IN morphological typology(and this is chronologically the first and most developed area of typological research) are taken into account, firstly, ways of expressing grammatical meanings and, secondly, the nature of the connection in a word of its significant parts (morphemes). Depending on the ways of expressing grammatical meanings, there are synthetic and analytical languages.
In the languages of the world, there are two main groups of ways to express grammatical meanings: 1) synthetic methods and 2) analytical. For synthetic ways characterized by the connection of a grammatical indicator with the word itself(this is the motivation behind the term synthetic -(from Greek synthesis- combination, composition, association) - based on synthesis, united); such an indicator that introduces grammatical meaning “inside the word” can be ending, suffix, prefix, internal inflection (i.e. alternation of sounds in the root, for example, flowing- flows- flow), change of accent (legs- legs), suppletivism (I- me, I'm walking- I'm going, good- better), repetition of morpheme.
A common feature analytical ways is expression of grammatical meaning outside the word, separately from it- for example, using prepositions, conjunctions, articles, auxiliary verbs and other function words, as well as using word order and the general intonation of the statement ( analytical- from Greek analysis - separation, decomposition, dismemberment - separating, decomposing into component parts; associated with analysis).
Most languages also have analytical I synthetic means of expressing grammatical meanings, but their specific weight varies. Depending on which methods predominate, languages of synthetic and analytical types are distinguished. TO synthetic languages belong to all Slavic languages (except Bulgarian), Sanskrit, ancient Greek, Latin, Lithuanian, Yakut, Arabic, Swahili, etc.
To languages analytical constructions include all Romance languages, Bulgarian, English, German, Danish, Modern Greek, Modern Persian, etc. R. Analytical methods predominate in these languages, but synthetic grammatical means are also used to one degree or another.
Languages in which there are almost no possibilities for synthetic expression of a number of grammatical meanings (as in Chinese, Vietnamese, Khmer, Laotian, Thai, etc.), in early XIX V. called amorphous(“formless”), that is, as if devoid of form, but Humboldt already called them insulating. It was seen that these languages are by no means devoid of grammatical form, just a number of grammatical meanings (namely syntactic, relational meanings) are expressed here separately, as if “isolated”, from the lexical meaning of the word.
There are languages in which the root of a word, on the contrary, turns out to be so “overburdened” with various auxiliary and dependent root morphemes that such a word turns into a sentence in meaning, but at the same time remains formalized as a word. Such a “word-sentence” device is called incorporation (lat. incorporation- inclusion in one’s composition, from lat. in- in and corpus- body, a single whole), and the corresponding languages - incorporating or polysynthetic (some Indian languages, Chukchi, Koryak, etc.).
Quantitative methods in determining the degree of analytism-synthetism of languages.
A significant contribution to the clarification of fundamental typological concepts was made by turning to quantitative methods of studying languages. In particular, it turned out that incorporating languages are by no means “super-analytical” languages: the proportion of synthetic phenomena can be quite high here. It also turned out that incorporation (polysyntheticism) can be combined with strong analytical features in the structure of language.
Humboldt also wrote that language types- this is a kind of mental abstraction; There are no “purely” analytical or “purely” synthetic languages. In reality, classifying a language as one or another type of language only means the predominance in it of ways of expressing grammatical meanings corresponding to this type.
Sapir was very close to the idea of measuring the typological properties of languages. In his classic book Language (1921), he constantly strives to define varying degrees representation of certain phenomena: he characterizes some languages as slightly synthetic type, others - like weakly agglutinative languages, third - slightly symbolic, highly symbolic type (term symbolic it means "using internal inflection"); He placed some languages in brackets to indicate the “weak development” of this phenomenon.
One of the leading modern typologists, Joseph Greenberg, proposed a method for quantitative assessment of a number of typologically significant features of the morphemic-grammatical structure of languages.
In particular, believing, following Sapir, that the synthetic nature of a language essentially depends on the degree of morphemic complexity of a word, Greenberg calculated the synthetic coefficient for different languages by relating the total number of morphs (in the same text in these languages) to the total number of words in this text . For example, if a certain language does not use affixes and does not resort to compounding, then a text 100 words long will have 100 morphs and, therefore, the syntheticity index of such a language will be equal to I. It is clear that 1 is the minimum syntheticity index and an indicator of the maximum analyticity of the language. If in a language each word has on average at least 1 affix, then per 100 words in such a language there are 200 morphs (100 root and 100 affix) and, therefore, its syntheticity index is 2. Syntheticity indices from 1 to 2 were obtained for languages , which have traditionally been considered analytical languages; from 2 to 3 - for synthetic languages; above 3 - for incorporating languages (they began to be called polysynthetic).
