Typological (morphological) classification (hereinafter - TC) involves the division of languages ​​into groups based on differences in the ways of forming grammatical forms (not dependent on their genetic relationship).

In the TC, languages ​​are combined on the basis of common features that reflect the most significant features of the language system.

Linguistic typology is a comparative study of the structural and functional properties of languages, regardless of the nature of the genetic relationship between them. The typological study of languages ​​aims to establish the similarities and differences of languages ​​(language structure), which are rooted in the most common and most important properties of the language (for example, in the way morphemes are combined) and do not depend on their genetic relationship.

TC appeared after the genealogical one (at the turn of the XVIII-XIX centuries.), although the material began to appear as early as the 16th century. If the genealogical classification is due to the common origin of languages, then the TC is based on the commonality of the linguistic type and structure (ie, the commonality of the word).

August-Wilhelm and Friedrich Schlegel are considered the founders of the TC.

F. Schlegel compared Sanskrit with Greek, Latin, and also with Turkic languages ​​and came to the conclusion:

1. that all languages ​​can be divided into two types: inflectional and affixing,
2. that any language is born and remains in the same type,
3. that inflectional languages ​​are characterized by "wealth, strength and durability", and affixing "lack of living development from the very beginning", they are characterized by "poverty, poverty and artificiality".

August-Wilhelm Schlegel, taking into account the objections of F. Bopp and other linguists (It is clear that all the languages ​​of the world cannot be divided into two types. Where, for example, is the Chinese language, where there is no internal inflection or regular affixation?), reworked typological classification of his brother's languages ​​("Notes on the Provencal Language and Literature", 1818) and identified three types: 1) inflectional, 2) affixing, 3) amorphous (which is characteristic of the Chinese language), and in inflectional languages ​​he showed two possibilities of grammatical structure : synthetic and analytical.

He went much deeper into the question of the types of languages ​​and finally formulated the theoretical provisions - W. von Humboldt (1767 – 1835).

Humboldt explained that Chinese is not amorphous, but isolating, i.e. the grammatical form in it is manifested differently than in inflectional and agglutinating languages: not by changing words, but by word order and intonation, thus this type is a typically analytical language.

In addition to the three types of languages ​​noted by the Schlegel brothers, Humboldt described a fourth type; the most accepted term for this type is incorporating.

Humboldt noted the absence of "pure" representatives of one or another type of language, which is constructed as an ideal model.

A significant contribution to the development of this typology was made by A.Schleikher, G.Steinthal, E.Sapir, I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay, I.I. Meshchaninov.

A. Schleicher considered isolating or amorphous languages ​​to be archaic, agglutinating languages ​​to be transitional, ancient inflectional languages ​​to be the era of prosperity, and inflectional new (analytical) languages ​​to be attributed to the era of decline.

F.F. Fortunatov very subtly showed the difference in the formation of words in Semitic and Indo-European languages, which until recently was not distinguished by linguists: Semitic languages ​​are “inflectional-agglutinative” and Indo-European languages ​​are “inflectional”.

According to this classification, types of (morphological) languages ​​are distinguished:

• inflectional,
• agglutinative,
• insulating (amorphous),
• incorporating (polysynthetic).

Four types of languages.

inflectional(inflectional) languages ​​(hereinafter - FL) are languages ​​that are characterized by inflectional inflection, i.e. inflection through inflection (ending), which can be an expression of several categorical forms. For example, the ending -y in the form of write-y combines the meaning of the 1st person singular. numbers of the present tense of the indicative mood; the ending -a in the form of board-a indicates the nominative singular feminine.

The main features of this type of languages ​​are: the presence of internal inflection and fusion (alternations are widely used); ambiguity and non-standard affixes, i.e. polyfunctionality of grammatical morphemes; zero affixes are used both in semantically original and semantically secondary forms (hands, boots);

the stem of the word is often dependent: red-, zva-;

phonetic changes in the composition of the morpheme are performed by word-formation and

inflectional functions (phonetically unconditioned root changes);

a large number of phonetically and semantically unmotivated types of declension and

conjugations.

Usually FL are divided into two subclasses: with internal and external inflection.

Inflectional languages ​​include Indo-European languages ​​(Russian, Belarusian, Ukrainian, Czech, Polish, etc., i.e. all Slavic languages, except Bulgarian, languages, Latin, Lithuanian), Semitic languages.

Agglutinative (agglutinating) languages- languages ​​in which word forms

are formed not by changing flexion, but by agglutination.

