Moscow State University of Printing. Changes in the morphological composition of a word
During the historical development of a language, words change not only their phonetic composition, lexical meaning, grammatical properties, but also their morphemic structure.
The main observed historical changes in the morphemic structure of a word are caused by the processes of simplification, re-decomposition and complication.
1. Compare the words fish and match. Do they have the same morphemic composition? It turns out not. The word fish retains living formal semantic connections with the word fish, means “small fish” and identifies in its composition the diminutive suffix -k- (cf.: birch-k-a, ruch-k-a). In the word match, the basis is unmotivated, indivisible, coinciding with the root match-.
But it was not always so. There was a time when words like match, cup; or saucer, ring; or bag, powder, etc. were perceived as diminutives in relation to the corresponding spoke, ours; dish, colo; fur, gunpowder and, therefore, identified in their composition the suffixes: -k-(a), -ts-(e), -ok-(ѳ). In modern language, this relationship is violated mainly for two reasons: 1) as a result of the loss of the motivating word, for example, kolo - kol-ts-o - ring; 2) as a result of discrepancies in semantics (and styles of use) with the motivating word. For example, the words cup and saucer are not now perceived as diminutive derivatives of the words cup and dish\ the word cup in modern Russian is more often used in a related figurative meaning (cf.: to drink the cup of grief; the cup of patience has overflowed), and the word cup does not mean “small bowl”, this meaning in modern Russian has the derivative chashech-k-a. In the same way, the words dish and saucer diverged in their meaning. Therefore, in the past, the derivatives cup and saucer, having lost the possibility of motivation, became unmotivated, underivative.
The phenomenon in which bases, previously derivative and divisible, become non-derivative and indivisible is called simplification.
2. In addition to simplification, another process of historical change in the composition of the word is observed - re-decomposition. The reorganization of the morphemic composition of a word consists in changing the boundaries of its division." For example, the adjective friendly in modern Russian is motivated by the word friend and, therefore, has the suffix -natural-, whereas previously it was derived from the now lost word friendship contained the suffix -enn-. The suffix -estv- merged with the suffix -enn- into one suffix -estvenn-. In the same way, by merging two adjacent suffixes: the passive participle suffix -t- and the verbal noun suffix -uj-. , one suffix -tsch- appeared in words like development, taking, occupation.
3. “The phenomenon in which a previously indivisible base becomes articulated is called complication. In most cases, the process of complication of the bases occurs in borrowed words / For example, words with the meaning of a process such as adaptation, agitation, approbation were borrowed into the Russian language as non-derivatives / However, with with the appearance on Russian soil of related verbs in -irova(t), these words began to isolate in their composition the root and suffix -atsi]'-: adaptation - adapt'-irova-t, agit-atsch-a - agit'-irova-t, approb-a-tssch-a - approb' -irova-t\ also delegate-atsch-a - delegate"-irova-t.
The considered processes leading to changes in the composition of the word contribute to the development of the language. As a result of simplification and re-decomposition, the morphemic system of the language is enriched with new root and affixal native Russian morphemes. The process of complication replenishes the Russian morphemic system with foreign language affixes/
Regularity is repetition. A phenomenon that is repeated at least 2 times is considered regular. For roots this property is optional (regular roots are found in words with the same root), but for affixes it is mandatory. The repetition of affixes makes it possible to identify what meaning this affix contributes to the formation of new words. Due to repetition, the language makes do with a small number of affixes compared to roots. There are several thousand roots, several hundred affixes.
Unifixes – unique affixes, such structural components in words that are not found anywhere else. Unique suffixes: glasstier , childrenthief oh, teakhan ah, stingyjerk , conyuh , wivestheir , handsaw , whiteEU y, bottomMenn oh, yearoval th. Unique prefixes: chickens nosey,ba boastra arc.
a) unique only in form, but synonymous in meaning with ordinary morphemes ( pophell I- How -sh-, -them-- the wife of the one who is named as the producer. basis; childrenthief A- How -th-, -stv-, -ur- - collect. meaning: teaching, agency).
b) unique in form and meaning ( glasstier , mailampt )
Unifixes are distinguished according to the residual principle and in this way are similar to connected roots. With their help, new words are not formed.
Historical changes in the morphemic structure of words
The reason for historical changes in the morphemic structure of a word is a change in the relationship between the generating and derived words during the development of language: changes in semantics, the disappearance of the generating word, the influence of phonetic processes.
