Typology of grammatical categories. Grammatical categories

Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………

1. The main typological differences in the morphological system of the two languages………………………………………………………………………………………….

2. Typology of parts of speech………………………………………………………………

3.Different approaches to the definition of the concept “part of speech”….

4. Typological criteria essential for comparing parts of speech………………………………………………………………………………………..

5. Typology of grammatical categories in two languages……………….

6. Functional differences in the use of forms of voices in Russian and English languages…………………………………………………………

Conclusion……………………………………………………………….

List of references………………………………………………………

Introduction.

Typology is a branch of linguistics that deals with elucidating the most general patterns of different languages ​​that are not related to each other by common origin or mutual influence. Typology seeks to identify the most likely phenomena in different languages. If a certain phenomenon is identified in a representative group of languages, it can be considered a typological pattern applicable to the language as such.

To date, the most developed is the morphological typology of languages. It is based on the way of combining morphemes (morphemics), typical for a particular language. The problem of studying the typology of morphological systems is very relevant in our modern times, in connection with the study of foreign languages ​​and when using a computer.

The subject of our research is English and Russian. The object is the typology of the morphological systems of these languages.

This report examined the main differences in the morphological systems of the two languages, the typology of parts of speech, different approaches to defining the concept of “part of speech”, typological criteria essential for comparing parts of speech, the typology of grammatical categories in two languages, functional differences in the use of voice forms in Russian and English languages.

1.Main typological differencesmorphological system of two languages.

Despite the fact that English and Russian belong to the same family of languages ​​- Indo-European, the typology of their morphological systems as a result of the unique historical development of these languages ​​differs sharply from one another. This can primarily be seen in the morphological structure of words in both one and another language. Thus, in the English language, the overwhelming number of words belonging to the significant parts of speech are single-morpheme formations in which the root morpheme simultaneously acts as a generating stem and as an independent word, as can be seen from the following Table 1.

In contrast to the morphological structure of a word in the English language, significant words in the Russian language usually consist of two morphemes - a root and an affixal, less often of three - a root, a stem-forming suffix that forms the base of the word with the root morpheme, and an affixal morpheme, as can be seen from the following Tables 2.

2. Typology of parts of speech.

Already in ancient times, people paid attention to the fact that the words they used in their native language behave differently in speech. Some words name objects, others - actions, processes, others - qualities, properties of objects. Some words are declined according to cases, others change according to persons and tenses, etc.

These observations, which were noted by ancient Indian and ancient Greek grammarians, gave them the basis for identifying two distinct categories of words - noun and verb. Aristotle (384-322 BC) identified three parts of speech - names, verbs and conjunctions.

In the Hellenistic era, in the 3rd and 3rd centuries. BC e., the so-called Alexandrian school of grammar emerged, which, in the person of its representative Aristarchus of Samothrace (c. 217-145 BC), developed the first classification in history, consisting of 8 parts of speech: name, verb, participle, article, pronoun , preposition, adverb and conjunction. There is no adjective in this classification, which generally reflects the typological feature of the Greek language, in which adjectives had a common declension system with nouns and together with them formed one part of speech called “name”. On the other hand, in this classification the participle is separated into a separate part of speech.

Aristarchus based his classification of parts of speech on two principles: the morphological principle - “a name is an inflected part of speech...”, the semantic principle - “... denoting a body or thing...”, and also took into account the general and particular nature of the subject of speech - “and expressed as general and as particular (general, for example, - man, particular, for example, - Socrates)."

Another Alexandrian grammarian, Dionysius of Thracia (170-90 BC), characterizes the system of tenses in Greek: “There are three tenses - present, past, future. Of these, the past has four varieties - continuous, presenting, pre-completed, unlimited. They have three affinities - the present with the continuous, the present with the previously completed, the unlimited with the future."

Despite the many shortcomings that exist in the system of parts of speech proposed by the Alexandrian grammarians, such as the presence in it of intersecting features characteristic of a name and a verb, this classification has firmly entered into scientific and school use and, with some modifications, is still used today.

3.Different approach to definitionconcept of "part of speech".

The development of linguistic thought, associated with the development of science in general, as well as the increasingly in-depth study of languages ​​of various systems, was the reason that the previous classical system of parts of speech began to be revised.

F.I. Buslaev (1818-1897) distinguished two groups of parts of speech - significant ones, to which he included nouns, adjectives and verbs, and auxiliary parts of speech - pronouns, numerals, prepositions, conjunctions and adverbs. A.A. Potebnya (1835-1891), while maintaining the basic division of parts of speech into significant and auxiliary, included the first adverb, and the second - particles and auxiliary verbs; pronouns occupy a separate place in his system.

A very special classification of words by category was developed by Academician. F.F. Fortunatov (1848-1914). He based his classification on only one criterion - morphological, that is, the presence or absence of a grammatical form, or, as we would now say, the ability or inability of a word to attach certain inflectional morphemes. He divides all words of the language into complete words denoting objects of thought, partial words and interjections.

Complete words can have a form, that is, “the ability of individual words to distinguish from themselves for the consciousness of speakers the formal and basic affiliation of the word.”

Full words are divided into two classes: the class of words with inflectional forms and the class of words without inflectional forms. Words with inflectional forms are divided into: 1) conjugated words, that is, verbs; 2) inflected words, that is, nouns; 3) words that are inflected with gender agreement, that is, adjectives.

In inflected words he distinguishes: a) personal nouns, that is, 1st and 2nd person pronouns; b) impersonal nouns, which include a) nouns-names, that is, words-names, and b) nouns - impersonal pronouns.

In the class of words without changes F.F. Fortunatov includes infinitives, gerunds, as well as indeclinable nouns and adverbs.

However, this classification, based on only one criterion, was not further developed.

4. Typological criteria, essentialto match parts of speech.

In order to be able to establish typological characteristics of several languages ​​at the level of parts of speech, it is necessary to try to find criteria that would be of the most general nature, so that they could be applicable to the maximum number of languages.

Since parts of speech are large groupings or categories into which words existing in a language are distributed, both sides of the word must be reflected in them. From here, two criteria follow for characterizing a word - semantic and formal, or morphological.

The semantic criterion involves classifying a given word into a broad conceptual category. Thus, words with the meaning of objectivity form the semantic category of nouns, words with the meaning of attribute, properties of an object form the semantic category of adjectives, etc. This criterion was established long ago and serves as one of the differential signs of identifying parts of speech in languages.

The morphological criterion is used to assign a given word to a certain category based on its morphological characteristics. So, for example, the presence of a declension paradigm indicates that a word with such a paradigm belongs to the category of nouns if this morphological feature coincides with the semantic feature of objectivity. If the presence of a declension paradigm coincides with the semantic sign of quality, property, then this word should be classified as an adjective, etc.

In addition to these basic properties of meaning and form, a word is characterized by its ability to function in speech, in a sentence. It turns out that not all words in a language can perform identical functions in a sentence. Thus, words with an objective meaning, that is, nouns, usually lack the ability to function as predicate sentences, that is, to predicate. From the normative course of grammars it is known that the main function of the subject noun is to control the predicate and object; The main function of the verb is predication, that is, the attribution of the content of a statement to reality, expressed in a sentence. The main function of an adverb is to characterize the predicate or definition.

Therefore, as the third criterion for determining the part of speech, we consider it necessary to name the function of the word in a sentence, or the functional criterion.

By analyzing different categories of words, we can easily see that not all words can be grammatically combined with each other. Thus, adverbs, when combined with adjectives and verbs, are not combined with either nouns or pronouns. For example, an adverb goes well with verbs (writes well, dances well, etc.), but does not combine at all with nouns and even with adjectives (cf.: “good house,” “good red,” etc.). The English adverb very also does not combine with the noun - “very house, etc.

The combinability of words becomes especially important in those languages ​​where morphological indicators are poorly developed. Thus, in the Chinese language, with its widely developed homonymy of words, one of the criteria for classifying words as nouns can be compatibility with so-called counting words, which occupy a position between a numeral and a noun; Wed: san ben shu - three books, letters, three root book. The countable noun ben is the root, showing that the word shu is the noun book. The compatibility criterion is widely used to distinguish the two main parts of speech of the Indonesian language - nouns and predicates. Thus, nouns in this language are not combined with the negative word tidak - not, with which predicates (process and qualitative words) are combined. Therefore, this criterion should be included among the criteria used to determine the typology of parts of speech.

Finally, for each part of speech it is possible to identify a word-formation paradigm unique to it. Thus, in the Russian language we can name a number of word-forming affixes, the presence of which indicates that the given word refers to a noun; Wed affixes -schik in the words yamshchik, naturschik, etc., classifying these words not only as nouns, but also signaling their grammatical gender, and -tse in the words sun, saucer, etc., classifying these words as nouns with an indication on their belonging to the neuter gender,

In English we also find word-forming affixes that classify a given word as a noun; cf.: -ship in the words friendship - friendship, kinship - kinship; -ment in the words arrangement - arrangement, nourishment - food, etc.

Therefore, the system of word-forming affixes should also be taken into account as one of the criteria for identifying parts of speech.

From the above, the following criteria for identifying parts of speech in typological terms follow: 1) semantic criterion - classifying a given word as a broad conceptual category; 2) morphological criterion - the presence of materially expressed morphological categories; 3) syntactic criterion - the function of a given word in a speech chain; 4) compatibility criterion - the ability of words of the given part of speech to be combined with words of other parts of speech; 5) word formation criterion - the ability of words of a given part of speech to form new words of a certain type.

Returning to the parts of speech in Russian and English, we should note that, despite significant morphological and syntactic differences in the structure of these languages,
becoming parts of speech in them turns out to be largely similar,
as can be seen from the table below:
Russian language English language

1.Noun

2.Adjective

3.Numeral name

4. Pronoun

6.Adverb

7.Preposition

9.Particles

10. Interjections

11. Article

12. Linking verbs

However, despite the relative similarity of parts of speech in composition in both languages, a deeper acquaintance with them indicates a significant difference between them. This difference primarily lies in the divergence in the composition of grammatical categories and the means of their expression in both languages.

Noun. The noun in the Russian language is characterized by the presence of three grammatical categories: 1) the category of case, expressed by the declension paradigm, consisting of six cases; 2) the category of number, consisting of two numbers - singular and plural; 3) categories of grammatical gender, representing three genders - masculine, feminine and neuter, having a corresponding morphological expression.

Unlike Russian, a noun in English is characterized by the presence of two grammatical categories: I) the category of number, consisting of two numbers - singular and plural; 2) the category of determinativity (certainty - uncertainty), expressed by articles in preposition.

Adjective. An adjective in Russian is characterized by the presence of agreement with a noun in gender, number and case and a category of degree of quality.

Unlike Russian, an adjective in English does not have agreement with a noun and in this regard approaches languages ​​of a completely different type - agglutinative ones, for example Turkic, in which the lack of agreement with a noun is typological in nature.

At the same time, in English, as in Russian, there is a morphologically expressed category of degree of quality.

Verb. The verb in the Russian language is characterized by the presence of seven grammatical categories: 1) the category of aspect, expressed by morphological forms of the imperfect and perfect form; 2) the category of time, which finds its expression in the forms of five times - three forms of imperfect time and two forms of perfect time;

4)categories of mood, represented by the forms of three moods
- indicative, imperative and subjunctive or conditional
desirable; 5) category of person expressed by personal endings
mi; 6) categories of number expressed by personal endings; 7) categories of grammatical gender in singular forms of the past tense.

The English verb system presents the following grammatical categories: I) the category of time, expressed by three forms of time - present, past and future; 2) the category of mood, represented by six morphologically expressed forms; moods - indicative, imperative, subjunctive I, subjunctive II, presumptive and conditional; 3) category of voice, which has a morphological expression in the form of forms of active and passive voice; 4) category of appearance, represented by forms, of two types - general appearance and long-term appearance; 5) the category of temporal reference, represented by perfect forms; b) category of person, expressed in the present tense by the morpheme -(e)s and zero morphemes in other persons; 7) category of number.

5. Typology of grammatical categoriesin two languages.

Case category. The category of case is understood as a grammatical category, which represents the unity of meaning of the relationship of the designated object to other objects, actions, features and means of its material, linguistic expression.

The real form of expression of this category is the case form, or case form, which is a morpheme consisting of a certain scale, which, together with the root morpheme, gives a certain content to the word. The set of case forms that make up a certain system of changes forms a declension.

The number of cases is not the same in different languages, and this fact can be considered as one of the criteria for the typological characteristics of the morphological system of a given language, since the presence or absence of cases is associated with the presence, absence or weak development of prepositions. So, for example, in the Finnish language, where the number of cases of nouns is 14, prepositions are very few. In English, with its limited case system, the number of prepositions is significant. There are languages ​​in which the case system in the noun is completely absent, as, for example, in Bulgarian, Italian, and French.

Considering the meaning of each individual case as a special grammatical category, we see that the eye is complex in nature and consists of a number of smaller meanings, which, however, cannot be further expanded. For example, one of such meanings can be called objectivity, since the category of case is characteristic of nouns denoting objects and phenomena. Another meaning can be the belonging of a noun to a certain grammatical gender. The third meaning is the expression of number - singular or plural. The fourth meaning can be called animateness or inanimateness, which receives its expression in one form or another, etc.

Following prof. E.I. We call Schendels semami. So, the concept of seme is understood as a minimal, further indivisible element of grammatical meaning."

In the Russian language, the category of case is characterized by the presence of the following semes: objectivity, gender, number, animateness/inanimateness. In addition to the semes that characterize the meaning of the case in general, each of the cases existing in the Russian language is characterized by a number of its own semes, peculiar only to it. For example, the accusative case is characterized by the seme “direction of action.” One of the semes of the genitive case is the seme “belonging”, etc.

The question of the category of case in the English language is still controversial. Depending on the author's approach to this problem, the English language was endowed with a different number of cases. Thus, M. Deitchbein, who accepted the understanding of case as a combination of a preposition with a noun in the initial form, believed that there are four cases in English: nominative, genitive, dative and accusative." However, this interpretation of the problem of case seems completely incorrect, since case is understood a word form in which there is a corresponding case morpheme, in the case of English - "s.

The point of view is almost generally accepted, according to which in the composition of nouns there is a class of words that change in two cases - nominative and possessive, formalized by the morpheme "s. This is a class of animate nouns and nouns of the semantic field "time". Thus, from the point of view of the typological characteristics of the category case in a noun, we can note that in English all nouns are divided into two classes: words denoting inanimate objects, which do not have a case category, and words denoting living objects and time, having two cases - general and possessive. the following: objectivity, animation, possessiveness, subjectivity and objectivity.

According to the point of view of A.M. Mukhina, in the noun system of modern English, the category of case no longer exists. It ceased to exist in the Middle English period. The morpheme preserved from the Old English period - es > "s is nothing more than a possessive suffix, which, due to its unambiguousness (seme possessive) and the ability to attach to the root morpheme without modifying it, is agglutinative in nature 2.

If we accept this point of view as fair, which is fully consistent with the current state of the noun system in the English language, then we should conclude that the category of case in the noun system actually does not exist. At the same time, a new grammatical category has emerged in the name system - the category of possessive and, which has its material expression in the form of a morpheme "s", which is of an agglutinative nature.

Number category. In both English and Russian there is a grammatical category of number. This category expresses quantitative relationships that exist in reality, reflected in the minds of speakers of a given language and having morphological expression in the corresponding forms of the language.

The category of number has different expressions in individual languages. So, for example, there are languages ​​in which the category of number is expressed not only by plural, but also by dual and triple numbers; These are some of the Papuan languages ​​on the island of New Guinea.

In the ancient Indo-European languages ​​- Sanskrit, ancient Greek, ancient Germanic languages ​​- the category of number was represented by three numbers: singular, dual and plural. The category of number, as reflecting quantitative relationships between real objects, is naturally tied to a noun.

Semes of singularity are expressed in Russian as materially
expressed morphemes (for masculine nouns -a,
for example tap, barn, stream, etc., for feminine nouns
gender -a, -ya, for example river, flock, for neuter nouns
-o, -e, -mya, for example, window, sea, banner), and zero morphemes
(for most masculine nouns, for example city,
ladies, beast, and some of the feminine gender - door, branch, etc.).
Semes of singularity are also expressed in case morphemes of the word
forms, where they are included along with the semes of case and gender; Wed: at home -
rivers. The word form of house represents the semes of singularity, objectivity, belonging, and masculine gender; presented in the shape of a river
semes of singularity, objectivity, belonging, feminine gender,
Thus, comparing the set of semes in both forms of house -
| rivers, we see that the morpheme -a expresses the masculine gender,
the morpheme -i - semu is feminine.

If we take the word forms city - cities, then we can easily see that the morpheme -th represents the semes of singularity, objectivity, case, gender; in morphemes they represent the semes of plurality, objectivity, and case. Comparing the set of semes, we see that the morpheme -om represents the seme of singularity, and the morpheme -ami represents the seme of plurality.

Unlike the Russian language, the seme of singularity in English is represented only by a zero morpheme, for example: town, play, etc.

The category of plural in both languages ​​is represented by the seme of plurality. In Russian, the seme of plurality is expressed by the morphemes -ы, -и for masculine and feminine nouns (cf. bridges, nuts, paintings, songs, etc.); morpheme –a in masculine and neuter nouns (cf.: cities, houses, a, clouds, etc.). In addition, the seme of plurality is included, together with the semes of case and gender, in the morphemes of word forms; cf.: city - semes of singularity, objectivity, case, gender; cities - semes of plurality, objectivity, case, gender. Thus, we see that the morpheme includes the seme of plurality.

Unlike the Russian language, the seme of plurality in English is represented by number morphemes -s[-s] and -[z], es[-iz] and in a very limited number of nouns by alternating vowels (foot - feet, man - men, etc.). d.). However, due to its limitations, this method cannot be classified as one of the typological features that characterize the category of number in this language.

In both languages, there is a fairly significant group of nouns in which only the plurality seme is represented, which is expressed in the corresponding number morphemes discussed above, and in the forms of agreement of adjectives, verbs and pronouns. Some of these nouns are the same in both languages. These are primarily nouns denoting paired or compound objects:

Scissors

Trousers – trousers

Scales

Some of these nouns do not coincide, and in one language there are nouns in which only the seme of plurality is represented, and in another there are nouns in which there is a contrast between this singularity and plurality.

In Russian, the first group includes nouns:

1. Denoting paired or composite objects:

rake plural h. - rake units h.

swing plural h. - swing units h.

koalas plural h. - box units h.

scabbard pl. h. - scabbard units h.

sled pl. h. - toboggan unit. h.

sleigh pl. h. - sledge units h. hours pl, h, - clock units. h, etc.

2. Denoting mass, substance, material:

firewood plural h. -wood units including yeast pl. h. -yeast units h. perfume plural, h. -wallpaper unit. h. wallpaper many h. -wallpaper units h. ink plural h. -ink units h., etc.

