Analytical structure of the English language
An impressive number of existing or ever existing languages inevitably needs classification, one of which is the division of languages into synthetic and analytical. Although the existence of these two types is generally recognized, the criteria that served as the basis for such a classification are still under discussion. This is due to the fact that the analyticity or syntheticity of a language can be deduced from both morphological and syntactic considerations.
Morphology
This branch of linguistics studies the grammatical forms of words. There are two main strategies for their formation: the use of various morphemes (prefixes, affixes and inflections) or auxiliary words. The relationship between the number of morphemes and the number meaningful words in an arbitrarily selected segment of the text shows the index of language synthesis. The American linguist Joseph Greenberg calculated this ratio. For Vietnamese, it is 1.06 (that is, in a segment of text 100 words long, only 106 morphemes were found), and for English - 1.68. In Russian, the synthetic index ranges from 2.33 to 2.45.
Greenberg's method for establishing the difference between analytic and synthetic languages is called quantitative. He assumes that all languages with a synthetic index from 2 to 3 can be classified as synthetic. Languages for which the index is less are analytic.
Syntax
The absence of a morphological indicator of the word form requires a stricter word order, which allows you to establish grammatical relationships between lexemes. Already from the name itself, it is possible to determine which languages are called languages of the analytical system: in order to understand what is at stake, you need to conduct some analysis of the statement, to determine what refers to what. In addition to the rigid word order, it is necessary to pay attention to intonation. If, for example, in English interrogative sentences are introduced using function words, then in Russian it is possible to establish differences only with the help of intonation (for example, "Mom came" and "Mom came?").
Grammar
The syntactic and morphological principles of distinguishing between analytic and synthetic languages cannot be considered separately. It is necessary to take into account the grammatical structure of the language as a whole, since the boundary between the two types of information transfer often looks unsteady. If in relation to English we can confidently say that this is the language of the analytical system (the endings - (e) s, - (e) d, -ing - that's, perhaps, all that is immediately remembered from English morphemes), then with Russian the situation is more complicated : we see both the active use of inflections (for example, case endings) and auxiliary verbs (in the formation of the future tense of imperfective verbs). A similar situation is observed in other synthetic languages. Like morphology, syntax is just one of many aspects of grammar. And these two sections of linguistics are closely related. Therefore, the difference in the languages of the analytical and synthetic systems can be established only from the standpoint of a comprehensive study of grammar.
Article
An example is the development of articles. In the vast majority of languages, it develops from the quantitative numeral "one", and the definite one - from the demonstrative pronoun. Initially, it plays a syntactic role: it shows whether the subject is known or unknown to the listener. But gradually the article also acquires a morphological role, showing the gender, number, and sometimes even the case of the noun. This is especially evident in the German language, where the article, as a function word, shows the morphological characteristics of the noun, but at the same time it changes, adding various inflections. Given this feature, is German a synthetic or analytical language? The answer requires the study of grammar in its totality. The Greenberg index for the German language demonstrates its borderline position: 1.97.
Language in development
The development of comparative linguistics allowed linguists to formulate the principles of language reconstruction, thanks to which one can get acquainted with the grammatical structure of pre-written languages. Thanks to this, it is known that the connections between the words of the Proto-Indo-European language were expressed by adding various morphemes. In written languages, the same situation is observed: Latin is clearly a synthetic language, but English or French that arose on its basis are now considered analytical.
Phonetics
The simplest explanation for this is a change in phonetic order. Already at the stage of late Latin, inflections, expressed mainly by vowels, begin to be pronounced indistinctly, which leads to unification morphological forms. Therefore, there is a need for additional marking of grammatical connections: prepositions, auxiliary verbs and the rapidly developing category of the article are becoming increasingly important. One can often come across the erroneous assertion that the English language has simply lost all cases, except for the nominative (Subjective Case) and the possessive (Possessive Case), which arose on the basis of the genitive. Sometimes the accusative case (Objective Case) is also distinguished. But in fact, it was not the withering away of cases, but their merger. The current common case in English has retained the forms of both the ancient nominative and dative cases.
From analysis to synthesis
There is also a reverse process. Future tense Latin was formed synthetically, but with a change in the pronunciation of all its forms, they began to sound the same. As already mentioned, in this case, the grammar adapts to this process, allowing the use of forms of the verb habere as auxiliary. This feature has passed into the emerging Romance languages, but its evolution at first glance looks unexpected. In Spanish, the forms of the verb haber became the endings of the Futuro Simple de Indicativo tense, merging with the stem of the infinitive. As a result, the forms of the future tense, beloved (for their simplicity) by every Spanish language learner, arose: comeré, comerás, comerá, comeremos, comeréis, comerán, in which the endings are -é, -ás, -á, -emos, -éis, -án testify that once this tense was formed with the help of an auxiliary verb. Here it is appropriate to recall the importance of stress and intonation for distinguishing forms: the form Futuro Simple de Subjuntivo is formed with the same, but only unstressed endings.
