speech
On the criteria for establishing parts of speech
2 Criteria for the allocation of parts of speech in the works of various scientists

3.1 Name system
3.2 Verb system
Conclusion
Table #1
Scheme No. 1
CATEGORIES OF WORDS
Bibliography:

Introduction 2

1 On the history of the study of parts of speech and the criteria for their establishment

1.1 From the history of the doctrine of parts of speech 3

1.2 Difficulty in identifying parts of speech 5

1.3 About the criteria for establishing parts of speech 8

2 Criteria for the allocation of parts of speech in the works of various scientists 11

3 Name system and verb system

3.1 Name system 18

3.2 Verb system 22

Conclusion 24

Appendix

Table #1 26

Scheme No. 1 27

Scheme No. 2 28

References 29

Introduction

The question of parts of speech has occupied the minds of scientists since ancient times. Research in this area was carried out by Aristotle, Plato, Jaska, Panini, in Russian linguistics this issue was dealt with by L. V. Shcherba, V. V. Vinogradov, A. A. Shakhmatov and others.

The most common and necessary categories in the grammar of each language are the parts of speech. With clarification of the question of parts of speech, a grammatical description of any language begins. Speaking of parts of speech, they mean the grammatical grouping of lexical units of the language, i.e. the allocation in the vocabulary of the language of certain groups or categories, characterized by certain features (Maslov Yu. S., 155). But on what basis are groupings of words called parts of speech distinguished? Or otherwise - what is the traditional distribution of words based on parts of speech?

The problem concerning the essence of parts of speech and the principles of their allocation in various languages of the world is one of the most debatable problems of general linguistics.

Statements on the question of what the distribution of words into parts of speech is based on are numerous, varied, but very often not clear and contradictory.

Knowledge in the field of the nature of the word, in particular its grammatical nature, is not yet deep enough to be able to construct a grammatical classification of words in the scientific sense of the word, and the distribution of words gradually emerging and entrenched in the tradition of parts of speech is not yet a classification, but only a statement that among the words there are groupings united by one or another common and more or less significant, but not always clear signs.

There is another problem in determining the essence of parts of speech. This is the problem of the universal nature of parts of speech, i.e. whether parts of speech are distinguished in all languages, whether the set of parts of speech is the same in all languages.

Analyzing research in the field of parts of speech in our term paper We have set ourselves the following tasks:

Illuminate the history of the question of parts of speech

Highlight criteria for establishing parts of speech

Analyze the work of scholars in this area of grammar.

1 On the history of the study of parts of speech and the criteria for their establishment
--PAGE_BREAK-- 1.1 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

The 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, were called "case" and "action"". As a subgroup of names Jaska singled out pronouns. Semantic criterion was the leader in the establishment of parts of speech in ancient Indian linguistics (Kochergina V.A., 87).

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.

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 proper lexical meaning, parts of speech began to be designated as “lexico-grammatical categories of words” (Kochergina V.A., 88).

1.2 Difficulty in identifying parts of speech

Since one can argue about what is the basis on which the parts of speech are distinguished, then, obviously, the distribution of words into parts of speech is not the result of a logical operation called classification, since the latter, as you know, obeys all the rules for dividing the scope of a concept and, in particular , that basic rule that the division must be made on the same essential and, of course, quite definite basis. Where the very basis of division is not obvious and needs to be defined, there can be no question of classification in the scientific sense of the word. Summarizing individual words under one or another part of speech gives a kind of classification of words, however, the very distinction of parts of speech can hardly be considered the result of a "scientific" classification of words (Steblin-Kamensky M.I., 19-20).
continuation
--PAGE_BREAK--The distribution of words into parts of speech does not satisfy another basic rule for dividing the scope of a concept, namely, the rule that division members must mutually exclude each other. Since in the question of parts of speech we are not dealing with the classification of words, it may happen that the same word will be simultaneously subsumed under different categories. So, for example, a pronoun turns out to be both a noun and an adjective at the same time (Steblin-Kamensky M.I., 20). The distribution of words by parts of speech does not satisfy the third basic rule for dividing the scope of a concept, i.e. the rule that the volume of all members of the division in the aggregate must be equal to the volume of the divisible concept. But, since we are not dealing with a classification, there is nothing to fear that some words will not fit anywhere - it means that they really do not fit into any category (Steblin-Kamensky M.I., 20).
When determining parts of speech by lexico-morphological or lexical-syntactic features, there is always a transposition of meanings, i.e. repetition of morphological meanings in units of vocabulary and syntax. For example, the grammatical meaning of the nominative case partially repeats the meaning of the subject. The accusative case repeats the meaning of the complement to the same extent. Moods to some extent repeat the lexical meaning of modal words, etc. Thus, the establishment of parts of speech is not strict, but arbitrary (Kochergina V.A., 88-89).

