Historical changes in the base of the word. Historical changes in word composition and structure

In modern Russian, the main organizing element of word formation is the stem (non-derivative and derivative).

In the process of historical development of the language, the method of forming stems changed, and in some cases the morphological composition of the word also changed: many morphemes lost their role in the composition of the stem of the word. Thus, at the base of the word west, the morpheme lost the meaning of a prefix, and this base became non-derivative. A change in the morphological composition of a word is not obligatory for all stems; it is observed only in isolated cases. Many words in modern language are divided into morphemes in the same way as they were divided in the past. However, in modern language there are many cases when a word has lost connection with the base from which it was formed, or has begun to correlate not with the generating base as a whole, but only with a part of it. In these cases, the morphological composition of the word has changed.

Changes in the morphological structure of a word are caused by the following reasons:

1. A change in the lexical meanings of stems, which were previously correlated as productive and derivative. In contrast to Old Russian, there is no semantic correlation between the words wing (birds) and porch (part of the house), since these words have different meanings. Consequently, the stems of the words wing and porch do not correlate as productive and derivative stems, and the stem porch-o is a non-derivative stem.

2. Changing the sound composition of words. The words drag, pillowcase, envelop, shell, cloud are words with the same root, but their morphological structure is different: the first three words are derived stems (po-volok-a, na-voloch-k-a, ob-volak-iva-t), the last two words became non-derivative stems due to a phonetic change in the basis of these words - the loss of sound in (cf.: cloud - enveloping, shell - wire).

3. Loss of correlative generating stems or related words from the dictionary. The words shirt, winch, coachman in modern Russian are examples of non-derivative stems. Correlative derivatives (rub - a piece of fabric, swan - a shaft with a cranked handle, yam - a stop on the Yamskaya road) have dropped out of the dictionary of the modern Russian language.

4. The influence of the morphological structure of words of a productive type on the morphological structure of words of unproductive types, or etymologically isolated. The complex foreign word umbrella was interpreted first as a root word, and then by analogy with the words ponytail, mouth, etc. began to be divided into the non-derivative base umbrella- and the suffix -ik.

All these phenomena in the history of the morphological composition of a word are called simplification, re-decomposition and complication of the base.

Simplification is the transformation of the derived stem of a word into a non-derivative one, the loss of the word’s division into morphemes.

Thanks to simplification, the language is enriched with non-derivative, root words, and forms new lexical centers of word formation (cf.: sing - ripe, etc. - haste - hasty, etc. - success - successful, etc.). On the other hand, the result of simplification is the transition of word-forming suffixes to the category of unproductive, and sometimes their complete disappearance. In the stems of the words dobry-y, old-y, which are non-derivatives in modern Russian, the suffix -r- is not isolated; suffix in the word brother -r- fell out(cf. brotherhood in Ukrainian).

The bases of the words palace, red, shame were simplified and became non-derivative because in the process of use these words lost their connection in meaning with the words on the basis of which they were formed: palace - courtyard, red (color) - beauty, shame - vigilant.

The simplification of the bases of the words privilege, petal, necessary, expressed in the transition of these words into non-derivatives, is explained by the fact that in the modern Russian literary language there are no generating bases correlative with them: privilege - lzya (cf. impossible), petal - petal, necessary - need .

The bases of the words deceased, oar, motley underwent phonetic changes, lost contact with the generating bases and ceased to be divided into morphemes (cf. deceased - asleep, oar - to carry, motley - to write).

The reasons causing the simplification of the fundamentals can intersect and appear simultaneously. Thus, the lack of correlation between the bases sound - ringing, core - food - poison, ties - knot - union - language is the result of not only a semantic gap between these words, but also the result of phonetic changes in the bases of these words.

Re-decomposition is a redistribution of morphemes within a word, leading to the fact that the base, while remaining derivative, identifies other morphemes in its composition.

From the point of view of living word-formation connections, the bases of the words ardor, liveliness are distinguished by the suffix -part (and not -ost), since the adjectives from which these bases are derived (hot, lively) are not commonly used in modern language. The suffix -nost is derived from the suffix -ost and represents a combination of the suffix -n-, cut off from the base of the adjective, and the suffix -ost.

