Linguistic encyclopedic dictionary - function words. Meaning of "function words"

Plan

THE WORD AND ITS MEANING

1. The problem of linguistic definition of a word

2. The problem of the essence of the word in philosophy

3. Linguistic and philosophical theories of word meaning

4.Meaning of the word and concept

5. Semantic structure of the word

1. The problem of linguistic definition of a word. Over the many years of its development, linguistics has accumulated more than 100 definitions of a word, but at the same time, “each of them is insufficient and untenable in itself” (I. E. Anichkov “On the Definition of a Word”).

1)Different approaches to defining a word. The unit of language, called a word, is the main, nodal, by definition Alexander Ivanovich Smirnitsky, with which all other units are connected in one way or another. Hence the special versatility of the word, giving rise to the possibility of its various characteristics. These characteristics depend on which side we approach the word from:

A) Phonetic word (phonoword) - this is a phonetically integral complex of sounds (a complex of sounds united by stress, or a complex of sounds between two pauses). However, there are unstressed words in the language (most often these are auxiliary parts of speech - prepositions, conjunctions, particles), which are phonetically adjacent to the significant word. Such words are called clitics. Together with the dominant significant word, they form one phonological word:

[pad-bridge-li] - under the bridge.

According to traditional grammatical concepts under, whether are words, but they do not have positional independence. "Left" clitics are called proclitics, and the “right” cliques – enclitics.

B) Graphic word - it is a sequence of letters between two spaces. However, even this seemingly simple definition does not entirely correspond to the word as a real linguistic unit. Firstly, it only applies to writing. Secondly, there is some discrepancy between the design of a word in writing and its lexico-grammatical status, for example, some adverbs in the Russian language are written separately, in “two words”: tight, under the arm, with a bang etc., but from a lexical and grammatical point of view, these are not two words, but one (adverb), and the elements “in”, “under”, “on” are not prepositions, but prefixes (since with an adverb it cannot be prepositions, prepositions are combined only with case forms of nouns). Separate spelling in this case is nothing more than a tribute to spelling tradition.

IN) Morphological word (word form) – a fully formed complex of morphemes (or one morpheme) with independent meaning. However, the line between a word and a morpheme is not always obvious. Firstly, the language has many monomorphemic (single-root) words: so, here, suddenly and under. Secondly, function words are similar in meaning and function to service morphemes (affixes). For example, particles would, let, being separate words, have phonetic integrity and independent meaning (conditional and imperative moods. However, moods (indicative and imperative) are expressed in Russian not with the help of function words, but with the help of affixes. Compare: brought(extracted) – come-and(command. 2nd unit) – let him bring it(command. Z l. unit.) – would bring(conditional).

A comparison of this series of word forms leads to the conclusion that would And let are similar in their functions to service morphemes, therefore combinations like would bring from a morphological point of view can be considered not as two words, but as one: as a form of the conditional mood of the verb bring.

G) Syntactic word (syntaxeme) – this word is a member of a sentence, i.e. as minimum syntactic unit, allocated when dividing a sentence. However, it is known that one member of a sentence can be a combination of two or more words: Grandfather with mother walked ahead of everyone; In old age life is so disgusting; Young woman with brown eyes and a flying gait passed past the windows trains. In addition, function words (prepositions, conjunctions, particles), as well as interjections, are not members of the sentence.

D) From a lexical-semantic point of view word (lexeme) – it is the smallest nominative unit of the language, i.e. the smallest naming unit, the naming unit. This definition seems to come closest to the essence of the word: firstly, it delimits the word from the morpheme, the smallest significant units (the morpheme has a meaning, but this meaning is not “independent”; the morpheme does not denote objects, signs, actions, states, quantities, etc.); secondly, it delimits the word from the sentence, the smallest communicative unit(a word in itself, not being part of a sentence, is not a communicative unit); thirdly, it delimits the word from the phrase (the word - smallest nominative unit; phrase is also a nominative unit, but not the smallest).

However, this definition of the word is not complete and sufficient. It does not include: a) proper names, b) pronouns and pronominal (deictic) words, c) interjections, d) function words. These groups of words are not nominative units. Depending on the nature of the expressed meaning, in modern lexicology it is customary to distinguish five main classes of words:

firstly, lexically complete words, or words-names – these are words that denote (name) objects, signs, actions, states, quantities and are members of a sentence; these words perform in the language nominative function and, therefore, are nominative units;

secondly, proper names - these are words that perform in the language nominative-identification function , i.e., serving to distinguish a given individual object from many similar ones (cf.: boy And Petya, city And Moscow);

thirdly, pronouns and others deictic words (pronouns: he, this, this, deictic adverbs: yes, there, there...) – these words do not perform a nominative function, they themselves do not name or designate anything; their function in speech: a) deictic (substitutive)– replace other significant words ( book, girl - she; in St. Petersburg, in the room - here, there...); b) indicative - point to a known object or sign ( this one, that one, that one, the other one, there...);

fourthly, interjections – words that express emotions (delight, bewilderment, surprise...), but do not name them; their function in speech is expressive (expressive) ;

fifthly, function words ; they are also not nominative units, since they do not name anything, but only serve to connect significant words or to clarify their meanings.

Thus, only words of the first class (name words) fit the definition of a word as the smallest nominative unit of a language. True, this class includes the vast majority of words in the language.

2)Linguistic reality of the word. The futility of attempts to give a complete general definition of a word has led some linguists to the idea of abandoning the very concept of a word as a linguistic unit. In foreign linguistics, such ideas were expressed, for example, in the works of F. de Saussure, C. Bally, American descriptivists, in domestic linguistics - A. I. Thomson, A. M. Peshkovsky and some. etc. The idea was expressed that we can only talk about “ phonetic word", "graphic word", "lexical word", etc., but the word simply does not exist at all. Charles Bally in the book “General linguistics and issues French“Wrote about this: “It is necessary to free ourselves from the vague concept of the word.”

But the linguistic reality of this unit is confirmed by the direct experience of native speakers themselves, and when studying various linguistic facts, researchers always have to turn to the word in one way or another. American linguist Edward Sapir, noting the psychological reality of the word, wrote in his book “Language” that irrefutable proof “can at least be the fact that a naive Indian, completely unaccustomed to the concept of the written word, never feels any serious difficulty when dictating a text in English to a linguist. native language word by word."

3)Problems of separation and identity of words. An outstanding Russian English scholar devoted two articles to the problem of defining a word, entitled “On the Question of the Word.” Alexander Ivanovich Smirnitsky. The scientist identifies two problems directly related to the definition of a word: the problem of the isolation of the word and the problem of the identity of the word.

A) The problem of word isolation , according to Smirnitsky, “breaks down into two main questions: a) the question of the separability of a word, which at the same time is a question of the difference between a word and a part of a word (component, compound word, stem, suffix, etc.); and b) the question of the integrity of the word, which is at the same time a question of the difference between a word and a phrase.” So, the word finds itself standing between the morpheme and the phrase:

By showing the difference between a word and a morpheme, on the one hand, and from a phrase, on the other hand, we will thereby give it definition : “It is obvious that the whole word differs from the part of the word by a certain semantic completeness, which the part of the word does not possess”; on the other hand, “unlike a phrase, a word can be characterized as having a complete form.”

B) Word identity problem is to establish where we have the same word and where there are different words. Here, first of all, a clear line should be drawn between such concepts as: a) the word and its forms; b) the word and its variants; c) one word - different words.

a) Under word forms understand its varieties that differ from each other only in grammatical features (grammatical meaning) and are treated as secondary, dependent on the original form ( table, table, table...).

b) All other varieties of words that differ from each other formally, but do not differ semantically, should be characterized as word variants (condition - condition, diamond - diamond, oblivion - oblivion etc. etc.). Semantic or stylistic differences may arise between the options, and then they become different words - synonyms, paronyms, etc. Compare: baking, boiling(processes) – cookies, jam(products).

c) Words whose stems consist of different morphemes, even if they are identical in meaning. In this case, before us different words are synonyms(sorry - sorry, fox - fox) or paronyms(earthen - earthen) etc.