The structural originality of each language, obvious when considering the system of its private grammatical(inflectional) categories, led to the idea that the system of parts of speech of each language should also be original. Therefore, when describing the parts of speech of individual languages, new terms are being introduced in order to designate and highlight this ""peculiarity"". The problem gets worse. In this regard, the issue of general principles and criteria for establishing parts of speech fades into the background, giving way to a strict descriptiveness of word classes according to their formal indicators that they try to establish (for example, types of word formation, functioning in a sentence) even for those languages in which forms inflections are not developed at all (Kochergina V.A., 89).

The presence of several acceptable criteria for establishing parts of speech led to the fact that in the list of parts of speech of one language in the same historical period a different number of parts of speech was established. For example, for the Russian language, A. A. Shakhmatov established fourteen parts of speech, D. N. Kudryavsky - four parts of speech, and in the "Academic Grammar of the Russian Language" they write about eight parts of speech.

Each scientist, dealing with the same factual material, comprehended it based on different concepts of parts of speech. Thus, the lack of a general concept of parts of speech, the diversity of terms and definitions used by different authors in describing parts of speech, have a negative impact on generalizing reviews in this area of grammatical studies.

In modern linguistics, the question of the principles of establishing parts of speech is still relevant. Now everything is drawn into linguistic research large quantity languages of the world. At the same time, the old criteria for establishing classes of words (parts of speech) cease to be satisfied, since these criteria were developed mainly in the study of only the languages of the Indo-European, as well as the Semitic and Turkic families.

Modern linguistics highlights the description according to such principles, which, being unified, would cover all known structural types of languages, reducing their description to common initial ideas.

On the criteria for establishing parts of speech

The hierarchy of features underlying the allocation of parts of speech is understood differently in different linguistic schools. Traditionally, the foreground morphological features, which is due to the orientation of European linguistics towards inflectional and agglutinative languages. The expansion of the typological perspective led to the realization of the non-universal nature of morphological features. In typological analysis universal definition parts of speech is based on syntactic characteristics, while morphological parameters act as additional, significant for inflectional and agglutinative languages. Semantic properties that are essential primarily for identifying parts of speech in different languages also act as additional ones.

The morphological approach to identifying parts of speech cannot fully satisfy. When identifying parts of speech by grammatical forms, even in languages rich in inflection forms, words devoid of these forms remain outside, since in all languages \u200b\u200bknown to science there are unchanging words that are heterogeneous in composition (among them, for example, adverbs, particles, interjections) ( Kochergina V. A., 90-91).

Even in languages rich in inflection forms, the establishment of parts of speech through private grammatical category is not always possible. For example, is it possible to say, as we are accustomed to, that a noun has a category of grammatical gender, if this category does not exist in most languages of the world. Or another example: despite the indisputable presence of adjectives in the Russian and Turkish languages, they are different in particular grammatical categories and in morphological structure. Particular grammatical categories of the adjective in Russian are the categories of case, number and concordant class (as a combination of the grammatical categories of gender and animateness-inanimateness), i.e. the same particular grammatical categories that are also characteristic of the Russian noun. The Turkish adjective does not have any particular grammatical category inherent in the noun of the Russian language (for example, the category of gender, number, definiteness - indefiniteness) (Kochergina V.A., 91).

Morphological features parts of speech can to a certain extent be identification marks parts of speech, but not common criterion their establishment.

Inflection criterion when establishing parts of speech, it partially justifies itself in morphologically developed languages, primarily in Indo-European, Semitic and Turkic. This criterion is unsuitable for Sino-Tibetan and some other languages of the Far East, as it leads some researchers even to deny the parts of speech in these languages. In Chinese, Thai, Vietnamese languages there are words that do not differ morphologically, about which they usually say that, depending on the syntactic function, the same word acts either as a noun, or as an adjective, or as a verb (Kochergina V.A., 91 ).

In such cases, we have various homonyms. Common in Chinese, Vietnamese and other languages, they are comparable to cases of grammatical homonymy that are rare for the Russian language, but still possible for the Russian language: Worker and a collective farmer or Six o'clock worker day; Bake heat up, maybe bake pies, etc. They have different general grammatical meanings and, in addition, have some additional identifying features (Kochergina V.A., 91).

Word-formation processes do not always affect the belonging of a word to a particular part of speech. Words of different production may belong to the same part of speech (forest, forester, forester, copse, forestry, etc.), and words similar in word formation may not belong to the same part of speech ( good, sighted, big- adjectives; worker, forester, dining room- nouns) (Kochergina V.A., 91).