The formation of the suffix -nost, derived from -ost, is an expression of a peculiar process that accompanies the re-decomposition of the bases. This process consists of the absorption of one word-forming element by another, representing part of the forming base, or the dissolution of such an element in the root. The word udi-lishche is based on the suffix -lish-, which includes the suffix -l-, which belongs to the word udilo, which has been lost in modern language (cf. settlement, gathering).

The process of re-decomposition of stems enriches the language with new word-formation affixes and new word-formation models, which become productive over time.

In this way, new suffixes are most often formed: -nost (essence), -ink- (ardor-ink-a), -ochk- (bone-point-a), -nicha- (carpenter-nicha-t), much less commonly, prefixes (nedo-, nebez-, obez-) as a result of the merger of two prefixes (nedo-look, not without-talent, obez-volet).

Very often they lead to simplification and reorganization of the fundamentals different kinds analogy, which refers to the likening of the forms of one word to the forms of another, grammatically related. By virtue of analogy, unproductive types of word and form formation are assimilated to productive types of words and forms, while losing their derivative nature or their former division into morphemes. A number of forms of modern Russian literary language owes its origin to the action of analogy.

For example, the endings of masculine and neuter nouns -om, -ami, -ah (house-am, sel-am, dom-ami, dom-ah, sel-ah) arose under the influence of the analogy of the corresponding forms of the noun female(book-am - table-am instead of table-om; cf. the preserved form in the adverb serves it right). The result of this analogy was a reorganization of the basis (books instead of books).

The word open, formed from the root vor- (cf. gate, collar - watchman at the gate) through the prefix ot-, was influenced by the word create. The analogy to open - to create led to the fact that the basis of the word open was subjected to re-decomposition and was interpreted as a formation with the prefix o-. As a result of this rethinking of the basis (o-create), a new one arose in the language, independent base word formation (cf. create, create, dissolve, etc.).

The effect of analogy or the appearance of words related to words that have a non-derivative base, in some cases leads to a complication of the base, as a result of which the previously non-derivative base begins to be divided and becomes derivative.

Thus, the word anarchy, which was Greek in origin, had a non-derivative base, but due to the presence of related words anarchist, anarchic, anarchic, etc., its base began to be divided into the non-derivative base anarch- and the suffix -andj-.

In addition to these phenomena in the morphological composition of a word, there is an overlap of morphemes, which occurs when parts of combined morphemes coincide: for example, parts of the stem and suffix (Sverdlovsk + skiy - Sverdlovskiy; Dynamo + ovets - Dinamovets). However, such an overlap does not occur when a prefix and a root are combined (Transamur region, Irtysh region).

Changes in the morphological structure of a word (simplification, re-elaboration, complication) indicate that the morphological structure of a word is a historical phenomenon.

Morphemes have lost their role in the composition of the word stem. Thus, at the base of the word west, the morpheme lost the meaning of a prefix, and this base became non-derivative. A change in the morphological composition of a word is not obligatory for all stems; it is observed only in isolated cases. Many words in modern language are divided into morphemes in the same way as they were divided in the past. However, in modern language there are many cases when a word has lost connection with the base from which it was formed, or has begun to correlate not with the generating base as a whole, but only with a part of it. In these cases, the morphological composition of the word has changed.

Changes in the morphological structure of a word are caused by the following reasons:

A change in the lexical meanings of stems, which were previously correlated as productive and derivative. In contrast to Old Russian, there is no semantic correlation between the words wing (birds) and porch (part of the house), since these words have different meanings. Consequently, the stems of the words wing and porch do not correlate as productive and derivative stems, and the stem porch-o is a non-derivative stem.

Changing the sound composition of words. Words envelop, pillowcase, envelop, shell, cloud are words with the same root, but their morphological structure is different: the first three words are derived stems ( on-volok-a, on-volok-to-a, about-volak-iva-t), the last two words became non-derivative stems due to a phonetic change in the stem of these words - the loss of sound in (cf.: cloud - enveloping, shell - wire).