Sanskrit Anglo-Saxon. English GermanRussianYakutSwahiliVietnameseEskimo
2,59 2,12 1,68 1,97 2,39 2,17 2,55 1,06 3,72
Syntheticity-analyticity indices allow us to see not only the synchronous differences between languages in the degree of syntheticity, but also the different speeds at which overall typological evolution occurs related languages.
Morphological typology of languages– the most developed area of typological research. Typological linguistics began to develop precisely with the morphological classification of languages, that is, among other areas of typological research, morphological typology is chronologically the first.
There are two main languages in the world groups of ways of expressing grammatical meanings– synthetic and analytical.
For synthetic methods Expressions of grammatical meanings are characterized by the connection of a grammatical indicator with the word itself. Such an indicator that introduces grammatical meaning “inside the word” can be prefix, suffix, ending, internal inflection(alternation of sounds in the root: lying - lie down - bed), change of accent ( ss? to pour - to pour), suppletivism (child - children, take - take) (see A.A. Reformatsky, 1997, pp. 263–313). The term "synthetic" is motivated by, from the Greek. synthesis- “combination, composition, association.”
For analytical methods characteristic expression of grammatical meaning outside words, separately from it: using prepositions, conjunctions, articles, auxiliary verbs, other function words; using word order; through general intonation statements. Let us recall that analytical – from the Greek. analysis– “separation, decomposition, dismemberment” - this is separating, decomposing into component parts; associated with analysis.
Scientists identify the following ways of expressing grammatical meanings:
affixation(attachment to the root of grammatical morphemes - affixes);
internal inflection(significant alternation of phonemes in the root of a word, such as English. sing – song or Russian lie down - lie down);
accent;
intonation;
reduplication(repetition of a root morpheme or a whole word);
function words(prepositions, conjunctions, particles, articles, auxiliary verbs, etc.);
word order.
Sometimes they add to this list compounding(although this grammatical method does not serve for inflection, but for the formation of new words) and suppletivism– using another root to convey grammatical meaning, like Russian. person - people, put - put or English good – better).
In principle, each language uses different grammatical methods from those mentioned, but in practice they are grouped in a certain way and combined with each other. Namely: in some languages, the grammatical meaning is expressed primarily within the (significant) word itself: with the help of affixation, internal inflection, stress. Lexical and grammatical meanings appear here in combination, jointly forming the semantics of the word. Such languages are called synthetic languages. Examples include ancient Latin, and from modern languages– Finnish, Estonian, Lithuanian, Polish. In other languages, grammatical meaning is expressed outside the significant word: using function words, word order, intonation. In such languages, grammatical and lexical meanings are presented separately; they are embodied in different material means. This analytical languages; these include modern English, French, Danish, Bulgarian, etc.
Many languages combine the features of analyticism and synthetism in their grammatical structure. In particular, modern Russian belongs to the languages mixed system(with some bias towards synthetism, although the share of analytical tools in it is steadily increasing); they also include German(although elements of analyticism predominate in it), see about this: (B.Yu. Norman, 2004, p. 205).
There are languages that have almost no synthetic methods. These are Chinese, Vietnamese, Laotian, Thai, Khmer. At the beginning of the 19th century. some linguists called them amorphous(formless), that is, without form. W. von Humboldt clarified that these languages are not formless, he called them isolating. It was discovered that these languages are not devoid of grammatical form, but grammatical meanings are expressed separately in them, isolated from the lexical meaning of the word. The “morphemes” of such languages are extremely isolated from each other, independent, that is, a morpheme is both a root and a separate word. How are words formed in such languages? Do they really only contain words like write, but no rewrite, neither letter? New words in isolating languages are formed according to a different principle. To form new words, in such languages you just need to put the roots (words) side by side and you get something between compound word and two words. For example, this is roughly how words are formed in Chinese from the word write:
rewrite = write + redo, letter = write + subject and so on. (about isolating languages, see: N.V. Solntsev, 1985).