Syntactic Criteria the establishment of parts of speech is based on the fact that the members of the sentence and the part of speech are identified according to the same grammatical categories. But if, for example, a noun as a part of speech is associated with the category of the grammatical subject, and through it with the category of the subject of a logical judgment, then it should be noted: the subject is expressed in speech most often in the form of a grammatical subject, and the functions of nouns are wider and more diverse. In most languages, nouns can act as any part of a sentence. At the same time, different parts of speech have similarities in syntactic functions. So, in Russian, the circumstance of the mode of action can be expressed by an adverb or a construction with a noun. Or, for example, adjectives Chinese similar in syntactic function with verbs, nouns and especially with numerals (Kochergina V.A., 92).

Thus, neither the particular grammatical forms and meanings of words, nor their types of word formation, nor their syntactic functions in themselves act as determinants when referring a word to a certain part of speech. Parts of speech - each in its own way and in different languages in different ways - are morphological or non-morphological, syntactic, in a certain sense logical.

What criteria for selecting parts of speech can be common to all languages known to science?

The nature of the parts of speech is linguistic and common to all languages, as are common ways in the development of human thinking. Some scholars have associated general grammatical meanings parts of speech with some categories thinking(substance, quality, quantity, etc.). The most striking identification feature of parts of speech is the lexical meaning of words. For example, if we know that cockatoo is the name of a bird, then we are not looking for formal signs to say that this word is a noun. According to lexical meanings, by summing them up under one of the general grammatical meanings of words objectively given in the language, the belonging of the word to one or another part of speech is determined (Maslov Yu.S., 156).

As evidenced by studies of parts of speech in the most diverse, related and unrelated languages, parts of speech, for all their originality in languages of various types, act as the most general and universal phenomena in the grammatical system of languages. The general grammatical meanings of the parts of speech are certainly connected with the universal human forms and laws of thinking, which are reflected in the most essential phenomena of the language system.

The definition of the specifics of the parts of speech is thus reduced to the definition of their general grammatical meanings, which have received their own terminological designations in linguistic science, as ""thing"" or ""objectivity"", ""action"" or "procedural", ""quality"" or ""attribution"" etc.

2 Criteria for the allocation of parts of speech in the works of various scientists

According to F. I. Buslaev, there are nine parts of speech in the language: verb, pronoun, noun, adjective, numeral, adverb, preposition, conjunction and interjection. F.I. Buslaev allocates the latter to a special department. The remaining parts of speech are divided into significant(noun, adjective and verb) and official(pronoun, numeral, preposition, conjunction and auxiliary verb); adverbs according to this classification (as well as verbs, by the way) fall into two groups: those derived from the service parts of speech belong to the service parts of speech, and those derived from the significant ones belong to the significant ones. Thus, it turns out that the division of words into significant and auxiliary ones does not coincide with their division into parts of speech.

The most important in relation to the definition of parts of speech (which F. I. Buslaev considered in syntax) is his statement that "" in order to form a complete concept of the individual words used in speech, they must be considered in two ways: 1) in relation to the dictionary 2) in relation to grammar. In the first respect, attention is drawn to the expression of ideas and concepts in a separate word, and in the latter, to the meaning and belonging of each part of speech separately "" (Buslaev F.I., 289). This statement is, in essence, the key to defining the concept of parts of speech in modern linguistics.

For A. A. Ponebnya, it was extremely important to establish a connection between language and thinking in their functioning and development. Emphasized attention to psychology, to the very process of speech creation led A. A. Potebnya to assert the primacy of the sentence; a single word seemed to him a scientific fiction. And since the word is only an element of a sentence, A. A. Potebnya believes that it is possible to understand the parts of speech only on the basis of a sentence. Parts of speech for A. A. Potebnya are grammatical categories that exist only in a sentence. ""Understanding language as an activity, it is impossible to look at grammatical categories, what are the verb, noun, adjective, adverb, as something unchanging, once and for all deduced and eternal properties of human thought" (Potebnya A.A., 82). He talked about how these categories change even in relatively short periods.

A. A. Potebnya approached the process of speech, in which language alone is revealed, from the standpoint of a separate individual. And therefore, in his works there is a mixture of inflection and word formation, sometimes an understanding of almost every use of a word as a separate, independent word.

In their early work when classifying parts of speech, A. A. Shakhmatov relied primarily on semasiological criteria, assuming that each part of speech has some system of grammatical forms. Later, he attributed the definition of parts of speech to syntax, at the same time considering in morphology not only inflection and related categories that receive semantic content from A. A. Shakhmatov, but also the structure of the base. "" The word in its relation to the sentence or in general to speech is defined in grammar as a part of speech "" (Shakhmatov A. A., 29). A. A. Shakhmatov also noticed that in some languages, in particular in Russian, parts of speech can differ morphologically. Grammatical categories, Shakhmatov wrote, are known in syntax, therefore, when determining parts of speech, "" one must take into account the connection that exists between separate parts speech and grammatical categories "" (Shakhmatov A. A., 29).