Varieties of synthetic languages
Previously, it was mainly said about synthetic languages of this type, where the main tool for shaping is inflection. It should be noted that such a strategy just requires the use of various functional words to clarify grammatical connections. For example, the Russian word for "house" has null ending, characteristic of both the nominative and accusative cases. Therefore, to demonstrate that "house" is not the subject, but the object of the action, the use of various prepositions is required.
In one inflection is not assigned a specific morphological meaning. The ending -a in Russian can express:
- nominative singular nouns of the 1st declension;
- genitive singular nouns of the 2nd declension (and for animate ones also accusative);
- nominative plural some masculine and neuter nouns;
- feminine in the past tense of verbs.
But the ways of marking grammatical connections in synthetic languages are not limited to inflection. There are in which word forms are created by successively attaching various suffixes and prefixes, for which only one grammatical meaning is assigned. For example, in Hungarian, the suffix -nak- expresses only the meaning of the dative case, while -aren- in Basque expresses the genitive case.
Examples of synthetic languages
The most striking examples of the expression of grammatical connections using inflections can boast of Latin (especially the classical period), ancient Greek and Sanskrit. Some languages on this basis are distinguished as polysynthetic, where the use of function words and auxiliary verbs is practically not found. Such languages make up whole families, for example, Chukchi-Kamchatka or Eskimo-Aleut.
Separately, it should be said about the Slavic languages. The problem of classifying the Russian language as a synthetic or analytical type was mentioned above. Its development is characterized by a consistent blurring of the system of verb tenses (only the present, some forms of the past and future remained from Old Church Slavonic), while maintaining a branched system of declension of nominal parts of speech. Nevertheless, it can be said with a certain degree of certainty that the literary Russian language is synthetic. In some dialectisms, there is an expansion of analyticism, expressed in the formation of perfect forms of verb tenses (for example, "I have milked a cow" instead of "I have milked a cow", where the construction "at me" corresponds to the verb of possession "to have" used in the construction of perfect forms).
The same situation is observed in other Slavic languages with the exception of Bulgarian. This is the only Slavic language in which the inflectional strategy of declension of nominal parts of speech disappeared and the article was formed. However, some tendencies towards the appearance of the article are observed in Czech, where the demonstrative pronoun ten and its forms for other genders precede the noun in order to indicate its fame to the listener.
In the languages of the world, there are two main groups of ways of expressing grammatical meanings: 1) synthetic ways and 2) analytical. Synthetic methods are characterized by the combination of a grammatical indicator with the word itself (this is the motivation for the term synthetic). Such an indicator that introduces a grammatical meaning "inside the word" can be ending, suffix, prefix, internal inflection(i.e. alternation of sounds in the root, for example, flow - flows - flow), change accents(legs - legs)suppletive modification word bases (I - me, I go - I go, good - better),transfix(in Semitic languages: a complex consisting of several vowels, which is “woven” into a three-consonant root, adding lexico-grammatical and syntactic meanings to it and thus completing the root to the required word form), repeat morphemes.
A common feature of analytical methods is the expression of grammatical meaning outside the word, separately from it - for example, using prepositions, conjunctions, articles, auxiliary verbs and other auxiliary words, as well as using word order and the general intonation of the statement.
Most languages have both analytical and synthetic means of expressing grammatical meanings, but their specific weight varies. Depending on which methods prevail, languages of a synthetic and analytical type are distinguished. Synthetic languages include all Slavic languages (except Bulgarian), Sanskrit, Ancient Greek, Latin, Lithuanian, Yakut, German, Arabic, Swahili and many others. others
The languages of the analytical system include all the Romance languages, Bulgarian, English, Danish, Modern Greek, New Persian and many others. etc. Analytical methods in these languages prevail, however, synthetic and grammatical means are used to some extent.
Languages in which there are almost no possibilities for the synthetic expression of a number of grammatical meanings (as in Chinese, Vietnamese, Khmer, Lao, Thai, etc.) at the beginning of the 19th century. called amorphous("formless"), i.e. as if devoid of form, but already Humboldt called them insulating.
It was proved 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 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 shaped like a word. Such a device "word-sentence" is called incorporation(lat. incorporatio-"inclusion in one's composition", from lat. in- "in and corpus-"body, whole"), and the corresponding languages - incorporating, or polysynthetic(some Indian languages, Chukchi, Koryak, etc.).