Agglutination(from Latin agglutinare - to stick) - a way of forming word forms and derivative words by mechanically attaching standard affixes to unchangeable, devoid of internal inflection, bases or roots (note that each affix has only one grammatical meaning, as well as each meaning is always expressed by one and with the same affix). In Turkish, the word form dallarda "on the branches" includes the following morphemes dal - branches, lar - plural. number, da - local case. On the branch can be translated into Turkish as dalda.

Signs of languages ​​of this type:

• highly developed derivational and inflectional affixation;
• they have an unchanging root,
• weak connection between morphemes,
• standard and unambiguous affixes,

the variation of affixes is regular and is caused by the laws of phonemic alternations (the laws of vowel harmony, vowel harmony and consonant assimilation), the boundaries of morphemic segments are characterized by clarity,

the phenomena of simplification and re-decomposition are not typical.

The agglutinative languages ​​are Turkic, Finno-Ugric, Altaic, Uraliclanguages, Bantu languages, Japanese, Korean and some other languages.

insulating(amorphous (Greek amorphos from a- - non-, without- + morphē - form), formless, root, root-isolating) languages ​​- languages ​​\u200b\u200bthat do not have affixes and in which grammatical meanings (case, number, time, etc. .) are expressed either by adjoining one word to another, or with the help of auxiliary words. Since in the languages ​​of this group the word consists of one root, there are no affixes, therefore, there is no such grammatical structure as affixation (the word is equal to the root). For example, in Chinese, the same sound complex can be different parts of speech and, accordingly, different members of a sentence. Therefore, the main grammatical ways are stress and word order in a sentence. The semantic function in this language is performed by intonation.

This is how words are formed in Chinese from the word write: rewrite = write - redo, letter = write - subject.

Its main characteristics:

• immutable words,
• underdeveloped vocabulary,
• grammatically significant sequence of words,
• weak opposition of meaningful and functional words.

Isolate languages ​​are Chinese, Burmese, Vietnamese, Lao,Siamese, Thai, Khmer.

Incorporating (polysynthetic) languages- languages ​​whose grammatical structure is based on incorporation.

incorporation(Latin incorporatio - association, inclusion in its composition) (holophrasis, encapsulation, agglomeration, incorporation) - a way of forming sentence words by adding stem roots (in these languages, the root is equal to a word) of individual words and service elements.

The peculiarity of this type of languages ​​(Indian in America, Paleo-Asiatic in Asia) is that the sentence is built as a compound word, i.e. unformed word roots are agglutinated into one common whole, which will be both a word and a sentence. Parts of this whole are both the elements of the word and the members of the sentence. The whole is a word-sentence, where the beginning is the subject, the end is the predicate, and additions with their definitions and circumstances are incorporated (inserted) into the middle. Humboldt explained this with a Mexican example:

ninakakwa, where ni is "I", naka is "ed-" (i.e., "eat"), kwa is the object "meat-". In Russian, three grammatically formed words are obtained, I am meat-about, and, conversely, such an integrally formed combination as an anteater does not constitute a sentence. In order to show how it is possible to “incorporate” in this type of languages, we will give another example from the Chukchi language: ty-ata-kaa-nmy-rkyn - “I kill fat deer”, literally: “I-fat-deer-killing -do”, where the skeleton of the “body” is: you-nmy-rkyn, into which kaa is incorporated - “deer” and its definition is ata - “fat”; The Chukchi language does not tolerate any other arrangement, and the whole is a word-sentence, where the above order of elements is also observed.

Thus, the incorporating languages ​​are characterized by the following features: along with independent words, these languages ​​have complex complexes: the verb form includes an object, a circumstance of an action, sometimes a subject.

Incorporating languages ​​are close to agglutinating languages ​​by the principle of combining morphemes, and to inflecting languages ​​by the presence of an internal form.

This type of language is Paleoasian, Eskimo, Indian languages.

In the Middle Ages, the question of the diversity of languages ​​became obvious, since the "barbarians" destroyed Rome and many "barbarian" languages ​​​​entered the cultural arena (Celtic, Germanic, Slavic, Turkic, etc.), among which none could be considered "the only" . However, the interaction of multilingual peoples in this era was limited either to military operations or everyday communication, which, of course, required to a certain extent the mastery of foreign languages, but did not lead to the systematic study of foreign languages.