3. Denoting complex actions, processes, states: plural choices. h. - election units. h.. funeral mi. h. - funeral unit, h,

In the English language there are also a number of nouns in which the seme of plurality has been lost and only the seme of singularity remains: barracks - barracks news - news, news works - plant

Above we tried to identify the sum of similar and different features that characterize the category of number in both languages.

For a complete comparative and typological characterization of this category, we need to find out what place this category occupies in the system of both languages.

Turning to the Russian language, we can easily notice a characteristic feature of it - the presence of agreement in number, and not only in number, in adjectives, pronouns, verbs, ordinal numbers, for example: Around noon, a lot of round high clouds, golden-gray, usually appear. with unclear white edges (I.S. Turgenev. Bezhin meadow).

Agreement in number is very clearly expressed in the verb. In the forms of the present tense, number semes are combined with person semes, as a result of which each of the morphemes expressing the present tense of the perfect form or the future tense of the perfect form yu, -u;-eat, -in, -et, -it; ~eat, -im, ~ete, -ite, -yut, -ut, -yat, -ot, clearly express the category of number.

The seme of plurality is contained in the past tense morpheme -i; cf.: Glumov. ...You have raised all the bile in me. What were you offended by in my diary? What did you find new for yourself in it?.. (A.N. Ostrovsky. Simplicity is enough for every wise man).

Thus, we can talk about the deep penetration of the category of number into all parts of speech in the Russian language.

We see a completely different picture in the English language, where the category of number is represented only in the noun system. We find agreement in number only in the demonstrative pronoun, where both pronouns this - this and that - that have plural forms these - these and those - me, forming attributive phrases with nouns with agreement in number:

these houses - these houses; those houses - those houses.

2. In the Russian language, agreement in number is widespread, but in English it is practically absent.

3. Studying the category of number in the Russian language, due to the listed characteristics, presents greater difficulties for the English than studying the same category in English by Russian students.

Category of the genus. The vast majority of modern Indo-European languages ​​are characterized by the presence of a special lexico-grammatical category of gender. It manifests itself in the ability of nouns to liken themselves in expressing the grammatical meanings of the forms of words dependent on them - adjectives, pronouns, etc.

In the Russian language, the category of grammatical gender is widespread. Each noun, as part of its semes that determine its grammatical essence, necessarily has a seme of gender - masculine, feminine or neuter. The category of gender for nouns in the Russian language is of a formal nature, except for nouns denoting people and animals, since it is no longer possible to establish any semantic grounds for the presence of this category in an entire class of nouns, for example, to establish real grounds for the fact that the nouns bridge, warehouse, month belong to the masculine gender, the nouns star, earth, water - to the feminine gender, the nouns - sun, sea, apple - to the neuter gender. Gender semes, together with case and number semes, are included as semantic components in the affixal morphemes of nouns. Thus, the morpheme -еm in the noun month includes semes of objectivity, singularity, masculine gender, case, and the morpheme -ой in the noun star includes semes of objectivity, singularity, feminine gender, case. From a comparison of the set of semes of these two morphemes, it is clear that the difference in gender is expressed by the material difference between the morphemes -em for the masculine gender and -oi for the feminine gender.

The category of grammatical gender in the Russian language has the ability to be combined with forms of agreed words specific for each gender variety - adjectives, ordinal numbers, possessive and demonstrative pronouns, forming free phrases with them; cf.: The blizzard roared madly, but through its roar Filka heard a thin and short whistle (K.G. Paustovsky. Warm bread). A narrow-gauge railway runs near Spas-Kyaepiki (K.G. Paustovsky. Road conversations). Vasya was silent. “Glass is different,” he said. - There is rough, bottle and window. And there is thin, lead glass" (K.G. Paustovsky. Glass master).

As a special characteristic of the morphological structure of the Russian language, absent in other languages, including English, it should be noted the ability of nouns to agree in gender with the forms of the past tense verb; Wed: For a minute the moon came out, and in its dim light loomed a white two-story house in L, Shishkov. Gloomy River).

The category of gender in the Russian language has a formal expression in morphemes. Thus, masculine nouns in the initial form are characterized by the presence of a zero morpheme after the final hard or soft consonant root (cf.: boy, day, rain, maple, etc.) or a morpheme -and after the last vowel root (cf.: stream, swarm, etc.).

Feminine semes are included in the morphemes -a, -i of the initial form or are reflected in the zero morpheme after the soft consonantal root; cf.: cloud, leg, song, door, fortress, etc.

Neuter semes are included in the morphemes -o, e, -mya of the initial form; cf.: face, heart, stirrup, etc.

The feeling of this gender is so strong in the Russian language that it influences the assignment of borrowed words to a certain gender, depending on their design. Thus, inanimate nouns with final -o such as lotto, cinema, bureau, etc. Russian linguistic consciousness were classified as neuter.

The masculine noun metropolitan in its abbreviated form has moved into the class of neuter nouns; cf.: Moscow metro, but Moscow metro.

The category of grammatical gender - masculine, feminine, neuter - was once inherent in nouns of the Old English period. However, the historical development of the morphological structure of the English language has led to the fact that the category of grammatical gender, devoid of morphological means of expression, ceased to exist. It is being replaced by a new category, which Prof. V.N. Yartseva called it the category of activity - passivity."

The essence of this new grammatical category is to distinguish two classes of words in the system of nouns: active nouns and passive nouns.

Active nouns are those which, being the subject of a sentence, control the object. This can include both persons, that is, people, and non-persons, that is, objects that, due to the current situation, are considered active by speakers. Passives are those nouns that, being the subjects of a sentence, do not require an addition. As V.N. Yartseva notes, “the determining factor is the speaker’s attitude to a given fact, generated by a specific situation of objective reality” 2 .

The category of activity - passivity has its material expression in language. Nouns of the active category correlate with the personal pronouns he, she according to their natural gender, with the relative pronoun who - which takes the possessive affix - "s.

Nouns of the passive category correlate only with the personal pronoun it and the relative pronoun which; cf.: She spent a great deal of money on her clothes, which she got from the most fashionable dressmakers in Paris... (W.S. Maugham. The Lion's Skin); “I liked that picture,” she said quietly, “ “I’m sorry you took it back” (H. S. Walpole. A Picture). They are also used in a prepositional phrase with of; cf.: “The first gentleman detached a slip of paper and gave it to her” (J. Galsworthy. Maid in Waiting). “The engine of his car purred into the morning air, while his mind went back to his mother's death and his father's” (G. Gordon, Let the Day Perish).

Summarizing the consideration of the category of gender, we can note that this category, consisting of three genders - masculine, feminine and neuter - constitutes a typological feature of the Russian language, systematically manifesting itself in various aspects of the structure of the language, finding its consistent formal expression everywhere.

In the English language, the ancient category of grammatical gender has disappeared, replaced by a new category - activity - passivity, the belonging of nouns to which is determined by the speaker’s attitude to a given fact, generated by a specific situation of objective reality.

Category of certainty - uncertainty. In many Western European and some Eastern languages, the noun system is characterized by the category of definiteness - indeterminacy. This category has its own morphological design. Most often it is expressed by the article, as in English, German, and French. In other cases, it can be expressed in the form of affixes, so-called postpositive articles, morphemes added to the end of the word of a noun, as in Bulgarian, Romanian and Scandinavian languages; Wed bolg: momche - boy - momcheto - boy (given)

dinya - watermelon - dinyata - watermelon (given)

Swedish: flicka - girl - flickan - girl (given)
hund - dog - hunden - dog (given)
hus - house - huset - house (given)

The content of the category of certainty - uncertainty indicates whether the object denoted by the noun is thought of as belonging to a given class of objects (indefinite article), or as a known object, distinguished from a class of objects similar to it (definite article), or, finally, as taken not in its entirety, but only in some of its part (partitive, or partial, article).

The semantics of the article the includes the following semes: 1) the seme of individualization, thanks to which a noun that has the article the is distinguished from the class of objects similar to it; cf.: “Let"s go into the drawing-room,” said Mrs. Low. “The boy wants to clear the table.” (W.S. Maugham. A Casual Affair); 2) the seme of uniqueness, signaling that the object denoted by the corresponding noun is one of a kind; cf.: the sun - the sun, the earth - the earth (our planet); 3) a demonstrative seme, which is common with the corresponding seme of demonstrative pronouns; cf.: I saw the man, about whom you phoned me last night; 4) a generalization seme, which makes it possible to perceive a given object as a generalized designation of all objects of a given class; cf.: The horse is a domestic animal - A horse (any horse) is a domestic animal.

The semantic structure of the indefinite article a, an includes: 1) a classification seme, relating the object with which it is associated to one or another class of objects; cf.: a dog - dog (any dog); 2) the seme of singularity, since nouns with the indefinite article a, an are always thought of in the singular; cf.: His gaze rested for a moment on Anthony, and the intense dark eyes filled with pity (G. Gordon. Let the Day Perish).

In contrast to English, in Russian the category of certainty - uncertainty does not have a morphological expression and is expressed lexically.

The means used for this purpose are the following: I. Particle - that which is added to the noun which is to be individuated; cf.: “What, I finished in Shilov!” - asks Anna Ivanovna. “The remaining stack was swept away as I left. I told you not to leave without it, so as not to end up.” - “Hay is good - “Hay is rare these days: dry, ringing” (M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin. Laziness on a landowner’s estate).

This particle is especially widely used in Russian dialect speech: ... Pyotr Danilovich laughed loudly from the bottom of his heart: “What a guard... That’s so clever.” - “Oh, father, help me... Do me a favor.” Pyotr Danilovich firmly put him on the ground. “Give me a stick... I can’t bend over,” the old fox, caught in a trap, whined pitifully (V.Ya. Shishkov. Gloomy River).

2. Demonstrative pronouns this, this, this, these or that, that,
then, those for whom in this case the seme of indicativeness is extinguished and
the theme of individualization is put forward.

3. Indefinite pronouns some, some, some,
some.

4. Numeral one, corresponding in its function to the indefinite article a (an); Wed : Fifteen versts from mine
On the estate lives one person I know... (I.S. Turgenev. Burmist).

5. Inverted order, when the subject of the sentence is in postposition to its predicate; cf.: In the very middle
brightly lit courtyard, in the very heat, as they say, lay,
egg to the ground and covering his head with an overcoat, as it seemed to me,
boy (I.S. Turgenev. Kasyan with the Beautiful Sword). Near the sofa stood a girl with pigtails and joyful eyes looking at Potapov... (K.G, Paustovsky, Snow).

Consideration of the category of certainty - uncertainty showed significant differences in this regard in the structure of both languages. The absence of a morphologically expressed category of definiteness - uncertainty in the Russian language deprives a student - a native speaker of the Russian language - of solid support for his native language. And this serves as the cause and source of numerous grammatical errors in students’ speech. To avoid them, it is necessary to study them, carefully compare both languages ​​in terms of this category, and develop a multi-stage methodology for teaching articles at various levels of teaching English.

Quality degree category. The main means of expressing the category of degree of quality are adjectives. In terms of their typological characteristics, adjectives in both languages ​​differ significantly from each other. According to their composition, adjectives in the Russian language are divided into three categories: 1) qualitative adjectives, which directly denote a feature of an object. These adjectives form a number of semantic groups - size (large- small, tall- short); volume (thick- thin); color, taste, temperature, rating, etc.; 2) relative adjectives, denoting a characteristic of an object through its relationship to another object or action. Relative adjectives in Russian are derived from the stems of nouns: stone- stone, spring- spring, Moscow-Moscow etc.; 3) possessive adjectives, denoting that an object belongs to a person or animal; compare: fathers, wife etc.

Unlike the Russian language, English adjectives have only one category clearly represented by vocabulary - qualitative adjectives; cf.: white, large, strong, etc. Relative adjectives are represented by a very limited number of lexical units, a significant part of which belong to the field of science; cf.: biological, chemical, etc.

The absence of a full-fledged category of relative adjectives in the English language is compensated by attributive phrases consisting of two nouns, of which the first noun performs an attributive function, being a definition of the second; compare: stone - stone, a stone wall - stone wall; gold - gold, a gold watch - gold watch; Moscow - Moscow, the Moscow streets - Moscow streets.

Possessive adjectives as a special category are also absent in English. This absence is compensated by phrases in which a Russian adjective corresponds to a noun formalized by the possessive particle "s; cf.: fathershouse- my father's house, wife's bag- my wife's bag, etc.

With regard to the grammatical categories they express, adjectives in both languages ​​also differ significantly: Russian adjectives have the ability to agree with the noun they define in gender, number and case, while English adjectives agree neither in gender, nor in number, nor in have no case; compare: green leaf- green grass- green apple.

The next differential feature of Russian adjectives should be considered the presence of two forms of qualitative adjectives: full and short. Adjectives in their full form perform an attributive function in a sentence (cf.: high tower, thblue sky etc.) and occasionally a predicative function (cf.: ourthe street is wide etc.). Short adjectives perform a predicative function in a sentence; compare:

Queen Tamara lived in that towerBeautiful as a heavenly angel. Like a demon, insidious and evil.

(M.Yu. Lermontov. Tamara) They were silent” used to be like this stupid! (A.S. Griboyedov. Woe from mind)

Short adjectives in the predicative function have agreement in gender and number:

Clouds are rushing, clouds are curling, The invisible moon Illuminates the flying snow; The sky is cloudy, the night is cloudy.

(A.S. Pushkin. Demons)

Unlike the Russian language, in English there is no division of adjectives into full and short. The same form of adjectives is used in both attributive and predicative functions: “Yes, Mrs Hartley, 1 don"t feel too fit.” His voice was thick and heavy (G, Gordon. Let the Day Perish).

As noted by E.B. Gulyga and E.I. Schendels, adjectives have two semes: 1) the seme “quality beyond comparison” and 2) the seme “comparativeness.”

The seme “comparativeness” is present in qualitative adjectives in both languages, but the morphological ways of expressing it are structurally different in them.

In Russian, the comparative degree is formed synthetically, that is, by adding a morpheme to the base of an adjective in the positive degree -her(or -to her) or unproductive morphemes -e or ~she; compare: strong - stronger, full - fuller;old - older, thin - thinner etc. Adjectives in the comparative form do not have any agreement.

Another way of forming the comparative degree is the analytical method, in which the words more or less are used before an adjective in the positive degree; cf.: stronger, stronger, stronger, stronger.

The superlative degree of adjectives is formed analytically, by adding the word most to the positive form of the adjective; cf.: the strongest, the oldest, etc.

In English, there are two series of forms of forming comparative degrees: 1) synthetic forms with morphemes -er for comparative forms and -est for superlative forms. The synthetic method of forming degrees of comparison is used for one-syllable and some two-syllable adjectives; compare: strong - stronger - (the) strongest. Easy - easier - (the) easiest; 2) analytical forms formed by the words more and most, added to the unchangeable forms of the positive degree; compare: intelligent - more intelligent - (the) most intelligent.

In the Russian language there is a special form of the superlative degree, the so-called elative, with the seme “extremeness”, denoting an unrelatively high degree of quality. This form in Russian is formed synthetically - by adding the affixal morphemes -eysh (-im, -aya, -ee) and -aysh (-sh, ~aya, ~oe), if the base of the adjective ends in the back consonants g, k, x cf.: closest, most necessary, smallest, etc. In English, the elative is expressed analytically; cf.: a most beautiful woman.

Category of type and time. Among the various grammatical categories that are distinguished in the system of the verb as a special part of speech; It is necessary to name the category of type and category of time. These two grammatical categories in different languages ​​have far from the same development and a very diverse morphological composition. At the same time, they are closely related to each other, since species-specific morphological indicators simultaneously serve as temporary indicators, and semantically, species-specific meanings are often layered on temporal ones. These categories, like any other grammatical category, which represents the largest lexico-grammatical category of words united by both common semantic and morphological-syntactic features, should be considered as two typological values ​​correlated with each other.

The type category is usually defined as a lexical and grammatical category that conveys the characteristics of the course of an action or process denoted by a verb - repetition, duration, multiplicity, instantaneous action, or effectiveness, completeness-incompleteness, or, finally, ultimateness, that is, the relation of action to its inner limit.

The listed characteristics of the course of an action or process receive a wide variety of morphological or morphological-syntactic expressions in different languages, in connection with which we can talk about different divisions of the category of species. So, for example, we can talk about the initial form, denoting the beginning of the process, if it is expressed in the appropriate form (cf.: Turkish okur oldu - began, began to read, where the form of the initial form is expressed by the stem of the indicative verb and the personal form of the verb olmak - to be ), about the continuous form, as, for example, in the English form am writing, etc.

In the Russian language, the main species differences pass along the line of expressing the relationship of an action to its internal limit, in connection with which two types are distinguished in this language: the imperfect form and the perfect form.

The imperfect form expresses an action in its flow, in the process of completion, without any indication of its limit; Wed verbs, read, speak, etc.

The perfect form expresses an action limited by the limit of self at any moment of its implementation or communicating the result of a given action or process; cf.: write, come, say, etc.

The system of types in the Russian language has its own distinctive feature - the presence of correlative pairs of verbs, which form correlative series of forms that permeate the entire system of verbal forms with the identity of their lexical meaning; Wed: wear - carry; post - carried; give - give; come on - give; gave - gave and HD,

To express specific meanings in the Russian language there is its own special system of morphological means:

1.Suffixes -ыв-, -ив-, -ов-, -ев- with alternating vowels or
consonants added to the verb stem; thus forming
imperfective verbs from perfective verbs; compare:
warm -» warm; show -» show; close -> close; stroll - stroll.

2. The suffix -nu-, added to the verb stem; are formed
perfective verbs from imperfective verbs, cf.;
move -» move; shout -> scream.

3.Prefixes with-, na-, for-, o-, po-, from- and some others; compare:
write -» write; eat - eat; build -> build; build -> rebuild; hide - "hide; go blind -> go blind
etc.

4. Change in root vowels, in some cases accompanied by alternation of vowels in the verb stem; cf.: decide ->
decide; imagine -> imagine.

5. Changing the place of stress with the same phonemic composition of the word: pour -» pour; cut ~> cut.

In addition to the same-root aspectual pairs of verbs, there is a limited number of pairs formed from different stems; cf.: take -> take; talk - say; put.

The development of linguistic means of expressing the category of aspect in the Old Russian period began with the emergence and gradual growth of the number of prefixed verbs, in which prefixes, joining the base of the verb with the general meaning of a certain action or process, gave it the meaning of perfectivity. We observe a similar process in the ancient Germanic languages; Wed function of the perfect particle ga- in Gothic, ge- in Old High German and Old English. As noted by L.P. Yakubinsky, the development of the prefix expression of species played a decisive role in the fate of the temporary forms of the aorist and imperfect."

Gradually, this technique became more and more widespread, and the use of temporary forms of the aorist and imperfect became unnecessary, and these temporary forms gradually died out. Only the perfect has been preserved, for example hodil' am, hodil' ecu, hod'il (is), expressing a perfect action, which, as a result of the disappearance of the auxiliary verb, gave rise to the past tense form of the modern period of development of the Russian language.