The loss of correlative generating stems or related words from the dictionary. Words shirt, winch, coachman in modern Russian are examples of non-derivative stems. Correlative derivatives (rub - a piece of fabric, swan - a shaft with a cranked handle, yam - a stop on the Yamskaya road) have dropped out of the dictionary of the modern Russian language.

The influence of the morphological structure of words of a productive type on the morphological structure of words of unproductive types, or etymologically isolated. The complex foreign word umbrella was interpreted first as a root word, and then by analogy with the words ponytail, mouth, etc. began to be divided into the non-derivative base umbrella- and suffix -ik.

All these phenomena in the history of the morphological composition of a word are called simplification, re-decomposition and complication of the base.

ODA about- this is the transformation of the derived stem of a word into a non-derivative one, the loss of the word’s division into morphemes.

Thanks to simplification, the language is enriched with non-derivative, root words, and forms new lexical centers of word formation (cf.: sing - ripe, etc. - haste - hasty, etc. - success - successful, etc.). On the other hand, the result of simplification is the transition of word-forming suffixes to the category of unproductive, and sometimes their complete disappearance. In the stems of the words good-y, old-y, which are non-derivative in modern Russian, the suffix -r- is not isolated; in the word brother the suffix -r- dropped out (cf. in the Ukrainian language brotherhood).

Word Basics palace, red, shame were simplified and became non-derivative because in the process of use these words lost their connection in meaning with the words on the basis of which they were formed: palace - courtyard, red(color) - beauty, shame - vigilant.

Simplifying basic words benefit, petal, necessary, expressed in the transition of these words into non-derivatives, is explained by the fact that in the modern Russian literary language there are no generating bases correlative with them: privilege - lzya (cf. impossible), petal - petal, necessary - need.

Word Basics deceased, oar, motley underwent phonetic changes, lost connection with generating stems and ceased to be divided into morphemes (cf.: deceased - asleep, oar - to carry, motley - to write).

The reasons causing the simplification of the fundamentals can intersect and appear simultaneously. Thus, the lack of correlation between the fundamentals sound - ringing, core - food - poison, bonds - knot - union - tongue is the result not only of a semantic gap between these words, but also the result of phonetic changes in the stems of these words.

Re-decomposition is a redistribution of morphemes within a word, leading to the fact that the base, while remaining derivative, identifies other morphemes in its composition.

Word Basics fervor, liveliness from the point of view of living word-formation connections, the suffix -part (and not -ost) is distinguished, since the adjectives from which these stems are formed ( hot, lively), are not commonly used in modern language. The suffix -nost is derived from the suffix -ost and represents a combination of the suffix -n-, cut off from the base of the adjective, and the suffix -ost.

The formation of the suffix -nost, derived from -ost, is an expression of a peculiar process that accompanies the re-decomposition of the basics. This process consists in the absorption of one word-forming element by another, representing part of the formative stem, or in the dissolution of such an element in the root. At the heart of the word fishing rod is the suffix -lish-, which includes the suffix -l-, which belongs to the word fishing rod, which has been lost in modern language (cf. fortification, gathering).

The process of re-decomposition of stems enriches the language with new word-formation affixes and new word-formation models, which become productive over time.

New suffixes are most often formed in this way: -nost (essence), -ink- (dust-ink-a), -point- (bone-point-a), -nitcha- (joiner-nothing), much less often prefixes (under-, not without-, without-) as a result of the merger of two prefixes (under-look, not without talent, deprive).

Very often, various types of analogy lead to simplification and reorganization of the basics, by which we mean the likening of the forms of one word to the forms of another, grammatically related. By virtue of analogy, unproductive types of word and form formation are assimilated to productive types of words and forms, while losing their derivative nature or their former division into morphemes. A number of forms of modern Russian literary language owe their origin to the action of analogy.

For example, the endings of masculine and neuter nouns -om, -ami, -ah (house-am, village-am, house-ami, house-ah, village-ah) arose under the influence of the analogy of the corresponding forms of a feminine noun (book-am - table-am instead of table-om; cf. the preserved form in the adverb rightly so). The result of this analogy was a reorganization of the basis (books instead of books).