Theoretical issues due to the fact that education was in the hands of the church were resolved only in accordance with the Bible, where the diversity of languages ​​was explained by the legend of the Tower of Babel, according to which God "mixed" the languages ​​​​of the people who built this tower in order to prevent people from entering heaven . Belief in this legend survived until the 19th century. However, more sober minds tried to understand the diversity of languages, based on real data.

The impetus for raising this question in scientific terms was the practical tasks of the Renaissance, when it was necessary to theoretically comprehend the question of the composition and type of the national language, the spokesman for a new culture, and its relationship with the literary languages ​​of the feudal Middle Ages, and thereby re-evaluate the ancient and other ancient heritage.

The search for raw materials and colonial markets pushed representatives of the young bourgeois states to travel around the world. The era of "great travels and discoveries" introduced Europeans to the natives of Asia, Africa, America, Australia and Oceania.

The predatory policy of the first conquistadors towards the natives is replaced by systematic capitalist colonization in order to force the colonial population to work for their conquerors. To do this, it was necessary to communicate with the natives, to communicate with them, to influence them through religion and other ways of propaganda. All this required mutual understanding and thus the study and comparison of languages.

Thus, the various practical needs of the new era created the basis for the examination and registration of languages, the compilation of dictionaries, grammars and theoretical studies. In relation to the colonial languages, this role was assigned to monk missionaries who were sent to the newly discovered countries; the records of these missionaries were for a long time the only source of knowledge about a wide variety of languages.

As early as 1538, the work of Guilelmo Postellus (1510–1581) De affmitatae linguarum (On the Relationship of Languages) appeared.

The first attempt to establish groups of related languages ​​belonged to Joseph-Justus Scaliger (1540-1609), son of the famous Renaissance philologist Julius-Caesar Scaliger (1484-1558). In 1610, Scaliger’s work “Diatriba de europeorum linguis” (“Discourse on European Languages”, written in 1599) was published in France, where 11 “mother languages” are established within the European languages ​​known to the author: four “big” - Greek, Latin (with Romanesque), Teutonic (Germanic) and Slavic, and seven "small" ones - Epirote (Albanian), Irish, Cymric (British) with Breton, Tatar, Finnish with Lappish, Hungarian and Basque. Despite the fact that the comparison was on the comparison of the word God in different languages ​​and that even the Latin and Greek names for God (deus, theos) did not lead Scaliger to think about the relationship of Greek with Latin, and he declared all 11 "mothers" "not related by any ties of kinship", within the Romance and especially Germanic languages, the author managed to make subtle differences in the degree of kinship, indicating that only Germanic languages ​​are Water-languages ​​(the language itself is the mother and the Low German dialect), while others are Wasser-languages ​​(High German dialect), i.e. outlined the possibility of separating the Germanic languages ​​and German dialects on the basis of the movement of consonants, which was later developed in the works Ten-Cate, Rasmus Rusk and Jacob Grimm.

At the beginning of the XVII century. E. Guichard in his work L "Harmonie etymologique des langues" (1606), despite fantastic comparisons of languages ​​and scripts, managed to show the family of Semitic languages, which was further developed by other Hebraists, such as Job Ludolf (1624–1704).

A wider classification, although largely inaccurate, but with a clear recognition of the concept of a family of languages, was given by the famous mathematician and philosopher Gottfried-Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716), distributing the languages ​​​​known to him into two large families with the division of one of them into two more groups:

I. Aramaic (i.e. Semitic).

II. Japhetic:

1. Scythian (Finnish, Turkic, Mongolian and Slavic).

2. Celtic (other European).

If in this classification we move the Slavic languages ​​​​to the “Celtic” group, and rename the “Scythian” languages ​​at least to the “Ural-Altaic”, then we will get what linguists came to in the 19th century.

In the 17th century a native of Croatia, Yuri Krizhanich (1617–1693), who lived for many years in Russia (mainly in exile), gave the first example of comparing Slavic languages; this attempt is striking in its accuracy.

In the XVIII century. Lambert Ten-Cate (1674-1731) in his book "Aenleiding tot de Kenisse van het verhevende Deel der niederduitsche Sprocke" ("Introduction to the study of the noble part of the Low German language", 1723) made a thorough comparison of the Germanic languages ​​and established the most important sound correspondences of these related languages .