In accordance with those ""ideas"" that are expressed in words, A. A. Shakhmatov divides them into three groups: significant words, expressing necessarily the main ideas with or without relation to the accompanying grammatical categories (noun, verb, adjective adverb); insignificant words, serving to express one or another independent grammatical category (pronoun, numeral, pronominal adverb); official parts of speech, which serve to express one or another non-independent grammatical category (preposition, conjunction, prefix, particle); interjection stands out as the equivalent of a word (Suprun A.E., 31).

When dividing words into parts of speech, A. M. Peshkovsky introduces the concept ""syntactic"", i.e. dependent on other words in speech, and ""non-syntactic""(word-forming) form, which made it possible for adverbs, gerunds and infinitives, as words with non-syntactic forms, not only not to be considered ""formless"", but also to distinguish between them (Peshkovsky A. M., 37). The syntactic forms of A. M. Peshkovsky are given by the list: case of nouns; case, number and gender of adjectives; person, number, gender, tense and mood of the verb. This is also related to the composition of the parts of speech, as well as their classification table (see table No. 1) (Peshkovsky A. M., 43).

A. M. Peshkovsky attaches considerable importance to mental associations that arise in the speaker and in the listener when pronouncing words. A. M. Peshkovsky identifies parts of speech with "" the main categories of thinking in their primitive nationwide stage of development "" (Peshkovsky A. M., 74). In this regard, the discovery of objectivity as a psychological or primitive-logical category of thinking corresponding to a grammatical noun, etc., the search for a common meaning of parts of speech that are no longer combined only by a bunch of similar forms, but above all by this common meaning (Suprun A.E. , 35).

L.V. Shcherba said that when classifying parts of speech, a researcher should use the scheme that is imposed by the language system itself, i.e. establish a general category under which one or another lexical meaning of a word is summed up in each individual case, or, otherwise, what general categories differ in a given language system. Hence, L. V. Shcherba recognized the possibility of experimentally establishing the composition of parts of speech. L. V. Shcherba notes that there must be some external exponents of these categories, and such categories can be "" mutability "" of words of different types, prefixes, suffixes, endings, phrasal stress, intonation, word order, special auxiliary words, syntactic link, etc. Shcherba believed that there is no reason to attribute a special role in the allocation of parts of speech to formal morphemes. Shcherba's position on a bunch of formal features as a characteristic of a part of speech is also important (Shcherba L.V., 65), and it is assumed that individual words belonging to this part of speech may not have separate features this beam; so, for example, the word cockatoo does not have endings inherent in nouns, but in terms of its compatibility it is sufficiently characterized as a noun ( my cockatoo, sitting cockatoo, my brother's cockatoo), as evidenced by its semantics.

L. V. Shcherboy also raised the question of varying degrees of brightness and severity of the properties of individual parts of speech. He believes that some words may have features of two parts of speech (for example, participles are subsumed under the category of an adjective and under the category of a verb), and on the other hand, it allows the possibility of homonymy between parts of speech (the same word may in some cases belong to one part of speech, and in other cases - to another) (Suprun A. E., 40).

I. I. Meshchaninov makes an attempt at a typological analysis of sentence members and parts of speech in languages of various types on the basis of the idea put forward by I. I. Meshchaninov about "" conceptual categories "", i.e. a kind of grammatical universals, without which, in his opinion, a typological comparison of the grammars of different languages is impossible.

The genesis of parts of speech, according to I. I. Meshchaninov, can be described as the result of the process of using words of a certain meaning in a certain syntactic function, which further led to the development of some morphological features specific to this group of words, different in different languages. "" Those groupings of the vocabulary of the language, to which we assign the names of parts of speech, are formed in the language only if and only if the grouping of words occurs not only according to their semantics, but also according to the presence in them ... characterizing formal indicators "" (Meshchaninov I.I., 17). Parts of speech, according to I. I. Meshchaninov, are lexical group, characterized by the corresponding syntactic properties. These are acquired by them in a sentence, where a certain group of words is confined to the predominant performance in the meaning of one or another member of the sentence or is included in its composition. At the same time, both a sentence member and a part of speech have their own characteristics that distinguish them: a sentence member in a sentence, a part of speech in the lexical composition of the language (Suprun A. E., 48).

V. V. Vinogradov defended synthetic approach to parts of speech based on an in-depth analysis of the concept of words, its form and structure in the language. ""Identification of parts of speech should be preceded by the definition of the main structural-semantic types of words"" (Vinogradov VV, 29). Classification cannot ignore any side in the structure of the word, although lexical and grammatical criteria, in his opinion, should play a decisive role, and morphological features are combined with syntactic ones in "" organic unity "", since there is nothing in morphology that is not or before it was not in syntax and vocabulary. An analysis of the semantic structure of a word led V. V. Vinogradov to distinguish four main grammatical and semantic categories of words:

Name words, to which pronouns adjoin, form the subject-semantic, lexical and grammatical foundation of speech and are parts of speech.