The word open, formed from the root vor- (cf. gate, collar- watchman at the gate) through the prefix from-, was influenced by the word create. Analogy open - create led to the fact that the basis of the word open was subjected to re-decomposition and was interpreted as a formation with the prefix o-. As a result of this rethinking of the basis (o-create), a new, independent base of word formation arose in the language (cf. to create, to create, to dissolve etc.).

The effect of analogy or the appearance of words related to words that have a non-derivative base, in some cases leads to a complication of the base, as a result of which the previously non-derivative base begins to be divided and becomes derivative.

Thus, the word anarchy, which was Greek in origin, had a non-derivative basis, but due to the presence of related words anarchist, anarchist, anarchic and others, its stem began to be divided into the non-derivative stem anarch- and the suffix -иj-.

In addition to these phenomena in the morphological composition of a word, there is an overlap of morphemes, which occurs when parts of combined morphemes coincide: for example, parts of the stem and suffix ( Sverdlovsk + skiy - Sverdlovsk; Dynamo + sheep - Dynamo). However, such an overlap does not occur when a prefix and a root are combined ( Zaamurye, Irtysh region).

Changes in the morphological structure of a word (simplification, re-elaboration, complication) indicate that the morphological structure of a word is a historical phenomenon.

In the process of historical development of the language, some prefixes and suffixes merged with the root and ceased to stand out. For example, words gift And feast were once formed using the suffix -R from verbs give And drink. In modern language this suffix is ​​no longer distinguished, and we distinguish the roots gift- And feast-. New verbs are now formed from these nouns: present And feast.

Word ring was previously perceived as a diminutive formed with the suffix -ts- from colo- ‘circle, wheel.’ Word colo left the language, that's why ring lost its diminutive meaning, the former suffix -ts- ceased to be distinguished, now we see the root in this word ring-.

Sometimes it is useful to highlight former morphemes to explain the spelling of a word. For example, in words trade And celebration in modern language stand out different roots, but in ancient times these words came from the same root bargain-: at the auction, traditionally, folk festivities were held and it was festive. Hence celebration. Knowing the historical connection of these words, we will not be mistaken in writing an unstressed vowel in the word celebration. In words climb And shooting we write a solid sign after previously distinguished prefixes, although in modern language these former prefixes are already part of the root.

Why are words formed in a language? The formation of new words can have several purposes: 1 – ‘collapse’ of syntactic constructions into one word (switch - something that is used to turn off); 2 - moving to another syntactic position of one or another meaning . For example, verbs form nouns with the meaning of action (singing), which can act as the subject of a message ; expression of the stylistic characteristics of a word (sky - heaven) and emotional-evaluative components of meanings ( book - little book).

Basic concepts of word formation:.

1. 
   Derivative of bases a - a basis formally formed and motivated in meaning by another basis: table-ik¬ table('small table").
2. 
   Producing basis - the basis closest in form to the derivative, through which the derivative basis is motivated and interpreted.

3. Means and method of word formation

• 
  prefix or suffix
• 
  reduction of the productive stem as a means of creating a new word: specialist- specialist;
• 
  addition of components of producing bases with their possible reduction: supermarket- Department store;
• 
  changing the part of the word: adj . Tea- nounTea room.A word-forming morpheme and an operational means can be used at the same time, for example: earth + do- farmer (addition of generating stems + suffix).

1. Methods using word-forming morphemes :
1) prefix: do ® re -do,
2) suffixal: blue® syn-ev -A, wash® wash-Xia , proud® proudAnd -th-Xia ,
3) prefix-suffixal: cup ® under -cup-Nick , run® once -run-Xia , 2. Methods using operating funds word formation:
1) abbreviation: deputy® deputy,
2) addition:
a) complex method: sofa + bed® sofa bed,
b) addition: forest + steppe® forest(o)steppe, A type of addition is sometimes separated into an independent method fusion : crazy® crazy.

c) addition with abbreviation (abbreviation): wall newspaper® wall newspaper, Ministry of Foreign Affairs® Ministry of Foreign Affairs, A abbreviations are also words formed by combining the initial part of the first word with the unabridged second ( Sberbank) and the beginning of the first word with the beginning and/or end of the second ( trade mission® trade mission).