On the other hand, there are languages in which the root of the word is so heavily overloaded with various auxiliary and dependent root morphemes that such a word, growing, turns into a sentence in meaning, but at the same time remains formalized as a word. Some words in such languages seem to be embedded in others. At the same time, complex alternations often occur at the junctions of morphemes. Such a “word-sentence” device is called incorporation(lat . incorporation inclusion in its composition, from lat. in – V; corpus– body, a single whole), and the corresponding languages incorporating, or polysynthetic. Polysynthetic languages are Eskimo-Aleut, Chukchi, Koryak, and most Indian languages of North and Central America.
J. Greenberg even defined language synthetic index.
According to the definition given above, morphology as a branch of the science of the Russian language studies grammar classes words (parts of speech), grammatical (morphological) categories and forms of words belonging to these classes.
Parts of speech are distinguished on the basis of semantic, morphological and syntactic commonality: a common feature of the lexical meanings of words combined into a given class (for example, the subject of nouns; the procedural feature of verbs); general morphological categories and forms of inflection; identical functions in sentences and texts [Vinogradov 1972: 38; RG-80: 455-456].
Russian morphology is usually described in terms of parts of speech, but there is also a description of the “categorical” morphology of the Russian language. For example, in the Prague “Russian Grammar” (1979), morphological categories are described not by parts of speech, but by “bundles” in which they appear in different parts speech. For example, the category of gender is considered in one section as a category of nouns (“inconsistent non-pronominal words”), pronouns and “agreeable words” (adjectives, participles, past tense verb forms and subjunctive mood) [RG 1979: 316-323].
A grammatical (morphological) category is formed by homogeneous (i.e., united by a general categorical meaning) opposed (both in form and meaning) series of morphological forms. The categorical meaning of one of the opposed series of morphological forms is a gramme [Zaliznyak 1967 / 2002: 26-27; Melchuk 1998: 250-261]. Thus, the number forms of nouns with the help of endings express grammemes singular or plural, which are the implementation of the general categorical value of a number.
In the Russian language (as in other inflectional-synthetic languages), meanings opposed within the same category cannot be expressed in one word form, that is, grammes are mutually exclusive [Plungyan 2000: 107, 115]. For example, a noun can contain either singular or plural inflection, and a verb can express either the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd person. In other words, “the grammatical meaning of a word form can contain no more than one gramme of the same grammatical category” [Zaliznyak 2002: 27].
However, the principle of mutual exclusion for grammatical meanings is not universal for all languages. According to experts in the languages of Southeast Asia, the mutual exclusion of grammes is generally uncharacteristic of the grammatical categories of isolating languages - Chinese, Thai, Khmer. Forms of the same category in isolating languages “are opposed not because they convey mutually exclusive meanings, but because they carry different meanings” [Solntseva 1985: 203]. also in English language formal indicators of contrasting tenses of past and future are compatible, cf. “future in the past” (would work). The indicators of the forms Perfect and Continuous (have been working), which in some works are considered forms of time, in others - forms of aspect, are also compatible. If we consider the mutual exclusion of grammes to be universal mandatory feature grammatical category, then we must admit that the English forms Past and Future (as well as Perfect and Continuous belong to different grammatical categories. V. comes to this conclusion.
A. Plungyan, considering the future tense outside the category of time [Plungyan 2000: 269]. An analysis of the semantics and use of present and future tense forms in the Russian language (see Chapter 3) shows that the interpretation of the future outside the grammatical category of tense is unacceptable for the Russian language.
Morphological categories can be polynomial structures (cf., for example, the category of case in the Russian language) or two-membered, binary, organized according to the principle of opposition (cf. verb aspect). Among the morphological categories, categories with a nominative component of meaning are distinguished and categories without such a component are non-nominative. The first include categories that represent and interpret objects of the extra-linguistic world or relationships between them: quantitative relationships of objects, the degree of manifestation of a sign, the reality or unreality of an action, its relation to the moment of speech, the speaker and other participants in the act of speech, etc.; These are, for example, the categories of number of nouns, degrees of comparison of adjectives, verbal categories of mood, tense, person, aspect. Non-nominative categories are realized syntagmatically - in syntactic compatibility, i.e. through the forms of agreed words (for example, the category of gender of nouns) or depending on grammatical features words with which these forms agree (categories of gender, number and case of adjectives) [Zaliznyak 2002: 22-27; RG-80: 457].