In Old English, the category of aspect was represented, as in Old Russian, by two forms - imperfect, which is the stem of the verb, usually not complicated by prefixes, for example wyrcan - to do, to work; settan - put, put, and perfect, formed with the help of prefixes, mainly with the help of the prefix z e ~ and some others, for example sewyrcan - make; jesettan - put, put.

Just as in Old Russian, and even more so in modern Russian, verbs of the imperfect form had correlative verbs of the perfect form, as a rule, with the same lexical meaning, for example: sellan - give - ^esellan - give;
bindan - bind - jebindan - tie, etc.
But already in the Old English period one can find a number of cases when the addition of a prefix did not entail the formation of a perfective verb, but the formation of a new lexical unit, that is, a word with a meaning different from the meaning of the corresponding imperfective verb, for example: cuman - to come; becuman - to happen; sittan - sit; besittan - to besiege, etc.
The two-species system proved to be unstable during the Old English period. On the one hand, aspectual prefixes gradually acquired the meaning of word-forming morphemes, which remained until
present tense, for example: to come - to come, to become -
become; to lie - to lie; to belie - to slander; on the other hand - in
During the Middle English period, there was a gradual disappearance of prefixes, due to which the morphological means of expression
the types of imperfect and perfect were gradually lost. Along with them, correlative aspect pairs of verbs disappeared, and thus the category of aspect was lost in the Middle English period. This has led to the fact that in modern English, Russian aspectual correlative pairs of verbs usually correspond to one verb in English; compare: receive - to receive and receive - to receive; get up - to get up and get up - to get up.

The disappeared category of species was replaced by a complex system of temporary forms, which at a certain stage of its development, already in the New England period, gave rise to new species characteristics of action and process, which received an ambiguous interpretation in modern English studies.

Based on the understanding of aspect as a grammatical category that characterizes an action based on the signs of its occurrence and has fixed morphological indicators, prof. A.I. Smirnitsky identified in the system of grammatical categories of modern English the category of aspect, consisting of two types - general aspect, represented in the present tense by zero morphemes and ~(e)s (3rd person singular), in the past tense by the morpheme -ed ( -t) or forms with alternating vowels such as sit - sat, speak - spoke, etc., in the future tense shall (will) + V and denoting the very fact of the action, and the continuous form represented by the verb to be in the form of the corresponding tense and the -ing form, for example: I am sitting, he is standing, they are walking, etc.

But unlike the Russian language, where imperfective and perfective verbs form correlative pairs of lexical units, each with its own morphological features and characteristics and forming two rows of correlative forms, in English verbs of the general and continuous form do not form such pairs. Every verb in English, with few exceptions, can take either a general form or a continuous form; in other words, verbs in English do not form correlative aspectual pairs.

A different point of view on the problem of aspect in English is expressed by Prof. I.P. Ivanova. She believes that there is no aspect as a special grammatical category in the English language. She calls groups of temporary forms: basic, continuous, perfect and perfect-continuous - discharges. She believes that the main category (Indefinite) is the only form capable of conveying dynamics and changing events. Other bits detail the action in terms of simultaneity or precedence, but are not used to convey the change of actions over time. I.P. Ivanova believes that the main category is indifferent to the category of aspect, since it can, firstly, convey the meaning of singleness and repetition and, secondly, along the lines of non-finite verbs and dual verbs, it is synonymous with forms of the continuous category, these latter and perfect forms are mutual are opposite in their specific content, since the specific content of a long discharge is the process in its course, and the specific content of the perfect is the action in its execution. Both long-term and perfect discharge, according to I.P. Ivanova, is not specific, but only has a grammatical meaning of aspect, closely intertwined with the category of time, which is considered as leading in this system.

There are absolute forms of time that do not depend on other tense forms in a sentence and are determined by their relationship with the moment of speech; present tense form, denoting an action coinciding with the moment of speech; the past tense form, expressing an action that took place before the moment of speech, and the future tense form, conveying an action that will take place after the moment of speech.

Along with absolute forms of time, there are relative forms of time, denoting actions that are considered not from the point of view of the moment of speech, but from the point of view of another time form or moment taken as a starting point.

In the Old Russian language, the category of tense was characterized by a greater number of forms than in the modern language, which is explained by the weaker development of the category of aspect in this language. The category of time in the Old Russian language consisted of the following forms: present tense - vedu, vedesha, ved(t), etc.; imperfectives - vedakh, vedash, led, etc., expressing a long-term or repeated action in the past; aorist - vedokh, vede, vede etc., expressing an instant action in the past; perfect - I am led, I am led,ecuvel,eculed etc., conveying the effective nature of an action long past - byah led, byah led, byashe, byashe led etc.; the future, which was previously simple, and the former future - I will lead, I will lead to etc., which named an action that will occur before another action in the future and is correlated with it.

The subsequent development of the imperfect and perfect forms led to the gradual disappearance of the imperfect and aorist and to the expansion of the semantics of the perfect forms, which acquired the ability to express the meaning of the perfect form if the verb had a prefix, for example brought, took away etc., and the meaning of the imperfect form if the verb did not have a prefix, for example carried, led etc.

Thus, the category of aspect in modern Russian is represented by forms of two types - imperfect and perfect, and the category of time - by three forms of time in imperfective verbs and two forms in perfective verbs.

IN In relation to the categories of aspect and tense, the Russian language has changed its typology due to the development of forms of the category of aspect, which permeates all forms of the verb, on the one hand, and due to the disappearance of a number of forms of the category of tense, on the other.

We see a completely different picture in English. In the Old English period, as already noted, there were two types - imperfect and perfect, which had their morphological expression in the form of verbs with prefixes.

The category of time was expressed by the forms of two tenses - present and past; compare: ic cume - I come, ic com - Icame, I came. In addition, all verbs fell into two classes - the class of verbs with alternating vowels (ic bide - ic bad - wait, expect, ic fare - ic for - drive etc.) and the class of verbs with a dental suffix (ic lære - ic lærde - teach, teach).

According to the point of view presented by a number of scientists, the system of tense forms of modern English consists of two correlative series of tense forms - absolute tense forms, which include forms of the Indefinite group, and relative tense forms, which include tenses of the perfect and continuous groups. Species meanings, without forming, according to this point of view, a morphologically expressed category, are, as it were, superimposed on temporary meanings.

The attitude of the subject to the action in most languages ​​is expressed in the personal endings of the verb; the relation of the action to the object can be expressed by case control or adjacency, depending on the typology of the language.

Based on the morphological criteria used in languages ​​to express voice, it can be argued that the number of voices in different languages ​​is very different. So, for example, in the Turkish language there are five voices: main, reciprocal, the morphological means of expression of which is the affix -15 with variants (cf.: vurmak - beat, vuru$mak - fight, fighthuddle); reflexive, formed using the affix -(!)p with variants (cf.: giymek - dress, giyinmek - dress)", passive, formed using the affix -il and its variants or the affix -p with verb stems with a vowel (cf.: secmek - choose, secilmek - to be chosen; almak - take, alinmak- to be taken); forced, using the affix -dir with variants (cf.: yemek- There is, yedirmek - (to) feed (to force to eat).

1. Active voice, expressed by certain syntactic structures, covering transitive verbs denoting an action aimed at a direct object, expressed in the accusative case form without a preposition; cf.: Golutvin. I went foryou, observed, collecting information, features from your life, wrote your biography and attached a portrait. In particular, he vividly depicted your latest activities. So would you like to buy the original from me, otherwise I’ll sell it to a magazine.... (L.N. Ostrovsky. Simplicity is enough for every wise man).

2. Reflexive-medial voice, the morphological indicator of which is the affix -sya, added to the base of the transitive verb. Verbs of reflexive-medial voice, depending on their semantics, fall into several groups, of which we will name only the main ones: a) verbs of proper reflexive meaning, denoting an action that extends to the bearer of the action, that is, an action in which the subject and object are represented as one and by the same person (cf.: dress, put on shoes, powder, etc.); b) verbs of reciprocal meaning, denoting the action of two or more persons, each of whom is both the producer and the object of the same action on the part of another person (cf.: hug, kiss)", c) verbs of reciprocal meaning, denoting the concentration of action in the producer himself (cf.: to be happy, to stop, etc.) For example: At short stops, the month stopped along with the train, and its light seemed to become brighter - probably because of the silence that had ensued (K.G. Paustovsky. Fenino’s happiness ).

3. Passive voice, the morphological indicators of which are the affix -sya, attached to active voice verbs, or forms of passive participles formed from transitive verbs using the suffixes -m-, -n- (-nn), -t- in combination with personal forms of the verb to be. In this case, the noun denoting a person or thing that is the subject of an action takes the form of the instrumental case, the so-called instrumental actor; Wed: On the foot stood a bouquet of wild flowers - chamomile, lungwort, wild rowan. The bouquet must have been collected recently (K.G. Paustovsky. Rainy Dawn).

In English, morphologically expressed features have two voices: the active or active voice, which exists in the forms of the indicative and its constituent tense forms and is associated with a direct or prepositional object, and the passive or passive voice, expressed in analytical forms consisting of forms of the verb to be and the participle of the 11th conjugated verb, that is, Vbe+VpII.

The supposed two other pledges that are sometimes spoken of - mutual and reciprocal - do not have any special means of expression that characterize them, and therefore cannot be considered as special forms of pledge.

As in a number of other languages, voice forms as a special grammatical category are represented only in transitive verbs. Intransitive verbs, which include, for example, verbs of movement to go, to creep, to swim, verbs of position in space to sit, to lie, to stand, verbs of physical state to rest, verbs of moral state to cry, to weep, etc. d., do not have forms of collateral.

However, if these verbs develop a transitive meaning, semes of transitivity, and, therefore, require a direct object, then they acquire all the characteristics of a transitive verb, that is, they are included in the series of verbs that have both voices; cf.: to fly - to fly; to fly a plane - to pilot the plane, the plane was flown by Jim Atkins - the plane was piloted by Jim Atkins; to run - to run, to run a hotel - to manage the hotel, the hotel was run by a young man - the hotel was run by a young man.

6. Functional differences in the use of formspledges in Russian and English.

The presence of similar grammatical categories in both languages, although they have slightly different morphological expressions, does not always indicate their typological similarity. Their distribution and functional use must also be taken into account.

A comparison of the cases of use of forms of the passive voice in both languages ​​shows that their functioning in speech is completely different. If the English language prefers to use passive forms in sentences where a person or object in the function of the subject is influenced by someone else, then the Russian language in a similar situation more often uses the active voice form with a direct object, formalized in the accusative case in the position before the predicate; cf.: this long bridge was built by the workers of our factory last year - this long bridge was built by the workers of our factory. Sentences of this structure are found frequently and determine the proportion of the passive form in both languages.

In addition to this characteristic case associated with discrepancies in the system of grammatical categories and their morphological expression in both languages ​​- the presence of an accusative case form in Russian to express a direct object and the absence of a case category in the system of nouns in English, there are a number of cases when Russian sentences with Predicates in the form of the active voice correspond in English to sentences with a predicate in the form of the passive voice. These are the following cases:

1. The predicate of indefinite personal sentences in the form of the active voice in Russian corresponds to the predicate in
the passive form of the corresponding sentences in English;
Wed: we were told good news;
John was given a good mark.

2. The predicate of the main sentence, expressed by verbs of speech or
judgments in the 3rd person plural form (they say, believe, consider, assume, etc.) usually correspond to the passive form of the same verbs in English. This correspondence is especially often observed in newspaper, political and scientific literature.

The category of modality can be expressed by different means in different languages. In the English and Russian languages, modality is expressed both by grammatical means - forms of moods, and by lexical ones: modal words perhaps, probably, probably, it seems, apparently, etc. - certainly, maybe, perhaps, probably, possibly, surely, etc.; modal verbs can, be able, want, desire, must, etc. -can. m must, etc.; modal particles - perhaps, hardly, shaken, etc., as well as intonation.

For the typological characteristics of a language, grammatical means of expressing modality and elements of the structure of the language are important. Therefore, the comparison of the category of modality in both languages ​​will be further carried out in terms of comparison of the grammatical means of its expression.

The relationship of action to reality can be different: if the action is thought of as real, then we have a modality of reality; if the action is thought of as unreal, possible or impossible, as desirable or probable, then we have the modality of invalidity. The main grammatical means of expressing the modality of reality is the indicative mood, or indicative. It denotes an action that is perceived by the speaker as corresponding to reality. Hence the presence in all forms of the modality of reality of the seme “reality”. The indicative mood, both in one and in another language, denotes a real action that occurs in terms of the present tense, has occurred in the past or is about to happen in the future, as a result of which this mood receives its expression in the corresponding forms of tense and person. Therefore, although the modality of reality is similar in its content in both languages, nevertheless, the methods of its expression depend on the system of tense forms, which, as is known, have significant differences in these languages. So, for example, in Russian, the modality of reality relating to the present tense is expressed by the present tense form; in English it can be expressed not only by the Present Indefinite form, but also by the Present Perfect Continuous form; cf.: It was a wonderful opportunity, and when he had finished his explanations, Isabel was once more all smiles. “You foolish boy, why have you been trying to make me miserable,” His face lit up at her words and his eyes flashed (W. Maugham. The Fall of Edward Barnard). Significantly greater differences are observed in the system of grammatical means that exist in both languages ​​to express the modality of invalidity.

In the Russian language there is only one mood - the subjunctive, which is sometimes called conditional or presumptive. It denotes an action that is conceived by the speaker as unreal and only as possible or desirable.

The subjunctive mood is formed analytically - by combining a verb in the past tense form with a particle would, which can be located either before or after the verb form, directly or at a distance; compare:

“So, let’s go quietly grandson

With this note to O... to that...

To the neighbor... and tell him to

So that he doesn't say a word,

So that he doesn’t call me...”

(A.S. Pushkin. Evgeny Onegin)

The subjunctive mood combines a number of semes: seme “unreality”; semu "desire"; cf.: And that from now on he should only dream of one thing: that the old rusty chain (he had already broken it once) be removed and bought a new, strong one (M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin. Faithful Trezor); this “condition”; cf.: ...and if there was a six to the right, and a king of diamonds to the left, then he would have completely won back, bet everything on p and won fifteen thousand clean, then he would have bought himself a pacer from the regimental commander, a couple more horses, bought a phaeton would (L.N. Tolstoy. Two Hussars), this is “hypothetical”; semu "intention"; this “wish”, etc.

A special feature of the Russian subjunctive mood is its timeless nature, that is, it can express action both in the present and in the past and in the future; cf.: I would like to know how you will approach the pike with your love." - the ruff cooled him down (M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin. Crucian carp is an idealist).

The limited nature of the subjunctive mood results in the ability of the Russian form of the indefinite mood to be combined with the particle would to express modality; Wed: Let us not get lost! ~ I said to the coachman. But, having not received an answer, he asked the question more clearly: “What, let’s get to the station, coachman?” Let’s not get lost 1? (L.N. Tolstoy. Snowstorm).

The seme “condition” can, in addition to the form of the subjunctive mood, also be expressed by the form of the 2nd person singular of the imperative mood; Wed: Yes! - Ivan Dmitry got angry again. “You despise suffering, and if your finger gets caught in the door, you’ll scream at the top of your lungs!” (A.P. Chekhov. Chamber No. b).

This use of the imperative form in English is completely impossible.

In contrast to the Russian language, the modality of invalidity in English is expressed by four so-called indirect moods: subjunctive 1, subjunctive II, presumptive and conditional."

The subjunctive mood I, like the Russian subjunctive mood, has a timeless character. It expresses neither the category of person nor the category of number. As the main seme, the subjunctive I has the seme ((hypotheticality, “uncertainty in the reality of a given phenomenon”; but at the same time it does not express any opposition to what takes place in reality; cf.: Mrs Erlynne... As for me, if suffering be an expiation, then at this moment I have expiated all my faults, whatever they have been; for to-night you have made a heart in one who had it not, made it and broken it (O. Wilde. Lady Windermere's Fan).

The subjunctive mood II has “unreality” as the main seme, in which it occupies a polar position with the indicative forms, in which the seme “reality” is present. Unlike subjunctive 1, the seme “present”, or “future”, or the seme “past” is added to the main seme “unreality”, as a result of which subjunctive II has different forms of the present tense (cf.: If I came, If I were ) and past tense forms (cf.: If I had come. If I had been); cf.: And so it would have been strange and unaccountable, if it had been a stuffed trout, but it was not. That trout was plaster-of-Paris (J.K. Jerome. Three Men in a Boat).

The presumptive mood, as the name itself shows, has “assumption” as its main subject. Its morphological structure consists of the verb should + Vinf. Thus, this mood does not have any grammatical categories; cf.: Was not a South Sea merchant, and he had agencies in many of the islands of the Pacific. He had suggested that Edward should go to Tahiti for a year or two... (W.S. Maugham. The Fall of Edward Barnard).

This mood in Russian corresponds to the form of the subjunctive mood.

The category of modality also finds its expression in forms of the imperative mood. This mood in both languages ​​can express the will, request, order of the speaker or encouragement of the interlocutor to action. In this regard, the main seme of the forms of this mood is the seme “motivation”. If the forms of this mood are combined with the negation of not, then the seme “incentive” is extinguished and the seme “prohibition” appears instead.

The imperative mood in both languages ​​has the categories of person and number. The 2nd person singular and plural in the Russian language is expressed in synthetic forms: read - read, write - write; in English, unlike Russian, there is only one form for the 2nd person of both numbers: read, write, take, go, etc.

The 1st person plural form, addressed to either one or more interlocutors, can be expressed in two ways; if the verb is perfective, then this is a form expressed synthetically (let's go, let's go, take, say)", if the verb is imperfect, then this form receives an analytical expression (we'll read, we'll write, we'll speak).

These two Russian forms in English correspond to only one analytical form - let us (let"s) read, let us (let"s) go, let us (let"s) take, etc.

The 3rd person form of both numbers is expressed analytically in both languages; cf.: let him come - let him come; let them come - let them come.

Along with the main seme “motivation”, presented in the meanings of the imperative mood of both languages ​​and constituting their similarity, in the semantic structure of the Russian imperative mood there are a number of semes that are absent in the structure of the English form and make up their great difference.

So, in the Russian form we find a “condition” for this; compare: if he worked at a factory, he would master several professions, which can be replaced by an equivalent sentence if, while working at a factory, he would master several professions,

In the sentence, for the life of me, I don’t remember, the seme “assumption” appears.

Thus, the above shows that the semantic structure of the Russian imperative mood is characterized by greater complexity compared to the English one, with the identity of the main seme “motivation”.

Face category. In a number of languages ​​- Indo-European, Turkic, Finno-Ugric - there are special morphemes to designate a person, that is, the subject of speech, the so-called personal endings. They are used to express the relationship of the action and its subject to the speaking person. Personal endings of the verb, thus, serve as a morphological means of expressing the grammatical category of the person.