3) transition of a word from one part of speech to another; the main type of such transition is substantivation - transition of an adjective or participle into a noun: dining room.

3. Mixed methods - methods in which word-forming morphemes and operational means of word formation are used simultaneously: order + wear® order(o)nos-ets (addition producing bases + suffixation).

Type cases run® run, called suffixless word formation, belong to the suffix method. The suffix here, as already mentioned, is zero: run-Æ ¬ run.

WITH a word-formation model is a model for creating a new word that lives in the Russian language and is understandable to everyone. Thus, the word formation model _____ oval means “a little, slightly”: whiteish, sourish, roughish.

Methods of forming independent parts of speech

1. prefix, in which nouns are formed from nouns: city® suburban,
2. suffixal, in which nouns are formed from
- nouns: table® table-ik,
- adjectives: blue® sin-ev-a, blue-Æ,
- verbs: run® run-relative, run-Æ,
- numerals: one hundred® hundred-n-i, two® twins,
- adverb: together® accomplice, Why® why-chk-a,
3. prefix-suffixal, in which nouns are formed from
- nouns: window® under-window-nick,
- verbs: serve® co-servant,
- adjectives: polar® for-polar-j-e,
4. addition, including reduction: forest + steppe ® forest(o)steppe, Moscow State University ® Moscow State University,
5. truncation: specialist ® specialist,
6. substantivization, in which the transition to nouns of adjectives and participles occurs: ice cream, manager (substantivized participles, as already mentioned, can be considered suffixal derivatives of verbs),
7. addition with suffixation: Earth + do® farmer(e)man.

Adjective

1. prefix, in which adjectives are formed from adjectives: huge® pre-huge,
2. suffixal, forming adjectives from
- adjectives: blue® blue,
- nouns: autumn® autumn,
- verbs: read® reader,
- numerals: two® double,
- adverb: inside® interior,
3. prefix-suffixal: shore® coastal,
4. addition: Russian + English ® Russian-English;
5. addition with suffixation: crooked+ side ® crooked side-Æ- th

Numeral

Numerals are formed from numerals in the following ways:
1. suffixal: two® twenty, five® fifteen, two® dv-oj-e,
2. addition: three + one hundred ® three hundred;

Pronoun

Pronouns are formed from pronouns by prefixes neither-, not-, some- and suffixes -this, -either, -something: Who® no-one, no-who, someone, anyone, anyone;

Verb

1. prefix - from verbs: run® run,
2. suffixal, in which verbs are formed from
- verbs: reread® re-read, wash® wash,
- adjectives: red® redness, prominent® visible,
- nouns: partisans® partisan-i-t, crowd® crowd,
- numerals: two® dvo-i-t (‘split in two’),
- interjections: Oh® ah-ah-t,
3. prefix-suffixal, with which verbs are formed from
- nouns: shadow® behind-the-shadow, bankrupt® about-bankrupt-i-t-sya,
- adjectives: straight® you-straight,
- numerals: three® u-tro-i-t,
- verbs: be in love® dislike, jump® jump, call® re-call-iva-t-sya;
4. addition: work+ arrange® labor(o)arrange,
5. addition with the addition of a word-forming morpheme: world + create® u-world(o)create;

Adverb

1. prefix - from adverbs: for a long time® not long, How® somehow,
2. suffixal, with which adverbs are formed from
- nouns: winter® winter,
- adjectives: good® good-oh,
- numerals: three® tr-times,
- verbs: lie® lying down
- adverb: Fine® good, How® somehow,
3. prefix-suffixal, with which adverbs are formed from
- adjectives: new® in a new way, old® from a long time ago,
- nouns: top® in-top-y,
- numerals: two® in two,
- verbs: catching up® catch-up, jump¬ in-jump-Æ
- adverb: for a long time® in debt,
4. addition with suffixation: by+ walk® in passing.

Forming words by moving from one part of speech to another

It is necessary to understand that the transition of a word from one part of speech to another is a historical process. From point of view current state language (from a synchronic point of view), all these words are formed using a suffix or prefix and a suffix that is homonymous to the ending of a noun, adjective or numeral, as well as to the formative suffix of the participial form of the verb, for example: zim-oh ¬ winter, lezh-a ¬ to lie, on -empty ¬ empty.