2. The problem of the essence of the word in philosophy. Philosophers posed two interrelated questions when discussing the essence of the human word: a) what is a word - a conventional sign for designating a thing, or is the word connected with the designated thing by nature; b) what is the nature of the meaning of the word (“idea” contained in the word or conveyed by the word).

1) “Fuseus” and “Theseus”. For the first time in the history of European philosophical thought the question about the essence of the word was posed by ancient Greek philosophers: what are the words of the human language: or the word is connected with the thing designated by a natural (natural) connection, i.e., the fact that this thing is named precisely by this and not another word is not an accident; or the word is an arbitrary sign chosen by people by agreement to designate this or that thing. Depending on how philosophers answered this question, in ancient philosophy it is customary to distinguish two theories - “Thuseus” and “Theseus”.

a) Supporters Fusey theory (Heraclitus, Pythagoras, Chrysippus, Cratylus, partly Plato, etc.) believed that a word reflects the essence of a thing, since it is connected with it “by nature” (physei). This theory was an echo of the mythological idea of the rigid (natural) connection of a name with a thing. It had a sacred (cult) character and defended the belief that the utterance of words reflecting the innermost essence of things ensures the effectiveness of hymns, prayers, spells (hence, for example, the idea that uttering the name of the deceased can evoke his spirit, a wish to someone Death can really kill a person, with a word you can jinx it, cause damage, etc.). The rational grain of this theory is that it linked language with cognition : designating a thing with a name is associated with revealing the essence of this thing, with its knowledge, with the discovery of its essential features.

b) Supporters "Theseus" theories (Democritus, Anaxagoras, Anaximenes, Empedocles, Hermogenes, Aristotle, etc.) believe that a word does not reflect the essence of a thing, since the name is assigned to a thing not “by nature,” but conditionally, by “contract.” "agreement" (thesei). Democritus proves the conventionality (arbitrariness) of names with the following main arguments: first, on the basis of eponymousness: different things can be called by the same name (homonyms); secondly, on the basis of multiplicity: one and the same thing can receive different names (synonyms); thirdly, based on the change of names: things can change names; fourthly, based on the lack of names: there are things that do not have names (that is, things not yet discovered by people, not known by them); fifthly, on the basis of multilingualism: in different languages the same thing is called differently. However, this, at first glance, ironclad argumentation does not take into account that the same name, multiple names, multilingualism, etc. are facts language development : that is, initially the name could be associated with the thing “by nature,” but then, due to various socio-historical circumstances, due to changes in the things and people themselves, the name (name of the thing) could also change.

2) Plato’s dialogue “Cratylus”. A deeper (dialectical) solution to the problem of names and, in connection with it, the problem of the origin of language was given by Plato in the dialogue “Cratylus”. There are three participants in the dialogue: Hermogenes (a supporter of the “theseus” theory), Cratylus (a supporter of the “thuseus” theory) and Socrates, who is called upon to resolve their dispute. Socrates agrees with both points of view, thereby establishing antinomy (dialectical contradiction), which can only be resolved by going beyond its limits, taking a third point of view. According to Socrates, it turns out that On the one side, the word and the thing are not similar to each other (the word “table” is not similar to the object itself), and therefore the connection between them is conditional, it is established by a person; in this sense, Hermogenes is right. On the other side, the “setter of names” (onomathetus) tried to choose for each thing a suitable name corresponding to the nature of this thing, and in this sense Cratylus was right.

The word is an instrument of knowledge, just as a drill or a weaving shuttle is an instrument of production. A good tool is the one with which we successfully work on a thing (we cut it well, drill it, disassemble wool for fabric, etc.). Therefore, Socrates argues, well, correctly, the word that successfully names a given thing ensures success in communication and cognition of a thing, since speaking and cognition are also types activities (like weaving, carving, etc.). Therefore, to be successful, naming must reflect the essence of the thing. Plato gives specific examples of etymologies (the origins of words) to prove his thesis. Yes, sound ρ (ro) vibrant, so this sound is used in words showing movement: tromos - trembling, rein - flow, roe - flow. The smooth sound λ should express flexible, soft, e.g. linaros – fatty, leros – smooth.

It turns out that the connection between a word and a thing is conditional, since it is established by man, but at the same time unconditional (“natural”), since the word reflects the essence of the thing. Plato thereby identified three aspects in naming: a) the connection between the namer (onomathete) and the name; b) the connection between the namer and the thing; c) the connection between a thing and a name. The task of the namer is to find, open true name things, with the help of which you can successfully “act with a thing”, i.e. find in the world of sounds those that have something in common with a given thing, in other words, find objectively existing connection between name and thing. Thus, Platno was the first in the history of world linguistics to present the relationship between a word, a person (his consciousness) and a thing in the form semantic triangle , although, of course, the Greek philosopher did not draw any triangles.

3) Plato’s theory of “ideas”. In ancient philosophy, another important problem was raised related to understanding the relationship between the word idea and a thing: the question of the nature of ideas (how ideas exist, in the things themselves or separately from them); and what place does the human word occupy in relation to the idea. The first philosophical solution to this question goes back to Plato. Point of view Plato is considered idealistic and boils down to the fact that there are two worlds - the world of ideas, which Plato called real (real, true) , and the world of concrete things, which he considered dependent on the world of ideas. According to Plato, it turned out that all individual material things surrounding us (specific tables, chairs, houses, trees) are only “shadows” of general concepts, general ideas (see, for example, the treatise “The Republic”, in which Plato figuratively describes this so: we are like people sitting in a cave with their backs to the exit; people pass by the cave, carrying various objects, but we do not see these objects, but see only their shadows on the wall. Plato thus likens the things around us to the shadows cast by ideas; ). In other words, if there are specific tables, then there must be a general idea table, some ideal table, a table in general. And these general ideas exist up to things and give rise to specific things. The human word arises after things and is a reflection essence (i.e. ideas ) of this or that thing. As we have already said, in fact, it was in Plato that the “semantic triangle” first appears: “thing – idea – name”, all parts of which exist in reality and separately from each other, but at the same time are interconnected.

4) Aristotle’s logic as a prerequisite for grammar. He criticized Plato's theory of ideas from a materialist position Aristotle . In his Metaphysics he raised 6 objections to Plato's theory of ideas: firstly By doubling the world, Plato is likened to a man who, having failed to count a small number of objects, decided to increase this number; secondly , if there is an idea of everything, then there is also an idea of nothing, non-existent; 3rd , if ideas are not the same as things, then on what basis are both called by the same name; this “looks like someone calling Callias and a piece of wood a man, without seeing any commonality between them”; 4th , every thing has many properties, and to admit the separate existence of ideas would be to admit that every thing has several ideas; So, along with the idea of “man” there must be a separate idea “ living creature", "two-legged creature", etc.; 5th, ideas, being the essences of things, cannot exist separately from things; 6th , if ideas, according to Plato, are eternal and unchanging, then where did movement come from in things?

Aristotle develops his understanding of the nature of ideas in the treatise “Categories”, where he identifies 10 general categories of being: “Of the words expressed without any connection, each means either substance, or quality, or quantity, or relation, or place, or time, or position, or possession, or action, or suffering." From a linguistic point of view, this can be seen as the beginning of the doctrine of parts of speech.