However, there are languages, such as Japanese, Chinese, Indonesian and some others, in which there are no morphological means of facial expression; Wed; Japanese watakushi wa yukimas - I'm going, anata wa yukimas - you're going (yukimas - going, going, going, etc.), etc.; indonesian saja menulis - I write, engkau menulis - you write, you write (menulis - I write, you write, writes, etc.), etc. In this case, the category of person is expressed only lexically using personal pronouns or nouns, which must be used in a sentence to avoid ambiguity.

As individual languages ​​testify, the personal endings of verbs were formed from personal pronouns, which were once placed at the end of words denoting actions and processes; Wed: Tatar, sin kile! sin - you come, without kilebez - we come; Finnish me sanomme - we say, me sanotte - you say, etc. In further development, the personal forms gradually simplified and began to differ in their sound form from the forms of the corresponding personal pronouns; Wed: Tatar, min baram - I'm going, I'm going; The first person morpheme -m is a simplified form of the 1st person singular personal pronoun - min -ya.

The personal forms of the verb contain the following semes: seme “subject of speech”, which appears in the 1st person morpheme, seme “addressee of speech” - in the 2nd person morpheme, seme “non-participant of speech” - in the 3rd person morpheme. In addition, there is a certain additional set of semes included in certain facial morphemes. Thus, the seme “impersonality” is revealed in all three personal forms of the verb; cf.: if you drive more slowly, you will go further (proverb); what we have, we don’t keep; if we lose, we cry (proverb); one is greeted by one's clothes, one is seen off by one's mind (proverb); seme “repetition of action”; Wed: I am re-reading the letter.

In Russian, the category of person is expressed by personal forms of the verb - a special form for each person in the present tense of the imperfective form, in the present-future tense of the indicative mood and in the form of the imperative mood: -и (-и, soft consonant), -te.

Units Mn. h.

1st l. -yu (-y) 1st l. -eat (-em, -im)

2nd l. -eat (-eat, -ish) 2 liters. – here (-yote, -ite)

3rd l. -et (- ot, -it) 3rd l. –yut (-ut, -at, -yat)

In the past tense of the imperfective and perfective forms and in the subjunctive mood, the category of person is not expressed in personal forms.

In English, there are two ways to morphologically express the category of person: 1) using the morpheme -es(-s) in the 3rd person singular of the affirmative form of the present common tense (he goes to school in the morning; she comes home late; John takes English lessons); 2) using auxiliary verbs have (has) for the Perfect category; am (is, are) for the Continuous category; do (does) for interrogative and negative forms of the Indefinite category.

Comparing the ways of expressing the category of person in both languages, we see that the typological characteristic of the expression of this category in the Russian language is the personal endings of the verb; in English, as opposed to Russian, the typological characteristic of the category of person is its expression with the help of auxiliary verbs and the absence of personal endings.

These discrepancies in the typology of means of expressing the category of person in both languages ​​are the reason that English language learners have great difficulty mastering the form of the 3rd person singular present common tense; they tend to forget about the 3rd person morpheme -es (-s), the only person morpheme in the entire verb system, which is the reason for their numerous errors both in oral and written speech in English, especially in the first language stage of training. These errors cannot be explained by the influence and interference of the native language; they directly reflect the influence of language typology on the process of learning and mastering this language.

• 2. Number category
• -categories of number in English are more limited than in Russian.
• -in the Russian language agreement in number is widespread, but in the English language it is practically absent.
• -the study of the category of number in the Russian language, due to the listed characteristics, presents greater difficulties for the English than the study of the same category in the English language by Russians.
• 3. Category of the genus. In the Russian language there is a system of dividing words into three genders - masculine, feminine, neuter. In the English language, the ancient category of grammatical gender has disappeared, replaced by a new category of activity/passivity, the belonging of nouns to which is determined by the speaker’s attitude to a given fact, generated by a specific situation.
• 4. Category of certainty/uncertainty

There is a divergence in the structure of both languages.

The lack of morphological expression in the Russian language deprives a native student of the Russian language of solid support for their native language.

In the Russian language, the main species differences pass along the line of expressing the relationship of an action to its internal limit: imperfect/perfect form. The system of types in the Russian language has correlative pairs of verbs with the same lexical meaning (wear-carry, give-give, etc.). In Old English, the category of aspect was also represented by two types - perfect/imperfect. But this system turned out to be unstable. This has led to the fact that in English, Russian correlative pairs of verbs usually correspond to one translation into English (to receive/to receive).

The disappeared category of species was replaced by a complex system of temporary forms.

There are absolute forms of time (present, past, future). There are also relative forms of time, denoting actions considered from the point of view of the moment taken as a reference point. There were more tense forms in the Old Russian language, but the subsequent development of perfective/imperfective forms led to a reduction in tense forms. In English it is the other way around: in the Old English period there were two types (perfect/imperfect)6 and the category of time had only two forms - present and past. The categories of species were subsequently lost, and therefore the category of tenses gradually developed. Currently, the first group of absolute tenses is called Indefinite, the second group of relative tenses is called the Perfect and Progressive groups.

In the Russian language there are three voices: active (action is directed to a direct object), reflexive-neuter (verbs of proper reflexive meaning, verbs of reciprocal meaning, verbs of general reflexive meaning), passive (form of the instrumental actor). In English, morphological features have two voices: active and passive.

2. Relationship between morphological category and morphological form.

The concept of morphological, or - in traditional terminology - grammatical category, has a broader and narrower interpretation in linguistic literature. A broad interpretation is presented in the teachings of A.A. Potebnya, A.A. Shakhmatova. It is reflected, for example, in the following statement by L.V. Shcherba: “By grammatical category I mean those groups of uniformity in language under which individual phenomena are subsumed” (Selected works on the Russian language, p. 12). An expanded interpretation of this concept is presented in many textbooks on linguistics. In particular, in “General Linguistics” F.M. Berezina, B.N. Golovin, the term “grammatical category” is used not only in relation to such objects as 1) number, case, person, aspect, but 2) singular, im. n., first person, owl. V., which is traditionally called grammatical meanings, 3) collectivity, materiality or quality, relativity, which is usually called LGR, 4) type of declension or type of conjugation, which is called formal classes.

The heterogeneity of these objects is obvious, and subsuming them under a single term does not eliminate the need to determine the qualitative essence of each of them.

The concept of a morphological category is extremely complex and for this reason does not have an unambiguous interpretation even in its narrow sense. The proposed definition goes back to the concept of A.M. Peshkovsky, developed in the works of later researchers and primarily in the works of A.V. Bondarko. The same definition is essentially presented in “Russian Grammar” (M., 1980, p. 455).

So, morphological category is a system of morphological forms opposed to each other with homogeneous content. For example, the morphological category of face is a system of contrasting forms of the first, second, third person: walking, walking, walking. The homogeneity lies in the fact that they all generally express the relationship of the action to the subject from the point of view of the speaker. Each morphological form specifies this general idea: the form of the first person expresses the relation of the action to the subject - the speaker, the second - to the subject - interlocutor, the third - to the subject - non-participant in the dialogue.

A morphological category is a more abstract unit of grammatical structure than a morphological form. MK and MF are in genus-species relations with each other, in relations between the general and the particular. For example, the MC of a person is a generic concept, and the MF of the first, second, third person is a specific concept.

A morphological category is a multi-aspect, multi-featured object of linguistic reality. In modern linguistic literature, more than ten classification features are identified that characterize MC from various points of view. The system of MC classifications is most fully presented in the book by A.V. Bondarko “Theory of morphological categories” (L., 1976).

Basic concepts: morphological category, morphological form, morphological meanings, paradigm.

Literature: A.V. Bondarko. Theory of morphological categories. L., 1976; Vinogradov V.V. Russian language. Grammatical doctrine of words. M., 1972.

1.Typology and theory of language: from description to explanation. M., 1999.

2. Klimov G.A. Fundamentals of linguistic comparative studies. M., 1990.

3. Zelenetsky A.L., Monakhov P.F. Comparative typology of German and

Russian languages. M., 1983.

4. Vezhbitskaya A. Semantic universals and description of languages. M.,

5. Stepanov Yu.S. Language and method. Toward modern philosophy of language. M., 1998.

6. Theory and methodology of linguistics: Methods of language research. M.:

Science, 1989.

7. Kibrik A.E. Typology: taxonomic or explanatory,

statistical or dynamic // issues of linguistics. 1989.No.1.

8. Berezin F.M. On paradigms in the history of linguistics of the 20th century // Linguistic research at the end of the 20th century: Sat. reviews M., 2000.

9.Levitsky Yu.A. Language, speech, text. Perm, 1999.

10. Konetskaya V.P. Introduction to comparative lexicology of Germanic languages. M., 1993.

11. Romashka S.A. Comparative historical linguistics and typology: Reconstruction of Indo-European phonology // Linguistic research in the late 20th century. M., 2000.

12. Yartseva V.N. Contrastive grammar. M., 1981.

13. Weinreich U. Language contacts. Kiev, 1989.

14.Zvegintsev V.A. Language and linguistic theory. M., 1973.

15. Guillaume G. Principles of theoretical linguistics. M., 1992.

Full text of the dissertation abstract on this topic ""

Neshcheretova Tamara Teuchezhevna

Comparative typology of the grammatical category of gender in the Russian and German languages

10.02.01 - Russian language

02/10/20 - Comparative-historical, typological and comparative linguistics

Maykop - 2006

The work was carried out at the Department of Russian Language and Teaching Methods of Adyghe State University

Scientific supervisor - Doctor of Philology, Professor

Blagoz Zulkarin Uchuzhukovich

Official opponents: Doctor of Philology, Professor

Sakieva Rimma Safrailovna

Candidate of Philological Sciences Karataeva Lyudmila Valentinovna

The leading organization is the Adyghe Republican Institute for Humanitarian Research named after. T.M. Kerasheva

The defense will take place on December 25, 2006, at 10 o’clock, at a meeting of the dissertation council K 212.001.01 at the Adyghe State University at the address: 385000, Maykop, st. Universitetskaya, 208.

The dissertation can be found in the scientific library of the Adygea State University.

Scientific Secretary

Dissertation Council Doctor of Philology, Professor

A. N. Abregov

GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF WORK

The relevance of research. The grammatical category of gender, called by A. Meillet one of the “least logical and most unexpected categories,” is a characteristic feature of the grammatical structure of almost all Indo-European languages. The problems of the category of gender are closely related to many of the most important aspects of the science of language - general and particular typology, the interaction of linguistic levels and the relationship between the lexical and grammatical meaning of a word - and are always the focus of linguistic research.

The relevance of the proposed scientific research lies in the need for a deeper study of the structural-grammatical and lexical-semantic potential of the category of gender in relation to languages ​​of different types. The choice of topic is also due to the insufficient coverage and development of this issue in linguistic research in recent years. In modern linguistics, when considering the category of gender, the main attention is paid to the cognitive, communicative, gender and functional aspects of this phenomenon. Our study makes an attempt to consider the category of gender from the position of its grammatical and lexical-semantic manifestation in the languages ​​under study.

The degree of development of the problem. The study of grammatical gender has a long tradition, dating back to ancient times. Since the time of the discoverer of the category of gender, Protagoras, questions related to the origin and essence of the category of gender have involved many generations of linguists in discussion. Problems of the category of genus were raised in the classical works of JI. Bloomfield, K. Brugman, J. Grimm, W. von Humboldt, O. Jespersen, T. Campanella, M.V. Lomonosov, A. Meie, G. Paul, E. Sapir, G. Steinthal. Significant contributions to the development of the modern theory of grammatical gender were made by both domestic and foreign scientists: A.V. Bondarko, I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay, V.V. Vinogradov, S.D. Katsnelson, A.B. Kopeliovich, A.V. Mirtov, I.P. Muchnik, A.A. Potebnya, K. Brugman, D. Weiss, D. Homburger, W. Lehmann, E. Leis,

A. Martinet, D. Nelson, R. Forer and others.

B.V. Ioffe, T. Campanella, J. Lyons, M.V. Lomonosov, A. Meie,

O. Semereni), methods of its expression (F.I. Buslaev, I.F. Kalaidovich, S.D. Katsnelson, A.B. Kopeliovich, V. Lehmann, A.A. Potebnya), its semantic conditionality (A.T. Aksenov J. Grimm, W. Humboldt, O. Jespersen, M.V. Laskova, A. Meie, G. Paul, G. Sweet). However, despite the large number of works devoted to the problem of gender, this category is one of those difficult to explain grammatical phenomena that have not yet received unambiguous coverage in science.

Recently, there has been a significant increase in interest in the study of the category of gender, not only in general linguistics, but also in comparative and typological terms. The comparative-typological aspect is a necessary component of an effective approach to the study of any linguistic phenomenon, aimed at an in-depth and generalizing demonstration of the similarities and differences in the structure and semantics of similar grammatical categories in the compared languages. When approaching a language from the point of view of another language system, its features can be noted that were ignored by the traditional grammar of a given language. Such a study allows us to more fully reveal the specifics of the category of gender in two languages, tracing its origin, historical development and the processes occurring in this multifaceted category at the present stage - changes in the structure and mechanism of development caused by both intralingual and external factors. A significant contribution to the development of comparative typological linguistics was made by domestic scientists V.D. Arakin, V.G.Gak, A.L. Zelenetsky, K.G. Krushelnitskaya, L.V. Shcherba, W.K. Yusupov, V.N. Yartseva. The works of regional researchers in this area, such as A.N., also deserve attention. Abregov, B.M. Bersirov, Z.U. Blyagoz, N.T. Gishev, Z.I. Kerasheva, M.A. Kumakhov, R.Yu. Namitoko-va, Yu.A. Tharkaho, M.K. Tutarisheva, A.K. Shagirov, M.Kh. Shkhapatseva.

The subject of the study was the formal and lexical-semantic features of the category of gender in the compared languages.

The choice of the topic of the dissertation work led to the formulation of the research goal: comparison of the category of gender of nouns in the Russian and German languages ​​to identify similarities and differences at the grammatical and structural-semantic level.

The methodological basis of the dissertation research was the works of domestic and foreign linguists, on the basis of which the conceptual framework of this work was formed (J.I. Bloomfield, A.B. Bondarko, V.V. Vinogradov, O. Espersen, A. Meie, A.B. Mirtov, I.P. Muchnik, G. Paul, A.A. Potebnya, etc.)

When developing theoretical approaches and solving practical problems, the following methods were used in the work: the method of linguistic observation, structural-semantic analysis, descriptive, comparative-typological and statistical methods.

The dissertation work was written on the material of 8960 examples extracted from modern mono- and bilingual, as well as explanatory dictionaries through a continuous sampling.

1. The category of gender as a classifying grammatical category functions at three linguistic levels: morphological, syntactic and semantic. Grammatical gender has closely interconnected and interdependent nominative and syntactic elements of semantic content. The reality of autonomous meanings allows us to consider gender as a motivated category for both animate and inanimate nouns.

2. Formal differences between the categories of gender and gender dictate the need for a separate study of the word-formative (lexical) category of gender and the grammatical (classification for nouns and inflectional for attributes) category of gender.

4. Categorical generic forms of both languages ​​are closely related to word-formation models, with systems of Russian and German word production, but the Russian language has a more extensive base of suffixes that form words of one kind or another compared to the German language.

The results of the study were discussed at an extended meeting of the Department of General Linguistics and the Department of Russian Language and Teaching Methods of the Adyghe State University.

The introduction justifies the choice of research topic, defines the purpose and objectives of the work, research methods, notes the scientific novelty of the work, and establishes its practical and theoretical value.

The first chapter, “Theoretical foundations for the study of the category of gender,” is devoted to some important problems in the study of the category of gender. The category under study is considered as a certain unity of plans of content and expression, its ontological essence is revealed, the history of the study, hypotheses about the reasons for the emergence of the category of gender and its genesis in the context of Indo-European languages ​​are given. The importance of an integrated approach to this category is determined, taking into account its functioning at the morphological, semantic and syntactic levels of language. The same chapter provides a generic classification of nouns in the Russian and German languages.

The problems of categorical linguistics have come to the forefront of the modern science of language, as there has been a need to comprehend at a higher level of abstraction the extensive factual material relating to individual categories in various languages. These categories also include the category of gender, which is one of the central ones in most Indo-European and a number of other languages ​​(it is absent in Caucasian, Turkic and Finno-Ugric languages). Problems of the category of gender have occupied a significant place in the field of grammatical research in Indo-European linguistics since the formation of the science of language in the Hellenistic era. At the same time, the questions of the origin and essence of the genus, formulated more than two thousand years ago and involving many generations of linguists in the discussion, still remain mostly open.

The idea of ​​the essence of the category of genus is most closely connected with the idea of ​​its genesis. Historical analysis of many languages ​​shows that grammatical gender is a relatively late phenomenon, which arose no earlier than the formation of the noun category. The discoverer of the category of gender is considered to be the ancient Greek thinker Protahorus, who, according to Aristotle, was the first to distinguish between three genders of names: masculine, feminine and thing.

Protagoras was the first to record the inhomogeneity of criteria for the gender of nouns (semantics and form) and the ambiguity of the means of its linguistic expression (ending, article,

attributive agreement). Aristotle developed the ideas of Protagoras: if Protagoras sought to “bring language into harmony with reason” and find the relationship between gender and gender, then Aristotle did not set such tasks. He was a supporter of the materialist point of view on language and viewed gender as a reflection of the physical categories of animation, male and female.

Thus, it is obvious that from the first mentions of the genus, two main theories of the genus arose. The meaning of the first is that gender is something formal (later the definitions “morphological”, “formal”, “coordinated”, etc. will appear to characterize this point of view). The meaning of the second is that gender is associated with gender (for this point of view, the concepts “natural”, “sexual”, “anthropological”, “cognitive”, “semantic”, “semantic-etymological”, etc. will be used)

At the beginning of the 19th century, with the emergence of comparative historical linguistics, three directions emerged in the doctrine of the category of gender.

According to the first direction, the meaning of biological sex, which motivates grammatical gender, was closely related to all nouns. The most ancient and for a long time the only hypothesis about the reasons for the appearance and functioning of the genus was the symbolic-semantic hypothesis. Its meaning is that the genus arose under the influence of a natural given - the presence of people of different sexes. According to A. Meye, the ancient Indo-European animate gender was transformed into masculine and feminine, and the inanimate gender received the meaning of the middle. A. Meillet's hypothesis about the origin of the Indo-European family, which lies at the origins of an entire scientific school and undoubtedly played a major role, represents the development of a paradigmatic approach. The essence of the latter lies in the fact that gender is considered as a substantive category, i.e. comes down to the doctrine of substantive classes that arose on a semantic basis.