Simplification (integration)
First described by Bogoroditsky.
This is a process as a result of which a word with a derivative stem changes into a word with a non-derivative stem, a multimorphemic stem turns into a single-morphemic stem, and the stem becomes equal to the root. ( table, for-be– not divided now) The internal form is lost.
Main cases of simplification:
Suffix derivatives: trough O(historically from core A),caress A(from las th),rings O(from count O),bag (from fur ),powder (from powder ),match A(from knitting needles A).
Prefix derivatives: East(from current),overcome(from fly),bride, indignant(let), it is forbidden.
Causes:
Semantic (changing the lexical meaning of a word): porch(from wing- small wing) crest(row- comb hair);
Loss of the word that produces the word from the vocabulary of the language ( illness– from arc- “strength, health”, bad weather– from weather- bucket, cosiness– from ut- roof);
Phonetic historical processes: musty(from behinddah ly= to suffocate) inhabitant(from about-soar= live)
Re-decomposition
Baudouin de Cortunay was first described by analyzing the historical conjugation of verbs and declension of nouns, in which the final vowel of the stem goes to the ending: not tb → bears,wife mъ → wives-am. Observations of scientists of the 20th century. (Vinokura) indicate that this process can occur in other parts of words.
This is a movement of boundaries between morphemes, as a result of which one affix absorbs another, increasing its volume. Instead of two affixes, one appears. Unlike simplification, the basis does not cease to be divisible and derivative. May be:
At the junction of the productive stem and the suffix: lying downbisch e(formerly from lying down),small-yutk A(formerly from mal-yut-a),hotness (formerly from hot)
At the junction of the generating stem and the prefix: With nope(from remove),O create(from from-thief= gate)
Complication
A process opposite to simplification: boundaries appear between morphemes where there were none, two emerge from one morpheme, as a result, words with an indivisible, non-derivative base acquire divisibility. Characteristic of borrowed words: umbrella-ik (historically umbrella), bottle-k-a (historical bottle-a), flask-k-a (historical flask-a).
Availability in Russian language words of the same root with this borrowing. in a word ( engravings -a, engrave, equal;poetess -a, poet, poetic)
Availability in Russian language word image. affixes that have their own sound. composition coincide with the corresponding ones. segment in borrowed word ( umbrellaIR , flaskTo A)
This is a historical process and is not taken into account in synchronic analysis.
Decorrelation process
Described by Shansky. With decorrelation, the morphemic structure of the word from the outside remains the same, the generating base changes (due to the loss of etymologically generating words), the meaning and functions of the morphemes.
IN FRY swimmer– from catch t, historically – from fishing (hunting).
IN FRY Love– from love t, historically – from love th.
IN FRY frost from freeze t(suff. -k- has an objective meaning), historically from frost(suf. -k- had a diminutive meaning).
With de-orrelation, form-building morphemes can turn into word-forming ones (for example, suf. -l- adjectives came from verb forms: ossified; suf. The adverbs -om-, -oyu-, -oy- came from the endings of nouns: on horseback, evening, spring).
Substitution
This is the replacement of one morpheme with another without changing the general lexical meaning of the word.
Witness in FRY from see, historically – from know(know). The reasons are folk etymology, the convergence in the minds of native speakers of words that are not the same root.
Diffusion
This is a process in which interpenetration occurs, the overlap of morphemes while maintaining their independence.
Lie down (bake, burn, preserve): root lie down and suf. whose
The morphemic composition of a word is historically changeable: over time, the boundaries between morphemes move, their semantics changes, articulated bases become indivisible and, on the contrary, inarticulate ones acquire articulation.
So, for example, the word nonsense, which in the synchronic section of the language is characterized by indivisibility and has the meaning ‘nonsense’, in ancient times originally meant ‘what is stripped off when clearing a tree of bark’, and was related to the words tear, tear off. Consequently, the root morph dar- (dor) and the prefix въз- were isolated within the word. The word nonsense in the Russian language has undergone a semantic evolution: it first lost its concrete objective meaning and acquired the collective meaning of ‘trash, garbage’, then developed an abstract evaluative meaning of ‘nonsense’. As a result of the change in the semantics of the word, the oblivion of its internal form, the connections between the historically cognate words nonsense, rip off, tear off, and others were no longer recognized, and the root morpheme became dormant with the prefix.