Of great importance among the predecessors of the comparative-historical method are the works of M.V. Lomonosov (1711–1765) “Russian Grammar” (1755), Preface “On the Benefits of Church Books in the Russian Language” (1757) and the unfinished work “On Russian Native Languages ​​and Current Dialects”, which gives an absolutely accurate classification of the three groups of Slavic languages with an indication of the great proximity of the eastern to the southern, the correct etymological correspondences of single-root Slavic and Greek words are shown on a number of words, the question of the degree of proximity of Russian dialects and the disunity of German, the place of the Old Church Slavonic language is clarified, and family relations between the languages ​​of the European part of the Indo-European languages ​​are outlined.

In fulfillment of the precepts of Leibniz, Peter I sent the Swede Philip-Johann Stralenberg (1676–1750) captured near Poltava to Siberia to study the peoples and languages ​​that Stralenberg and

fulfilled. Returning to his homeland, in 1730 he published comparative tables of the languages ​​of Northern Europe, Siberia and the North Caucasus, which laid the foundation for the genealogical classification for many non-Indo-European languages, in particular Turkic.

In the XVIII century. in Russia, implementing the plans of Peter I, the first "Russian academics" (Gmelin, Lepekhin, Pallas, etc.) were engaged in a broad and, as it is now commonly called, a comprehensive study of the lands and outskirts of the Russian Empire. They studied the geographical and geological structure of territories, climate, subsoil, population, including the languages ​​of a multi-tribal state.

This last was summed up in a large translation-comparative dictionary, published in the first edition in 1786-1787. It was the first dictionary of this type, published under the title "Comparative dictionaries of all languages ​​and dialects", where, by translating Russian words into all available languages, a "Catalogue of Languages" was compiled into 200 languages ​​of Europe and Asia. In 1791, the second edition of this dictionary was published with the addition of some languages ​​of Africa and America (272 languages ​​in total).

Materials for translations in these dictionaries were collected both by academicians and other employees of the Russian Academy, the editors were academician Pallas and Jankovic de Marievo, with the personal participation of Catherine II. Thus, this dictionary was given state significance.

The second similar dictionary was carried out by a Spanish missionary named Lorenzo Hervas y Panduro, who published the first (Italian) edition in 1784 under the title "Сatalogo delle lingue conosciute notizia della loro affunita e diversita" and the second (Spanish) - in 1800- 1805 under the title "Catalogo de las lenguas de las naciones concidas", where over 400 languages ​​were collected in six volumes with some references and information about certain languages.

The last such publication was the work of the Baltic Germans I. Kh. Adelung and I.S. Vater “Mithridates, oder allgemeine Sprachkunde” (“Mithridates, or General Linguistics”), published in 1806–1817, where the correct idea to show the differences of languages ​​in a coherent text was carried out by translating the prayer “Our Father” into 500 languages; for most of the world's languages, this is a fantastic artificial translation. In this edition, comments on the translation and grammatical and other information are of great interest, in particular W. Humboldt's note on the Basque language.

All these attempts to "catalogue languages", no matter how naive they were, nevertheless brought great benefits: they introduced the real facts of the diversity of languages ​​and the possibilities of similarities and differences of languages ​​within the same words, which contributed to the interest in the comparative comparison of languages ​​and enriched the actual language awareness.

However, lexical comparisons alone, and even without any genuine historical theory, could not lead to the necessary scientific results. But the ground for the emergence of comparative linguistics was ready.

All that was needed was some kind of impetus that would suggest the correct ways to compare languages ​​and set the necessary goals for such studies.

§ 77. COMPARATIVE HISTORICAL METHOD IN LINGUISTICS

Such a "push" was the discovery of Sanskrit, the literary language of ancient India. Why could this "discovery" play such a role? The fact is that both in the Middle Ages and in the Renaissance, India was considered a fabulous country full of miracles described in the old novel Alexandria. Travels to India by Marco Polo (XIII century), Athanasius Nikitin (XV century) and the descriptions they left did not dispel the legends about the "country of gold and white elephants".

The first to notice the similarity of Indian words with Italian and Latin was Philippe Sasseti, an Italian traveler of the 16th century, as he reported in his Letters from India, but no scientific conclusions were drawn from these publications.