The transition process is active during the formation of function words. So, for example, we can name the following groups of prepositions formed by transitions from other parts of speech:
- denominative: in view, in the form, during, at the expense of, regarding,
- verbal: thanks, including, excluding, starting, after,
- adverbial: near, around, opposite, into the distance.

Word-formation analysisis carried out according to the following scheme:
1. Put the word under study in the initial form (for participle and gerund - infinitive).
2. For the word under study, select a motivating word (words) that is closest in form and related in meaning to the word under study; explain the meaning of a derived word through the meaning of the generating word(s); highlight the researched and producing (producing) bases.
3. In the word under study, highlight the means of word formation if the word is formed by a prefix and/or suffix.
4. Indicate the method of word formation.
5. Indicate the processes accompanying word formation, if any:
- alternation of vowels and consonants,
- truncation of the productive basis,
- interfixation,

When parsing words, you need to pay attention to the following.

1. N Word formation and morphology should not be confused. Thus, one cannot describe the past tense of a verb, participle or gerund as words formed from an infinitive (for example, read, reading, reading from read). IN in this case we are dealing with forms of the same verb, that is, with the same word. It is to avoid errors of this kind that the word being studied is first put in its initial form.

The productive base must also be in the initial form (for example, window sill - window, and not * under the window), the only exceptions being cases of fusion (crazy - crazy) and substantivization (student noun ¬ studentprikh.).

2. P During word-formation analysis, it is necessary to correctly determine the generating stem - the motivating stem that is closest in form. An analysis in which the initial not derivative word word-formation chain, and not the direct producer of the word under study. So, for example, for the word steamship, its generating basis will be the word steamer, and not the words steam and walk. The means of forming the word steamboat is the suffix -n-, the method is suffixation.

PExamples of word-formation parsing:
1) excess
excess ¬ superfluous; excess - ‘something superfluous’;
way of word formation - suffixation,
the process that accompanies word formation is truncation of the stem.
2 ) snow scooters - form of the noun snow scooter
snow(o)katÆ ¬ snow + ride, snow scooter - ‘what one rides on in the snow’
way of word formation - addition with suffixation,
processes accompanying word formation:
- interfixation
- truncation of the verb stem.

Reflection of the morphemic composition of a word and its word-formation relations in dictionaries

There are special private (aspect) dictionaries that reflect morphemic composition words and their word-formation derivation. To work with the morphemic composition of a word, there are dictionaries that describe the compatibility and meaning of the sea (A. I. Kuznetsova, T. F. Efremova “Dictionary of morphemes of the Russian language”, T. F. Efremova “ Dictionary word-formation units of the Russian language").

Word-formation relations between words are reflected in word-formation dictionaries, the most complete of which is “Word-formation dictionary of the Russian language” by A. N. Tikhonov.

In these dictionaries, non-derivative words are arranged alphabetically, to which word-formation chains are built, taking into account all derivatives of this non-derivative stem. Non-derivative word with all its derivatives is called a word-forming nest. As an example, let us give the word-formation nest of the word funny:

Comprehensive information about the word is contained, for example, in the “Reference Dictionary of the Russian Language: spelling, pronunciation, stress, word formation, morphemics, grammar, frequency of word use” by A. N. Tikhonova, E. N. Tikhonova, S. A. Tikhonova .

There are also versions of morphemic and word-formation dictionaries adapted specifically for schoolchildren, for example, “School word-formation dictionary of the Russian language” by A. N. Tikhonov, “School dictionary of the formation of words of the Russian language” by M. T. Baranova, “School dictionary of the structure of words of the Russian language” by Z. A. Potikhi, dictionaries presented in school textbooks.

In the process of language development, various changes occur in the morphemic structure of the word: simplification, re-expansion, complication of the basics. Simplification change in the morphemic structure of a word in which a previously derivative and divisible into morphemes ceases to include affixes in its composition and turns into a non-derivative root. Re-decomposition is a change in the morphemic structure of a word in which the boundaries between morphemes move while maintaining the division of the derived stem into the morphemes rookery←lying←lying.