Particles of speech, i.e. connective, auxiliary words, devoid of a nominative function, closely related to the technique of language, and their lexical meanings are identical with grammatical ones, words that lie on the verge of vocabulary and grammar.

Modal words and particles, devoid, like linking words, of a nominative function, but more ""lexical"": ""wedging"" into the sentence, marking the relation of speech to reality from the point of view of the subject of speech. When attached to a sentence, modal words are outside of both parts of speech and particles of speech, although ""in appearance"" may sound like both.

Interjection in the broad sense of the word, having no cognitive value, syntactically unorganized, unable to be combined with other words, having an affective coloring, close to facial expressions and gestures (Vinogradov V.V., 30).

V. V. Vinogradov notes that the ways of expressing grammatical meanings and the very nature of these meanings are heterogeneous for different semantic types of words (Vinogradov V. V., 33). In the system of parts of speech, according to V. V. Vinogradov, grammatical differences between different categories of words come out most sharply and definitely. The division of parts of speech into the main grammatical categories is due to:

Differences in those syntactic functions that different categories of words perform in connected speech, in the structure of a sentence

Differences in the morphological standing of words and word forms

Differences in the real (lexical) meanings of words

Differences in the way reality is reflected

Differences in the nature of those correlative and subordinating categories that are associated with one or another part of speech (Vinogradov V.V., 38-39).

V. V. Vinogradov, noting that different languages may have different composition of parts of speech, emphasized the dynamism of the system of parts of speech in one language.

Completing the historical-linguistic and theoretical review of the parts of speech in the Russian language, V. V. Vinogradov offers two schemes: one illustrating the relationship between individual parts of speech (in the narrow sense of the word), and the second characterizing all groups of words in the modern Russian language (see. diagram #1 and diagram #2). These diagrams list the parts of speech in Russian and demonstrate their relationships with each other.

Until now, scientists have not come to a consensus on the criteria for identifying parts of speech, so the question of the basis for classifying parts of speech in modern linguistics remains open. But the most productive and universal approach seems to be the approach to parts of speech as lexico-grammatical categories of words, taking into account their syntactic role.

3 Name system and verb system

Trying to highlight the universal properties of parts of speech, linguists came to the conclusion that in most languages, systems of the name and the verb are distinguished, most often opposed to each other.

3.1 Name system

The distinctive features of the name as a type of word are related to the peculiarities of the naming process leading to names, and to the role of names in the sentence.

Morphological differences of names from words of other classes cannot be generalized, they may be absent altogether. In languages with a developed morphology, the name differs in declension forms, while the verb has conjugation forms, the adjective has forms of agreement and degrees of comparison, etc. However, what in the Indo-European languages is naturally perceived as an object and expressed by a name, may in some Indian languages be expressed as a process, in the forms of the third person of the verb; for example, in the Khupa language ""it descends"" is the name of the rain (the name of the object is ""rain""), in the Tyubatiulabal language, ""house"" and ""house in the past"" are distinguished (what was a house and ceased to be be), i.e. the name has a change in the category of time, etc.; the concept of ""rain"" in Russian is usually expressed by a name, which by function can be a predicate or a sentence (""Rain, you need to take an umbrella""), and, for example, in English it usually does not receive a nominal form of expression (""It is raining""), etc. (Yartseva V.N., 175).

There are objective reasons, both extralinguistic and intralinguistic, for distinguishing names from words of other types. The extralinguistic basis is that a name denotes a thing, while a verb, a predicate in general, is a sign or relation; the distinction between these extralinguistic entities is objective and does not depend on the language. The intralinguistic basis is that only a name stands in such a relation to an extralinguistic object, which is a naming relation. Verbs and predicate words in general "express" relations between objects of reality, without naming these relations, i.e. their designation objects. Conjunctions ""express"" logical connections between elements of thought, without denoting any extralinguistic objects; interjections "express" emotions without naming them either. A special place is occupied by "names of signs" - adjectives (which can also serve as predicate words) and adverbs, the relationship of both to extralinguistic objects is similar to the relationship of a name to a thing, but the objects here are not things. Thus, from the intralinguistic side, the justification for the definition of names comes down to the problem of naming and, ultimately, to an objective extralinguistic difference in things, properties, relationships (Yartseva V.N., 175).

In a sentence, the name takes the place actant(term) as part of a predicative, as a subject and object, as well as various additions.

In developed languages, both natural and artificial, by a special transformation, the so-called nominalization, any expression can be turned into a name, for example, in Russian: the verb ""beg"" > ""beg""; predicate ""The room is cold""> ""The room is cold""; whole sentence "I

I'm late"" > ""The fact that I'm late..."". In this sense, sentences are sometimes viewed as ""the name of a fact or event"".