5) Nominalists, realists and conceptualists. The dispute between nominalists and realists in the Middle Ages was a continuation of the ancient dispute about the nature of ideas between Plato and Aristotle: a) Plato’s point of view developed realists (John Scotus Eriugena, Anselm of Canterbury, etc.), who recognized reality ideas and their existence separate from things. b) Aristotle's line continued nominalists (Pierre Abelard, Roscelin, William of Ockham, etc.), who believed that only individual bodies of nature really exist, ideas are formed through the knowledge of individual things and are “names of things” - “nomen”, hence the name “nominalism”

For the subsequent development of linguistics, this dispute is important in two respects: a) it is related to the question of the nature of the name: whether a word is a conventional (arbitrary) name for a thing (nominalistic point of view), or a word - an expression of the essence of a thing (realistic point of view); b) it is associated with the problem of the relationship between language and speech: whether language is a reality that exists independently of speech (realistic point of view), or whether language exists only in speech (nominalistic point of view).

In the late Middle Ages (13th century), Thomas Aquinas, the greatest philosopher of the Catholic Church, proposed a compromise solution: general ideas exist before things (in the divine mind), in things (as their essence) and after things in the human mind (as a result of knowledge of these things and discovering them common features). This point of view is called conceptualism (Latin conceptus - concept), or moderate nominalism.

3. Linguistic and philosophical theories of the meaning of words. Determining the lexical meaning is as difficult as defining a word. There are many theories of lexical meaning, but depending on philosophical views Linguists can combine all these theories into three main groups: nominalistic, realistic and conceptual theories of lexical meaning (LM). It is convenient to represent the relationship between these theories in the form semantic triangle , whose vertices are Word, Idea and Thing. Representatives of nominalism, realism and conceptualism “place” the meaning of a word in different corners of this triangle.

1)Subject theories related to philosophy nominalism . Nominalists place the LZ in the “corner” Things. For them LZ is an object or phenomenon of reality (thing), for the naming of which this word (sound complex) is used. This view of the nature of meaning is common in logic. In linguistics, a similar understanding was followed, for example, Hugo Schuchardt, Austro-German scientist, founder of the so-called “school of words and things.” Schuchardt called “thing” by meaning, and word by designation. He believed that “the doctrine of language is either a doctrine of meaning or a doctrine of designation.” The main flaw of this theory is that it looks for the meaning of a word beyond the word itself.

2)Conceptual theories related to philosophy conceptualism. Conceptualists place the LZ in the “corner” Ideas (concepts about things ). For them, LZ is contained in consciousness (individual and collective). These scientists base their definition of LP on concept. LZ is a concept about an object or phenomenon of reality, for the naming of which this word is used. LZ, thus, moves from the sphere of the objective world, reality, “things” to the sphere consciousness. Indeed, only things already known (or cognizable) by man can have names. Concept – This is a set of essential features of an object or phenomenon. Wed, for example, the concept of table: (1) an item (2) of furniture (3) in the form of a flat horizontal board (4) on legs (5) intended for cooking and eating, writing and other things that are convenient to do on a flat surface. It seems that this is the lexical meaning of the word “table”, and the lexical meaning is indeed identical to the concept, or (in a softer formulation) the concept is the core of the lexical meaning. This point of view is presented in the works of many linguists: T. P. Lomtev, Yu. S. Stepanov, D. N. Shmelev, S. D. Katsnelson, A. I. Smirnitsky and others. Cf. definition of LZ given by A.I. Smirnitsky, which has become classic: “The meaning of a word is a known reflection of an object, phenomenon or relationship in consciousness..., included in the structure of the word as its so-called internal side, in relation to which the sound of the word acts as a material shell , necessary not only for expressing meaning and communicating it to other people, but also for its emergence, formation of existence and development.” Yu. S. Stepanov: “the meaning of a word is the highest level of reflection of reality in the human mind, the same level as the concept. The meaning of a word reflects the general and at the same time essential characteristics of an object, learned in the social practice of people. The meaning of a word tends to the concept as its limit.” At the same time, the main flaw This theory has the same thing as the previous one: it looks for the meaning of a word beyond the word itself.

3)Ontological (or verbocentric) theories presented in philosophy realism. Realists place LZ in the “corner” Words . For a realist, LZ is not an idea or a thing, but it is connection established popular consciousness, between a certain complex of sounds and this or that thing (an object or phenomenon of objective reality). This connection exists inner side of sound, which W. von Humoldt, and after him A. A. Potebnya, called internal form of the word. For example, LZ words table can be defined as follows: something on stl made by people, having a flat surface, serving for convenient preparation and eating, writing and other human affairs. This means that the historical original meaning of the word table - ' any flooring. Thus, for a realist, the problem of the meaning of a word rests on the problem of its origin(etymology or internal form). In other words, linguistic The side of the problem of meaning is the answer to the question why this particular set of sounds is used to designate a given object, or in other words: why this thing is named by this particular word and not some other. This is exactly how this question was formulated by the Platonists, Stoics and other philosophers and linguists of the realistic school. This, of course, does not mean that the LZ is identical to the internal form, but it does mean that the internal form is core lexical meaning. Therefore, finding the internal form is the main task of studying the semantics of a word. It turns out that for scientists of this direction the problem of LD is an etymological and historical problem. For them, the center of lexical semantics is etymology (the study of the origin of words) and historical semasiology (the study of the historical development of word meanings). A scientific description of the meaning of a word must necessarily include: (a) an indication of its internal form and (b) a demonstration of the paths in which the further development of the semantics of the word from the internal form took place: what new semantic features “accumulated” the original meaning, identical to the internal form, what new meanings (derivatives, figurative) the given word received, etc.

The main advantage of these theories is that they look for the lexical meaning “inside” the word itself, i.e. in sound. In Russian linguistics, this approach to the problem of meaning is represented by the works of A.A. Potebnya, A.F. Loseva, V.V. Kolesova, A.M. Kamchatnova and others.

4.Meaning of the word and concept. Already from the previous presentation it is clear that the meaning of a word is not identical to the concept. Let's look at the relationships between these categories in more detail. The main differences between meaning and concept boil down to the following:

a) Concept is a category of thinking and is studied by logic; meaning is a category of language and is studied by linguistics (the corresponding branch of linguistics is called lexical semantics, or semasiology); if there were complete correspondence between concept and meaning, then one of the terms would be superfluous, and one of the sciences would be superfluous.

b) A concept cannot always be expressed using a word; it is also expressed by other linguistic units, for example, phraseological units ( rake in the heat with someone else's hands, white flies= falling snowflakes), phrases ( oxygen deprivation, falling snow); one and the same concept can be expressed by different means - synonymous words, phrases, sentences: it's raining = it's drizzling = it's raining lightly; motel = hotel for motor tourists; ask = ask a question; get into a stupid position = sit in a galosh = sit in a puddle = goof up etc. under. Meaning is always a property of a word as a linguistic unit.

c) The concept is fundamentally international, since human thinking as a whole is united, flows according to the same laws among all peoples, and logic is an international science. The meaning is always nationally colored , because it is associated with a word in the national language. For the same concept, some languages may have a special word, but other languages may not have such a word; the same concept can be expressed by other means - phrases, phraseological units. So, for example, in languages northern peoples there are special words to denote falling snow, lying snow, wet snow, last year's snow, etc.; there are no such words in the Russian language, but the corresponding concepts exist and are expressed by phrases; a phraseological unit can be used to denote falling snow white flies.