A real blow to the symbolic-semantic hypothesis was the discovery of languages ​​in which the category of gender is completely absent. This served as the basis for the development of the second, morphological direction in the study of the category of genus. K. Brugman spoke out against the theory of sexualization, arguing that the gender of animate nouns is in no way connected with gender. In his opinion, the starting point in the emergence of the category of genus was a purely external

phological similarity of names denoting feminine creatures (§epa, wife, giving birth) and other participle formations that named inanimate objects. However, this concept does not reveal the origin of the genus as an independent category.

Finally, the third direction, going back to G. Steinthal, connects gender with syntactic agreement: “If agreement did not exist in a language, then the nouns of this language would not have differences in gender.” The term “syntactic meaning” was first used by G. Steinthal, although this term came into scientific use much later. Subsequently, G. Paul and J. Vandries joined this direction, who defined the essence of the modern category of gender as follows: “The essence of the modern category of gender comes down exclusively to agreement, to the formal likening of the agreed word with a noun.”

Gender begins to be conceptualized as a category that is not comparable to biological sex after the role of agreement in language has been comprehended. In Russian linguistics, such a tradition begins with F.I. Buslaeva: “Natural gender differs from grammatical gender. The natural gender includes a small number of words, in comparison with the others, in which no attention is paid to the gender difference, either because it really does not exist, or because the ordinary clarity that dominates the language does not know strict naturalistic observation...”

However, the formal syntactic point of view on the category of gender is rightly criticized by many scientists (V.V. Vinogradov, A.T. Aksenov, G.A. Zograf), who point out that even within the relatively narrow framework of Indo-European languages ​​there are several different by their nature, means of expressing gender, including such transitional types as pronominal articloids, which are one of the ways of expressing gender classifications in a number of Iranian languages.

From this we can conclude that agreement is not a universal means of expressing gender; gender cannot be reduced to agreement because agreement is only a special case of gender expression and cannot be the only feature on the basis of which one could judge its absence or presence in a language. In connection with the development of analytical tendencies in Indo-European languages, agreement in gender as a means of its expression retreated into secondary and tertiary positions in a number of languages, and in some cases it remained in the form of residual tendencies or disappeared completely.

Despite the fact that the science of language has made great progress since antiquity, the debate between representatives of various schools of linguistics on the issue of motivation for the grammatical category of gender continues to this day. Between the polar points of view of E. Sapir, who saw in it “a system of outlived dogma,” and A. Meillet, who believed that grammatical gender symbolizes “real sexual differences,” one can place numerous points of view of other linguists, each of which, although not coincides completely with the others, yet adheres to one of two opposing directions: one of them, in principle, recognizes extralinguistic motivation of the grammatical kind, and the other denies it. These differences in views are expressed in the definitions of the concept of the grammatical category of gender.

We believe that gender, like other grammatical categories, is a certain unity of plans of content and expression. Within the framework of this approach, the following definition of the category of gender seems legitimate: the category of gender is a classifying grammatical category, going back to the two-member nominal classification, the development of which, leading to the formation of a three-member gender classification, is associated with the formation of the category of person and with the development of the category of declension. In a general sense, the category of gender refers to the ability of names to distinguish between masculine, feminine, and neuter gender. With a broad understanding of genus, the framework of this category includes the distinction between animateness/inanimateness and personality/impersonality.

Being a grammatical category with a sign nature, grammatical gender is endowed with such general properties as semantics, syntactics and pragmatics, and a linguistic description of this category is impossible without analyzing the interaction and correlation of these aspects.

The most controversial and constantly debated is the problem of semantic saturation, motivation or unmotivation of a given grammatical category. One of its most important aspects remains the relationship between gender and gender. In most works on grammar, the distinction between gender and gender is associated with the fact that gender is included in the number of “universal conceptual categories.” Thus, W. Wein-Reich notes that gender has the properties of a “universal semantic component.” Gender, as we know, does not have such universality (representation in various languages ​​of the world).

Even if there is no grammatical gender in a language, the universal category of gender is somehow manifested in it (as is the case in the Persian language). The meaning of gender can be attributed to the status of a functional-semantic category or a functional-semantic field, as N. Ya. Nemirovsky believes.

Formal differences between the categories of gender and gender dictate the need for a separate study of the word-formative (lexical) category of gender and the grammatical (classification for nouns and inflectional for attributes) category of gender.

This approach, however, does not give an unambiguous answer to the question of whether the gender of nouns is motivated or unmotivated. In works on general linguistics, as a rule, the category of gender is described in a general theoretical sense using the example of Indo-European languages. Moreover, the question of the motivation/unmotivation of a species is considered on the basis of the opposition “personality (animity)/nonpersonality (inanimateness).” It is usually argued that while the gender of personal and part of animate nouns (faunonyms) can be considered motivated on the basis of gender opposition, then the gender of inanimate nouns is not motivated. Not all researchers agree with this formulation of the problem. We share the opinion of A.T. Aksenov, who believes that “there are no languages ​​with unmotivated gender, gender in all languages ​​is, in principle, motivated, and the differences between generic languages ​​lie in the degree of motivation of the gender classifications of nouns.”

M.V. Laskova calls the gender category motivated in both animate and inanimate nouns. We also believe that the linguistic consciousness of a people whose language has the category of gender perceives the assignment of nouns of this language to one gender or another as fully motivated. This is confirmed by the reality (belonging to the sphere of semantics) of autonomous meanings. As is known, any sound or graphic complex can have two types of meanings: fixed or autonomous. In our case, motivation is determined precisely by the autonomous meaning, which is not directly related to the lexical meaning of words. Regarding the characteristics of these types of meaning, let us clarify that a fixed meaning is the ability to conjure up and replace in consciousness a certain object of reality, phenomenon, relationship, sign, etc. It becomes a fact of language due to

a constant, inextricable, historically established connection between the sound (graphic) complex and elements of extra-linguistic reality. Autonomous meaning is the ability of a sound (graphic) complex to evoke in consciousness any phenomenon that has features of similarity or contiguity with it (with this complex). This meaning is determined not so much by the system, history, conditional connection, but by the properties of the sound or graphic complexes themselves. M. Osman rightly asserts that autonomous meaning is a factor in the formation of linguistic consciousness.

Consequently, the grammatical category of gender is a rather complex dialectical unity of the plans of content and expression; it arises, is formed and modified under the complex influence of extralinguistic and intralinguistic factors. The influence of extrasystemic factors on grammatical gender continues throughout the entire period of existence of this category in a particular language; it manifests itself in numerous changes in the semantic structure of the gender as a result of the addition to it of new semantic oppositions expressed by generic forms. At the same time, the very manifestation of gender as a grammatical category is possible only if the grammatical system of the language develops a certain sequence of forms that serve to express it. This sequence of forms is an integral part of the grammatical system of the language and is subject to the internal laws of its development.

In the second chapter, “Grammatical and lexical-semantic functioning of the category of gender in the Russian and German languages,” the specifics of belonging to one or another gender of animate nouns in the Russian and German languages ​​are determined, cases of fluctuation in the gender of nouns in the languages ​​under study are considered, and qualitative and statistical analysis is carried out nouns of the Russian and German languages ​​in order to identify some features of the semantic relationships of various genders within each of these languages, as well as compare these features in the two languages.

The gender category of animate nouns - names of persons - has its own semantic characteristics: masculine words name male beings, feminine words - female beings. Quantitatively masculine nouns

genders predominate in both Russian and German. This is explained both by extra-linguistic socio-historical conditions and by linguistic reasons themselves. Masculine words in the compared languages ​​primarily contain a general concept about a person, denoting his social or professional affiliation, regardless of gender. Therefore, masculine words can be applied to both male and female persons. The opposition of the masculine and feminine gender in the sphere of animate nouns in both languages ​​can be characterized as a privative opposition with the unmarked masculine gender, which acts in the position of neutralization and has greater morphological regularity and frequency.

The grammatical design of animate nouns in the Russian and German languages, along with similarities, has a number of significant differences:

1. The group of animates in the Russian language includes mainly masculine and feminine nouns, and only a few words of the neuter gender (“child”, “animal” and some others).

In modern German, along with masculine and feminine words, the group of animate nouns includes a significant number of neuter nouns. They denote both persons and animals, for example: das Kind “child”, das Weib “woman, woman”, das Weibsbild “woman, aunt”; das Ferkel "pig", das Kalb "calf", das Pferd "horse", das Lamm "lamb", das Schaf "sheep", das Tier "animal", das Vieh "cattle", das Rind "cattle", etc. .

In addition, in the German language, almost every noun included in the group of animate ones can attach the suffixes -chen, -lein (and in dialects also the suffixes -(e)1, -(e)rl), which give them the meaning of diminutive, endearments or other expressive shades. Thus, from almost every animate noun a new animate neuter noun can be formed, although these new formations will denote male and female beings. In these cases, the morphological design of the noun prevails over its semantic meaning.

Some neuter words have suffixes -lein, -chen, -el, which are no longer prominent and have lost their diminutive meaning (das Fräulein “girl”, das Mädel “girl”, das Mädchen “girl”, das Weibchen “female” , das Männchen "male" and

The predominance of the grammatical side of a word over its semantics is a specific feature of the grammatical structure of the German language, which distinguishes it in some respects from Russian. V.V. Vinogradov notes that “in the circle of designations of persons, as well as in figurative personification, the category of grammatical gender in the modern Russian language has as its real basis ideas about the natural sex of living beings, however, even here with very significant limitations.”

In the German language, the morphological design of nouns prevails over ideas about the natural sex of living beings.

2. In the Russian language, one of the most characteristic features of the category of animacy is the coincidence of the accusative case form with the genitive case form of both numbers of animate masculine nouns, for example: gender. case, units Part "boy", plural including "boys"; wine case, units Part "boy", plural including "boys".

In the German language there are no such differences in declension, but there is a special type - weak declension, which includes mainly animate nouns.

3. In the Russian language, animate nouns and the words that define them agree in gender, for example: “talented artist”, “beautiful girl”, etc. However, when agreeing the predicate expressed by a past tense verb with the subject denoting a person, the natural gender of this person, for example: “the doctor prescribed medicine”, “the chairman announced the regulations”, etc.

In German, animate nouns and the words that define them are also consistent taking into account formal features of grammatical gender, for example: ein begabter Maler “talented artist”, ein schönes Mädchen “beautiful girl”, das kleine Kind “little child”, die alte Frau “elderly” woman".

Due to the presence in the German language of a significant number of animate neuter nouns, there has been a tendency to soften the discrepancy between the concepts of natural gender and grammatical gender of such words as: das Fräulein “girl”, das Mädchen “girl”, das Weib “woman”. When replacing them with personal pronouns, the forms of the third person feminine gender, corresponding to the concept of the female gender, prevail, for example: Sie weint, das arme Mädchen. "She's crying, poor girl."

In modern German, the use of feminine pronouns instead of neuter nouns denoting female persons has come closer to the norms of the literary language. Thus, in the German language there is a predominance of grammatical phenomena over the semantics of animate nouns, i.e. ignoring the natural sex differences of living beings, on the one hand, and the tendency to level out the discrepancy between the concept of their natural sex and the grammatical gender of nouns, on the other hand.

4. Animate nouns of both languages ​​are characterized by the presence of lexical correlates based on the opposition of nouns based on gender and gender semantics: “teacher - teacher”, der Lehrer - die Lehrerin.

In the Russian language, suffixes forming nouns with the meaning of a feminine person are numerous. In modern German, there is a single suffix -in to designate female persons and creatures, but in terms of productivity it exceeds the total ability of all suffixes with a similar meaning in the Russian language. The suffix -in received its greatest development in the late 70s of the 20th century sphere of naming women by profession. Significant changes in the social status of women and their assertion in such “male” spheres as business, the army, customs, fire service and politics required adequate reflection of women’s professional activities in the language through the creation of appropriate names. Representing the rapid changes in areas of women's professions, new names for women by occupation were, therefore, a reflection of the social status at the level of linguistic structures. The need that arose as a result of a critical revision of existing names to create a large number of new names was realized mainly through the active modification of existing designations of professions, those. formation of feminine names from the corresponding names in the masculine form using the suffix -in, called the “feminization suffix”, for example: der Berichterstatter + in = die Berichterstatterin.

Russian nouns such as man, boy, uncle, fellow, grandfather, youth, which have a feminine formant, are classified in the Russian linguistic consciousness as masculine nouns only due to the fact that they objectify the sign of male gender.

The gender of animate German nouns is determined in the German linguistic consciousness not by correlation with gender, but exclusively by morphological specialized gender formants, cf.: die Mutter (feminine) - das Mütterchen (neuter), der Vater (masculine) - das Väterchen ( neuter gender).

5. In the Russian language, among the group of animates, there are nouns of the so-called general gender with the meaning of person, for example: “elder”, “crybaby”, “drunkard”, “sleepyhead”, “greedy”, etc.

The German language also has words that, in their meaning, can refer to persons of both sexes, but their grammatical design - the article - shows that they refer only to one specific gender group. For example: Er war eine Waise, ein Kind “He was an orphan, a child.” This sentence combines all three grammatical genders, although we are talking about only one male person, a boy. The noun Waise is feminine, despite the fact that it can be used in relation to male and female persons. The word Kind, denoting children of both sexes, is neuter. When translating into German Russian nouns that have a feminine paradigm, such as “drunkard”, “killer”, “bore”, but which actualize the classification sign of masculine or feminine due to their correlation with the sign of masculine or feminine depending on the speech situation, it is necessary to take into account this feature, conveying the meaning of a Russian noun of the general gender to a German noun of masculine or feminine gender: cf. suicide "der Selbstmörder", "die Selbstmörderin"; orphan "die Waise", "der Waise"; reveler "der Lebemann", "die Lebedame".

The category of grammatical gender in both languages ​​demonstrates a close connection with the system of word production. However, a typological comparison of word-formation means of the Russian and German languages ​​showed that the Russian language has a much more extensive base of suffixes that form words of one kind or another compared to the German language. Often, a whole group of Russian suffixes with a certain meaning in German corresponds to only one suffix.

A typological comparison of word-formation means of the Russian and German languages ​​gave the following results: Russian suffixes forming masculine nouns with the meaning

in the name of the character -schik (-ovshchik, -evshchik, -ilshchik, -alshchik), -chik, -ik, -nik, -ets, -tel, -ar (-ar), corresponds in German to the suffix -eg (- 1er, -peg, -apeg) The studied languages ​​find the greatest similarity in the type of suffixal nouns formed from foreign roots using the suffix -ist (-¡в^. Feminine suffixes with the meaning of a female character (more than 20 suffixes: -in( i)/-yn(i); -is(a)/-ess(a), -ikh(a), -its(a), -k(a)/-ovk(a)/-ank(a) /-enk(a); -š(a), etc.) in German corresponds to only one suffix -¡p. However, this suffix, called the “suffix of feminism” in the late 90s of the 20th century, has numerous semantic connotations and Recently, it has been particularly productive in the field of naming women's professions.

Suffixes of the Russian language forming nouns of all three genders with the abstract meaning -ost, -nost, -most, -ennost, -lost, -ot(a), -et(a), -izn(a), -ob(a) ), -stv(o), correspond in German to the feminine suffixes -kek, -ье. In German, suffixal nouns of the neuter gender with the meaning of abstract action in -ni|(e) -ti)(e) correspond to suffixal nouns of the feminine gender with the suffix -т^ or substantivized neuter infinitives. Nouns with feminine suffixes -н(я), -овн(я), -rel(я) with the meaning of repetition, stupidity or mediocrity of action correspond in German to nouns with feminine suffixes -e1, -ege1, which also have a connotation of repetition and contemptuous assessment.

The greatest difference in the category of gender in the Russian and German languages ​​is observed in the content and functioning of the neuter gender. The range of meanings of neuter nouns in the Russian language is less clearly defined than that of masculine and feminine. In German, the vast majority of neuter words have a very specific meaning. Most neuter nouns in Russian have an abstract meaning, while in German neuter nouns have a collective meaning. In the Russian language, the neuter gender has a less developed system of productive suffixes compared to the masculine and feminine gender, and the means of its expression are relatively poor. In German, the means of forming and expressing the neuter gender are more diverse. In modern Russian there are only a few neuter words,

denoting animate nouns, which include the following nouns: child, person (meaning personality), creature, animal, deity, nonentity, as well as words - names of zoological species, subspecies, genera, for example, mammal, reptile, amphibian, etc. P. In the German language there are quite a few neuter nouns denoting animate beings: designations for people and animals at an early age: das Kind “child”, das Lamm “lamb”, das Kalb “calf”; general names of persons and animals: das Wesen “creature”, das Geschöpf “creation”, das Tier “animal”; nouns formed using neuter suffixes: das Mädel “girl”, das Mädchen “girl”; das Ferkel "pig", das Kaninchen "rabbit"; nouns formed through semi-suffixes and compounding: das Hirschkalb “fawn”, das Elefantenweibchen “elephant”; and, finally, animate nouns of the neuter gender: das Weib woman,” das Pferd “horse,” das Schaf “sheep,” das Reh “roe deer,” das Schwein “pig.”

Fluctuations in gender are observed in both languages. The presence in a language of words of different kinds with the same meaning is a phenomenon of a vestigial order. One of the forms gradually becomes archaic and goes out of use. One of the most common types of historical change in the grammatical gender of nouns in both Russian and German is their transition from one group to another and their strong consolidation in the latter. Nouns in both languages ​​changed their gender due to changes in the declension system (reduction of types of declension, unification of methods of forming the plural, development and clarification of the semantics of derivational suffixes), the influence of dialect forms, and also in accordance with changes in the meaning of the word.

The three German categorical forms of gender - masculine, feminine and neuter - perform certain semantic functions of different types. The masculine gender denotes mainly persons and certain objects, the feminine - abstract concepts, the neuter - collective meaning and words with a qualitative assessment. A specific feature of the German language is its grammatical design

names of animate persons using all three generic forms. The masculine gender includes: a category of person that names a person in general, a man or a woman: der Mensch “man”, der Dekan “dean”, der Professor “professor”; names of male persons and animals: der Bruder “brother”, der Vater “father”, der Mann “man”, der Sohn “son”, der Stier “bull”; the names of most large birds and fish: der Adler “eagle”, der Rabe “crow”, der Hai “shark”, der Lachs “salmon”. The feminine gender includes: names of female persons and animals: die Frau “woman”, die Mutter “mother”, die Kuh “cow”, die Ziege “goat”; names of small birds and most insects: die Taube "pigeon", die Biene "bee", die Fliege "fly". The neuter gender includes: designations of persons and animals at an early age: das Kind “child”, das Kalb “calf”, das Ferkel “pig”; generalized names of types of animate nouns: das Geschöpf “creation”, das Vieh “cattle”, das Kriechtier “reptile”; words with a diminutive meaning: das Söhnchen “son”, das Liebchen “sweetheart”. The grammatical gender of names of persons, especially those denoting family ties, in most cases corresponds to natural gender. The gender of animal names corresponds to gender if the sexual difference of animals is of economic importance: in animal husbandry, agriculture, zoological institutions, or the language of hunters.