Historical changes in the morphemic structure of a word began to be actively studied in Russian studies from the end of the 19th century, primarily by representatives of the Kazan linguistic school - I. A. Baudouin de Courtenay, N. V. Krushevsky, V. A. Bogoroditsky. I. A. Baudouin de Courtenay noted the possibility of “increasing subsequent suffixes due to previous ones or due to the root,” as well as “increasing the root due to the prefix.” V.A. Bogoroditsky identified and described in detail two main types of historical changes and proposed special terms to denote them: simplification and re-decomposition.
By simplification the scientist understood the process in which a word ceases “to be understood in relation to its composition and is understood only in its integrity,” cf.:
ist. smoke0 (kindred spirit, breathe) - sync. smoke0; ist. (uzhasiti ‘to frighten, intimidate’ - zhasiti) -
sync horror0.
Simplification is a historical process of changing the morphemic structure, as a result of which a previously separable base becomes indivisible. The main mechanism of simplification is the merging of adjacent morphemes. Depending on which morphemes are combined, several structural types of simplification are distinguished:
1) fusion of root and suffix: ist. Ъkun0 (eye ‘eye’) - sync. bkun0",
2) fusion of root and prefix: ist. law (con ‘border’) - SYNC. ZOKON0",
3) fusion of prefix, root and suffix: ist. careless\ (pecha ‘care, troubles’) - sync. careless\;
4) fusion of two foundations: history. man0 - sync. person0.
Simplification is usually associated with the de-etymologization of a word, its loss of internal form and, consequently, semantic correlation with historically cognate words. So, for example, the word idol (Old Slavonic in origin), which is indivisible in the modern Russian language, from a historical point of view is a form of passive participle formed from the verb istukati, which was a prefixal formation from the word tukati (‘to hit’). The idol literally means ‘knocked out, tapped by hitting a chisel with a hammer’. The de-etymologization of the word idol led to its simplification.
Simplification, therefore, is caused primarily by semantic reasons. These reasons may interact with phonetic reasons. Simplification was facilitated by the fall of reduced words, simplification of consonant groups, metathesis and other processes. Thus, simplification of the consonant group bv led to a change in morphemic
the composition of the word vow (from * obvet), promise (from promise), resentment (from * obvid), oblige (from * obvyazat). Simplification in the morphemic structure of the adjective musty is associated with the process of the fall of the reduced; Wed with the original word zadhly, derived from the verb zadhnutsya (‘to suffocate’).
The third reason for simplification is the elimination of the use of related words. This process led, for example, to simplification in the words lash (cf. the obsolete ryasan - 'eyelash', 'fringe', ryasnivny - 'covered with eyelashes'), temptation (cf. Old Russian blazn 'seduction', blazniti 'to seduce') .
The noted reasons for simplification interact in the history of language. Both phonetic changes and the withdrawal from the active use of related words lead to the loss of the internal form of a lexical unit, the destruction of semantic connections existing in the language, therefore it is semantic reasons that are leading in simplification.
This historical process plays an important role in morphemics and word formation: thanks to simplification, indivisible bases arise, which over time act as a productive base for new formations. The ratio of motivated and unmotivated words in the language also changes: as a result of simplification, the number of unmotivated and, therefore, non-derivative units in a synchronous section increases.
Re-decomposition, or re-integration, is the historical process of changing the boundaries between morphemes while maintaining the basis of articulation. Unlike simplification, re-expansion does not change the nature of the stem; it is only a redistribution of word-forming affixes in the structure of the word. Consider, for example, the word tiny. In modern language, its composition includes the free root crumb-, the irregular suffix -rel-, and the inflection -y. From a historical point of view, the adjective was formed from the noun krokhat, which later fell out of use in the literary language; accordingly, in the morphemic structure of the word tiny, two different suffixes were isolated: -ot- and -“-, which later merged into one. The base of the word has retained its articulation.
Depending on which word-forming affixes undergo integration, several types of re-decomposition are distinguished: trans-suffixation, trans-prefixation, moving the boundaries between suffixes and inflection.
Transsuffixation is a change in the boundaries between word-forming suffixes, cf.: ist.
Shrub (from handicraftsman) - sync. bush; ist. silent (from silent) - sync. silent.
Transprefixation - moving boundaries between prefixes, cf.: source. dbyodsilet (- powerless) - sync. both with silet.