4. Morphological typology of the languages of E. Sepir.
The new typological classification belongs to the American linguist E. Sapir (1921). Considering that all previous classifications are “a neat construction of a speculative mind”, E. Sapir made an attempt to give a “conceptual” classification of languages, based on the idea that “every language is a formalized language”, but that “a classification of languages, built on the distinction of relations, purely technical” and that it is impossible to characterize languages from only one point of view. Therefore, E. Sapir bases his classification on the expression different type concepts in the language: 1) root, 2) derivational, 3) mixed-relational and 4) purely relational (See Chapter IV, § 43.). The last two points should be understood in such a way that the meanings of relations can be expressed in the words themselves (by changing them) together with lexical meanings - these are mixed relational meanings; or separately from words, for example, word order, auxiliary words and intonation - these are purely relational concepts. The second aspect of E. Sapir is that very “technical” side of expressing relations, where all grammatical methods are grouped into four possibilities: a) isolation (i.e. ways of function words, word order and intonation), b) agglutination, with) fusion (the author deliberately separates the two types of affixation, since their grammatical tendencies are very different) (Ibid.) and d) symbolization, where internal inflection, repetition and stress are combined. (In the case of tone stress, for example in the language of Shilluk (Africa), jit with a high tone is "ear", and with a low tone - "ears" - a very similar fact with vowel alternation). The third aspect is the degree of "synthesis" in grammar in three stages: analytical, synthetic and polysynthetic, i.e. from the absence of synthesis through normal synthesis to polysyntheism as "over-synthesis" (from the Greek polys- "many" and synthesis- "connection"). From all that has been said, E. Sapir obtains a classification of languages, shown in the table:
|
Basic type |
Degree of synthesis | ||
|
A. Simple purely relational languages |
1) Isolating 2) Isolating with agglutination |
Analytical |
Chinese, Annamese (Vietnamese), Ewe, Tibetan |
|
B. Complex purely relational languages |
1) Agglutinating, isolating |
Analytical |
Polynesian |
|
2) Agglutinating |
Synthetic |
Turkish |
|
|
3) Fusion-agglutinating |
Synthetic |
Classic Tibetan |
|
|
4) Symbolic |
Analytical | ||
|
B. Simple mixed-relational languages |
1) Agglutinating |
Synthetic | |
|
2) Fusion |
Analytical |
French |
|
|
B. Complex mixed-relational languages |
1) Agglutinating |
Polysynthetic | |
|
2) Fusion |
Analytical |
English, Latin, Greek |
|
|
3) Fusion, symbolic |
Slightly synthetic |
Sanskrit |
|
|
4) Symbolic-fusion |
Synthetic |
The section is very easy to use. In the proposed field, just enter the desired word, and we will give you a list of its meanings. I would like to note that our site provides data from various sources - encyclopedic, explanatory, word-building dictionaries. Here you can also get acquainted with examples of the use of the word you entered. What does "synthetic languages" mean?Encyclopedic Dictionary, 1998synthetic languages a class of languages in which grammatical meanings are expressed within a word using affixes or internal inflection, e.g. Russian, German, Lithuanian and other Indo-European languages. Synthetic languages typological class of languages in which synthetic forms of expression of grammatical meanings predominate. S. i. are contrasted with analytical languages, in which grammatical meanings are expressed with the help of function words, and polysynthetic languages, in which several nominal and verbal lexical meanings are combined within an integrally formed complex (outwardly resembling a word). The basis for dividing languages into synthetic, analytic, and polysynthetic is essentially syntactic, so this division intersects with the morphological classification of languages, but does not coincide with it. The division of languages into synthetic and analytical was proposed by A. Schlegel (only for inflectional languages), A. Schleicher extended it to agglutinative languages. Morphemes included in a word in S. Ya. can be combined according to the principle of agglutination, fusion, and undergo positional alternations (for example, Turkic vowel harmony). Synthetic forms are found in a large part of the world's languages. Since the language, in principle, is not typologically homogeneous, the term "S. I." applied in practice to languages with a sufficiently high degree of synthesis, for example, Turkic, Finno-Ugric, most Semitic-Hamitic, Indo-European (ancient), Mongolian, Tungus-Manchurian, some African (Bantu), Caucasian, Paleo-Asiatic, American Indian languages. Lit .: Kuznetsov P. S., Morphological classification of languages, M., 1954; Uspensky B. A., Structural typology languages, M., 1965; Rozhdestvensky Yu. V., Typology of the word, M., 1969; Linguistic typology, in the book: General linguistics, v. 2, M., 1972; Home K. M., Language typology 19th and 20th century views, Wash., 1966; Pettier B., La typologie, in Le langage, Encyclopedie de la Pleiade, v. 25, P., 1968. The disappearance of impersonal constructions in the languages of Indo-European origin seems to us, first of all, a