G) Different words may mean the same concept, but their meanings will be different. For example, the concept of “something white, about something white” in Russian can be expressed in the following words: white, whiteness, turn white, white etc.; however, the meaning of these words is different: white - sign of a specific object ( white snow ); whiteness – an abstract sign that is not tied by thinking to a specific object ( All around is white); turn white - a procedural, dynamic feature relating to a “moving”, “visible” white object, or to an object becoming white ( A lonely sail is white; face turns white with anger); white - state of the environment ( There's white all around). Let us note that not all languages have special words, like Russian, to express these nuances of meaning.

e) Meaning is more meaningful than a concept, because it is associated with the material sound form of its manifestation, that is, with the word as a linguistic unit. To illustrate this, let’s consider some concept without “linking” it to a denoting word, that is, consider the concept “before the word,” without naming the word: “1) rudely, unceremoniously, 2) get rid of someone, 3) sending, sending him to another person or to another place.” Now let’s name the corresponding word: in Russian it is a verb kick off. It is clear that its LP is broader than the conceptual content given above, since a figurative association arises with a soccer ball that was sent very far, kicked with force. These associations arise in conjunction with the sound shell of this word, precisely with this root ( football) and with this prefix ( from-). Wed. another example: “1) incoherently, 2) incomprehensibly, 3) very quietly, 4) uncertainly 5) talk about something” – verb mumble. It is the sound appearance of this verb (acoustic association) that conveys the meaning of incoherent babble more fully, more voluminously and more expressively. Alexander Afanasyevich Potebnya was the first in Russian linguistics to introduce into scientific use the concept internal form of the word. In European linguistics, the concept “ internal form language » used by Wilhelm von Humboldt. Internal form of a word is the connection between its sound (acoustic image) and meaning. So, the meaning of the verb kick off - rudely, unceremoniously, get rid of someone by sending, sending to another person or to another place, like a football player throwing a soccer ball with force and force(the highlighted component is the inner form).

f) Finally, meaning, unlike a concept, can be complicated by various emotional, evaluative and stylistic components. Wed. examples already given : kick off, mumble etc. under. Thus, the concept is not identical to the lexical meaning. In a sense, you can say that it poorer and narrower in lexical meaning.

g) However, there is another side to this problem. At one time, A. A. Potebnya proposed to distinguish between the “immediate” and “further” meaning of a word: “What is the meaning of a word? Obviously, linguistics, without shying away from achieving its goals, considers the meaning of words only up to a certain limit. Since all kinds of things are spoken about, without the aforementioned limitation, linguistics would contain, in addition to its indisputable content, which no other science judges, the content of all other sciences. For example, speaking about the meaning of a word tree, we should move into the field of botany, but regarding the word cause or causal union - to interpret causality in the world. But the fact is that the meaning of a word generally means two different things, of which one, subject to the study of linguistics, we will call nearest , and the other, which is the subject of other sciences - further meaning of the word. Only one immediate meaning constitutes the actual content of thought during the utterance of a word.”

Thus, the closest meaning is the lexical meaning of the word, and the further meaning is the concept. The closest meaning is based not on all the essential features of an object, but first on some one that accidentally fell into the field of consciousness of native speakers in the process cognitive activity. For example, cow(proto-Slavic *korva) originally meant horned (cf. lat. corvu - horn). And gradually in the process of cognition it is enriched with new features. It is in this sense that the thesis of Yu. S. Stepanov should be understood that “the meaning of a word tends to the concept as its limit” That's why the meaning is poorer and narrower in concept.

However, as was shown in points (e) and (f), there is something in the meaning that is not in the concept, and in this sense it is richer than the concept. Hence, between meaning and concept, relations of intersection, partial overlap, but not identity are established.

Sometimes the terms “everyday concept”, “naive concept” are used for “immediate meaning”, and “further meaning” - “scientific concept”; but this is not entirely accurate. By “further meaning” Potebnya understood the entire set of essential and non-essential features of a given object or phenomenon, not only discovered by science, but also by faith, intuition, experience, including - personal experience, the entire totality of our (and my personal) knowledge about this subject. Therefore, “the closest meaning of the word popularly"(is common to all representatives of a given people), "while further, for each, different in quality and quantity of elements, - personally».

5. Semantic structure of the word. Along with lexical word can have grammatical, derivational (word-formation) and stylistic meanings. Lexical, grammatical, derivational and stylistic meanings together form semantic structure of the word . Any word of the language has lexical and grammatical meanings, but sometimes lexical and grammatical meanings can be so closely merged that they cannot be separated from each other (for example, for function words - prepositions, conjunctions, some particles). Derivational (or word-formative) meanings have only derived words , i.e. words formed (derived) from other words - producing. Stylistic meaning is also not characteristic of all linguistic units, but only stylistically colored .

1)Lexical meaning let's define it as the connection established by popular consciousness between an object or phenomenon of reality and a fully formed complex of sounds. There are different classifications types of lexical meanings :

a) From a diachronic point of view, meanings are distinguished historically primary and secondary (derivative, portable) . Primary the meaning is formed at the moment of birth of the word and is initially identical to the internal form of the word ( table -'flooring', fire -‘shoot arrows’); but is gradually enriched with more and more new semantic features, expanding its content and at the same time narrowing its volume: table - a piece of furniture with a flat wooden board on legs, intended to… fire - shoot arrows, bullets, cannonballs, shells, rockets... Derived meaning arises on the basis of the primary as a result name transfer . There are two main ways of transferring a name – metaphor and metonymy:

- metonymy (Greek renaming), metonymic transfer of name – transfer of a name from one object or phenomenon to another based on their contiguity: table in the meaning of ‘food’ (i.e. what is on the table) We have a fish table today; this family has a meager table; or table in the meaning ‘department, institution’ ( passport office);

- metaphor (Greek transfer), metaphorical transfer of name - transfer of a name from one object or phenomenon to another based on their similarity: fire‘to cast a glance’ (shoot with your eyes).

b) From a synchronous point of view, values are distinguished motivated and unmotivated at this stage historical development language. Motivated are meanings that can be explained (motivated) by reference to other meanings or to the internal form of the word. Thus, the meanings of derived words are motivated, since they can be explained and interpreted by reference to the generating word ( table – small table; baby elephant - young elephant; yolk- the inside of the egg yellow ); figurative meanings are motivated ( a person's nose is a ship's nose). Unmotivated is the lexical meaning of words with a lost (erased, obscured) internal form ( house, table), most of the borrowings will fall into this category ( notebook, cutlet).

c) From the point of view of compatibility possibilities, they distinguish free and bound values . The most authoritative classification of these types of meanings belongs to V.V. Vinogradov:

- free- these are meanings that do not in any way limit the compatibility of the word: “basically, the circle of use of the nominative meaning of the word, the circle of its connections corresponds to the connections and relationships of the objects, processes and phenomena of the real world themselves, for example: drink water, kvass, tea, cider, grape juice etc.; stone house, basement, foundation, floor, shed etc.; squint, squint eyes , syllabic verse, versification"; in the last two cases ( squint And syllabic) the compatibility of words is, of course, limited, but this limitation comes from reality itself, from real connections and relationships between objects and phenomena;

- phraseologically related meanings are such figurative meanings of words that limit the use of the word only to a certain phraseological combination; for example, using an adjective maiden in the meaning of bad is limited only by the combination girl's memory; ticklish meaning inconvenient, awkward - only in combinations sensitive issue, position, situation; a word with a phraseologically related meaning may generally lose direct meaning and occur only as part of a phraseological combination ( bosom - friend, buddy, girlfriend);

- syntactically related meanings are those meanings that limit the use of a word to a certain syntactic position, in the function of a certain member of a sentence; so, figurative meaning of the word rooster(bully, bully) Vinogradov defines as “predicative-characterizing”, i.e. for the word rooster in this meaning the function of a predicate (predicate) with the meaning of a characteristic is typical: Petya is such a rooster!. This does not mean that transposition is impossible, and a word in this meaning cannot be used in another syntactic position (cf.: It's better not to mess with this rooster Petya), but such use is secondary and the predicative-characterizing function is present here in a latent (collapsed) state;

- structurally determined meanings are those meanings that limit the use of a syntactically dependent word to a certain form; e.g. verb compatibility hope limited by forms accusative case with a pretext on (on God, on a miracle, on comrades, on the rain...), verb compatibility admire - instrumental case forms ( nature, girl, children, architecture...), in other words, compatibility here is limited not lexically, but grammatically. “Constructively determined meaning is characterized by the subject-semantic incompleteness of its disclosure in the forms of the word itself: it is fully realized only in its characteristic syntactic structure - in combination with other words, the number and composition of which may not be limited in any way.”