As part of the morphological categories of the Russian language, there are inflectional categories, the members of which are forms of the same word (for example, verbal categories of mood, tense, person), and non-inflectional (or classifying) categories, the members of which are forms of different words (for example, verb aspect category). Shaping as “the formation of grammatical forms of a word” [LES 1990: 558] is represented by 1) inflection, or the formation of inflectional-synthetic forms (for example, finite forms of the verb); 2) the formation of analytical grammatical forms such as I will work, would work; 3) correlative forms of different words (for example, forms of verbs SV and NSV) [RYA 1979: 379].
Within parts of speech, lexico-grammatical categories are also distinguished, reflecting the interaction of vocabulary and grammar. These are subclasses of words of a particular part of speech, which are characterized by a common element of lexical meaning that determines their phammatic properties. For example, the following verbal lexico-grammatical categories are distinguished: transitive and intransitive verbs (determining the possibility or impossibility of forming forms of the passive voice); personal / impersonal verbs (having a different set of forms of the person category); marginal / non-terminal (or, in other terminology, terminative / non-terminal) verbs that influence the formation of aspect pairs (see §11). Lexico-grammatical categories differ from grammatical categories in the absence of a general categorical meaning that has specific implementations in individual categories, and in the absence of a system of morphological forms of expression for these implementations.
Linguists note that any possible similarities between the two languages may be due to one of four reasons:
1) the relationship of languages, i.e. their common origin (genealogical factor);
2) mutual influence of languages, i.e. the emergence of similarities due to contacts of languages (areal factor);
3) similarity of phonetic, semantic or grammatical structure (typological factor);
4) random coincidence (for example, bad means 'bad' in English and Persian).
Genealogical proximity is visible in the external similarity of words and roots in related languages, especially if you know phonetic processes: Russian. gold, Bulgarian gold, Polish zł oto, Latvian zelts, German Gold, English gold, lat. helvus– ‘amber-yellow’, ancient Indian. hari– ‘yellow, golden’. The narrower the genealogical community, the more identical features there are: in a subgroup there are more languages, in a group – fewer, in a family – even fewer. The result of the systematization of languages by kinship is the genealogical classification of languages. The relatives of some languages remain unidentified, for example, Japanese, Korean, Basque. Such languages are considered genealogically isolated. Regarding some neighboring languages (Paleo-Asian, Nilo-Saharan languages), it is not known what kind of similarity unites them - kinship or areal convergence.
The areal similarity of languages arises due to the long-term proximity and contacts of peoples speaking these languages. The most common case of areal community is lexical borrowing. Sometimes such borrowings are characterized by considerable breadth and penetrate even into unrelated languages. Bright to that example - Belarusian, Russian, Ukrainian. school; Slovenian š ola, Polish szkoł a, German Schule, English school, Swedish skola, Latin school, fr. é cole, Hungarian iskola, Finnish koulu, Turkish okul - this is a general borrowing, through various linguistic means, going back to the Greek. schole(‘free time, doing something during leisure time, spending time in academic conversations’). Semantic, word-formation, morphological models can be traced - for example, in a number of Slavic languages words with the meaning ‘taste’ developed under the influence of the French language figurative meaning‘feeling graceful’. Also, under French influence, the use of “polite” You and the corresponding forms of verbs developed in Slavic languages. Areal similarity is the opposite of genealogical proximity: areal interaction leads to a weakening of the original genetic closeness of related languages, and consequently to increasing dissimilarity. For example, in the Slovenian, Czech and partly in the Slovak languages, numerals denoting “non-round” numbers after 20 (21, 74, 95, etc.) began to be formed not according to the Proto-Slavic model (“names of tens + names of units”), but modeled on German numerals (“names of units + names of tens”): petindvajset (“5 and 20”), triinsedemdeset(“3 and 70”).