The compared languages ​​demonstrate different degrees of dependence of the gender of nouns in both languages ​​on their lexical meaning. In modern German, there is a certain consistency in the classification of nouns within one gender group. In the Russian language, such a dependence is traced to a lesser extent. This is evidenced by a statistical study on the predominance of certain means of generic determination in the languages ​​under study, according to which in the Russian language about 97% of generic forms are formed with the help of grammatical means, about 3% with the help of lexical-semantic ones, in German with the help of grammatical means, about 85% of generic forms are formed, with the help of lexical-semantic forms - about 15%.

In conclusion, the conceptual results of the theoretical and empirical study of the problems posed by the author are summarized, the results of the work carried out are summarized, and prospects for further research are outlined.

The main provisions of the dissertation are reflected in the following publications:

1. Kat (Neshcheretova), T.T. Some features of the semantic content of the category of gender (on the example of Russian and German languages) / T.T. Kat (Neshcheretova) // Science - 2002. Materials of the scientific conference of young scientists and graduate students of ASU. - Maykop: ASU, 2002. - pp. 199-202. - 0.2 pl.

2. Kat (Neshcheretova), T.T. On the issue of the peculiarities of transferring the gender of personified nouns into Russian when translating G. Heine’s poems “Die Lotosbliime”, “Ein Fichtenbaum steht einsam” and “Der Schmetterling ist in die Rose verliebt” / T.T. Kat (Neshcheretova) // Collection of scientific works of teachers, graduate students and applicants. - Maykop: ASU, 2003.-Vol. 3.- P.232-236. -0.3 p.l.

3. Kat (Neshcheretova), T.T. Some features of Russian-German correlations in the category of gender / T.T. Kat (Neshcheretova) // Language. Ethnos. Consciousness. Proceedings of the international scientific conference. - T.1, Maykop: ASU, 2003. - P.165 -167. - 0.2 pl.

4. Neshcheretova, T.T. The relationship between the form of an animate noun and its gender in the German language / T.T. Neshcheretova // Perspective - 2004. Materials of the All-Russian scientific conference of students, graduate students and young scientists. -T.1. - Nalchik, 2004. - P.256-259. - 0.3 pl.

5. Neshcheretova, T.T. On the issue of fluctuations in the grammatical gender of nouns in the German language / T.T. Neshcheretova // Science - 2004. Annual collection of scientific articles by young scientists and graduate students of ASU. - Maykop: Ajax, 2004. - pp. 225-228. - 0.3 pl.

6. Neshcheretova, T.T. Typology of word formation of neuter nouns in German and Russian languages. Science -2005 / T.T. Neshcheretova // Annual collection of scientific articles by young scientists and graduate students of ASU. - Maykop: ASU, 2005. - pp. 229-233. -0.3 pl.

7. Neshcheretova, T.T. On the problem of semantic motivation of the gender category / T.T. Neshcheretova // Scientific thought of the Caucasus. - Special release. - No. 8. - Rostov-on-Don, 2006 - 0.5 pl.

Neshcheretova Tamara Teuchezhevna

Comparative typology of the grammatical category of gender in the Russian and German languages

Delivered for recruitment on 11/17/06. Signed for publication on November 20, 2006. Printing paper No. 1. Paper format 60x84. Times New Roman typeface. Pech.l. 1.1. Circulation 100 copies. Order 094.

Printed at the operational printing department of the Adyghe State University. 385000, Maikop, Universitetskaya St., 208. PLD No. 10-6 dated 08.17.99.

Chapter I. Theoretical foundations for the study of the category of gender.

1.1. Ontological essence of the category of genus.

1.2. Grammatical meaning and ways of expressing the category of gender.

1.3 Gender classification of nouns in Russian and German.

Chapter II. Grammatical and lexical-semantic functioning of the category of gender in the Russian and German languages.

2.1. Grammatical gender of animate nouns in Russian and German.

2.2. Structural and semantic analysis of derived nouns of the Russian and German languages ​​by gender.

2.2.1. Masculine nouns in Russian and German.

2.2.2. Feminine nouns in Russian and German.

2.2.3. Neuter nouns in Russian and German.

2.2.4. Fluctuations in the gender of nouns in the languages ​​under study.

2.3. Lexico-semantic classification of the category of gender in the Russian and German languages.

Introduction of the dissertation 2006, abstract on philology, Neshcheretova, Tamara Teuchezhevna

The grammatical category of gender, which was called by A. Meillet one of the “least logical and most unexpected categories,” is a characteristic feature of the grammatical structure of almost all Indo-European languages. The problems of the category of gender are closely related to many of the most important aspects of the science of language: general and particular typology, the interaction of linguistic levels and the relationship between the lexical and grammatical meaning of a word - and are always the focus of linguistic research.

The degree of development of the problem. The study of grammatical gender has a long tradition, dating back to ancient times. Since the time of the discoverer of the category of gender, Protagoras, questions related to the origin and essence of the category of gender have involved many generations of linguists in discussion. Problems of the category of genus were raised in the classical works of JI. Bloomfield, K. Brugman, J. Grimm, W. von Humboldt, O. Jespersen, T. Campanella, M.V. Lomonosov,

A. Meie, G. Paul, E. Sapir, G. Steinthal. A significant contribution to the development of the modern theory of grammatical gender was made by both domestic and foreign scientists: A.V. Bondarko, I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay,

B.V. Vinogradov, S.D. Katsnelson, A.B. Kopeliovich, A.V. Mirtov, I.P. Muchnik, A.A. Potebnya, K. Brugman, D. Weiss, D. Homburger, W. Lehmann, E. Leis, A. Martinet, D. Nelson, R. Forer and others.

Particular attention in linguistic literature is paid to questions of the genesis of the category of gender (V.V. Vinogradov, L. Elmslev, O. Espersen,

B.V. Ioffe, T. Campanella, J. Lyons, M.V. Lomonosov, A. Meie, O. Semerenyi), ways of expressing it (F.I. Buslaev, I.F. Kalaidovich,

S.D. Katsnelson, A.B. Kopeliovich, V. Lehmann, A.A. Potebnya), its semantic conditionality (A.T. Aksenov, J. Grimm, V. Humboldt, O. Espersen, M.V. Laskova, A. Meie, G. Paul). However, despite the large number of works devoted to the problem of gender, this category is one of those difficult to explain grammatical phenomena that have not yet received unambiguous coverage in science.

Recently, there has been a significant increase in interest in the study of the category of gender, not only in general linguistics, but also in comparative and typological terms. The comparative-typological aspect is a necessary component of an effective approach to the study of any linguistic phenomenon, aimed at an in-depth and generalizing demonstration of the similarities and differences in the structure and semantics of similar grammatical categories in the compared languages. When approaching a language from the point of view of another language system, its features can be noted that were ignored by the traditional grammar of a given language. Such a study allows us to more fully reveal the specifics of the category of gender in two languages, tracing its origin, historical development and the processes occurring in this multifaceted category at the present stage - changes in the structure and mechanism of development caused by both intralingual and external processes. A significant contribution to the development of comparative typological linguistics was made by domestic scientists V.D. Arakin, V.G. Huck,

A.J.I. Zelenetsky, K.G. Krushelnitskaya, JI.B. Shcherba, W.K. Yusupov,

B.N. Yartseva. The works of researchers of regional languages ​​in this area, such as A.N., also deserve attention. Abregov, B.M. Bersirov, Z.U. Blyagoz, N.T. Gishev, U.S. Zekokh, Z.I. Kerasheva, M.A. Kumakhov, R.Yu. Namitokova, Yu.A. Tharkaho, M.K. Tutarisheva, JI.X. Tsyplenkova, A.K. Shagirov, M.Kh. Shkhapatseva.

The relevance of the proposed scientific research lies in the need for a deeper study of the structural-grammatical and lexical-semantic potential of the category of gender in relation to languages ​​of different types. The choice of topic was largely predetermined by the rather narrow coverage of this issue in linguistic research in recent years. In modern linguistics, when considering the category of gender, the main attention is paid to the cognitive, communicative, gender and functional aspects of this phenomenon. Our study makes an attempt to consider the category of gender precisely in terms of its grammatical and lexical-semantic manifestation in the languages ​​under study.

The object of the study is generic nouns of the Russian and German languages.

The subject of the study was the formal and lexical-semantic features of the category of gender in the compared languages.

The choice of the topic of the dissertation work determined the setting of the research goal; comparison of the category of gender of nouns in the Russian and German languages ​​to identify similarities and differences at the grammatical and structural-semantic level.

To achieve this goal, it is necessary to solve the following tasks:

1. To highlight the ontological essence and grammatical meaning of the category of gender, as well as the ways of its expression and features of functioning in the Russian and German languages.

2. Establish a distinction between the semantics of gender and grammatical gender.

3. Analyze the features of the generic classification of animate and inanimate nouns in the Russian and German languages.

4. Identify and describe cases of fluctuations in the grammatical gender of nouns in the languages ​​under study.

5. Identify the features of semantic relationships of various genders within each of the languages ​​under study, and also compare them in the Russian and German languages.

The methodological basis of the dissertation research was the works of domestic and foreign linguists, on the basis of which the conceptual framework of this work was formed

JI. Bloomfield, A.V. Bondarko V.V. Vinogradov, O. Espersen, A. Meillet, A.V. Mirtov, I.P. Muchnik, G. Paul, A.A. Potebnya, etc.)

When developing theoretical approaches and in the process of solving practical problems, the following methods were used in the work: the method of linguistic observation, structural-semantic analysis, descriptive, comparative-typological and statistical methods.

The dissertation work was written in a synchronous manner on the material of 8960 examples extracted from modern mono- and bilingual, as well as explanatory dictionaries through a continuous sampling.

The scientific novelty of the work lies in the fact that the proposed dissertation research represents the first experience of a comprehensive comparison of the category of gender of nouns in the Russian and German languages, taking into account the peculiarities of its formation and development in the compared languages ​​and the dynamic processes occurring in them at the present stage, as well as in an attempt to substantiate the motivation of the category of gender in both animate and inanimate nouns.

The following provisions are submitted for defense:

1. The category of gender as a classifying grammatical category functions at three linguistic levels: morphological, syntactic and semantic. Grammatical gender has closely interconnected and interdependent nominative and syntactic elements of semantic content. The presence of autonomous meanings in the language allows us to consider gender as a motivated category for both animate and inanimate nouns.

2. Formal differences between the categories of gender and gender dictate the need for a separate study of the word-formative (lexical) category of gender and the grammatical classification category for nouns and inflectional category for attributes.

3. Animate nouns of the Russian language are classified in the Russian linguistic consciousness as nouns of one kind or another only due to the fact that they objectify the sign of male or female gender. The gender of animate nouns in the German language is determined in the German linguistic consciousness not by correlation with gender, but exclusively by morphological specialized gender formants. In the German language there is a predominance of grammatical phenomena over the semantics of animate nouns, i.e. ignoring the natural sex differences of living beings, on the one hand, and the tendency to level out the discrepancy between the concept of their natural sex and the grammatical gender of nouns, on the other hand.

4. Categorical generic forms of both languages ​​are closely related to word-formation models, with systems of Russian and German word production; however, the Russian language has a more extensive base of suffixes that form words of one kind or another compared to the German language.

5. Differences in the degree of dependence of the gender of nouns on their lexical meaning in the compared languages ​​reflect the most characteristic features of the functioning of the category of gender in the Russian and German languages.

The theoretical significance of the dissertation lies in the fact that its results concerning the peculiarities of the functioning of the category of gender in different languages, the relationship between the form or semantics of a word and its gender in two languages, as well as the position of each of the three genders in the systems of the languages ​​under study, expand the known ideas about categories of the genus and stimulate further research in this direction. The theoretical significance of the work also lies in identifying the universal and specific, analogies and significant differences in the category of grammatical gender in the Russian and German languages.

The practical value of this work lies in the possibility of using its provisions in comparative typology, in theoretical and practical grammar of the Russian and German languages, in translation practice, in the preparation of textbooks, as well as when students write coursework and qualification papers.

Approbation. The materials of the dissertation research were presented annually at the scientific and practical conferences of young scientists and graduate students of ASU in 2001-2006, the International Scientific Conference “Language. Ethnos. Consciousness" (Maykop, April 24-25, 2003), All-Russian scientific conference of students, graduate students and young scientists "Perspective - 2004" (Nalchik).

Structure of the dissertation. The work consists of an introduction, two chapters, a conclusion and a list of references.

Conclusion of scientific work dissertation on the topic "Comparative typology of the grammatical category of gender in the Russian and German languages"

The structural-grammatical and lexical-semantic classification of the category of gender in the languages ​​under study allowed us to draw the following conclusions.

The opposition of the masculine and feminine gender in the sphere of animate nouns can be characterized as a privative opposition with the unmarked masculine gender, which acts in a position of neutralization and has greater morphological regularity and frequency.

In Russian, animate nouns agree with their defining words in gender, number and case. However, when agreeing the predicate expressed by a past tense verb with the subject denoting a person, the natural gender of this person is taken into account. In German, animate nouns also agree with the words that define them, always taking into account the formal characteristics of grammatical gender. However, when replacing animate neuter nouns with the meaning of a female person with personal pronouns, the forms of the third person of the feminine gender, corresponding to the concept of female, predominate. In both Russian and German, only animate nouns can form suffixal correlative pairs of masculine and feminine gender.

In the German language there is a predominance of grammatical phenomena over the semantics of animate nouns, i.e. ignoring the natural sex differences of living beings, on the one hand, and the tendency to eliminate the discrepancy between the concept of their natural sex and the grammatical gender of nouns, on the other hand.

In the Russian language, among the group of animate nouns, there are nouns of the so-called general gender, which are characterized by the meaning of person. The German language also has words that, by their meaning, can refer to persons of both sexes, however, their grammatical design - the article - shows that they refer only to one specific gender group.

In both Russian and German, the masculine gender of animate nouns is not only an indicator of male gender, but also of a person in general.

In both Russian and German, inanimate masculine nouns denote mainly specific objects. Names with abstract and collective meanings make up a small percentage of masculine words.

The category of grammatical gender in both languages ​​demonstrates a close connection between categorical gender forms and word-formation models, with the system of Russian and German word production. However, a typological comparison of word-formation means of the Russian and German languages ​​showed that the Russian language has a much more extensive base of suffixes that form words of one kind or another compared to the German language. Often, a whole group of Russian suffixes with a certain meaning in German corresponds to only one suffix.

A typological comparison of word-formation means of the Russian and German languages ​​gave the following results: Russian masculine suffixes forming nouns with the meaning of an active person - shchik (-ovshchik, -evshchik, -ilytsik, -alytsik), -chik, -ik, -nik, -ets , -tel, -ar (-ar), corresponds in German to the suffix -er (-1er, -peg, -apeg). The languages ​​under study show the greatest similarity in the type of suffixal nouns formed from foreign roots using the suffix -ist. Feminine suffixes with the meaning of a female character (more than 20 suffixes: -in(ya)/-yn(ya); -is(a)/-ess(a), -ikh(a), -its(a), -k(a)/-ovk(a)/-ank(a)/-enk(a); -sh(a), etc.) in German corresponds to only one suffix -in. However, this suffix has numerous semantic connotations, and has recently shown particular productivity in the field of naming women’s professions.

Masculine and neuter suffixes with abstract meanings -ost, -nost, -most, -ennost, -lost, -ot(a), -et(a), -izn(a), -ob(a), -stv( o) correspond to the German feminine suffixes -keit, -heit. In German, suffixal nouns of the neuter gender with the meaning of an abstract action on -nie, -tie correspond to suffixal feminine nouns with the suffix -ung or substantivized neuter infinitives. In German, nouns with feminine suffixes -н(я), -овн(я), -rel(я) with the meaning of repetition, stupidity or mediocrity correspond to nouns with feminine suffixes -ei, -erei, which also have a connotation of repetition and contemptuous assessment.

Not all masculine formants of animate nouns in the Russian language indicate that a person or animal belongs to the male gender. Not all feminine formants contribute to the expression of the female gender of a person or animal; some of them are used as part of substantive word forms denoting representatives of the male gender. A number of nouns do not have obvious formal gender indicators, but, nevertheless, they are assigned the status of some kind of gender characteristic.

In German, as in Russian, there are diminutives and other emotionally charged nouns that are formed using special suffixes. There are many such suffixes in the Russian language; they form words of all three genders. There are only two productive subjective evaluation suffixes in German, both of which form neuter nouns, even when attached to the stems of masculine and feminine nouns.

The greatest difference in the category of gender in the Russian and German languages ​​is observed in the content and functioning of the neuter gender. The range of meanings of neuter nouns in the Russian language is outlined less sharply than that of masculine and feminine. In German, the vast majority of neuter words have a very specific meaning. Most neuter nouns in Russian have an abstract meaning, while in German neuter nouns have a collective meaning. In the Russian language, the neuter gender has a less developed system of productive suffixes compared to the masculine and feminine gender, and the means of its expression are relatively poor. In German, the means of forming and expressing the neuter gender are more diverse. In modern Russian there are only a few neuter words denoting animate nouns. The German language has quite a few neuter nouns denoting animate beings.

Fluctuations in gender are observed in both languages. The presence in a language of words of different kinds with the same meaning is a phenomenon of a vestigial order. One of the forms gradually becomes archaic and goes out of use. One of the most common types of historical changes in the grammatical gender of nouns, both in Russian and in German, is their transition from one group to another and their strong consolidation in the latter.

The inextricable connection between the grammatical system of German nouns and their gender is clearly visible at the synchronic level.

Based on the word-formation type, the three German categorical forms of gender - masculine, feminine and neuter - perform certain semantic functions of various types. The masculine gender denotes mainly persons and certain objects, the feminine - abstract concepts, the neuter - collective meanings and words with a qualitative assessment. A specific feature of the German language is the grammatical design of the names of animate persons using all three generic forms. The masculine gender includes the category of person that names a person in general, a man or a woman; names of male persons and animals; names of most large birds and fish. The feminine gender includes the names of persons and animals of the feminine gender; names of small birds and most insects. The neuter gender includes designations of persons and animals at an early age; generalized names of types of animate nouns; diminutive designations.

The grammatical gender of names of persons, especially those denoting family ties, in most cases corresponds to natural gender. The gender of animal names corresponds to gender if the sexual difference of animals is of economic importance: in animal husbandry, agriculture, zoological institutions, or the language of hunters.

A statistical study showed varying degrees of dependence of the gender of nouns in both languages ​​on their lexical meaning. In modern German, there is a certain consistency in the classification of nouns within one gender group. In the Russian language, such a dependence is traced to a lesser extent.