2)Grammatical meaning – this is an abstract, generalized meaning that accompanies the lexical one and characterizes large classes of words (word forms). Thus, grammatical meaning differs from lexical meaning in three main properties:

a) This meaning is abstract (abstract, generalized); Wed e.g., the meaning of subject, object, number, type; The lexical meaning is characterized by greater specificity, which is why it is sometimes called the “material” meaning of the word.

b) This meaning is common to huge classes of words (e.g. nouns dog, room, wife, road, son and many more others not having any similarities in lexical meaning, are united by a common grammatical meaning of a direct object; verbs do, write, read, kill, cook, come and many more others are united by the common meaning of the perfect form); Each word has its own, individual lexical meaning.

c) The grammatical meaning is accompanying nature(term by A.I. Smirnitsky): it seems to accompany the lexical meaning of the word; lexical meaning is the semantic core of a word, and grammatical meaning helps to establish semantic relationships between words in a sentence; that's why it is also called relational(Latin relatio – relationship).

3)Derivational meaning (word-formation meaning) – this is an abstract meaning characteristic of groups of words formed in the same way using the same word-formation device (prefix, suffix, etc.). Words formed in the same way using the same means and having a common derivational meaning belong to the same word-formation type (model). Wed: cup holder, candlestick, snowdrop, bearing, sidelight, subframe... – words formed in a prefix-suffix way using a prefix under- and suffix -Nick and having a derivational meaning “an object located under something.”

Derivational meaning (DZ) is characterized by the following basic properties:

a) PD has two manifestations: it is individual for each word and at the same time characterizes an entire group of words, however, such groups (word-forming types) are much smaller than grammatical groupings. Wed: snowdrop –‘something under the snow’; pod-… -nick –‘something under something’. In the first case, we talk about the PD of a given specific word, in the second case – about the PD of a word-formation type (model).

b) DZ is more abstract than LZ, but less abstract than GZ.

c) PD is determined by the semantic relationship of the derivative with the generating one: snowdrop – ‘ something located under the snow»’, cup holder –‘something located under the glass’. The ID of a word is expressed not by a root or an affix, but by a combination of a root morpheme and an affix.

d) DZ can coincide with LZ. Wed: house‘small house’; little fox‘fox cub’; Muscovite‘resident of Moscow’; Gypsy‘woman, Gypsy nationality’; speak‘start talking’. In all similar cases The LZ of a word is the sum of the meanings of its constituent morphemes. This type of LP is called non-phraseological (non-idiomatic). If LZ is not equal to DZ, then this type of word semantics is called phraseological (idiomatic) . Wed: yolk – DZ: ‘something yellow’; LZ: ‘the inner nuclear part of the egg is yellow’; boletus - DZ: ‘something under the birch tree’; LZ: ‘a mushroom that usually grows under birch trees’. The LZ of the word in such cases has some semantic increment in comparison with the DZ. The LP can significantly move away from the PD as a result of complex metaphorical rethinking: henpecked - DZ: ‘something under the heel’; LZ: ‘a man who submits to a woman in everything, as if he was under her heel’.

e) the remote sensing can be extremely close to the main zonal; There are cases regarding which scientists do not have a unified view - we should talk about grammatical or derivational meaning (that is, about morphology or word formation). So, for example, in the Russian language the following are ambiguously assessed:

Formations with suffixes of subjective assessment ( house - house, house, house, domina; son - son, little son...);

Education feminine from nouns with a person meaning using regular suffixes ( gypsy - gypsy, student - student, athlete - athlete, student - student...);

Education from qualitative adjectives with the meaning of weak, incomplete manifestation of quality ( white - whitish, stupid - stupid...)

And a whole series others; Some scientists consider these formations to be new derivative words (i.e. house And house - different words) and, therefore, this type of meaning is derivational; other scientists consider these formations to be forms of one word ( house And house - forms, varieties of the same word) and, therefore, this type of meaning is grammatical.

4)Stylistic meaning (=stylistic connotation, stylistic coloring) - this is a property of a linguistic unit (its content or sound form), limiting its use to a certain style (or styles). From this point of view, all words can be divided into two groups: a) stylistically neutral , the use of which is not stylistically limited in any way, possible in all styles ( eyes, lips, face, eat); b) stylistically colored having stylistic restrictions in use: eyes, mouth, face, eat(high style) – zenki, nurse, mug, eat(low style).

Stylistic meaning is also called connotation (lat. connotatio – connotation, accompanying meaning); This emphasizes the lack of independence of this meaning: it always accompanies the lexical meaning, is its “shadow”. It is often very difficult to separate stylistic meaning from lexical meaning. Compare, for example, the remark of A. A. Reformatsky about words forehead, lips, cheeks, on the one hand, and Church Slavonicisms forehead, mouth, cheeks and under. – on the other: “It’s not just about stylistic differences. Their words correspond to anatomical concepts; Church Slavonic words have nothing to do with anatomical concepts. The old rhetoricians assessed this correctly, explaining that brow - it is not part of the skull, but a “receptacle for thought”, eyes – not the organ of vision, but the “mirror of the soul”, mouth - it is not the organ of food intake, but “the source of the speeches of the wise,” etc.” D. N. Shmelev also writes about this. Wed, e.g. march - it’s not just “to go”, but “to go important, solemnly”, eat - it’s not just “to eat”, but “to eat greedily, a lot, with slurping, splashing with saliva...”. Thus, the stylistic meaning here merges with the lexical one, turning out to be one of its semes. However, semantic (notional) differences between stylistic options can be quite pale, almost indistinguishable (cf. such pairs: breg - shore, hail - city, cold - cold and some etc.). All this allows us to talk about relative independence stylistic meaning.

In stylistic meaning, the following components are usually distinguished:

A) functional-style, determining whether a word belongs to a particular style;

b) emotional-evaluative, determining the speaker’s attitude to the subject of speech. Evaluative – this is the attitude of the speaker to the object or phenomenon named by the word; compare: eyes (+) – zenki (-); evaluativeness can also be unemotional (intellectual), in which case the word is usually stylistically neutral: beautiful (+) – ugly (-);

V) expressive (Latin expressio - expressiveness), associated with the speaker’s desire to “decorate” speech. In the very general view expressiveness can be defined as updating the internal form linguistic unit (i.e. the connection between sound and meaning). For example, verb speak is not expressive, and verbs chatter And mumble expressive (since they show a connection between sound and meaning), verbs crackle And Twitter in the meaning of ‘to speak’ they are expressive (since they actualize the connection between direct and figurative meanings). The main component of expressiveness is imagery. Figurative means, paths (Greek tropos - turn) - words and expressions used in figurative meaning. Wed. freeze(unfigurative) – be dumbfounded -‘to freeze, become motionless, like a pillar’ (figurative); interfere, impede(unfigurative) – put a spoke in wheel– ‘to hinder, hinder, just like sticks inserted into wheels interfere with movement’ (figurative). The highlighted element in the interpretation of meanings is the internal form of these words and expressions.

Literature:

1. Reformatsky A. A. Introduction to linguistics. M., 2007. Chapter II. Lexicology.

2. Maslov Yu. S. Fundamentals of linguistics. M., 2004. Chapter III, Lexicology.

3. Smirnitsky A.I. On the question of the word: The problem of “separateness of the word” // History of Soviet linguistics. Reader. / Comp. F. M. Berezin. M., 1988.