Typological similarity can manifest itself at all language levels: phonetic, lexical (semantic), grammatical. An example of a semantic typological pattern: in some languages there are names of tools, mechanisms that were formed on the basis of figurative (metaphorical) use of animal names (or derivatives from animal names): Russian. winch - from swan, tongs - from tongs, coil - from kite,ruff(brush), top(toy), caterpillar(tank), many computer terms in English. language and translated into other languages; German Kranich– ‘crane’, Crane – ‘crane’, French. grue– ‘crane, crane’, Hungarian. daru– ‘crane; crane’, Hungarian kakas– ‘rooster, trigger, dog’, Turkish. horoz– ‘cock, trigger, door latch’ and many others. etc. Another typological pattern is the anthropomorphic vision of the world: in different languages the names of parts of the relief go back to the names of parts of the body, like Russian. mountain range, mouth, branch of a river, foot of a mountain and many more etc.
The result of observations of the typological similarity of the grammatical structure of different languages was typological(morphological) classification.
It arose later than the genealogical one, at the end of the 18th – beginning of the 19th centuries. For the first time, the question of the “type of language” was raised by German scientists (Friedrich Schlegel, August Schlegel, Wilhelm von Humboldt, August Schleicher).
Unlike the genealogical typological classification, languages are divided into groups not on the basis of origin, but on the basis of the principles of their organization. The most developed is the morphological classification (there are also phonetic, syntactic and lexical typological classifications, but they are less developed). The morphological types of languages, grammatical means, and the generality of grammatical structure are compared. The morphological classification is based on 1) the methods used to express grammatical meanings; 2) the nature of the connection of morphemes in a word.
Typological classification considers languages not historically, but synchronically; records what structure a language represents at a given stage of its development. The basis for identifying a language type is the word - the main unit of language. The type of language depends on how the word is grammatically formed and how the lexical and grammatical meanings are expressed.
Traditionally, the following types are distinguished:
inflectional languages (synthetic and analytical);
agglutinative;
insulating (root);
incorporating (polysynthetic).
Inflected languages(from Latin flexio – ‘bending, transition’). Depending on the prevailing ways of expressing grammatical meanings, they distinguish synthetic(ancient - Sanskrit, Latin, all Slavic, except Bulgarian, Icelandic, Faroese, German, Arabic, Swahili, etc.) and analytical(all Romance, English, Danish, Modern Greek, Modern Persian, Bulgarian, Tajik, Hindi, etc.). In inflectional-synthetic languages, synthetic grammatical means predominate (affixation, internal inflection, suppletivism, reduplication, stress method). In inflectional-analytic languages, analytical means of expressing grammatical meanings (method of function words, word order, method of intonation) predominate. In the group of inflectional languages, a change in morphological type occurs over time: all analytical languages were once synthetic.
Russian linguist of the 19th century. N. Krushevsky illustrated the differences between synthetic and analytical languages with the following diagram:
|____ in synthetic languages the beginning of the word does not change,
but its endings change;
_____| in analytical languages, the ending, on the contrary, remains
unchanged, and the grammatical function of a word is determined by what comes before it (function words).
Agglutinative languages. There are two types of morphemic structure of a word - fusion(from Latin fusio – ‘fusion’) and agglutination(from Latin agglutinatio – ‘gluing, gluing’). Fusion is observed in inflectional synthetic languages - Russian, Latin, Ancient Greek, Lithuanian), agglutination - in agglutinative ones (of which there are much more on Earth than fusional ones: these are all the languages of the Altai macrofamily (Turkic, Mongolian, etc.), Tungus-Manchu, Caucasian, some Finno-Ugric, Samoyed, African Bantu languages, Japanese, Korean, all Australian languages, most Indian languages).
Differences between agglutination and fusion:
1. With agglutination, the affix is unambiguous, one affix - one grammatical meaning: Uzbek: daftar- 'notebook', daftar-lar– ‘notebooks’, daftar-lar-da– ‘in notebooks’, daftar-im-da– ‘in my notebook’, lar– plural indicator, Yes– indicator of local decline, them– indicator of belonging to 1 person, ha- index dative case –kyz-lar-ga– ‘to girls’. Georgian: sahl-eb-s – eb(plural), -With(dat.p.) – ‘at home’.
In fusion, the affix has multiple meanings, for example, the wall is white– inflection values A- three: gender, number, case. If you want to change only one grammatical value, you still need to change the entire grammatical indicator - red - red; house-y: inflection meanings - at– masculine, singular, dative case.