The nomination is natural, but the choice of the attribute is random, which explains the difference in the names of the same objects in different languages. Nevertheless, since the feature underlying the name itself already had a linguistic expression, names are always included in the lexico-semantic system, getting their place in a group of related names opposed to other groups. Due to the stability of oppositions, fields and the entire lexical-semantic system as a whole, it, and mainly the names, are a fact of the spiritual culture of the people, forming a stable framework of this culture - the names of kinship, power, law, economic relations, human, animals, etc. , reflect the deep traditions of culture, revealed during historical reconstruction (Yartseva V.N., 175).

The internal structure of the name, especially the non-derivative one, is quite fully characterized by the system of the so-called semantic triangle: the name (1) denotes a thing, (2) names a thing, (3) expresses the concept of a thing. In the history of the philosophy of language and linguistics itself, the relation "to name" was understood ambiguously - either as a link between a name and a thing, or as a link between a name and a concept.

In the new European philosophy of language, Plato, in his dialogue "Cratyl", sets out the second understanding: the name names the idea, the concept ( ""eidos"") and only as a result of this is it capable of naming a thing "of the same name" with it (Yartseva V.N., 175).

Gradually, the insufficiency of such an understanding of the name, generally recognized as correct, was discovered: it was proposed to single out a smaller set from the totality of all objectively distinguishable features of a thing - the direct subject of the name - denotation. In logic, to some extent parallel to this, the concept was introduced ""extension"" name corresponding to the class of objects directly referred to by the given name. A similar process of splitting was experienced by the concept of "the concept of a thing", in which in logic they began to single out the part directly structured by the language - ""intension"", and in linguistics - significat. In linguistics, the concept of "significance" (different from "meaning"), introduced by F. de Saussure, served as a prototype of significat and intension even earlier. C. I. Lewis in his work "Kinds of Meaning" introduced four components in the semantics of the name (at the same time they are also processes): signification- a set of features that serve as a conceivable subject of designation; volume, or "coverage" - all conceivable objects that correspond to such a signification (including those that do not really exist); denotation, or extension, - objects that really exist; connotation, or intensity, is a conceivable subject of designation corresponding to such a denotation, or extension. Thus, intension, intension relates to extension, denotation in the same way as signification relates to coverage, volume (Yartseva V.N., 175).

With the expansion of semantic research, the sentence began to be interpreted as a kind of name with its own denotation, or extension, or reference, and, on the other hand, meaning, intension. The specificity of the name began to get lost, dissolving in the semantics of the sentence.

Classifications of names, in accordance with the scheme of the semantic structure (semantic triangle), can be carried out on three different grounds:

According to the form of the word, or morphological

By the type of value in the syntactic construction, or semantic-syntactic

By the type of meaning in the proposition, or logical-linguistic.

Morphological classifications describe the ranks of names that exist in a given particular language; they rely on morphological indicators - mainly affixes and the structure of stems; in them such rubrics as ""names of the figure"", ""names of action"", ""names of quality"", ""names of alienable and inalienable belonging"" are distinguished. These rubrics are endowed at the same time with a clear semantic feature (expressed in their title). Further, rubrics such as genera can be distinguished Indo-European languages, where the semantic basis is expressed much weaker. Morphological classes such as declination ranks(declension) of names in which there is no connection with semantics in the given state of the language, but may have existed in the distant past. These classifications are of great importance for inflectional languages, especially for Indo-European ones, they are the basis for deep historical reconstructions of grammar (Yartseva V.N., 176).

Semantic-syntactic classifications are of a more general, typological nature, they are based on the role of the name in the sentence, formally in its place as an actant in the predicate. Since such differences are by no means always expressed morphologically, their description and classification are more hypothetical than morphological classifications; to a large extent they depend on the chosen method of description. Most descriptions (and therefore quite objectively) highlight the names denotative character, gravitating towards the direct designation of things and occupying in the sentence (ceteris paribus) the position of the subject, and names significative character, gravitating towards the designation, signification of concepts and occupying the position of the predicate in the sentence (including ""forbidden position"" - for example, Russian ""take part""). The formulations of regularities and headings in these classifications are statistical (i.e., not rigidly defined) in nature. These classifications intersect with morphological ones, since in languages of some types the difference in actants is associated with different case design of the name (Yartseva V.N., 176).

Logico-linguistic, universal classifications, completely abstracting from the morphological type of the name, correlate it with the logical construction, which is ultimately based on the relation of the name to the thing as part of the statement - reference. Rubrics such as referential names and non-referential names are distinguished; individual, general, metanames; names in direct and indirect contexts; real names and quasi-names –descriptions and others (Yartseva V.N., 176).