If this work does not suit you, at the bottom of the page there is a list of similar works. You can also use the search button

Historical changes in the composition and structure of words.In the process of language development, various changes occur in the morphemic structure of the word (simplification, re-decomposition, complication of the basics).

Simplification change in the morphemic structure of a word, in which the previously derivative and divisible into morphemes ceases to highlight affixes in its composition and turns into a non-derivative ( root ). Simplification of the basics leads to the emergence of new roots in the Russian language (merchant←buy, fable←fair, window←eye).

Re-decomposition is a change in the morphemic structure of a word, in which the boundaries between morphemes move while maintaining the division of the derived stem into morphemes (rookery←lying←lying). Re-expansion enriches the Russian language with new affixes.

Complication of the stem change in the morphemic structure of the word, in which a previously non-derivative stem turns into a derivative, i.e. divided into morphemes. The process of complicating the basis is opposed to the process of simplification. It usually occurs in words borrowed from the Russian language (flask←flask, umbrella←umbrella).

PAGE 1

The structure of a word can be considered not only from a synchronic, but also a diachronic point of view, which involves studying the history and origin of the word. With diachronic analysis, the word-formation connections of a word are restored at the moment of its occurrence (it is determined how the word was divided earlier).

During the historical development of a language, the derivational and morphemic structure of a word can change, which is manifested in a change in the number of morphemes, their meanings, and functions. In this regard, it is customary to talk about historical change in the morphemic and word-formation structure of the word.

The main types of historical changes in the composition of a word include simplification, re-decomposition, complication, and decorrelation.

Simplification(the term was introduced by the representative of the Kazan linguistic school V.A. Bogoroditsky) - a historical change in which a word with a derivative base becomes a word with a non-derivative base, that is, it ceases to be divisible. For example: bullfinch– from the point of view of diachronic word formation, it is a suffixal derivative of snow. Bullfinch literally - “arriving from the north along with the first snow.” The word was motivated and articulated ( snow - + -yr), has undergone simplification as a result of the loss of semantic connection with the noun snow and weakening the productivity of the suffix -yr. From a synchronic point of view, the word is non-derivative and indivisible. Cm.:

bullfinch-– from a synchronic point of view simplification

bullfinch-– from a diachronic point of view

There are several reasons for simplification:

1) violation of the semantic connection between the derivative and the generating words (see: witch, etymologically related to after all in the meaning of “knowledge”, derived from lead"to know", literally witch– “knowing, in charge”);

2) violation of the word-formation connection between the derivative and the generating word, loss of productivity by affixes (see: bison– suffixal derivative of tooth meaning “horn, fang”, bison literally - “horned beast”, according to the same model “noun. + suffix -r" formed otter; in modern Russian the suffix -R is not used to form new words according to this model).

3) loss of the producing word by the language (see: haze, etymologically related to myga(mg + -l) in the meaning of “damp and cold snow, drizzling rain);

4) phonetic changes that obscured the morphological structure of the word (see: indivisible and non-derivative from a synchronic point of view musty and original stale from choke, which changed its sound shell as a result of the fall of the reduced ъ and stuns d before X).

Re-decomposition(I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay was one of the first to note and characterize this process) - such a change in the morphemic structure of a word, in which in synchronous word formation, as in diachronic, the word continues to be divided into morphemes, but is divided somewhat differently than it was earlier, that is, a redistribution of morphemes occurs. For example, same from the point of view of diachronic word formation, it is a suffixal derivative of the same, which in turn goes back to the word one. With the loss of the producing lexeme in modern Russian language the same initial articulation ( same) changes ( same). Cm.: re-decomposition:

same– from a synchronic point of view

same– from a diachronic point of view

New affixes arise by expansion at the expense of a generating base or by merging two adjacent affixes. This is how suffixes or variants of suffixes arose: - ink(a) (speck of dust, snowflake), -ochk- (bone, blouse), -itel (savior, lord), -lk(a) (stirrer, winnower), -lishch(e) (rod, dwelling), - nits(a) (mill), -ness (hotness, readiness), -teln- (justificatory, tactile), -nitsa(t) (hunt, be lazy) and many more etc.