2. With fusion, the affixes are not standard, the same grammatical meaning, for example, the meaning of the plural can be expressed by different affixes: nouns male may have the endings in the nominative plural - s(fruit),-And(horses), -A(shores), -I(edge, brothers), -e(peasants).
In agglutination, the affixes are standard, for example, the same affixes are used in all nouns, for example, Uzbek: odam- 'Human', odam-lar- 'People', odam-lar-da –'about people'; kitob-lar– ‘books’, kitob-ni– ‘book’, kitob-im- 'my book', kitob-lar-da– ‘in books’. The affix is also used to indicate the plural in verbs lar:'he knows' - bila-di, 'they know' –beela-di-lar. Compare also the use of other standard affixes in verbs: bil-mok– infinitive – ‘to know’; bill-may- ('Not')- di(3 l.)- lar- 'they do not know'; He does not know' - bi-may-di;'I don't know' - bill-may-man;oh-may-di– ‘doesn’t open’, och-may-di-lar– ‘they don’t open’, uina-may-di-lar- ‘they don’t play’.
Tani-sh-tir-ol-ma-di-ng-iz:Tanya– root ‘to know’, w– reflexivity affix, shooting gallery– causative, ol- opportunity, ma– denial, di – past tense, ng– 2nd person, from– plural numbers (‘you were unable to introduce’).
From Turkish: yaz–ama–yor–sunuz:yaz'write', ama 'Can not', yor– pointer to indicative, sunuz–2nd person; translates to ‘you can’t write’.
Tatar word form tash-lar-im-da-gy-lar(tash- stone, lar– plural, th- possessive suf. 1 person, gee– local case) – ‘those on my stones’.
3. With agglutination, the boundaries between morphemes are quite clear, there is no phonetic interaction between morphemes, the morphemes are standard, they do not depend on the phonetic environment, however, intersyllabic synharmonism is observed - a uniform vocal design of the word: if the root has a front vowel, then the affix is used with that or vowel - evler– ‘rooms’ (instead of evlar), Teshler– ‘teeth’, imenner – ‘oak trees’, urmannar- 'forests'.
With fusion, the boundaries between morphemes are indistinct, they seem to be fused and can pass inside the sound (hence the term fusion(alloy), the term was introduced by the American linguist E. Sapir). For example, in the word narrator[ras:ka′sh":ik] the last consonant of the root [z] and the first suffix [h] are fused into one sound [sh":]; cut (in the sound [h] the last sound of the root [g] (strigu) and the initial sound of the infinitive indicator [t] -ti have merged), children's[dе′tskiy], desk - desk(hard-soft final consonant of the root), man – human(alternating b/h).
The processes of simplification and re-decomposition are not characteristic of an agglutinative word. The base of the word remains unchanged, affixes are easily “torn off” from the root. In agglutinative languages there are no irregular verbs or similar morphological exceptions.
Isolating (root, amorphous, extremely analytical)languages. These include Vietnamese, Chinese (especially ancient Chinese), Khmer, Laotian, Thai, Malay-Polynesian (Maori, Indonesian, Ewe, Yoruba - one of the Qua-languages, common in Nigeria, Togo, Sierra Leone).
Isolating languages are characterized by:
1) invariability of the word, absence of inflection forms, no indicators of number, person ( Hao Zhen- 'good man'; Zhen Hao –‘a person loves (me)’; siyu hao- 'to do good'; hao dagvih- 'very expensive');
2) the absence of grammatical indicators in the word, the word is equal to the root, words without grammatical indicators are, as it were, isolated from each other, parts of speech do not differ in morphological indicators: hee– ‘eat, lunch’; kaishi– ‘begin, beginning’. However, in modern Chinese There are already cases of using affixes, for example, the past completed tense is expressed using a suffix -le-:Warrior(We) nian-le(read) Liu(six) ke(lessons); a special suffix is also used in pronouns to denote the plural ( in- I, vomen- We, neither- You, nemen- You, that- He, tamen– they), i.e. in modern Chinese there are already deviations from the isolating type, which in ancient Chinese was consistently maintained;
3) significant word order (subject before the predicate, definition before the word being defined, direct object always after the verb: mao pa gou, gou bu pa mao– ‘cats are afraid of dogs’, ‘dogs are not afraid of cats’), word order can also determine the status of a member of a sentence : gao shan– ‘high mountains’ (definition), Shan Gao– ‘the mountains are high’ (predicate);
4) the use of function words, for example, to convey an indirect object with a meaning similar to our dative case, a function word is used gays: Mama (mama) tsuo (do) fan (food) gays vomen (nam) hi (eat) – mom cooks dinner for us;
5) musical accent. In a literary language, 4 tones are distinguished; in dialects, their number increases to 9 (the same sound complex tang depending on the tone with which it is pronounced, it can mean 1) ‘soup’, 2) ‘candy’, 3) ‘sleep’, 4) ‘hot’);
6) semantically significant syllable division (the division of speech into syllables coincides with the morphemic division of speech).