Moving boundaries between suffix and inflection -
a rarer phenomenon. It can be illustrated by the history of the word counselor. This word was formed from the verb to guide using the suffix -tai (cf.: intercessor, oratay, escort, spy). Back at the beginning of the 19th century. it belonged to the substantive declension; Wed: But I pray you, my faithful admirer, be my leader (A.S. Pushkin). The root -vozh-, suffixes -a- and -tay were distinguished at the base of the word. As a result of the falling out of use of the producing verb vozhati and the analogy with suffixal adjectives such as horned, the word vozhatyi acquired a modern morphemic structure and underwent redesign: part of the modified suffix became the ending - vozh-at-y.
The main reasons for re-decomposition:
1) withdrawal from the use of a motivating word, cf.: ist. kerchief - kerchief, after the word kerchief went out of use, the suffixes -yn- and -k- are combined;
2) the law of analogy (remember the history of the word counselor).
Re-expansion, like simplification, is important in language. If, as a result of simplification, new indivisible bases appear in the language, then as a result of re-decomposition, new suffixes and prefixes appear in it. Thus, thanks to the re-expansion, the suffixes -ener, -Huj-, -ichesk-, prefixes bez(s)-, under-, etc. appeared in the Russian language.
In addition to simplification and re-decomposition, when considering historical changes in the morphemic composition of a word, it is necessary to take into account the process opposite to simplification, which N.M. Shansky proposed to call complication.
Complication is the process of transforming a previously indivisible base into a divisible one. Thus, the nouns echidna and umbrella, which have a segmented base in modern Russian (cf.: malice, malicious; umbrella, umbrella-shaped), previously did not have it. The origin of the word echidna is Old Church Slavonic, dating back to the Greek. echidna, and the word umbrella is a borrowing from the Dutch language (Zondek). These words acquired articulation already on Russian soil according to
logy with suffixal formations (cf., for example: bow, carnation, children, twins), and in the Russian language, as a result of reverse word formation, new lexical units echidna and umbrella appeared over time.
Complication is a process characteristic primarily of borrowed words. It is associated with the action of the law of analogy, on the basis of which elements of units of different origins come together. Thus, the word flask, which was indivisible at the time of borrowing, borrowed from the Polish language, was correlated by the Russian linguistic consciousness with the formation of a parametric and/or evaluative suffix -k- (cf.: piece of paper, book). As a result, the word became distinct, and the word flask, which was absent in the source language, appeared in the Russian language.
The reason for the complication is often folk etymology. It brings together initially unrelated words that seem similar to the speaker in semantic and phonetic terms. Thus, the word colic, borrowed in the second half of the 17th century. from Latin - colica from Greek. kolike > kolon ‘large intestine’, has been correlated with the Russian word kolt.
Complication, finally, is often associated with the appearance of related words along with one or another borrowing. The establishment of derivational connections between words with the same root presupposes the parallel borrowing of these lexical units. For example, the word lecture (Latin in origin) was borrowed from the Polish language and was originally indivisible. The appearance in the Russian language of another borrowed word - lecturer - determined the division of these cognate units.
Thanks to the complication, the language is replenished with new root morphemes. This process plays an important role in the adaptation of borrowed words and their mastery by the Russian language.
A particular historical process of changing the morphemic structure of a word is substitution. It covers a relatively small number of words compared to simplification and refactoring.
Substitution is the replacement of one of the morphemes included in the word with another that is similar to it in formal and semantic characteristics or in one of them. Thus, the Latin word christianus on Russian soil was initially perceived as a substantive formation from the word Christ with the help of the affix -an (anin) and as a result experienced a process of complication: it began to function as a structurally divisible unit. Later, this word began to be used to designate the rural population and was perceived as a derivative of the noun cross. As a result, the root morpheme Christians - peasants was replaced.
Substitution is widespread in vernacular and dialects, where it is associated with folk etymology. The literary language also contains words in which substitution has occurred. In addition to the already mentioned word peasants, substitution is typical, for example, for such lexical units as witness and tit. In the word witness, the root morpheme vid- replaced the original root ved- (ancient Russian съв "кдитл), as a result, a partial narrowing of the semantics of the word occurred. According to etymologists, in the word tit, even in the common Slavic era, the onomatopoeic root zin- as a result of folk etymological convergence with the word blue was replaced by a root with color semantics: zinitsa - tit. As we see, the main reasons causing the substitution - analogy and folk etymology - lead to the convergence of words with different roots in the language.