consequence of analysis, that is, the transition from a synthetic system to an analytical one. For languages that gravitate towards an analytical device (French, English, Italian, Spanish, Bulgarian, Danish), the expression of grammatical meanings is characteristic not by the forms of the words themselves, but by the intonation of the sentence, auxiliary words with significant words and the order of significant words. In synthetic languages (Russian, Ancient Greek, Latin, Old Slavonic, Lithuanian), on the contrary, grammatical meanings are expressed within the word itself (affixation, internal inflection, stress, suppletivism, etc.). A.V. Schlegel named the following main characteristics of analytical languages: 1) the use of a definite article; 2) the use of the subject-pronoun with the verb; 3) use of auxiliary verbs; 4) the use of prepositions instead of case endings; 5) the use of periphrastic degrees of comparison with the help of adverbs (Siemund, 2004, S. 170). Since many impersonal constructions are inherited from the synthetic Indo-European proto-language (see below), their structure implies the existence of an extensive case system that makes it possible to clearly distinguish between subject and object. With the disappearance of the corresponding inflections, the personal constructions that depend on them invariably fall out of use. Those that do not depend on the distinction between subject and object are preserved (in particular, the weather type Morosit), which contradicts the thesis about the replacement of the irrational type of thinking by rational, allegedly reflected in the disappearance of the impersonal. If we compare modern English with much more synthetic Old English, it turns out that impersonal phrases that have almost disappeared today were used earlier in a disproportionately larger volume. Here are some of them. Nature: Hit friest (Freeze); Hit winterlamp;cep (It's getting cold, winter is coming); Nit hagolad (There is hail); Hit rind (It's raining); Hit smwd (It's snowing); Hit blamp; wd (Blowing (wind)); Hit styrmd (Stormy); Hit lieht (Sparkles (lightning)); Hitpunrad (Thunder (thunder)); Hit (ge) widerap (It cleared up); Hit leohtad/frumlieht/dagad (Dawn); Hit sefenlamp;cd famp;fnad (Evening), etc. Physical and mental states:
On the other hand, synthetic languages are more inclined to use affixation (Zelenetsky and Monakhov, 1983, pp. 109, 173-174, 190; Schneider, 2003, pp. 76, 123; Grinberg, 1963). According to L.V. Sargsyan, in the average Armenian text, the number of models of morphemic structure used in
ought to, used to; the last four are called semi-modal (McArthur, 1998, p. 57). The largest German dictionary “Muret-Sanders e-GroBworterbuch Englisch” lists 12 English and 4 German auxiliary verbs. M. Deutschbein believes that the English verb to want (to want) in contexts like the following is also used as a modal: It wants to be done with patience (This must be done patiently); The collars want washing (Collars need to be washed); What he wants is a good beating (Deutschbein, 1953, S. 100). The degree of synthetism is also directly related to the average word length (due to the more active use of affixation and endings in synthetic languages): in Russian it is 2.3 syllables, in more analytical German - 1.6 syllables, in even more analytical French - 1 , 5 syllables, in English - 1.4 syllables (Zelenetsky, 2004, p. 65) (according to L.V. Sargsyan, the average length English word is 1.34 syllables (Sarkisyan, 2002, p. 15)). Even more "laconic" isolating Chinese, where there are no inflections at all, that is, case, gender and number are practically not marked (Yinghong, 1993, S. 36, 38; Jespersen, 1894, p. 80), composites are almost never found (Champneys, 1893, pp. 58-59), and each word consists of one syllable and two or three primary phonemes (Bloomfield, 2002, p. 192; Jespersen, 1894, p. 80). If the Greek Gospel has 39,000 syllables, the English Gospel has 29,000, then the Chinese Gospel has only 17,000 (Jungraithmayr, 2004, p. 483). The isolating languages, of which Chinese is one, are often regarded as the most complete expression of the analytic order. J. Micklejohn noted that there is a whole layer of English children's literature, where all words consist of one syllable (to facilitate understanding), and that it is incommensurably easier to write such books in English than in other Indo-European languages (Meiklejohn, 1891, p. 322; cp. Bradley, 1919, pp. 50-51, 77; Shirokova, 2000, with. 137). According to L.V. Sargsyan, simple words in the English text are 4/ they put almost /5 of all the words of the text, while in Armenian only half of all words belong to simple words (Sarkisyan, 2002, pp. 7-8). For nouns, these figures are 75% in English and 30% in Armenian, for verbs - 80% and 6%. In Armenian, a word can contain up to 7 morphemes (for frequent words - no more than four), in English - up to 5 morphemes (for frequent words - no more than two). The range of word length in synthetic Armenian is greater than in analytical English: up to 7 syllables in Armenian, up to 5 in English (Sarkisyan, 2002, p. 13). There are relatively few monosyllabic words in Russian, although in the Slavic languages there was a death of inflections: first, when final consonants fell away due to the action of the law open syllable, then - thanks to the fall of reduced short vowels - er, which took place at