Conclusion

The category of gender is one of the central ones in the grammatical structure of a language. As a lexical and grammatical category, it is reflected at three linguistic levels: semantic, morphological and syntactic. The semantic plan is associated with lexical meaning, with the category of animate/inanimate, as well as person/non-person. The morphological plane refers to the morphological means by which this category is expressed. The syntactic plan concerns the coordination of words that have a gender category. In this work, an attempt is made to comprehensively study the category of gender in two languages ​​of different systems: Russian and German.

In our opinion, the category of gender should be recognized as motivated in both animate and inanimate nouns. Grammatical gender has closely interconnected and interdependent nominative and syntactic elements of semantic content. And it is precisely the reality of autonomous meanings that allows gender to be considered a motivated category for both animate and inanimate nouns. The gender category is an important component of the consciousness of people who speak languages ​​that have a gender category. Therefore, the distribution of nouns by gender for speakers of these languages ​​is logical and motivated. At the same time, one should not consider its connection with biological sex as the only basis for motivating the assignment of a noun to one gender or another. The universal conceptual category of gender, reflecting a natural reality, is refracted differently in the language system. It is reflected in the functional-semantic category of gender and in the grammatical category of gender of animate nouns. Formal differences between the categories of gender and gender dictate the need for a separate study of the word-formative (lexical) category of gender and the grammatical (classification for nouns and inflectional for attributes) category of gender.

During the study of extensive factual material, it was found that the Russian and German languages ​​show significant similarities in terms of the functioning and expression of the category of gender: all nouns of both languages ​​(with the exception of Pluralia tantum) necessarily act as words of one gender - masculine, feminine or neuter: Not a single noun in the singular, even one just borrowed from another language and having in its phonetic and structural-grammatical characteristics features alien to the Russian or German language, can be outside the category of gender. Animate nouns of both languages ​​are characterized by the presence of lexical correlates based on the opposition of nouns based on gender and gender semantics. In both Russian and German languages, the masculine gender is not only an indicator of male gender, but also of a person in general. The opposition of the masculine and feminine gender in the sphere of animate nouns can be characterized as a privative opposition with the unmarked masculine gender, which acts in a position of neutralization and has greater morphological regularity and frequency.

Despite significant similarities in the category of gender of the Russian and German languages, we also discovered significant differences: the group of animate in the Russian language includes mainly masculine and feminine nouns, and only a few words of the neuter gender. In modern German, along with words of masculine and feminine gender, the group of animate ones includes a significant number of neuter nouns. They represent both faces and animals.

In the German language there is a predominance of grammatical phenomena over the semantics of animate nouns, i.e. ignoring the natural sex differences of living beings, on the one hand, and the tendency to eliminate the discrepancy between the concept of their natural sex and the grammatical gender of nouns, on the other hand. In German, the gender of nouns is expressed less consistently than in Russian: in modern Russian, gender is primarily determined by endings; in German, each noun is assigned a grammatical member - an article, which does not have an independent semantic meaning and expresses the grammatical gender of the noun.

The category of grammatical gender in both languages ​​demonstrates a close connection between categorical generic forms and word-formation models, with the system of Russian and German word production, however, the Russian language has a more developed system of generic suffixes than German. The most significant example here is the presence in the Russian language of a large number of diminutives and other emotionally charged suffixes; they form words of all three genders. There are only two productive subjective evaluation suffixes in German, both of which form neuter nouns, even when attached to the stems of masculine and feminine nouns. The languages ​​under study show the greatest similarity in the type of suffixal nouns formed from foreign roots using the suffix -ist.

The greatest difference in the category of gender in the Russian and German languages ​​is observed in the content and functioning of the neuter gender. The range of meanings of neuter nouns in the Russian language is outlined less sharply than that of masculine and feminine. In German, the vast majority of neuter words have a very specific meaning. Most neuter nouns in Russian have an abstract meaning, while in German neuter nouns have a collective meaning. In the Russian language, the neuter gender has a less developed system of productive suffixes compared to the masculine and feminine gender, and the means of its expression are relatively poor. In German, the means of forming and expressing the neuter gender are more diverse.

As for fluctuations in gender, they are noted in both languages, however, in the Russian language there are, according to our calculations, 310 words with double gender, having one meaning, while in the German language there are about 100 of them.

A significant difference in the functioning of the category of gender in the two languages ​​is also the smaller dependence, compared to the German language, of the gender of nouns in the Russian language on its grammatical system. At the synchronic level of the German language, an inextricable connection between the grammatical system of nouns and their gender is clearly visible. Based on the word-formation type, the three German categorical forms of gender - masculine, feminine and neuter - perform certain semantic functions of various types. The masculine gender denotes mainly persons and certain objects, the feminine - abstract concepts, the neuter - collective meanings and words with a qualitative assessment. A specific feature of the German language is the grammatical design of the names of animate persons using all three generic forms.

A statistical study of the relationship between the structural-semantic design of nouns and the features of semantic relationships of various genders within one language, as well as a comparison of these features in two languages, led us to the following conclusion: the languages ​​under study reveal varying degrees of dependence of the gender of nouns on their lexical meaning. In modern German, there is a certain consistency in the classification of nouns within one gender group. In the Russian language, such a dependence is traced to a lesser extent.

In our opinion, the presence of significant similarities in the functioning of the category of gender in the Russian and German languages ​​is due to the fact that both languages ​​belong to the Indo-European family. However, the consistent preservation of the three-member gender structure contrasts German and Russian with many other Indo-European languages, where a two-member gender opposition can be presented by eliminating the neuter gender. We believe that this is due to a certain degree of inflection (more in Russian and less in German), thanks to which both languages ​​have preserved the ancient system of inflection (inflectional forms). But with the development of analyticism in the German language, the function of distinguishing gender moved from inflection to the article. However, it is impossible to explain significant differences in the expression of one grammatical category in two languages ​​of different systems solely by the influence of intralingual factors. The answers to many of the questions we have posed may lie beyond linguistics.

The research we have undertaken does not pretend to provide an absolutely complete coverage of the category of gender in the Russian and German languages ​​and does not exhaust all its complexity and diversity. In this work, the main emphasis is placed on the grammatical side of the problem of the category of gender in languages ​​of different systems. Such an approach, in our opinion, opens up broad prospects for socio- and psycholinguistic, as well as gender research in this direction.

The results of the study have important theoretical and practical significance. The dissertation materials can be used in classes on the practice of Russian and German languages, translation, and in the development of theoretical courses on comparative grammar of Russian and German languages.

List of scientific literature Neshcheretova, Tamara Teuchezhevna, dissertation on the topic "Russian language"

1. Abregov A.N. Research on vocabulary and word formation of the Adyghe language / A.N. Abregov. Maykop, 2000. - 201 p.

2. Aksenov, A.T. On the problem of extralinguistic motivation of the grammatical category of gender / A.T. Aksenov // Questions of linguistics. 1984. - No. 1. - P. 14-25.

3. Alpatov, V.M. History of linguistic teachings / V.M. Alpatov. -M., 2001.-368 p.

4. Ancient theories of language and style. M.; L.: Sotsekgiz, 1936. - 344 p.

6. Apresyan, Yu.D. Lexical semantics. Synonymous means of language / Yu.D. Apresyan. M.: Nauka, 1974. - 368 p.

7. Arakin, V.D. Comparative typology of English and Russian languages ​​/ V.D. Arakin. L., 1979. - 254 p.

8. Akhmanova, O.S. Linguistic meaning and its varieties / O.S. Akhmanova // The problem of meaning in linguistics and logic. M.: Publishing house Mosk. University, 1963. - pp. 8-10.

9. Balin, B.M. German aspectological context in comparison with English / B.M. Balin. Kalinin, 1969. - 432 p.

10. Barannikova, L.I. Basic information about the language / L.I. Barannikova. -M,: Education, 1982. 112 p.

11. Benveniste, E. General linguistics / E. Benveniste. M., 1974. - 448 p.

12. Bersirov, B.M. Language policy and education of a multinational republic / B.M. Bersirov // Bulletin of ASU. -1998. No. 2. - P.7-10.

13. Bloomfield, L. Language / L. Bloomfield; under. ed. and with a preface. MM. Gukhman. -M.: Progress, 1968. 607 p.

14. Blyagoz, Z.U. Bilingualism: the essence of the phenomenon, the forms of its existence. Interference and its varieties / Z.U. Blagoz. -Maykop: ASU Publishing House, 2006. 150 p.

15. Blyagoz, Z.U. Contacting Russian and native languages ​​in bilingual conditions / Z.U. Blagoz. Rostov/nD: Publishing house of the Rostov state. ped. Institute, 1976. - 76 p.

16. Blyagoz, Z.U. A brief outline of the phonetic and lexico-grammatical structure of the Adyghe language (in Adyghe and Russian) / Z.U. Blagoz. Maykop: ASU Publishing House, 1997. - 108 p.

17. Blyagoz, Z.U. On some aspects of nominative derivation in the Russian and Adyghe languages ​​/ Z.U. Blyagoz, M.Kh. Shkhapatseva // Lexis and word formation in the Adyghe language. Maykop, 1987. -S. 20-26.

18. Baudouin de Courtenay, I.A. Linguistic notes: On the connection of grammatical gender with the worldview and mood of people / I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay // Journal of the Ministry of Public Education. St. Petersburg, 1990. - No. 11. - P. 367-370.

19. Baudouin de Courtenay, I.A. Selected works on general linguistics. T. 1 / I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay. M., 1963.

20. Bondarko, A.V. On the problem of intentionality in grammar (on the material of the Russian language) / A.V. Bondarko // Questions of linguistics. -1994.-No.2.-S. 29-42.

21. Bondarko, A.V. Conceptual categories and linguistic semantic functions in grammar / A.V. Bondarko // Universals and typological studies. M., 1974. - pp. 66-67.

22. Bondarko, A.V. Grammatical meaning and meaning / A.V. Bondarko. -L.: Science, 1978.- 175 p.

23. Bondarko, A.V. Theory of morphological categories / A.V. Bondarko. -L.: Science, 1976.-255 p.

24. Bondarko, A.V. Principles of grammar functionality and aspects of aspectology / A.V. Bondarko. L.: Nauka, 1983. - 208 p.

25. Budagov, R.A. Essays on linguistics / R.A. Budagov. M.: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1952.-280 p.

26. Budagov, R.A. Stylistic understanding of the grammatical category of gender / R.A. Budagov // Theory of language and engineering linguistics / LGPIim. A.I. Herzen.-L., 1973.-P. 18-33.

27. Bulanin, L.L. Difficult questions of morphology / L.L. Bulanin. M.: Education, 1976.-208 p.

28. Buslaev, F.I. Historical grammar of the Russian language / F.I. Buslaev. -M, 2006. 288 p.

29. Vandries, J. Language (linguistic introduction to history) / J. Vandries. M., 2004. - 408 p.

30. Weinreich, U. On the semantic structure of language / U. Weinreich // New in linguistics. M., 1970. - Issue. 5. - pp. 163-249.

31. Vinogradov, A.A. Ways of expressing the opposition female-non-feminine in Russian and Hungarian languages ​​/ A.A. Vinogradov // Philol. Sciences. 1991. - No. 6. - P. 111-117.

32. Vinogradov, V.V. Russian language: grammatical teaching about the word / V.V. Vinogradov. 2nd ed. - M.: Higher. school, 1972. - 614 p.

33. Vinogradov, V.V. About word forms / V.V. Vinogradov // News of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Department of Literature and Language. 1944. - Volume 3, issue. 1. - pp. 31-44.

34. Vinogradov, V.V. Russian language / V.V. Vinogradov. M.: Higher. school, 1972.-614 p.

35. Vinogradov, V.V. Lexicology and lexicography / V.V. Vinogradov. -M.: Nauka, 1977.-244 p.

36. Vinogradov, V.V. Word and meaning as a subject of historical and lexicological research / V.V. Vinogradov // Questions of linguistics. 1995. - No. 1. - P. 5-36.

37. Wittgenstein, L. Logical-philosophical treatise / L. Wittgenstein. -M., 1958.- 134 p.

38. Questions of German philology. Ulyanovsk, 1966. - 199 p.

39. Gadzhieva, N.D. Comparative historical study of languages ​​of different families. Theory of linguistic reconstructions. / N.D. Gadzhieva. -M.: Nauka, 1988.-237 p.

40. Gak, V.G. On the dialectics of semantic relations in language / V.G. Hak // Principles and methods of semantic research. M.: Nauka, 1976. -S. 73-92.

41. Gak, V.G. Essays on the comparative study of French and Russian languages ​​/ V.G. Gak, E.B. Roizenblit. M., 1963. - 378 p.

42. Gak, V.G. Language transformations / V.G. Hook. M.: Languages ​​of Russian Culture, 1998. - 763 p.

43. Gladky, A.V. To the definition of the concept of case and gender of a noun / A.V. Gladky // Questions of linguistics. 1969. -No. 1.-S. 110-123.

44. Gin, Ya.I. On the correlation of gender and gender in personification / Ya.I. Gin // Problems of structural linguistics, 1985-1987 / rep. ed. V.P. Grigoriev.-M., 1989.-S. 176-184.

45. Gishev, N.T. Adyghe lexicographic practice and some semantic observations / N.T. Gishev // Questions of Adyghe linguistics. Maykop, 1985. - Issue. 5. - pp. 76-82.

46. ​​Golovin, B.N. Introduction to linguistics / B.N. Golovin. M.: Higher. school, 1977.-303 p.

47. Golev, N.D. Works on linguistics Electronic resource. / N.D. Golev. Access mode: http://lingvo.asu.ru/golev/articles.

49. Grammar of the Russian language. T. 1 2. M.: Nauka, 1960.

50. Grammar of the modern Russian literary language. M.: Nauka, 1970.-768 p.

51. Humboldt, V. Selected works on linguistics / V. Humboldt. -M.: Progress, 1984.-397 p.

53. Espersen, O. Philosophy of grammar / O. Espersen. M.: Foreign publishing house. lit., 1958. - 404 p.

55. Zagnitko, A.A. Functional “orientation” of grammatical forms of gender of nouns / A.A. Zagnitko // Philological sciences. 1989. - No. 1. - P. 36-42.

56. Zaliznyak, A.A. Russian nominal inflection / A.A. Zaliznyak. -M.: Nauka, 1967.-370 p.

57. Zekoch, W.S. Adyghe grammar / U.S. Zekoh. Maykop, 2002.239 p.

58. Zelenetsky, A.JI. Comparative typology of German and Russian languages ​​/ A.JI. Zelenetsy, P.F. Monakhov. M.: Education, 1983.240 p.

59. Zinder, J1.P. Historical morphology of the German language / JI.P. Zinder, T.V. Stroeva. L.: Education, 1968. - 264 p.

60. Zinder, L.R. Modern German language / L.R. Zinder, T.V. Stroeva. M.: Publishing house of literature. to foreign lang., 1957. - 420 p.

61. Zograf, G.A. Morphological structure of new Indo-Aryan languages ​​/ G.A. Zograf. M, 1976. - 368 p.

62. Ivleva, G.G. Semantic features of words in the German language / G.G. Ivleva. -M.: Higher. school, 1978.- 104 p.

63. Ioffe, V.V. Origin and development of the category of gender in the Proto-Indo-European language: abstract. dis. . Dr. Philol. sciences /

64. B.V. Ioffe. Rostov n/d, 1973. - 24 p.

65. Kade, T.H. Scientific methods of linguistic research / T.Kh. Kade. Krasnodar: KubSU Publishing House, 1998. - 138 p.

66. Kalaidovich, I.F. Notes on grammatical genders in the Russian language / I.F. Kalaidovich // Proceedings of the Society of Lovers of Russian Literature. -Ch. V. -M., 1824. P. 170-205.

67. Katsnelson, S.D. Typology of language and speech thinking /

68. S.D. Katsnelson. L.: Nauka, 1972. - 216 p.

69. Katsnelson, S.D. General and theoretical linguistics / S.D. Katsnelson. L.: Nauka, 1986. - 289 p.

70. Kirilina, A.V. Development of gender research in linguistics / A.V. Kirillina // Philological sciences. 1998. - No. 3. - P. 51-57.

71. Ko dukhov, V.I. General linguistics / V.I. To the spirits. M.: Higher. school, 1974.-303 p.

72. Kopeliovich, A. B. Origin and development of the Indo-European family in the syntagmatic aspect / A. B. Kopeliovich. Vladimir, 1995. -123 p.

73. Kopeliovich, A.B. Semantic-grammatical development of the category of gender in the modern Russian language: abstract. dis. . Ph.D. Philol. Sciences / A.B. Kopeliovich. M., 1971. - 20 p.

74. Kopeliovich, A.B. Formation of generic relations in Indo-European languages ​​/ A.B. Kopeliovich // Philological sciences. 1989.-No.3.-S. 45-52.

75. Corbett, G.G. Animacy in Russian and other Slavic languages ​​/ G.G. Corbett // New in foreign linguistics. Vol. XV. M.: Progress, 1985. - P. 388-406.

76. Kumakhov, M.A. Comparative historical grammar of the Adyghe (Circassian) languages ​​/ M.A. Kumakhov. M.: Nauka, 1989. - 382 p.

77. Krushelnitskaya, K.G. Essays on comparative grammar of German and Russian languages ​​/ K.G. Krushelnitskaya. M.: Publishing house of literature. to foreign lang., 1961. - 265 p.

78. Kurovskaya, Yu.G. Structural-semantic asymmetry of the category of grammatical gender in the sphere of German anthroponyms: abstract of thesis. dis. . Ph.D. Philol. Sciences / Yu.G. Kurovskaya. N. Novgorod, 2001. - 19 p.

79. Lyons, D. Introduction to theoretical linguistics / D. Lyons. M.: Education, 1978. - 543 p.

81. Leontyev, A.A. Language, speech, speech activity / A.A. Leontyev. -M.: Education, 1969. 214 p.

82. Lomonosov, M.V. Full composition of writings. T. 7. Works on philology, 1739-1758. / M.V. Lomonosov. M.; L.: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1952.-996 p.

83. Maltsev, V.I. Lexical meaning and concept / V.I. Maltsev // The problem of sign and meaning. M.: Moscow State University Publishing House, 1963. - pp. 93-102.

84. Markus, S. Grammatical gender and its logical model / S. Markus // Mathematical linguistics. M.: Mir, 1964. - pp. 122-144.

85. Meillet, A. Introduction to the comparative study of Indo-European languages ​​/ A. Meilleux. -M., 1938. 510 p.

86. Meie, A. Common Slavic language / A. Meie. M.: Foreign publishing house. lit., 1951.-491 p.

87. Meye, A. Comparative method in historical linguistics / A. Meye. M., 1954.- 100 p.

89. Melchuk, I.A. Course of general morphology / I.A. Melchuk. M.: Vienna, 1998.-543 p.

90. Meshchaninov, I.I. Members of the sentence and parts of speech / I.I. Meshchaninov. M.; L., 1945. - 322 p.

91. Miloslavsky, I.G. Morphological categories of the modern Russian language / I.G. Miloslavsky. M.: Education, 1981. - 253 p.