In the process of historical development of a language, the morphemic composition of a word undergoes one or another change. These changes mainly come down to such phenomena as simplification, re-decomposition And complication.
1. Simplification- this is such a historical change in the morphemic composition of the stem of a word, as a result of which a previously derived stem becomes non-derivative, indivisible into morphemes (= root) 2. When simplified, the root seems to absorb other morphemes. For example, in words rowan, work, ring, good, day, east in modern Russian, non-derivative (= root) stems are distinguished rowan-, rabot-, ring-, dob-, day-, east- (cf.: rowan-a, rowan-ov-y, rowan-ov-k-a etc.; work-a, work-nickname, work-a-t etc.; ring-o, ring-to-o, ring-e-va etc.; kind, kind, kind etc. day, day etc.; east, eastern etc.). Initially, these bases were derivatives: for example, the base of the word Rowan historically formed from ripple- (“pockmarked”) using the suffix -in- ; stem of the word Job from slave- (“orphan”, “forced worker”) using the suffix -from- 2 ; stem of the word ring – from colo (“circle”) using the suffix -ts- , stem word Kind – from doba(“suitable”) using the suffix -R- ; stem of the word day - from the root so - (cf.: weave, joint) using the attachment su-; stem of the word East from the root current (cf.: stream, flow) using the attachment sun -.
Simplification occurred, as a rule, in two positions.
1. At the junction of a root and a suffix. For example, word stems haze, tray, scarf are now non-derivative; in the past, they were all formed in a suffixal way. Yes, noun haze arose from the stem of the word mga (“damp, cold fog, very light rain”) and the suffix - l - 1 ; word tray – based on the stem of the word lot (“gutter, flat trough”) and the suffix - OK 2 ; word handkerchief – based on the stem of the word boards (“piece of matter”) and the suffix - OK 3 .
2. At the junction of the prefix and the root. For example, the stem of the word ridiculous divided onto the console Not- and the root is mold - (molded- “beautiful, good”). Now this basis has ceased to be divided, since the word has fallen out of use molded .
Base word lovely historically divided into a prefix pre - and root - flattery - (“cunning, intrigues”). Now it is non-derivative, since the word lovely has acquired a new meaning.
There are three main reasons for simplification:
1. Loss of semantic connection between the derived word and the word, the basis of which served as the generative word. So, for example, the words marriage(marriage) and take in modern language they have lost their semantic connection with each other. Each of these words has its own vocabulary nest (cf.: marriage, marriage, pre-marriage, etc. and br-a-t, you-br-a-t, re-br-a-t etc.). Therefore the word marriage is perceived as root. The same can be said about words spring And native: since the semantic connection between them is lost, the word spring now acts as a non-derivative (cf.: spring, spring-ok, spring-ov-y, etc. and genus, genus, genus, etc.). Violation of the semantic connection between words air And spirit, window And eye, temple And hang led to the simplification of the basic words air, window And temple.
2. Loss of words from the dictionary, the bases of which served as productive words for the formation of words that are now simplified. So, in words oath, fun, benefit, shirt the basics have undergone simplification, since the words have now fallen out of use attack(“to reach something, grab, touch”), baviti(“to hesitate”) lie(“lightness, freedom”), rub(“bad clothes”), the roots of which served as the basis for the formation of the analyzed words. The same can be said about words valor, bad weather, illness, slob, the stems of which are now non-derivative due to the fact that words that existed in the past doble("brave"), weather("bucket"), arc(“strength, health”), ryakha(“dandy”) have disappeared from the modern dictionary.
3. Phonetic changes, which led first to a darkening of the morphemic structure of the word, and then to simplification. Thus, due to the operation in ancient times of the phonetic law, according to which after the prefix about - initial root sound V dropped out, there was a simplification of words such as wrapper(cf.: rev+screw), cloud(cf.: about + cloud), region b (cf.: about+power), convoy(cf.: about+cart), turnover(cf.: rev+gate). Sound changes led to a simplification of the word stem meticulous(instead of precise, where the root is easily distinguished - exactly-), musty(instead of stale, cf.: choke, where the root stands out -dox-).
Simplification helps to enrich the vocabulary of the language. Thanks to simplification, the language is replenished with new words with non-derivative stems. So, based on one root - genus- as a result of the simplification action, new root words were formed: people, nature, breed, spring, harvest, freak etc. Each of these words now has its own related derivative words. For example: people - folk, nationality, populist, populism, democracy, population and etc.; nature – natural, natural history and etc.; spring - spring, spring and etc.; harvest - fruitful, productivity and etc.; freak - ugly, ugliness, ugliness and etc.