Incorporating languages(from Latin incorporo - I insert) (polysynthetic - from Greek ‘many compounds’) - Paleo-Asian, many American Indian languages.
This type of language was first identified by W. von Humboldt in 1822. The basic unit is the incorporating complex, which is both a word and a sentence. In incorporating languages, the designation of objects of action, circumstances of action, and sometimes an indication of the subject of action is expressed by special affix words that are part of the verb form. The peculiarity of incorporating languages is that they combine several bases expressing different concepts in one grammatical form. One complex word can include two, three or more stems. A typical sentence, for example, for the Chukchi language consists of several complex words. Thus, in the language of the Mexican Indians the word complex Ninakagua– ‘I eat meat’ seems to have a verb. But the verb in this language generally cannot be used on its own, separately from other words. You cannot separately say “there is”, or “I eat”, or “give”, or “I will give”. Five, six, ten words are intertwined with each other, even entering into their neighbors, forming, in our opinion, a strange word that expresses the meaning of the whole phrase. Thus, what in Indo-European languages is expressed in the system of a whole sentence, in incorporating languages can be conveyed using a single word, hence their name: “integrating” or “multi-integrating” (polysynthetic).
Chukotka: you-mine’-vala-mna-pyn’a– ‘I’m sharpening a big knife’: You('I'), main'('big'), shaft('knife'), me('from'), pyn'a(sharpen).
You-tor-tan’-pylvyn-you-poigy-pelya-rykyn– ‘I’m leaving a new good metal spear’.
Blackfoot language (Algonquian group): it-sipi-oto-isim-iu– ‘that dog went to drink at night’: ohm(‘ta’) imita-ua(‘there is a dog’); it('Then'), sipi('at night'), oto(‘went’), isim('drink') yiwu(3 l.);
Chinook language: inialudam– ‘I came to give it to her’;
language of the Ojibwe (Chippewa) tribe, Indian epic “The Song of Hiawatha”: vnitokuchumpunkuryuganiyugvivantumyu– ‘those who, while sitting, cut black tame bison (= cows) with knives’.
In the new classification languages are divided into analytical and synthetic; for this purpose, syntheticity indices are determined. The synthetic index is a value that expresses the degree of complexity of the morphological structure of words in a language, numerically equal to the ratio of the number of morphs to the number of words in a certain text. The minimum synthetic index is 1, and each word consists of one morpheme. The language that actually exists with such an index is Vietnamese (1.06). Typically, analytical languages are considered languages for which the syntheticity index is less than 2 (sometimes they are divided into isolating (Vietnamese - 1.06) and analytical (modern English -1.68)). Languages with a syntheticity index from 2 to 3 are considered synthetic (Sanskrit - 2.12, Anglo-Saxon -2.12, Russian - 2.39, Yakut - 2.17, Swahili - 2.55), and languages with a syntheticity index higher 3 – polysynthetic (Eskimo – 3, 72).
Test questions and practical tasks on the topic “Typological classification of languages”
What underlies the typological (morphological) classification of languages?
Describe inflected languages.
Describe agglutinative languages.
What is the difference between agglutination and fusion as two types of affixation?
Describe root (isolating) languages.
Describe incorporating (polysynthetic) languages.
Speaking about the grammatical meaning expressed by a word as part of a statement, the leading American linguist Edward Sapir (1884-1939) noted: “In a Latin sentence, each member confidently speaks for itself, but the English word needs the services of its companions.” What did the scientist mean? What services does a word in an utterance provide to other words? And more broadly: what two types of languages are we talking about?
Below are several phrases in Estonian with their translation into Russian.