93. Mirtov, A. V. Gender inflected nouns / A. Mirtov // Russian language at school. M., 1946. - No. 1. - P. 16-19.

94. Moiseev, A.I. ways of differentiating personal nouns of masculine and feminine gender / A.I. Moiseev // Scientific notes of Leningrad State University. -1962.-No. 302.-S. 27-38.

95. Moskalskaya, O.I. German grammar / O.I. Moskalskaya. M.: Publishing house of literature. to foreign lang., 1958. - 394 p.

96. Muchnik, I.P. Grammatical categories of verb and name in modern Russian / I.P. Muchnik. M.: Nauka, 1971. - 298 p.

98. Thoughts about the Adyghe languages: Sat. Art. / Adyg. rep. int. humanist, researcher Maykop: Meoty, 1994. - 225 p.

99. Namitokova, R.Yu. Modern Russian language. Morphology: educational and methodological course plan / R.Yu. Namitokova. Maykop, 1998.- 67 p.

100. Nevzorova, O.A. Inductive approach to constructing a model of grammatical gender / O.A. Nevzorova // Dialogue "96 on computer linguistics and its applications: materials of the international seminar. - M., 1996. P. 175-176.

101. German, G.P. Semantic-syntactic means of expressing modality in the Russian language / G.P. German. Rostov n/d: Publishing house Rostov, university, 1989. - 144 p.

102. Nemirovsky, N.Ya. Methods of indicating gender in the languages ​​of the world / N.Ya. Nemirovsky // In memory of academician. N.Ya. Marra. M.; JL, 1938. - pp. 196-225.

103. Nechai, Yu.P. Semantic-syntactic means of expressing emotional-expressive meanings of particles in German and Russian languages ​​(comparative analysis): dis. . Dr. Philol. Sciences / Yu.P. Nechay. Krasnodar, 1999. - 465 p.

104. Nikitin, M.V. Fundamentals of linguistic theory of meaning / M.V. Nikitin. M.: Higher. school, 1988. - 168 p.

105. Novikov, JI.A. Semantics of the Russian language / JI.A. Nvikov. M.: Higher. school, 1982.-272 p.

106. Nozdrina, JI.A. Interaction of grammatical categories in a literary text: abstract. dis. . Dr. Philol. Sciences / JI.A. Nozdrina. M., 1997. - 47 p.

107. Norman, B.Y. On the creative function of language (based on the material of Slavic languages) / B.Yu. Norman // Slavic Studies. 1997. - No. 4. - P. 26-32.

108. General linguistics: Methods of linguistic research / ed. B.A. Serebrennikova. M.: Nauka, 1973. - 318 p.

109. Osman, M. Distribution of nouns by gender as a reflection of the structural and semantic features of the category of gender / M. Osman. Rostov n/d, 1990. - 14 p.

110. Paul, G. Principles of the history of language / G. Paul. M.: Higher. school, 1960. -500 p.

111. Perelmuter, I.A. Greek thinkers of the 5th century. BC. / I.A. Perelmuter // History of linguistic teachings. Ancient world. -L., 1980.-S. 110-130.

112. Peshkovsky, A.M. Selected works / A.M. Peshkovsky. M.: Uchpedgiz, 1952.-252 p.

113. Peshkovsky, A.M. Russian syntax in scientific coverage /

114. A.M. Peshkovsky // Concepts of V. Humboldt. M.: Nauka, 1982. -222 p.

115. Pechatnikov, A.D. Word formation suffixes in modern Russian and some of their equivalents in English, French and German / A.D. Pechatnikov // Questions of linguistics. M., 1950. - No. 6. - P. 35-45.

116. Pilgun, M.A. The three-member structure of the category of gender as a manifestation of the specificity of Slavic material Electronic resource. / M.A. Pilgun // Materials of the scientific conference of KSU. Access mode: http: // www/kcn/ru/tatru/science/news/ruslang.

117. Plungyan, V.A. General morphology. Introduction to the problem /

118. B.A. Plungyan. M., 2000. - 384 p.

119. Principles for describing the languages ​​of the world. M., 1976. - 343 p.

120. Pokrovsky, M.M. Selected works on linguistics / M.M. Pokrovsky. M.: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1959. - 382 p.

122. Popov, Yu.V. General grammatical theory in German linguistics / Yu.V. Popov. Minsk: Highest. school, 1972. - 296 p.

123. Popova, Z.D. Lexical system of language / Z.D. Popova, I.A. Sternin. Voronezh: Voronezh Publishing House, University, 1984. - 148 p.

124. Potebnya, A.A. Thought and language: collection. tr. / A.A. Potebnya. M.: Labyrinth, 1999. - 269 p.

125. Potebnya, A.A. From notes on Russian grammar. T. 2-3 / A.A. Potebnya. M., 1968. - 536 p.

126. Revzina, A. Typological analysis of the grammatical category of gender (based on the material of Slavic languages): abstract. dis. . Ph.D. Philol. Sciences / A. Revzina. M., 1970. - 37 p.

127. Reformatsky, A.A. Introduction to linguistics / A.A. Reformed. -M.: Education, 1967. 543 p.

128. Rogava, G.V. Grammar of the Adyghe language / G.V. Rogava, Z.I. Kerasheva. Krasnodar; Maykop: Krasnodar, book. publishing house, 1966. -462 p.

129. Rosenthal, D.E. Modern Russian language / D.E. Rosenthal, I.B. Golub, M.A. Telenkova. M.: Rolf, 2002. - 448 p.

130. Russian grammar. T. 1 2. M.: Nauka, 1980.

131. Russian language: Encyclopedia / ch. ed. F.P. Owl. M.: Sov. Encycl., 1979.-432 p.

132. Sapir, E. Selected works on linguistics and cultural studies: translation from English. / E. Sapir. M.: Progress, 1993. - 655 p.

134. Saussure, F. de. Works on linguistics: trans. from French / F. de Saussure; edited by A.A. Kholodovich. M.: Progress, 1977. - 696 p.

135. Saussure F. de. Notes on general linguistics: trans. from French / F. de Saussure. M.: Progress, 1990. - 280 p.

136. Steblin-Kamensky, M.I. Grammar of the Norwegian language / M.I. Steblin-Kamensky. M.: KomKniga, 2006. - 240 p.

137. Stepanov, Yu.S. Fundamentals of general linguistics / Yu.S. Stepanov. 2nd ed., revised. -M.: Education, 1975. - 271 p.

138. Stepanova, M.D. Lexicology of the modern German language / M.D. Stepanova, I.I. Chernysheva. M.: Higher. school, 1975. - 272 p.

140. Strausov, V.N. Comparative study of the grammatical category of gender within the framework of anthroponyms / V.N. Strausova, S.K. Strausova // Bulletin of Pyatigorsk State Linguistic University, 2002. pp. 38-40.

141. Tolstoy, N.I. From experiments in typological research of Slavic vocabulary / N.I. Tolstoy // Issues of linguistics. 1963. -No. 1.-S. 29-45.

142. Tosovic, B. Russian-Serbo-Croatian-German correlations in the category of gender / B. Tosovic // Small and large languages. Tartu, 1998.-S. 175-185.

143. Tutarishcheva, M.K. About the onomastics of the Circassians. Questions of comparative typology / M.K. Tutarishcheva. Maykop: Ajax, 2004. - 76 p.

144. Tharkaho, Y.A. Evaluation as a style-forming tool / Yu.A. Tharkaho // Vocabulary and word formation in the Adyghe language. -Maykop, 1987.-S. 75-83.

145. Ulukhanov, I.S. Grammatical gender and word formation / I.S. Ulukhanov // Questions of linguistics. 1988. - No. 5. - pp. 107-121.

146. Whorf, B. The relationship of norms of behavior and thinking to language. Science and linguistics. Linguistics and logic / B. Whorf // New in linguistics. -M., 1960.-S. 135-198.

147. Fan, N.L. Factors influencing the personification of nouns with unmotivated gender in the modern Russian language / N.L. Fan // Russian Studies 99. M., 1999. - P. 240-245

148. Vossler, K. Grammatical and psychological forms in language / K. Vossler // Problems of literary form. L., 1928. - P. 148190.

149. Tsyplenkova, L.Kh. On the issue of the connection between language and thinking in bilingualism / L.Kh. Tsyplenkova // Adygean philology. Krasnodar, 1969. - Issue. 3.-S. 3-12.

150. Chesnokov, P.V. The word and the corresponding unit of thinking / P.V. Chesnokov M.: Education, 1967. - 192 p.

151. Shagirov, A.K. Essays on comparative lexicology of Adyghe languages ​​/ A.K. Shagirov. Nalchik, 1962. - 214 p.

152. Shanskaya, T.V. Variants of generic forms of nouns in the modern Russian literary language / T.V. Shanskaya // Bulletin of Moscow State University. 1963. - No. 6. - P. 55-64.

153. Shansky, N.M. Lexicology of the modern Russian language / N.M. Shansky. M., 1964. - 316 p.

155. Shkhapatseva, M.Kh. Comparative grammar of Russian and Adyghe languages ​​/ M.Kh. Shkhapatseva. Maykop: Adyg. rep. book publishing house, 2005.-328p.

156. Shcherba, J1.B. Language system and speech activity / JI.B. Shcherba. -L.-Science, 1974.-427 p.

158. Yusupov, U.K. Comparative linguistics as an independent discipline / W.K. Yusupov // Methods of comparative study of languages. M.: Nauka, 1988. - P. 6 - 11.

159. Language nomination (general issues). M.: Nauka, 1977. - 359 p.

160. Yar NATO, V.E. Grammatical gender of nouns in the German language / V.E. Yarnatovskaya. M.: Uchpedgiz, 1956. - 80 p.

161. Yartseva, V.N. On the comparative method of learning languages ​​/ V.N. Yartseva // Questions of general linguistics. M., 1964. - pp. 54-60

162. Yartseva, V.N. Principles of typological research of related and unrelated languages ​​/ V.N. Yartseva // Problems of linguistics. -M., 1967.-S. 203-207.

163. Bittner, D. Die historische Entwicklung nominaler -er-Bildungen des Deutschen / D. Bittner // ZAS Papers in Linguistics. 1997. - No. 8. - S. 28-43.

164. Bittner, D 2002 Semantisches in der pronominalen Flexion des Deutschen // Zeitschrift fur Sprachwissenschaft / D. Bittner. 2002. - No. 21. - S. 196-233.

165. Brugmann, K. Das Nominalgeschlecht in den indogermanischen Sprachen // Internationale Zeitschrift der allgemeinen Sprachwissenschaft / K. Brugmann. 1889. -No. 4. - S. 100-109.

166. Forer, R. Genus und Sexus. Uber philosophische und sprachwissenschafitliche Erklarungsversuche zum Zusammenhang von grammatischem und naturlichem Geschlecht / R. Forer // Wallinger / Jonas.- 1986.-S. 21-42.

167. Homburger, D. Mannersprache Frauensprache: Ein Problem der Sprachkultur / D. Homburger // Mannersprache. - 1993. - Bd. 103. - S. 89-112.

168. Jarnatowskaja, V. Das Substantiv / V. Jarnatowskaja Moskau.: Vissaja skola, 1981. - 144S.

169. Jelitte, H. Lexikalisch-semantische Wortstrukturen im Russischen / H. Jelitte Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 2001. - 213 S.

170. Johann, C.G. Uber die Sprache / G.G. Johann. Hdlb.: Winter, 1998. -298 S.

171. Kalverkamper, H. Die Frauen und die Sprache / H. Kalverkamper // Linguistische Berichte. 1979. - No. 62. - S. 55-71.

172. Kirilina, A. Feministische Linguistik als Diskussionsthema / A. Kirilina // Der DAF-Unterricht: Friedrich Schiller-Universitat Jena. Jena, 1997. -S. 16-21.

173. Kirilina, A. Feministische Linguistik / A. Kirilina // Das Wort: Germanistisches Jahrbuch. Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst. -Moskau, 1997. S. 160-168.

174. Lehmann, W.P. On Earlier Stages of the Indo-European Nominal Inflection / W.P. Lehmann // Language. 1958. - Vol. 34. - P. 179-202.

175. Leiss, E. Genus im Althochdeutschen // Grammatica Ianua Artium. Festschrift fur Rolf Bergmann zum 60. Geburtstag / E. Leiss. -Heidelberg, 1997. S. 33-47.

176. Leiss, E. Genus und Sexus. Kritische Anmerkungen zur Sexualisierung von Grammatik / E. Leiss // Linguistische Berichte. 1994. - No. 152. - S. 281-300.

177. Martinet, A. Le genre feminin en indo-europeen: examen fonctionnel du probleme / A. Martinet. Basel, 1956. - Vol. 52. - P. 83-95.

178. Meillet, A. Linguistique historique et linguistique generate / A. Meillet. -Paris, 1921.

179. Nelson, D. Prolegomena to a German gender dictionary. / D. Nelson // Word. N.-Y., 1998. - Vol. 49. - No. 2. - P. 205-224.

180. Schmidt, F. Logik der Syntax / F. Schmidt. Berlin: VEB Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften, 1961. - 175 S.

181. Schmidt, F. Symbolische Syntax / F. Schmidt. Halle (Saale): VEB Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1970. - 196 S.

182. Steinthal, H. Gesammelte kleine Schriften / H. Steinthal. Berlin, 1880,

183. Weiss, D. Sexus Districts in Polish and Russian / D. Weiss // Words are physicians for an ailing mind: For A.Boguslavski on the occasion of his 60th birthday. -Mtinchen, 1991. P. 449-466.

184. Weiss, D. Kurica ne ptica, baba ne chelovek / D. Weiss // Slavische Linguistik. 1987. - S. 413-443.

185. Schlichting, D. Nicht-sexistischer Sprachgebrauch. Uber Sprachratgeber fur kommunikative Zwickmtihlen / D, Schlichting // Sprachreport. V., 1997.-No. 2.-S. 6-11.1. Dictionaries used

186. Large German-Russian dictionary: in 3 volumes / comp. E.I. Leping et al.; under hand Dr. Philol. sciences, prof. O.I. Moskalskaya. 4th ed., erased. -M: Rus. lang., 1998.

187. Big encyclopedic dictionary / ch. ed. A.M. Prokhorov. 2nd ed., revised. and additional - M.; SPb.: Bolshaya Ross. encyclical: Norint, 2000. -1451 p.

188. Dal, V. Explanatory dictionary of the living Great Russian language: in 4 volumes / V. Dal. M.: TERRA, 1995.

189. Tananushko, K.A. Latin-Russian dictionary / K.A. Tananushko. M.: Harvest LLC, 2002. - 1344 p.

190. Linguistic encyclopedic dictionary / USSR Academy of Sciences. Institute of Linguistics; Ch. ed. V.N. Yartseva. M.: Sov. encyclopedia, 1990. -685 p.

191. Maruso, J. Dictionary of linguistic terms / J. Maruso. M., 1960.-436 p.

192. Mokienko, V.M. Large dictionary of Russian jargon: 25,000 words. 7000 stable phrases / V.M. Mokienko, T.G. Nikitina. St. Petersburg: Norint, 2000.-717 p.

193. German-Russian Polytechnic Dictionary: 110,000 terms. 3rd ed., erased. -M.: Rus. lang., 1984. - 863 p.

194. German-Russian technical dictionary: approx. 40,000 terms / ed. L.I. Barona. 2nd ed., erased. - M.: Sov, encycl., 1968. - 725 p.

195. German-Russian phraseological dictionary / comp. L.E. Binovich, N.N. Grishin; edited by Dr. Malige-Klappenbach, C. Agricola. 2nd ed., rev. and additional -M.: Rus. lang., 1975. - 656 p.

196. Ozhegov, S.I. Dictionary of the Russian language: 70,000 words / S.I. Ozhegov; edited by N.Yu. Shvedova. 22nd ed., erased. - M.: Rus. lang., 1990. - 921 p.

197. Polytechnic Dictionary / Ch. ed. A.Yu. Ishlinsky. 3rd ed. -M.: Sov. encycl., 1989. - 656 p.

198. Russian-German dictionary (main): approx. 53,000 words / ed. K. Lane. 10th ed., rev. and additional - M.: Rus. lang., 1989. - 735 p.

199. Dictionary of the Russian language: in 4 volumes / USSR Academy of Sciences, Institute of Russian. language; Ch. ed. A.P. Evgenieva. 2nd ed., rev. and additional - M.: Rus. lang., 1981-1984.

200. Dictionary of synonyms of the Russian language: in 2 volumes / author. input and ch. ed. A.P. Evgenieva. L.: Science. Leningr. department, 1970-1971.

201. Dictionary of modern literary language: in 17 volumes / USSR Academy of Sciences. Institute of Linguistics. -M.; L.: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1951-1965.

202. Explanatory dictionary of the Russian language: in 4 volumes / ed. D.N. Ushakova. -M.: State. foreign publishing house and national words, 1935-1940.

203. Explanatory dictionary of the Russian language of the late 20th century: Language changes / Ros. acad. Sciences, Institute of Linguist, Research; Ch. ed. G.N. Sklyarevskaya. -SPb.: Folio-press, 1998. 700 p.

204. Vasmer, M. Etymological dictionary of the Russian language: in 4 volumes / trans. with him. and additional HE. Trubachev; edited by B.A. Larina. 2nd ed., erased. -M.: Progress, 1986-1987.

205. Philosophical encyclopedic dictionary. M.: Sov. Encycl., 1983. - 840 p.

206. Encyclopedic Dictionary. Reprint, reproduction ed. F. Brockhaus-I.A. Efron 1890 - M.: Terra, 1990-1994.

207. Agricola, E. Worter und Wendungen: Worterbuch zum deutschen Sprachgebrauch / E. Agricola, H. Gorner, R. Ktifner. Leipzig: VEB Bibliographisches Institut, 1979. - 818 S.

208. Duden. Deutsches Universalworterbuch/hrsg. u. bearb. vom Wiss. Rat u.d. Mitarb. d. Dudenred. unter Leitung von G. Drosdowski, vollig neu bearb. u. stark erw. Aufl. Mannheim; Wien; Zurich: Dudenverl., 1989. -1816 S.

209. Langenscheidts Gro|3worterbuch Deutsch als Fremdsprache /hrsg. u. bearb. von D. Gotz, G. Haensch, H. Wellmann. M.: Mart, 1998. - 1248 S.

210. Paffen, K.A. Deutsch-russisches Satzlexikon / K.A. Paffen. Leipzig: VEB Verlag Enzyklopadie, 1980. - 847 S.

211. Pons-Worterbuch der deutschen Umgangssprache / Verfas. H. Kupper. -Stuttgart: Klett, 1990. 959 S.

212. Wahrig, G. Deutsches Worterbuch: mit einem "Lexikon der deutschen Sprachlehre" / G. Wahrig. ~ Miinchen: Bertelsmann Lexicon Verlag, 1991.