2. Re-decomposition- this is a change in the boundary between morphemes in a word, as a result of which the sound element of one morpheme or the morpheme as a whole passes into the composition of another. For example, the word homestead in modern Russian it is divided into morphemes: estate; and historically it was divided: in-the-garden(cf.: plant, garden), prefix that stood out earlier at - and suffix -b-(-b-) became part of the modern root - estates (cf.: estate). Word neighborhood in modern language it has a morphemic composition: vicinity-n-ost-, and in the past it was divided: o-cross-n-ost-(cf.: cross), console O- around("around"). Word negligence negligence-, and in the past: negligence-(cf.: do not save) previously highlighted prefix -Not- and suffix -n- included in the root.
An example of re-decomposition is the movement of thematic vowels of the stem that took place in the past into the composition of the endings. So, for example, in the personal forms of the Old Russian verb the endings were distinguished: know, know, know, know, love, love, love, love; in modern language: you know, you know, you know, you know; love, love, love, love, thematic vowels e And And verb stems moved to endings. We see the same in nouns like wife, which in ancient times had the following endings: wife-m, wife-mi, oh wife-x, and in modern language: wives, wives, oh wives, thematic vowel A the stems of nouns became part of the endings. In both the first and second cases, there was a “reduction of stems in favor of endings.”
b) non-derivative adjectives, where -To- included in root: near To-y, smooth, grief To- oh, thunder To-yy, sting To- ah, gesture To- yay, kike To- oh, chilly To- yay, crepe To- oh, mole To- oh, chalk To- yay, soft To- oh, lie down To- yay, bottom To- y, flat To-th, ed. To- y, res To- yay, rob To- oh sweet To- yay, tone To- oh, fragile To- yay, yay To- yy.
Re-decomposition can occur:
1. Between prefix and root: word appreciation in modern language it is divided into the following morphemes: appreciation, and in ancient times it was divided: appreciation(cf.: know, find out). Previously highlighted prefix at- has now become part of the root. Word sophistication in modern language it is divided: sophistication, and in ancient times: sophistication(cf.: spicy). Standout in the past, prefix from- became part of the modern root sophisticated
2. Between root and suffix: word solemnity now has the following morphemic composition: solemnity, and in the past it was divided: solemnity(cf.: bargaining, celebration). Previously allocated suffix -estv - became part of the modern root celebrations -. Word thoroughness in modern language: thoroughness; in past: sh-a-tel-n-ost(cf.: outdated. diligence- “zeal, diligence”). Previously allocated suffixes -a-, -tel-, -n- included in the root.
3. Between suffixes: nouns hotness And future in modern language they are divided into: hotness, futility, and in the past: hotness, hotness. The previously highlighted suffix - n - merged with the suffix - awn , forming a new suffix - ness , since the words fell out of use hot, future.
4. Between prefixes: verb become weak is currently divided into morphemes: weakened; in the past he was divided; oh-no-strength, since there was a verb become powerless(“weaken, exhausted, deprived of strength”). Previously highlighted prefix O - merged with the console demon -, forming a new prefix obes -.
The reasons for re-decomposition are the same as those for simplification. However, the most important and common is obsolescence of the generating word while preserving other related formations in the language. So, adjective tiny, which now includes the root - tiny- and the suffix - rel -, originally divided into tiny. The re-decomposition occurred as a result of the loss of the generating word - the noun - from the Russian literary language tiny(with suffix - from, cf.: pulp). Noun lord, which now highlights the root power ’- and suffix -elin , originally divided into power'-el-in ruler(“Mr”) using the suffix - in . The re-decomposition occurred as a result of the loss of the generating word - the noun - from the modern Russian language ruler. Adjective silent, now consisting of morphemes silent, originally divided into silent, since it was formed on the basis of an ancient noun silent(“silence”) using the suffix -iv- ; in turn the word silent formed on the basis of molk (“silence”) through the suffix –al -. The re-decomposition occurred as a result of the words falling out of the dictionary of the modern Russian language silent And silent (cf.: dialect silence) .