Sa kirjutad raamatut. – You are writing a book.
Ma valisin vihikut. – I chose a notebook.
Te ehitasite veskit. -You were building a mill.
Me ehitame veski. - We will build a mill.
Sa viisid raamatu. - You brought the book.
Translate to Estonian: We built a mill. I was writing a book. We are building a mill. You carried the notebook. You will choose a book.
2. Below are phrases in Swahili with their translations into Russian:
Atakupenda- he will love you.
Nitawapiga- I will beat them.
Atatupenda- he will love us.
Anakupiga- he hits you.
Nitampenda- I will love him.
Unawasumbua- you irritate them.
Translate the following phrases into Swahili. You will love them. I annoy him.
3. Before you is a dialogue in Modern Greek, written in Russian letters.
- Xerete afton ton anthropon?
- Ne, xero.
- Pyos ine aftos o anthropos?
- Aphtos o anthropos ine o Hellinas apo tin Cypron. To onoma aftu tu antropu ine Andreas.
- Mila Ellinika?
- Fisika, dear Ellinika, poly feces. Ke mila Rusika.
- Ke sis, milate Rusika kala?
- Oh, that’s great Rusika. Xero mono maricus lexis ke phrasis. Milo ke grafo Anglica kala. Ke sis, xerete Anglica?
- No, xero afti ti glossa.
- Afto ine kala.
Assignment: translate this dialogue into Russian.
4. Sanskrit verb forms and their translations into Russian, written in a different order, are given:
nayasi, icchati, anayam, nayā mi, icchasi, icchā mi, anayat- I want, you lead, he wants, I lead, I led, you want, he led.
Task: establish the correct translations.
5. The following lak forms of the word are given: house with their translations and explanation of their use using examples in sentences:
qatluvu - in the house (I am in the house);
qatlukhuh - behind the house And past the house (I pass behind the house);
qatluvatu – from the house (I leave the house);
qatlulu - under the house (I am under the house);
qatluy - on the house (I am on the house, those. on the roof of the house);
qatluvun - into the house (I enter the house);
qatlukhatu – from behind the house (I leave from behind the house);
qatlulun - under the house (I enter, those. I'm going down under the house);
qatluykh - around the house(leaving him underneath) (I'm walking through the house, i.e. on the roof of the house).
Exercise. Translate into Lak:
from under the house (I am leaving from under the house);
through (through) the house (I pass through the house);
to the house (I'm entering, i.e. I'm getting up on house, i.e. on the roof of the house).
6. The forms of the Azerbaijani verb with translation into Russian are given:
1) bakhmag - to look;
2) bahabilmamag - not being able to look;
3) bahyrammy - am I watching?
4) bahyshabilirlar - they can look at each other;
5) bakhmadylar - they didn’t look;
6) bakhdyrabildymy - could he force you to watch?
7) bakhdyryram - I make you watch;
8) bakhmasady - if he was not looking;
9) bakhmalydysan - you should have watched.
Task 1. Describe the order in which the affixes are located in the Azerbaijani verb, what meanings they have.
Task 2. Translate into Azerbaijani:
Are you watching?
They didn't look at each other.
Make you watch.
If he could watch.
8. The verb forms of the old written Japanese language with translations into Russian are given:
1) tasukezarubekariki - he should not have helped;
2) tasukezarurashi - he probably didn’t help;
3) tasukeraresikaba - if he were helped;
4) tasukesaserarekeri - he was forced to help(for a long time) ;
5) tasukesaseki - he forced him to help;
6) tasukeraretariki - they helped him;
7) tasuketakarikari - he wanted to help(for a long time).
Task 1. Translate into Russian:
tasukesaseraredzarubekarishikaba.
Task 2. Translate into old written Japanese:
they helped him(for a long time); if he wanted to help; he was probably not forced to help; he helped.
8. The following words are given in the Komi language:
vőrny, vőrzyn, vőrződny, vőrődyshtny, vőrődny, padmyny, padmődny, lebzyn, lebny, gazhődyshtny, gazhődny, seyny, seyyshtny.
Here are translations of some of them into Russian (in a different order): move, hold, eat, move, linger, move, have fun, move, fly.
Exercise. Determine which translation corresponds to which word, and give translations of the remaining words in the Komi language.