3.2 Verb system

A verb is a part of speech that expresses the meaning of an action (i.e., a sign of a mobile, realized in time) and functions primarily as a predicate. As a specifically predicative word, the verb is opposed to the name (noun); the very separation of parts of speech in ancient (already Plato), ancient Indian, Arabic and other linguistic traditions began with a functional distinction between the name and the verb. At the same time, the shaping of the verb (conjugation) is not clearly opposed to the shaping of the name (especially the adjective) in all languages, and the set of grammatical categories of the verb is far from the same in different languages. Many languages distinguish between verbs and so-called verboids. The verb itself, or the finite verb, is used in a predicative function and, thus, in languages like Russian it means "action" not abstractly, but at the time of its occurrence from the acting person, at least in a particular case and "fictitious" "( e.g. "lights up"). In accordance with its function, a finite verb is characterized by one or another set of specifically predicative grammatical categories (tense, aspect, voice, mood), and in many languages also by concordant categories (repeating some categories of name and pronoun). Verboids combine some features and grammatical categories of the verb with features of other parts of speech - nouns, adjectives and adverbs. Verboids act as various members of the sentence, as well as in the composition of analytical finite forms and some constructions close to them. Verboids include infinitives (and other "action names" - gerund, masdar, supin), participles and gerunds. Some languages have no morphological opposition finite and non-finite forms; the form of the verb, acting in a non-predicative function, receives a special syntactic design (Yartseva V.N., 104)

Semantic-grammatical categories of verbs are distinguished on the basis of various features. Significant verbs oppose official(so-called copulas) and auxiliary verbs used in analytical verb forms. On the basis of the semantically conditioned ability to "open vacancies" for actants, all verbs are also divided into a number of valence classes corresponding to the formal-logical classes of one-place and many-place predicates. This is how monovalent verbs are distinguished ("sleeps" - who?), bivalent ("reads" - who? what?), trivalent ("gives" - who? to whom? what?), etc. A special group is made up of the verbs "nullvalent" denoting a certain inseparable situation and therefore unable to have at least one actant ("it is dawning") (Yartseva V.N., 104).

Others intersect with the above classification - according to the ability of the verb-predicate to have a subject (the so-called personal and impersonal verbs) and by the ability to accept an object ( transitional and imperishable Verbs).

Personal verbs, i.e. capable of being used with the subject, make up the majority of verbs of very different semantics. Impersonal, i.e. inconsistent with the subject, is zerovalent verbs and all those mono- and multivalent, the first actant of which does not receive the status of the subject (for example, ""I'm lucky"").

Transitive verbs receive a direct object ("I sew a coat"). The transitive also include those monovalent verbs, the only actant of which takes the form of a direct object (""I am shivering""). Intransitive verbs do not combine with a direct object ("brother is sleeping""), but they can also have other types of additions (""I admire the sunset"", ""I deviate from the rules""), called indirect ones (Yartseva V.N., 104 -105).

In another plane lies the division of verbs into dynamic and static. Dynamic means actions in the literal sense of the word ("ruble", "run"") or events and processes associated with certain changes (""the cup broke"", ""the snow melts""). Static ones denote states that depend on the will of the subject ("I stand" ") or do not depend on it ("I am cold" "), relations (""Superior""), manifestations of qualities and properties (""The grass is green"") ( Yartseva V.N., 105).

Conclusion

The question of the principles of establishing parts of speech is still relevant in modern linguistics. Now more and more languages of the world are involved in linguistic research and, thus, the criteria for establishing classes of words (parts of speech), based mainly on data from the study of the languages of the Indo-European and Turkic families, turn out to be completely unacceptable for the languages of other families.

Although the features that characterize the words of a particular part of speech do not coincide in different languages, they are due to the general meaning of this class of words, i.e. are conditioned by a certain general category, under which the lexical meaning of the word is summed up.

In some cases, the main formal feature of a certain part of speech is one or another combination of the corresponding words with others.

When comparing languages, the syntactic functions of parts of speech show much greater similarity than the types of word formation and form formation. Nevertheless, the leading and defining moment is the general grammatical meaning. The remaining moments are somehow subordinate to it and should be considered as its direct or indirect manifestations specific to each language.

The principle of common grammatical meaning underlies the traditional classification of parts of speech. Only this principle is not carried out in it consistently, not delineated different types general grammatical meanings. The task is not to discard the traditional system of parts of speech and replace it with some completely new classification, but to reveal the oppositions fixed by the traditional classification, to clean this classification of inconsistencies, to separate the essential from the random features that change from language to language.

Thus, modern linguistics highlights the description of the system of parts of speech according to principles that, being unified, would cover all known structural types of languages, reducing their description to common initial ideas.