Re-expansion plays an important role in the development of the word-formation system of the Russian language: thanks to it, the language is enriched with new morphemes - suffixes and prefixes. For example, as a result of re-decomposition, modern suffixes arose - teln - from tel -+-n , -aln - from al -+-n -, -nothing - from - Nick - +-A -, -ny - (-eny -) from - n -(-en -)+-th - etc., prefixes without -(obes -), under -, not without - and etc.
3. Complication is the transformation of a previously non-derivative base into a derivative. As a result of this process, one morpheme (root) begins to be divided into two: a root and a suffix. Thus, complication is the opposite of simplification.
Complication often occurs in borrowed words. There are two cases here.
1. Complication by analogy, under the influence of native Russian words: for example, a noun borrowed from the Dutch language umbrella at the time of its assimilation into the Russian language (beginning of the 18th century) it had a non-derivative stem and suffix -IR- didn't stand out. However, external structural similarity with words like table, leaf led (by analogy) to emphasis in the word umbrella suffix -hic- and root umbrella - (cf.: umbrella, umbrella-shaped).
2. Complication due to the appearance in the process of assimilation of a borrowed word of related new formations on Russian soil, containing the same non-derivative stem. For example, a word that was not derived at the time of borrowing from French engraving under the influence of words that appeared in the Russian language engrave, engraver became derivative and highlighted the suffix -legal- and root grav-. Word agitation under the influence of new words agitate, agitator began to highlight the suffix -ations-. Word lecture due to the appearance of a related word next to it lecturer began to be divided into roots lecture- and suffix -iii-.
4. Morphemic analysis
Articulation is a fundamental concept of morphemic analysis, didactically related to the concept of derivativeness as the central concept of word-formation analysis.
Morphemic analysis – analysis of a word by composition: establishing the morphemic structure of a word (its division), determining the types, meanings and functions of morphemes.
Target morphemic analysis – establish the morphemic composition (morphemic structure) of a word.
The morphemic composition of a word is the totality of all the structural elements that stand out in it. The morphemic composition of a word includes not only materially expressed and zero morphemes, but also interfixes.
Tasks morphemic analysis of a word consists of the following: 1) find out whether a given word is divisible, 2) determine the boundaries between morphemes, 3) identify connections between morphemes in a word.
Morphemic analysis should be performed in a certain order: 1) determine the part-speech affiliation of the word, its changeability/immutability; 2) highlight the ending (materially expressed / zero) and the basis of the inflection; 3) select the root (roots for compound words), determine its type (free / bound); 4) highlight affixes (prefix, root, suffix, postfix, interfix), determine their role (word-forming / formative).
Consequently, the ultimate goal of morphemic analysis is to determine what significant parts (morphemes) a word consists of, to identify their meaning and functions.
An important role in the development of the methodology of morphemic analysis was played by the works of I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay, F.F. Fortunatova, V.A. Bogorditsky, G.O. Vinokura, E.A. Zemskoy, V.V. Lopatina, A.N. Tikhonova and others.
The material structure of a word changes over time. These changes also affect the morphemic composition of both the stem and the entire word. Science distinguishes three main types of historical changes in the morphemic structure of a word: a) simplification, b) re-decomposition, c) complication.
Simplification (the term of V. A. Bogoroditsky, a famous Russian linguist) is the transition of a word from a more complex composition of morphemes to a simpler one as a result of combining two morphemes into one. Thus, in the word rubakh, the ancient root rub- is no longer recognized separately from the ancient suffix -akh-, the root and suffix have merged into one new root morpheme rubah-; in the word red, the ancient root kras- and the suffix -н- that followed it are no longer recognized; these two morphemes have merged into one - krasn-.
Re-decomposition (the term of V. A. Bogoroditsky) is a movement of the boundary between morphemes, as a result of which the appearance of the morpheme changes, and sometimes its function. Thus, in ancient times, the plural case forms rivers, rivers, rivers had a border between the base and the ending after the sound [a], but now the border passes after the sound [k]. In the word clearly, the boundary between the prefix and the root passed before the sound [a] (я), now it passes before the sound [n] (compare the words clearly, clearly, entertainingly, etc.). Re-decomposition can lead to the emergence of new, previously non-existent morphemes, for example, the suffixes -enie, -inc-, -teln-, etc.
A complication is the appearance of a boundary between morphemes in a place where there was none; this is the division of one morpheme into two. The word Zonnedek - umbrella, borrowed from the Dutch language - was divided by the consciousness of Russian people into umbrella and ik under the influence of Russian words like little house, leaf and the like. In the words academician, chemist, the suffix -ik stands out noticeably (cf. academy, chemistry). By analogy, we tend to highlight the same suffix in the words botanist, logician, comedian, physician, tragedian, physicist, etc. But etymology does not seem to provide grounds for this. Borrowed integral fundamentals are already “complicated” on the basis of the Russian language.