the end of the common Slavic period (Ivanov, 2004, p. 40). For comparison: for every 100 word forms in English, on average, there are 56 monosyllabic ones, while in Russian and Ukrainian their number is 10 (Shvachko et al., 1977, pp. 13-14). The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics notes that words in inflected languages are longer than words in isolating languages and shorter than words in agglutinative languages; the average length of words in inflectional languages is 2-3 syllables (“Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics”, 2006, p. 6952). One of the universals of the “Archive of Universals” of the University of Konstanz says: “Words tend to be longer if constituent order is free than if it is rigid” (“The Universals Archive”, 2007), which we observe in the case of a rigid word order in English and relatively free in Russian. Let's talk about the connection of the impersonal with the number of cases. S. Grimm writes in the article “Subject-marking in Hindi/Urdu: A study in case and agency” that studies of impersonal constructions in various languages world allow us to see the following universal trend: if a case system is developed in a particular language, then there is a high probability that a subject with low agency or a subject subjected to some kind of influence will be registered in an alternative case that is not the standard case of the subject (Grimm, 2006, p. 27 ). In particular, subjects prone to non-standard design may lack one of the following qualities or a combination of them: volition, awareness of the action being performed, impact on something while maintaining their qualities, movement. Native speakers of any language question the agentivity of the subject if he is not aware of his actions (or is in some state against his will), does not act intentionally, at his own will, is noticeable to others, with a clear result for whom -something of the object and without visible feedback on itself (Grimm, 2006, p. 29). If the subject is framed with a dative, this may indicate a relatively passive character of the subject, awareness of the impact on him and a change in some of his qualities. For example, in Hindi and Urdu, subjects are dative when verbs of perception, mental activity, obligation, coercion, need, need, etc., are formed, that is, when a person is clearly influenced from the outside by some circumstances, forces or other people. Often one can choose one of two variants of the same construction, where the nominative one means, depending on the context, the presence or absence of volition, and the dative one only the absence of volition: Hindi Tusaar khus huaa (Tushar became happy) (nom.) - Tusaarko khusii huii (Touchard became happy), literally (Touchard became happy) (Dat.) (Grimm, 2006, p. 34). It is important to note that the nominative does not mark agency at all, but only implies it in a certain context; Grimm writes about this: “Unlike other cases, the nominative can mark any degree of agency, that is, it is not a marker of agency” (Grimm, 2006, p. 35). This remark will allow us to further understand why nominative languages such as English are not at all as agentive as many modern ethnolinguists claim, based solely on the design of subjects by the nominative. The decisive role is played not by the case of the subject, but by the context, and this context may indicate the non-volitional action or state of the subject, despite the design of the nominative or common case. The fact that nominative languages cannot mark this difference in meaning grammatically indicates the limitations of linguistic means, the pressure of the language system on the speakers of the corresponding language, but not their greater agency. It is noteworthy that in languages where ergative and nominative structures are mixed, the ergative case is often used to express a greater degree of volition / agentivity. M. Onishi reports on the following universal regularities in the use of impersonal constructions. In languages where the case system makes it possible to distinguish between standard and non-standard shaping of the subject, non-standard shaping often occurs in the case of so-called low transitivity, that is, when, for example, the subject is inanimate or obscure, indefinite, as well as in the imperfect, with a stative meaning, in the subjunctive mood (Onishi, 2001 a, p. 5; cp. Haspelmath, 2001, p. 56). By static meaning, the author means the description of states as opposed to the description of actions. To experience some state, the subject does not need as much will and influence on the external world as for the production of some action; moreover, the subject of the state can often be inanimate at all (the Stone was lying), which is rather an exception in the case of the producer of the transitional action (sentences like the Stone broke the glass usually imply that the action was nevertheless performed by someone animate through some inanimate tools). In stative constructions, adjectives and adverbs are often used instead of verbs. Further, M. Onishi mentions groups of verbs with modal values(“need”, “should”, “be able”, “seem”, “want”), verbs with a clear effect on the subject, having physical consequences for him (“have a headache”, “freeze”, “feel hungry”, “get sick”, “sweat”, “shake”), verbs with a weak agency of the subject and little or no effect on the object (“see”, “hear”, “know”, “remember”, “think”, “like”, “hate”, “sympathize”, “miss”, “be like”), verbs of mental states, feelings and emotions (“get angry”, “sad”, “be ashamed”, “surprise”), verbs related to fate and occasion, verbs of possession, lack, existence (Onishi, 2001 a, pp. 25, 28). If in certain language there are impersonal constructions with the semantics of fate and chance, then it will also contain impersonal constructions of mental states, feelings, emotions, constructions of perception and mental activity (“see”, “hear”, “know”, “remember”), constructions of sympathy (“ like”, “hate”, “sympathize”, “miss...”), constructions of desire (“want”), necessity (“need”, “should”, “be necessary”) and constructions of possession, existence, lack (“lack”, “have”) (Onishi, 2001 a, p. 42). If in a certain language the subject can be marked non-standardly with verbs of desire, then in the same language impersonal constructions of the internal state, feelings and emotions will certainly be common; there is also a high probability of the prevalence of impersonal constructions physical condition and perception (Onishi, 2001a, p. 43). Most often, the subject is marked in an alternative way if the action is performed without his desire, regardless of his consciousness and will, if the subject does not control some action or state (Onishi, 2001 a, p. 36). If the subject is formed in a non-standard way, the verb usually does not agree with it, but is put in the most neutral form such as Russian 3 l. units hours (Onishi, 2001 a, pp. 6-7; cp. Bauer, 2000, pp. 95). It should be emphasized that M. Onishi has in mind the tendencies not only of the Indo-European languages, but also of all languages of the world. Even in isolating languages, where there are usually no inflections, the possibility of expressing the dative in some way implies the presence of impersonal constructions in the same meanings as indicated above, cf. Japanese Kare ni wa sake ga nome nai (He can't drink Japanese wine, literally: He can't...); "cases" here are marked with particles after nouns, if in this case it is generally legitimate to speak of cases. M. Haspelmat largely repeats what M. Onishi said. Here we note his explanation of the non-standard labeling of the subject-experiencer in the languages of the world. Haspelmath believes that standard marking, regardless of language, refers primarily to the agent, more precisely, to the active subject in the transitive verb of action (Haspelmath, 2001, p. 59). It is such a subject that is prototypical, and all deviations from it are usually marked in some way. This is usually done either by dative subjects like fr. Ce livre luiplait (He likes this book), Gr. (modern) Tu aresi afto to vivlio (He likes this book) (experiencer is in the dative, the second noun is in the nominative, and the form of the verb depends on it), or the experiencer is formed by the usual object in the accusative, and the second noun is the subject -pseudoagent, cf. German Dieses Problem beunruhigt mich (I am worried about this problem); or the experiencer is framed as if he is an agent, cf. English He hates this book (He hates this book); "he" is in the nominative, that is, in the standard case of the agent, although the subject does not carry this semantic role. The first experiencer is called dative, the second is patient, and the third is agentive (Haspelmath, 2001, p. 60). European languages prefer to use the agentive variant; Celtic, Caucasian and Finno-Ugric - to dative, which is explained by the polyfunctionality of the nominative in European languages and the presence of a developed case system in the rest (Haspelmath, 2001, p. 61). The multifunctionality of the nominative means that it plays the role of not only an agent, but also an experiencer (I like her - I like her), and an owner (I have it - I have it), and a recipient (I got it - I got it), and location (The hotel houses 400 guests) (Haspelmath, 2001, p. 55). Haspelmat also cites interesting statistics showing the distribution of agentive and other experiential speakers in 40 European languages (however, the “Europeanness” of some languages can be called into question). Verbs with the meanings “see”, “forget”, “remember”, “freeze”, “be hungry”, “thrive to drink”, “have a headache”, “rejoice”, “regret” and “like” were tested. Dative experimenters were not separated from patients. All languages were distributed on a scale, where "0" means that all the tested subjects in the macrorole of the experimenter are made in the agentic, "5" - that all the experimenters are made in the dative or accusative (like Rus. I want, I feel sick). Here are the results: English (0.0)