Table #1

shaped words

Shapeless

Formed words with syntactic and non-syntactic forms

Uniforms

Words with some non-syntactic forms

Participles

Infinitives

Verbs

Adjectives

Venno applied

Names of creatures

Scheme No. 1

/>/>/>
1 noun

3 Name numeral

2 adjective
/>/>/>/>/>
6
H

states
/>/>/>/>/>
4 Pronoun

5 Verb
/>/>/>/>/>/>
And

BUT
/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>/>

Scheme No. 2

Continuation
--PAGE_BREAK--WORD CATEGORIES

/>/>/>/>/>

PARTS OF SPEECH

Modal

Interjection

/>/>/>

Noun

Prepositions

Adjective

Verb
/>/>/>

numeral

Pronoun

Particles

Bibliography:

Buslaev F.I. Historical grammar of the Russian language. M., Uchpedgiz, 1959. 623 p. pp. 287-289

Vinogradov VV Russian language (Grammatical doctrine of the word). M., Higher school, 1986. 639s. pp. 29-39

Kochergina V. A. Introduction to linguistics. M., ed. Moscow State University, 1970. 526 p. pp. 87-93

Maslov M. Yu. Introduction to linguistics. M., Higher School, 1997. 272p. pp. 155-157.

Meshchaninov I. I. Members of the sentence and parts of speech. L., Nauka, 1978. 387 p. S. 17

Peshkovsky A. M. Russian syntax in scientific coverage. M., 1956. 511 p. pp. 37-74

Potebnya A. A. From notes on Russian grammar. M., Uchpedgiz, 1958. 536 p. S. 82

Steblin-Kamensky M. I. Controversial in linguistics. L., Ed. Leningrad State University, 1973. 141 p. pp. 20-22

Suprun A.E. Parts of speech in Russian. M., Education, 1971. 135s. pp. 19-50

Shakhmatov A. A. From the works of A. A. Shakhmatov on the modern Russian language (Teaching about parts of speech). M., Uchpedgiz, 1952. 272 p. S. 29

Shcherba L. V. Selected works on the Russian language. M., Uchpedgiz, 1957. 118 p. S. 65

Yartseva VN Linguistics. M., Great Russian Encyclopedia, 1998. 685 p. pp. 104-105, 175-176, 578-579

Parts of speech and contaminants (general provisions)
“In the Russian language, words are divided into categories, or classes, which differ in their main meanings, in the nature of the grammatical categories associated with each of these categories, or classes, as well as in the types of word formation and form formation. These bits are called parts of speech. Parts of speech also differ in the functions they perform in connected speech” [Grammar–1960, vol. 1, p. 20]. “Parts of speech are grammatical classes of words characterized by a combination of the following features: 1) the presence of a generalized meaning, abstracted from the lexical and morphological meanings of all words of this class; 2) a complex of certain morphological categories; 3) common system(identical organization) of paradigms and 4) commonality of basic syntactic functions” [Russian Grammar–1980, vol. 1, p. 457]. The concept of parts of speech The part of speech is admittedly one of the most general categories of language. They in a certain way group words with similar lexical and grammatical characteristics, with the same way of displaying objective reality. Therefore, parts of speech have attracted and continue to attract special interest both in solving important theoretical issues and in the practical development of the language. Nevertheless, despite the large number of works on this issue, the problem of parts of speech remains unresolved. For the science of language, the words spoken by O.P. Sunik about four decades ago: “A very old and very confusing question about parts of speech, about their linguistic nature, about their quantity and quality in languages of various types and families, as you know, has not received a satisfactory solution either in grammatical studies on individual languages, nor in works on general linguistics” [Sunik O.P. General theory of parts of speech. - M.: Nauka, 1966. - P. 34]. The part of speech in modern linguistics is defined by most linguists as a lexical and grammatical class of words with a set of individual differential features inherent in such a complex only for this part of speech. Term Part of speech- tracing paper from the Latin language ( partes- parts, oratio- speech, utterance, verbal expression or sentence). In the textbook M.F. Guzhva parts of speech are defined as “extremely capacious grammatical categories of words, united by a common grammatical meaning and its formal expression” [Guzhva M.F. Modern Russian literary language. Part II. - Kyiv: Vishcha school, 1979. - S. 19]. In present work The following definition of a part of speech is adopted: it is a lexico-grammatical class of words with a set of individual differential features. The list of parts of speech is constantly reviewed, supplemented, and refined with the advent of new information about the language. Brief history of the development of the issue

What else to read

France in the second half of the 20th century Slide 1 Slide 2 Slide 3 Slide 4 Slide 5 Slide 6 Slide 7 Slide 8 Slide 9 Slide 10

France in the second half of the 20th century He was against the revival of the pre-war parliamentary republic. Was against the revival of the pre-war parliamentary...

World around winter help birds Municipal state educational institution secondary school No. 3 p. Gribanovsky LESSON ON ...

The theory of parts of speech in Russian linguistics. Classification of parts of speech. The history of the development of the theory of their classification in foreign and domestic linguistics

What else to read

THE LAST NOTES

Categories