Word formation.
Methods of word formation are those actions that the language performs when producing a new word. Let's consider the main method - affixation
The method of affixation consists of attaching affixes to the roots (or bases). Affixes are morphemes with grammatical meaning. Affixes do not exist in languages outside of words; they accompany the root, serving for word formation and inflection. Based on their position relative to the root, affixes can be divided into prefixes, which come before the root, and postfixes, which come after the root.
There are languages that do not use prefixes (Turkic, Finno-Ugric), and express all grammar with postfixes; in such languages, all words begin with a root, which can be followed by a chain of postfixes; other languages prefer prefixes and do not use (with rare exceptions) postfixes; for example, in the Swahili language the verb form wa-ta-si-po-ku-ja [watasi-pokuja] - “if they do not come”, where wa means the 3rd person plural, ta is the future tense, si is negation, ro - convention, ki - verbal prefix - expander of a monosyllabic root and ja [ja] - root with the meaning “to come”. Indo-European languages, to which Russian also belongs, use both prefixes and postfixes, but with a clear preference for the latter; Wed pre-sta-i-tel-n-y, where there is one prefix and four postfixes.
The division of postfixes into suffixes and inflections is not based on their location; It is not necessary that the suffix be behind the root before the inflection, and the inflection is at the end of the word, for example in German Kind - “child”, Kinder - “children”, and Kinderchen - “children”, where -er is plural inflection, and -chen - suffix with the meaning of diminutive; Wed in Russian “reflexive forms”, where the inflection does not end the word, and behind it there is still a reflexive suffix -sya, which does not change by case: workers, workers, workers, etc.
In addition to prefixes and suffixes as such (which is most often found in the languages of the world), there are also other types of affixes.
1) Interfaces are service morphemes that do not have their own meaning, but serve to connect roots in complex words. They are used exclusively in word-formation function. These are, for example, the connecting vowels in Russian: lob-o-trya, sheep-e-bull, kash-e-var, blood-o-drinker, or the German “connecting consonant” -s- in such cases as: Ort -s-kunde - “local history”, Alter-s-heim - “nursing home”, where in masculine and neuter words (der Ort, das Alter) the connective -s- goes back to the inflection of the genitive case (des Orts, des Alters) .
2) Confixes - combinations of two affixes: a prefix and a postfix, which, although they represent two morphemes, act together; for example, in German verb forms: loben - “to praise” and ge-lob-t - “praised”, where the prefix ge- and postfix -t “surround” the root and together form the word - this is the same in German as the confixation of the prefix ge- and postfix -en in participial forms: ge-fund-en - “found”, etc. used in the formation of the complex past tense.
3) Infixes are affixes inserted into the middle of the root. This is, for example, in the Tagalog language (Indonesian family of languages) the infix -it- in the examples: s-um-ulat - “write” from sulat - “letter”, p-um-asok - “enter” from pasok - “entrance” "or in the same language the infix -in- to denote a verb in the passive form: s-in-ulat - “was written” or p-in-ataj - “was killed” from pataj - “dead man”; There are similar infixes in other Indonesian languages.
4) Transfixes are affixes that, breaking a root consisting of only consonants, themselves break and serve as a “layer” of vowels among consonants, defining the word form and formalizing it grammatically, i.e., they have a certain grammatical meaning. This phenomenon is characteristic of Semitic languages (Hebrew, Akkadian, or Assyro-Babylonian, Phoenician, Arabic).
5) In many languages, zero affixes play an important role (0 as we already discussed above in connection with the concept of a negative form). A zero affix is the absence of an affix in one form of a paradigm when there are affixes in other forms of the same paradigm.
Thus, for the word horn, zero inflection is an indicator of the nominative singular, since all other singular cases and all plural cases have positive inflections. For short adjectives, for example beautiful, zero inflection shows the masculine gender and the singular (there is no case in this case, since short adjectives in Russian are not inflected). In the declension of names in Turkic languages, the zero affix is an indicator of the singular for all cases, which is opposed to the postfix -lar (with its phonetic varieties) for the plural (bala - “child”, balaga - “child”, balada - “in the child” and etc.)