Complication- a process opposite to simplification, that is, this type of historical change in the morphemic and word-formation structure of a word, in which words with a non-derivative and indivisible base become derivative and divisible. For example, juggler, borrowed by Russian from French V early XIX century (cf.: French. jongleur< lat . joculator“joker, funny man”, suffixal derivative from joculari“to joke, to amuse”), from a synchronic point of view, is motivated by the verb juggle juggle-, suffix -yor and a zero ending, although previously the word was non-derivative and indivisible.

The main reason for the complication The basis of borrowed words is the presence in the Russian language of word-forming morphemes that coincide in sound composition with the corresponding parts of borrowed words, the impact of the word-formation structure of derived words with such morphemes on the structure of historically non-derivative borrowed words. So, juggler divides into the root juggle- and suffix -yor under the influence of unproductive words boyfriend, conductor(borrowed again from the French language, but back in the 16th century). Wed: complication

juggler-– from a synchronic point of view

juggler - jongleur, French) – from a diachronic point of view

Decorrelation(term by N.M. Shansky) - a historical change in the word-formation structure of a word, in which external structure the base of the word remains unchanged, the correlation of the derived word with the generating word changes. For example, the word warrior from a synchronic point of view, motivated by a verb fight and accordingly divides into the root in-, suffix -in and zero ending. From a diachronic point of view, the word is formed from a noun howls“warrior”, subsequently lost, so the derived word entered into a motivational relationship with the cognate verb fight. At the same time, the segmentation of the word has not changed. Wed:

voj-in-– from a synchronic point of view

fight + -in

voj-in-– from a diachronic point of view decorrelation

V oj-i + -in(singularity suffix)

Analysis of a word, which involves comparing its diachronic segmentation and derivativeness with synchronic, identifying historical changes in the morphemic and word-formation structure of the word, the reasons for these changes, is called etymological. Note: if the word has not undergone historical changes, the morphemic, word-formation and etymological analyzes completely coincide.

Etymology as a branch of modern linguistics has the following goals:

Determine in which language and at what historical stage of its development the analyzed word arose;

Establish the primary motivation of the word, for which you need to find the generating word, the word-formation model and the original meaning of the word;

Find out the ways and reasons for changes in the primary semantics and historical morphemic composition of the word.

The direct object of etymology is mainly the so-called “dark words”, in which native speakers do not understand the connection between form and content. In most words existing in modern language, their internal form is clear, that is, we can answer the question “why is it called that?” Definition internal form words are possible because the word as a name, when it appears, is always motivated. By naming this or that object of objective reality, people relate it to other phenomena of the world around them. However, over time, for various reasons, the motivation for the emergence of the meaning of a word may be lost, and then the words begin to function as purely conditional, unmotivated designations: mirror, soldier, week etc. And only etymological analysis restores what was forgotten by the speakers.

All words of the lexical system of a language can be subjected to etymological analysis, the word-formation analysis of which does not provide an answer to what their origin is. These are borrowed words that are not native to the lexical system of the Russian language. (pencil, station, pencil case), these are actually Russian words that have been de-etymologized and changed their morphemic composition (raspberry, bear, victory and etc.).

Only lexemes whose origin is clearly indicated by their word-formation analysis do not require etymological analysis. These are most often words with a “transparent” word-formation structure, created according to word-formation models that are active in modern language (school student, co-author, artist, lioness, astronautics, etc.).

So, for example, the word sunset is still semantically related to the verb roll(the sun has set, rolls across the sky), sunrise– with verbs sprout And walk(the sun is rising, walks across the sky). And here is the noun west lost its semantic connection with the verb fall(we're not talking anymore the sun has set, fallen)4. The connection of the word is also considered lost train with verb ride(probably because ride Now you can not only train)5.

You can build the following series of related words: sunset, roll up, roll, sloping etc.; sunrise– ascend, come in, walk, move and etc.; west– west, Westerner; train– train, road train, electric train etc. Now, comparing related words, we highlight roots and service morphemes: behind-cat-□, sun-move-□, west-□, train-□.