Speaking about the large number of impersonal constructions in the Russian language, one should also mention its uniqueness in terms of adherence to the synthetic system, since it is the development of the case system that makes alternative marking of the subject possible. It is well known that many synthetic languages of Indo-European origin have either become analytic or have died out over the past five or six thousand years. For example, in the "Fundamentals of the Science of Language" A.Yu. Musorin (Musorin, 2004) cites only three extinct analytic languages (Bactrian from the Iranian group, Dalmatian from the Romance group, Cornish from the Celtic group, now artificially revived) and 19 synthetic languages (see Appendix 1 b). Since many Indo-European languages of the synthetic system have already died out and a number of others are dying out, and the movement from analytical languages towards synthetic ones in the Indo-European family is not observed at all (cp. Zhirmunsky, 1940, p. 29; Hinrichs, 2004 b, S. 17-18; Haarmann, 2004, S. 82; van Nahl, 2003, S. 3; Melnikov, 2000; Emerson, 1906, pp. 160, 164; Shirokova, 2000, p. 81; Ryadchenko, 1970), it can be assumed that a pronounced Synthetic nature of the Russian language, combined with its prevalence, is a single and unique phenomenon for this group of languages. Since the end of the twentieth century. in Russia, there is a renaissance of ethnolinguistic theories that associate various negative characteristics of the Russian mentality with the synthetic system or its individual features: passivity, lack of will, totalitarianism, disrespect for the individual, etc. Below we will repeatedly dwell on such statements in order to show their unfoundedness. Here we confine ourselves to one thing: Russian passivity is somehow connected with the synthetic structure of the language. The inconsistency of this opinion is already visible from the geographical distribution of this system (see the list in Appendix 1 a). It is not clear, for example, why a passive attitude to life is not attributed to, say, the Icelanders, whose language is also weakly subject to analysis and therefore, in many grammatical characteristics, including the development of the impersonal, is similar to Russian. In addition, if we recognize a high level of analyticism as a measure of an active attitude to life, then we will be forced to attribute some African and Papuan tribes to the most active (agentive) peoples of the Earth, and among the speakers of Indo-European languages - residents of the Republic of South Africa who speak Afrikaans (the most analyzed Indo-European language). Let us add that some non-Indo-European languages are currently developing from an analytical system to a synthetic one, that is, analysis is not a universal process inherent in all languages. V.V. Ivanov notes, for example, that Ancient Chinese was a synthetic language, modern Chinese is analytical, but gradually begins to return to a synthetic system (Ivanov, 1976; cp. Ivanov, 2004, p. 71; Trombetti, 1950, p. 164; Jespersen, 1894 , p. 83). He also argued that there is no reason to assume always one direction of movement - from synthesis to analysis; the author argues that modern linguistics is not able to look deep enough into linguistic history (Ivanov, 2004, p. 72). Further development of syntheticity is observed in the Finno-Ugric languages (Veenker, 1967, p. 202; Comrie, 2004, p. 422). For example, already in the historical period, the number of cases in Finnish and Hungarian increased. H. Haarmann writes that the Uralic languages, to which the Finno-Ugric languages belong, are not moving towards an isolating type, like Indo-Europeans, but from isolating to agglutinative (Haarmann, 2004, S. 78). B. Comrie speaks of the growth of synthesis in Basque (Comrie, 2004, p. 429). In Lithuanian, after the separation from Indo-European, the illative, allative and adessive developed, and in this case, too, the influence of the Finno-Ugric substratum is assumed (Comrie, 2004, p. 421). In French, the modern synthetic form of the future tense was formed from the fusion of the analytical forms of folk Latin and the stem of the semantic verb (habere (“to have”) + infinitive), that is, sometimes a movement towards synthetism can be observed in modern analytical languages of Indo-European origin (Bailey, Maroldt , 1977, p. 40). In the Indian languages, over a chronological interval of a little over two millennia, a cyclic process of transition from the synthetic to the analytical system and vice versa took place (Klimov, 1983, p. 167). G.A. Klimov postulates the cyclical transformation of various language types from one to another (including inflection and analysis), therefore, as he believes, there is no reason to talk about the progress of French or English, which allegedly manifests itself in a greater degree of analysis (Klimov, 1983, p. 139 -140). In confirmation of his words, G.A. Klimov cites the following quote from E. Benveniste: all types of languages “acquired an equal right to represent human language. Nothing in past history, no modern form of language, can be considered "original". A study of the most ancient attested languages shows that they are just as perfect and no less complex than modern languages; analysis of the so-called primitive languages reveals that they have a highly differentiated and ordered organization” (Klimov, 1983, p. 150). Ch.