4. Smirnitsky A.I. On the question of the word: The problem of “word identity” // Ibid.

5. Anichkov I. E. On the definition of a word // Anichkov I. E. Works on linguistics. M., 1997.

6. Berezin F. M., Golovin B. N. General linguistics. M., 1979. Chapter VII. The problem of the meaning of a linguistic sign

7. Zemskaya E. A. Word formation // Modern Russian language / Ed. V. A. Beloshapkova. M., 1997.

8. Katsnelson S. D. Content of the word, meaning and designation. M., 2004.

9. Kolesov V.V. Philosophy of the Russian word. St. Petersburg, 2002. Part I. Chapter 1.

10. Levitsky Yu. A. General linguistics. M., 2007. The concept of meaning.

11. LES. Articles “Denotation”, “Designatum” (“Designated”), “Lexical meaning of a word”, “Lexicology”, “Grammatical meaning”, “Connotation”.

12. Potebnya A. A. From notes on Russian grammar // Zvegintsev V. A. History of linguistics in the 19th and 20th centuries. in essays and extracts. Part I. M., 1960.

13. Potebnya A. A. Thought and language // Ibid.

14. Stepanov Yu. S. Fundamentals of general linguistics. M., 1975. Vocabulary and semantics. Chapter I.

15. Shmelev D. N. Modern Russian language. Vocabulary. M., 1977. Chapter I. The word as a unit of vocabulary.

Plan:

1 General characteristics
2 Classification
3 In the languages of the world
4 Study

Introduction

For function words in computer science, see Reserved word.

Function words- lexically dependent words that do not have a nominative function in the language (they do not name objects, properties or relationships) and express various semantic-syntactic relationships between words, sentences and parts of sentences. Contrasted significant, or independent, words, differing from them, in addition to meaning, by the absence of morphological categories. Approaching inflectional morphemes, function words are on the verge of dictionary and grammar and actually belong to the sphere of grammatical means of the language. They surpass significant words in frequency of use, but are inferior to them in number, making up a list close to closed.

1. General characteristics

Function words are characterized by some common features. Phonetically, they are usually characterized by unstressedness (exceptions in Russian are particles Yes And No) and - in tone languages - the absence of tone; tend towards monosyllabism if they are non-derivative. Typically, function words are not divided into morphemes and do not constitute paradigms (which distinguishes them, for example, from linking verbs and auxiliary verbs in analytical forms such as Russian. I'll read). From a syntactic point of view, they are distinguished by their inability to be members of a sentence (unlike allied words), but they can be included in them along with significant words.

2. Classification

According to their origin, function words are divided into antiderivatives(non-derivatives), for example Russian. V, To, at; And, A, or; would, same, really, - And non-primitive(derivatives): for; despite the fact that; let him, Let's. Derivatives are former significant words that have lost their nominative meaning and syntactic properties characteristic of the corresponding parts of speech, and have become isolated from their other forms as a result of functional-semantic rethinking.

The number of categories of function words, distinguished by the generality of functions, varies depending on the language, and their semantics largely depends on the type of language: in analytical languages, function words (especially particles) take on the functions performed in synthetic languages by affixes. In many languages there are relative words(prepositions or postpositions), conjunctions, particles and articles.

The degree of development of certain categories of function words is also related to the state of its literary form, especially its written variety: thus, subordinating conjunctions are more common in written speech

3. In the languages of the world

4. Study

The term "function words" ( "functional parts of speech") is characteristic primarily of the Russian grammatical tradition, in the history of which the scope of this concept fluctuated: F. I. Buslaev classified them as pronouns, numerals, prepositions, conjunctions, pronominal adverbs and auxiliary verbs, A. M. Peshkovsky - only prepositions and conjunctions, L. V. Shcherba - verb connectives ( be, be), prepositions, conjunctions, allied words. In academic grammar, the point of view of V.V. Vinogradov has been established, according to which function words include “particles of speech”: particles, prepositions and conjunctions.

In foreign linguistics, auxiliary and significant parts of speech are usually not contrasted, although sometimes a category of relative words is distinguished, including articles, prepositions (postpositions) and conjunctions; The French linguistic tradition also classifies pronouns as function words.

Notes

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Vasilyeva N.V. Function words // Linguistic encyclopedic dictionary/ Ed. V. N. Yartseva. - M.: Soviet Encyclopedia, 1990. - ISBN 5-85270-031-2
Ventzel T.V. Function words - slovari.yandex.ru/dict/bse/article/00072/10600.htm // Great Soviet Encyclopedia.
1 2 3 Function words - slovari.yandex.ru/dict/rges/article/rg3/rg3-1142.htm // Russian humanitarian encyclopedic dictionary.

download
This abstract is based on an article from Russian Wikipedia. Synchronization completed 07/12/11 23:33:34
Similar abstracts:

SERVICE WORDS SERVICE WORDS, words that are not able to act independently as members of a sentence and serve to connect significant words in a phrase (for example, conjunctions, prepositions) or for their grammatical (syntactic) characteristics (for example, articles).

Modern encyclopedia. 2000 .

See what “SERVICE WORDS” are in other dictionaries:

Words that are unable to act independently as members of a sentence and serve to connect significant words in a phrase (for example, conjunctions, prepositions) or for their grammatical (syntactic) characteristics (for example, articles) ... Big Encyclopedic Dictionary

Function words- SERVICE WORDS, words that are not capable of acting independently as members of a sentence and serve to connect significant words in a phrase (for example, conjunctions, prepositions) or for their grammatical (syntactic) characteristics (for example, articles). ... Illustrated Encyclopedic Dictionary

For function words in computer science, see Reserved word. Function words are lexically dependent words that do not have a nominative function in the language (they do not name objects, properties or relationships) and express various semantics ... ... Wikipedia

function words- Parts of speech that do not name phenomena of reality, but indicate the relationships that exist between these phenomena. Just like affixes, function words denote grammatical meanings and serve significant parts of speech. They are often... Dictionary of linguistic terms T.V. Foal

Function words- Function words are lexically dependent words that serve to express various semantic-syntactic relationships between words, sentences and parts of sentences, as well as to express different shades of subjective modality. S. s.... ... Linguistic encyclopedic dictionary

Words that are not able to act independently as members of a sentence and serve to connect significant words in a phrase (for example, conjunctions, prepositions), for their grammatical (syntactic) characteristics (for example, articles), to express various ... ... Encyclopedic Dictionary

Words that do not have a nominative function in the language (see Nomination) and serve to express various semantic-syntactic relationships between significant words, unlike which they are not members of a sentence. IN… … Great Soviet Encyclopedia

Function words- words used to express grammar. relations and performing services. auxiliary functions. S.S. refers primarily to services. parts of speech prepositions, particles and conjunctions. They are characterized by immutability, lack of morphological. categories... ... Russian humanitarian encyclopedic dictionary

Same as speech particles... Dictionary of linguistic terms

Function words as philosophical terms- (connective words as philosophical terms) Functional words are an important source of replenishment of philosophical terminology, which has traditionally been dominated by nouns and adjectives. Words with grammatical meaning, devoid of lexical... ... Projective Philosophical Dictionary

Books

Picture Dictionary of the Russian Language, Yu. V. Vannikov, A. N. Shchukin. "Picture Dictionary of the Russian Language" - a guide for foreigners learning the Russian language. The dictionary consists of four sections (nouns, adjectives, verbs, function words), divided...
Turkish grammar. Phonetics, morphology, etymology, semantics, syntax, spelling, punctuation. Volume 3. Function words, postpositions, conjunctions and particles, interjections, affixes, sentences, spelling rules, punctuation marks
Turkish grammar. Phonetics (ses), morphology (sekIl), etymology (kok), semantics (mana), syntax (cumle bIlgIsI), spelling (yazim kurallari), punctuation marks (noktalama IsaretlerI): Function words (edatlar, ilgecler), postpositions (edatlar , Genish E.. This book presents the entire grammar of the modern Turkish language. The book was written on the basis of fifteen years of experience in teaching Turkish to Russian students...

SERVICE WORDS
- lexically dependent words that serve to express various semantic-syn-taken relations between words, sentences and parts of sentences, 472 COMPLEX and also ...
SERVICE WORDS in the Big Encyclopedic Dictionary:
SERVICE WORDS
words, words that do not have a nominative function in the language (see Nomination) and serve to express various semantic-syntactic relations between nominatives ...
SERVICE WORDS in the Modern Encyclopedic Dictionary:
SERVICE WORDS in the Encyclopedic Dictionary:
words that are not able to act independently as members of a sentence and serve to connect significant words in a phrase (for example, conjunctions, prepositions) or...
SERVICE WORDS in Modern explanatory dictionary, TSB:
words that are unable to act independently as members of a sentence and serve to connect significant words in a phrase (for example, conjunctions, prepositions) or for ...
SERVICE in the Dictionary of Economic Terms:
LAND ALLOCATIONS - in the Russian Federation - a special type of land use. S.e. n. are provided for agricultural use to certain categories of employees of enterprises, institutions...
SERVICE in the Big Russian Encyclopedic Dictionary:
SERVICE WORDS, words that are not able to act independently as members of a sentence and serve for communication. words in a phrase (e.g. conjunctions, ...
WORDS in Abramov's Dictionary of Synonyms:
cm. …
WORDS in the New Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language by Efremova:
pl. 1) Text vocal work. 2) transfer decomposition Empty talk...
WORDS in Ephraim's Explanatory Dictionary:
plural words 1) The text of the vocal work. 2) transfer decomposition Empty talk...
WORDS in the New Dictionary of the Russian Language by Efremova:
WORDS in the Large Modern Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language:
pl. 1. Text of a vocal work. 2. transfer decomposition Empty talk...
LEXICAL MEANING OF THE WORD in the Linguistic Encyclopedic Dictionary:
- the content of a word, reflecting in the mind and consolidating in it the idea of an object, property, process, phenomenon, etc., L. ...
AFFIX in the Linguistic Encyclopedic Dictionary:
(from Latin affixus - attached) - a service morpheme, a minimal building element of language, attached to the root of a word in the processes of morphological derivation...
INTRODUCTORY WORDS in the Dictionary of Linguistic Terms:
Words that are not formally related to the members of the sentence, are not members of the sentence and express the speaker’s attitude to what is being expressed, indicating the source...
HEIDEGGER in the Dictionary of Postmodernism:
(Heidegger) Martin (1889-1976) - German philosopher, one of the greatest thinkers of the 20th century. Born and raised in a poor working Catholic family. ...
ART in the Lexicon of non-classics, artistic and aesthetic culture of the 20th century, Bychkova:
(Greek - techne, Lat. - ars, English and French - art, Italian - arte, German - Kunst) One of the universal...
JAPANESE in the Encyclopedia Japan from A to Z:
For a long time it was believed that the Japanese language is not included in any of the known language families, occupying the genealogical classification of languages ...
ISKH 39
HAGIOGRAPHY in the Orthodox Encyclopedia Tree.
The main source of Russian history from ancient times to the middle XVI century(and in some cases - further) serve as chronicles. ...
DERZHAVIN GAVRIIL ROMANOVICH in the Brief Biographical Encyclopedia:
Derzhavin, Gabriel Romanovich - famous poet. Born on July 3, 1743 in Kazan, into a family of small landed nobles. His father, army...
POTEBNYA in the Literary Encyclopedia:
Alexander Afanasyevich - philologist, literary critic, ethnographer. R. in the family of a minor nobleman. He studied at a classical gymnasium, then at Kharkov University...
ENGLISH LANGUAGE in the Literary Encyclopedia:
language mixed. By its origin, it is associated with the western branch of the Germanic group of languages. (cm.). It is customary to share the history of A. Yaz. on...
VESSEL in Bolshoi Soviet encyclopedia, TSB:
ship, floating structure designed to perform certain economic and military tasks, scientific research, water sports, etc. Classification C. By ...
WORD (UNIT OF LANGUAGE) in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, TSB:
the most important structural and semantic unit of language, which serves to name objects, processes, properties. Structurally, S. consists of morphemes (including ...
PASSPORT in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, TSB:
(from the French passeport, originally - permission to travel through a port), 1) in the USSR - an identity document of citizens of the USSR in ...
HOUSING LAW in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, TSB:
law, part of civil law regulating the procedure for the provision of residential premises, conditions of use and disposal, as well as changes and termination of use of them. ...
ADMINISTRATIVE AND MANAGEMENT COSTS in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, TSB:
expenses, expenses for maintaining the management apparatus and its maintenance. Includes the costs of maintaining government bodies and public...
LINGUISTICS
linguistics, otherwise linguistics (from Latin lingua, language), glottika or glottology (from Greek ??????, ?????? - language) - in the narrow sense...
JUDICIAL CAPACITY in the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Euphron:
In terms of ensuring the correct administration of justice, the law, on the one hand, specifies the conditions that must be met by persons appointed to the position of judge...
CIVIL SERVICE in the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Euphron:
I The state system that currently exists in various European states is the result of a long historical process that is in close ...
SEMASIOLOGY in the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Euphron:
(gram.) department of the science of language, which belongs to the least developed and considers the meaning of words and formal parts of words (Greek ??????? = sign, ...
in the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Euphron:
constitute a special category of acts that can be committed not by all citizens, but only by state or public authorities. Their main…
POSTAL SIGNS in the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Euphron:
are issued by the postal department and serve to facilitate the payment of fees for sending items by mail. To pay for sending letters, you use...
AWARDS in the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Euphron:
for distinctions, mainly military, existed in Greece and Rome, where they consisted mainly of the award of honorary insignia: wreaths...
CANDIDATE in the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Euphron:
Candidatus was the name among the Romans for a person seeking some kind of public office (quaestor, aedile, praetor, consul), as a sign of which he wore a shiny white toga...
LIVES OF THE SAINTS
DERZHAVIN in the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Euphron.
GOTHIC ARCHITECTURE in the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Euphron:
(lancet architecture). - The end of the XII and the beginning of the XIII century. were marked by important changes in the political and social status Western Europe: ...
JAPAN*
LINGUISTICS
linguistics, otherwise linguistics (from Latin lingua, language), glottika or glottology (from Greek ??????, ?????? ? language) ? in a cramped...
LANGUAGE AND LANGUAGES in the Encyclopedia of Brockhaus and Efron.
SEMASIOLOGY (GRAMMAR) in the Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedia:
? department of the science of language, which belongs to the least developed and considers the meaning of words and formal parts of words (Greek ??????? = ...
CRIMINAL ACTS IN POSITION OR SERVICE in the Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedia:
? constitute a special category of acts that can be committed not by all citizens, but only by state or public authorities. Main...
CHINA, A STATE IN ASIA in the Encyclopedia of Brockhaus and Efron.
SLOVAK
words "tsky, words"tskaya, words"tskoe, words"tsky, words"tsky, words"tskoy, words"tsky, words"tskih, words"tsky, words"tskoy, words"tsky, words"tskim, words" tsky, words "tskuyu, words"tskoe, words"tskoe, words"tskogo, words"tskoe, words"tskoe, words"tskih, ...
VOCABULARY in the Complete Accented Paradigm according to Zaliznyak:
word"rnaya, word"rnaya, word"rnaya, word"rnaya, word"rnaya, word"rnaya, word"rnaya, word"rnaya, word"rnaya, word"rnaya, word"rnaya, word"rnaya, words" rnaya, slovarny, slovarny, slovarny, slovarny, slovarny, slovarny, slovarny, slovarny, …
CHANGES THAT THE SPELLING COMMISSION DECIDED TO REFUSE in the Russian Language Rules:
as of 01.10.2001 1) § 9, paragraph 2 Write sequentially without the letter th before e common nouns with the component -er; ...

service words

lexically dependent words that serve to express various semantic-syntactic relationships between words, sentences and parts of sentences, as well as to express different shades of subjective modality.