-J. Bailey and K. Maroldt, when considering the analysis of English, also talk about the cyclical nature of the transformation of synthetic languages into analytical ones and vice versa. In the first case, we are talking about the result of an excessive complication of the system, leading to its collapse, or a mixture of languages, in the second, the transformation of auxiliary parts of speech into affixes as a result of merging (Bailey, Maroldt, 1977, pp. 40-41). I. Balles also speaks about the cyclicity of the synthetic and analytical system (Balles, 2004, S. 35). Chaos theory, described by H. Haarmann, calls into question a certain direction language development, emphasizing the impact on each language of random and unpredictable factors (Haarmann, 2004, S. 77). Thus, there is no reason to tie any features of the mentality or the level of evolutionary / civilizational development to a certain grammatical structure or the degree of its preservation in comparison with related languages. typological class of languages in which synthetic forms of expression of grammatical meanings predominate. S. i. opposed to analytic languages (See Analytical languages), in which grammatical meanings are expressed using function words, and polysynthetic languages (See Polysynthetic languages) , in which several nominal and verbal lexical meanings are combined within an integrally designed complex (outwardly resembling a word). The basis for the division of languages into synthetic, analytic and polysynthetic is essentially syntactic, therefore this division intersects with the morphological classification of languages (See Morphological classification of languages) , but it doesn't match. The division of languages into synthetic and analytic ones was proposed by A. Schlegel (only for inflectional languages (See Inflectional languages)) , A. Schleicher extended it to agglutinative languages. Morphemes included in a word in S. Ya. can be combined according to the principle of agglutination (See Agglutination), fusion (See Fusion) , undergo positional alternations (e.g. Turkic Synharmonism) . Synthetic forms are found in a large part of the world's languages. Since the language, in principle, is not typologically homogeneous, the term "S. I." applied in practice to languages with a sufficiently high degree of synthesis, for example, Turkic, Finno-Ugric, most Semitic-Hamitic, Indo-European (ancient), Mongolian, Tungus-Manchu, some African (Bantu) , Caucasian, Paleoasian, American Indian languages. Lit.: Kuznetsov P. S., Morphological classification of languages, M., 1954; Uspensky B. A., Structural typology of languages, M., 1965; Rozhdestvensky Yu. V., Typology of the word, M., 1969; Linguistic typology, in the book: General linguistics, v. 2, M., 1972; Home K. M., Language typology 19th and 20th century views, Wash., 1966; Pettier B., La typologie, in Le langage, Encyclopedie de la Pleiade, v. 25, P., 1968. M. A. Zhurinskaya.
"Synthetic languages" in books5.2. “Languages for our own” and “languages for strangers”From the book Japan: Language and Culture author Alpatov Vladimir MikhailovichSynthetic fibersFrom the book Felting. Amazing felted wool crafts author Preobrazhenskaya Vera NikolaevnaSynthetic fibers This group includes fibers made by chemical means. Acrylic fibers are used to obtain volume and softness. They resemble wool in their properties, but do not warm at all. They are quite strong and practically inextensible. Synthetic preservativesFrom the book Cosmetics and Soap handmade author Zgurskaya Maria PavlovnaSynthetic preservatives Most often in cosmetics ah use chemical preservatives of three large groups. Antioxidants. The representative is triclosan. The tool is so powerful that in large doses it can “destroy” not only bacteria, but also negatively affect Synthetic materialsFrom the book Feng Shui - the path to harmony author Vodolazskaya Evgenia StanislavovnaSynthetic materials recent times synthetic materials are taking up more and more space in Everyday life. The construction and decoration of houses from them are cheaper than from natural, environmentally friendly ones. Synthetic materials, Synthetic dyesFrom the book Napoleon's Buttons [Seventeen Molecules That Changed the World] author Lecuter PennySynthetic dyes At the end of the 18th century, artificial dyes began to appear, which changed the lives of people who were engaged in dyeing for many centuries. The first artificial dye was picric acid (trinitrophenol). We were talking about it Synthetic spongesFrom the book Makeup [Short Encyclopedia] author Kolpakova Anastasia VitalievnaSynthetic Sponges Synthetic sponges can be applied to the skin with a concealer or used to mix creams and other cosmetics (Fig. 15). When choosing a sponge, pay attention to the fact that it must be made of high quality latex (foam rubber). SyntheticsFrom the book Most Popular Medicines author Ingerleib Mikhail BorisovichSynthetic agents "Finalgon" ointment (Unguentum "Finalgon") Indications: muscle and joint pain of various origins, tendovaginitis. Lumbago, neuritis, sciatica, sports injuries. Contraindications: individual hypersensitivity to the drug. Application: 4.3. Synthetic ropesFrom the book Handbook of Maritime Practice author author unknown4.3. Synthetic ropes Synthetic ropes are made from fibers chemical substances, forming various plastic masses - kapron, nylon, dacron, lavsan, polypropylene, polyethylene, etc. In terms of water resistance, elasticity, flexibility, lightness, strength, durability and Synthetic fibersFrom the book Big Soviet Encyclopedia(VO) author3. Languages in cultural cooperation in the process of globalization 3.1. Languages and the global historical processFrom the book Our language: as an objective reality and as a culture of speech author USSR Internal Predictor3. Languages in cultural cooperation in the process of globalization 3.1. Languages and the global historical process The transition from the personal scale of consideration to the scale of consideration of the linguistic culture of society as a whole begins with the recognition of the fact that society |