S. s. are opposed to significant (independent) words as lexical and grammatical units. As lexemes, they are devoid of nominative meanings inherent in significant words, that is, they do not name objects, features, properties, actions; their lexical meaning is abstracted from the relationships that they express in a sentence. S. s. do not have the semantic community on the basis of which significant words are combined into parts of speech; community S. s. - functional, grammatical, in this respect they are close to inflectional morphemes (suffixes, inflections) and are on the verge of dictionary and grammar. As grammatical units of S. s. differ from significant words in that they do not have morphological categories and perform only auxiliary syntactic functions in a syntactic construction.

Based on the commonality of the functions performed by S. s. are divided into several categories, the number of which varies across languages, and their semantic content largely depends on the type of language. Thus, in many languages the following synonyms are distinguished: relative words (prepositions/postpositions), conjunctions, particles and articles. But in analytical languages (see Analyticism), the semantic and grammatical functions of social systems. richer than in synthetic languages (see Synthetism), since S. s. take on the functional load that affixes carry in languages with developed morphology; The category of so-called particles, which become the main means of expressing grammatical meanings, is usually especially numerous. For example, in the Thai language, the past and future tense forms of the verb are expressed by S.s.: kau pai ‘he is coming’ - kau dai pai ‘he walked’ - kau tia pai ‘he will go’. The degree of development of some categories of S. s. may also depend on the functional type of language, in particular on the level of its literary form, especially in its written form (for example, subordinating conjunctions, like complex sentences, are most common in written speech). Finally, there are also more specific, selective relations of interdependence (harmony, according to J. H. Greenberg) between the presence in a language of a certain category of syllables. and its other structural characteristics; such relations are formed in the form of universals (see linguistic universals) or frequentals. For example, in languages with a predominant word order VSO and with the preposition of a noun, prepositions are represented in adjective constructions (Celtic languages, Arabic, Polynesian and other languages), and in languages characterized by word order SOV, postpositions are present (Basque, Burmese, Turkic languages, many Australian, etc.). Wed. also such obvious, diachronically explainable correspondences in agglutinating languages as “prepositive agglutination ↔ prepositions, postpositive agglutination ↔ postpositions” (this correspondence has the character of frequentalia).

With all the diversity of S. s. we can highlight some common phonetic, morphological and syntactic features. Phonetically, they are, as a rule, unstressed: in the Russian language, the ability to carry phrasal stress from all S.s. Only particles “yes” and “no” have. In tone languages, such as Chinese, S. s. are characterized by the absence of an individual tone, which is especially pronounced in cases where the same word functions both as an auxiliary and as a significant word, cf. Ta zai Beijing 他在北京 'He is in Beijing' (zai⁴ 'to be in' is a significant word) and Ta zai Beijing zhu 他在北京住 'He lives in Beijing' (zai 'in' - S. s., toneless ).

For the original S. s. characterized by a tendency toward monosyllabism. In languages with developed morphology, S. s. usually characterized by an elementary morphological structure (cf. simple conjunctions, primitive prepositions, many particles) and are not divided into morphemes. S.s., as a rule, do not constitute a paradigm. Limited paradigmatic properties are inherent, for example, in some conjunctions in the Finnish language: such conjunctions, merged with the personal forms of the auxiliary verb of negation, change according to persons, cf. etten ‘what I am not’, ettet ‘what you are not’ (< että ‘что’ + личная форма отрицательного глагола en, et и т. д.). В синтаксическом плане С. с. отличаются неспособностью быть членом предложения; они либо включаются в синтаксическую позицию, занимаемую знаменательным словом, либо, относясь семантически к целому предложению (словосочетанию), характеризуются своего рода «метасинтаксической позицией» за рамками членов предложения.

In fact, S. s. belong to the sphere of grammatical means of language, but they exhibit varying degrees of grammaticalization. In many languages, along with “semantically empty”, but functionally filled (cf. Russian “and”, “a”, French dans, chez, 'in', 'k', Polish lecz 'but, however', Latvian un 'and', Vietnamese mà - S. s. of a conjunctive nature, etc.), there are S. s. that retain a clear connection with the original full-meaning words. The latter are, as a rule, such significant words, the lexical meaning of which contains the possibility of developing the corresponding grammatical meaning. Thus, the use of names of body parts as local and directional prepositions is quite common, cf. Arab. ʻaqiba ‘following’ (ʻaqibahu ‘following him’)< ʻaqibun ‘пята’, иврит bᵉlēḇ ‘внутри, посреди’ < lēḇ ‘сердце’. На основе имён, выражающих пространственную ориентацию, сформировалось большинство серийных послелогов в финно-угорских языках. Многие союзы восходят к указательным и вопросительным местоимениям. Общераспространённым является образование союзов путём переосмысления частиц (ср. др.-греч. частица μή со значением колебания, запрещения, отклонения и союз μή: δέδοικα μὴ οὐ γένηται ‘боюсь, что не случится’). Степень обособленности С. с. от знаменательных, к которым они генетически восходят, различна. Наряду с полным их обособлением (омонимией) (ср. дунган. ги та гили ‘ему дали’, где первое «ги» - предлог, а второе «ги», генетически с ним связанное, - знаменательный глагол ‘дать’; рус. «благодаря», «ввиду») существуют варианты, когда связь С. с. со знаменательным отчётливо осознаётся говорящим, ср. употребление глагола to do в английском языке в таких конструкциях: he did it ‘он сделал это’ (знаменательное) - he did not eat ‘он не ел’ (служебное).

Yielding to significant words in number and representing, in essence, a closed list, S. s. exceed them in frequency of use. It is estimated, for example, that in a French text of 20,000 words, 12 (articles and prepositions) appear 8,000 times, i.e., they make up 40% of the entire text. Number of S. s. for individual categories in languages is not the same; for example, unions of historically “young” literary languages are significantly inferior in this regard to unions of literary languages with a long-established tradition.

The use of the term "S. s.", or "functional parts of speech", is characteristic primarily of the Russian grammatical tradition. The division of words into significant and auxiliary in different terminological variants can be traced in Russian grammar starting from the 18th century. Later, “lexical and formal words” were distinguished by A. A. Potebnya, “full and partial words” by F. F. Fortunatov, cf. previously “full and empty words” by H. G. K. von der Gabelenz. Number of digits of S. s. is largely determined by the views of the author and the corresponding grammatical tradition. In the history of Russian linguistics, the scope of the concept “S. With." hesitated, these included pronouns, numerals, prepositions, conjunctions, pronominal adverbs, auxiliary verbs (F.I. Buslaev); only prepositions and conjunctions (A. M. Peshkovsky); verbal connectives such as “to be”, “to be”, prepositions, conjunctions, allied words (L. V. Shcherba). In the definition of S. s. Russian academic grammar follows V.V. Vinogradov, who included particles, prepositions and conjunctions among them (calling them “particles of speech”).

In foreign linguistics it is usually not accepted to contrast special service units speech to significant parts of speech (accordingly, there are no terms), but sometimes a category of relative words (Verhältniswörter) is distinguished, which includes articles, prepositions/postpositions and conjunctions (while particles are considered a subtype of adverbs), or the scope of the concept of S. p. varies. For example, in the French linguistic tradition to S. s. (mots accessoires) along with conjunctions and prepositions it is customary to include pronouns.

Jespersen O., Philosophy of Grammar, trans. from English, M., 1958; Vinogradov V.V., Russian language. (Grammatical doctrine of the word), 2nd ed., M., 1972; Russian grammar, vol. 1, M., 1980; Maitinskaya K. E., Functional words in Finno-Ugric languages, M., 1982; see also the literature under the article Parts of speech.