The question was correctly posed only in the second half of the 18th century, when the Institute of Oriental Cultures was established in Calcutta and William Johns (1746–1794), having studied Sanskrit manuscripts and got acquainted with modern Indian languages, was able to write:

“The Sanskrit language, whatever its antiquity, has an amazing structure, more perfect than Greek, richer than Latin, and more beautiful than either of them, but bearing in itself such a close relationship with these two languages ​​as in roots of verbs, and in forms of grammar, which could not be generated by chance, the relationship is so strong that no philologist who would study these three languages ​​\u200b\u200bcan not believe that they all came from one common source, which, perhaps no longer exists. There is an analogous reason, though not so convincing, for supposing that both Gothic and Celtic, though mixed with quite different dialects, were of the same origin as Sanskrit; Ancient Persian could also be attributed to the same family of languages, if there were a place for discussing questions about Persian antiquities.

This laid the foundation for comparative linguistics, and the further development of science confirmed, although declarative, but correct statements of V. Jonze.

The main thing in his thoughts:

1) similarity not only in roots, but also in the forms of grammar cannot be the result of chance;

2) it is a kinship of languages ​​that go back to one common source;

3) this source, “perhaps no longer exists”;

4) in addition to Sanskrit, Greek and Latin, the Germanic, Celtic, and Iranian languages ​​also belong to the same family of languages.

At the beginning of the XIX century. Independently of each other, various scholars from various countries began to elucidate the relationship of languages ​​within a particular family and achieved remarkable results.

Franz Bopp (1791–1867) went straight from the statement of W. Jonze and studied the conjugation of the main verbs in Sanskrit, Greek, Latin and Gothic (1816) using the comparative method, comparing both roots and inflections, which was methodologically especially important, since correspondences roots and words are not enough to establish the relationship of languages; if the material design of inflections also provides the same reliable criterion of sound correspondences - which cannot be attributed to borrowing or chance, since the system of grammatical inflections, as a rule, cannot be borrowed - then this serves as a guarantee of a correct understanding of the relationships of related languages. Although Bopp believed at the beginning of his work that Sanskrit was the "proto-language" for the Indo-European languages, and although he later tried to include such alien languages ​​\u200b\u200bin the kindred circle of Indo-European languages ​​\u200b\u200bsuch as Malay and Caucasian, but also with his first work, and later, drawing on data Iranian, Slavic, Baltic languages ​​and the Armenian language, Bopp proved the declarative thesis of V. Jonze on a large surveyed material and wrote the first "Comparative grammar of the Indo-Germanic [Indo-European] languages" (1833).

The Danish scientist Rasmus-Christian Rask (1787-1832), who was ahead of F. Bopp, followed a different path. Rask emphasized in every possible way that lexical correspondences between languages ​​are not reliable, grammatical correspondences are much more important, because borrowing inflections, and inflections in particular, "never happens."

Starting his research with the Icelandic language, Rusk first of all compared it with other "Atlantic" languages: Greenlandic, Basque, Celtic - and denied them kinship (regarding the Celtic ones, Rask later changed his mind). Then Rask compared the Icelandic language (1st circle) with the closely related Norwegian and got the 2nd circle; this second circle he compared with other Scandinavian (Swedish, Danish) languages ​​(3rd circle), then with other Germanic (4th circle), and, finally, he compared the Germanic circle with other similar "circles" in search of "Thracian "(i.e. Indo-European) circle, comparing the Germanic data with the indications of the Greek and Latin languages.

Unfortunately, Rusk was not attracted to Sanskrit even after he had been to Russia and India; this narrowed his "circles" and impoverished his conclusions.

However, the involvement of Slavic and, in particular, the Baltic languages ​​significantly made up for these shortcomings.

A. Meillet (1866–1936) characterizes the comparison of the thoughts of F. Bopp and R. Rask as follows:

“Rusk is significantly inferior to Bopp in that he does not attract Sanskrit; but he points to the original identity of the approaching languages, without being carried away by vain attempts to explain the original forms; he is content, for example, with the assertion that "every end of the Icelandic language can be found more or less clearly in Greek and Latin," and in this respect his book is more scientific and less outdated than Bopp's writings. It should be pointed out that Rusk's work was published in 1818 in Danish and only in an abridged form was printed in German in 1822 (translated by I. S. Vater).

The third founder of the comparative method in linguistics was A. Kh. Vostokov (1781–1864).

Vostokov dealt only with the Slavic languages, and above all with the Old Church Slavonic language, whose place had to be determined in the circle of Slavic languages. Comparing the roots and grammatical forms of the living Slavic languages ​​with the data of the Old Slavonic language, Vostokov managed to unravel many incomprehensible facts of Old Slavonic written monuments before him. So, Vostokov is credited with unraveling the “mystery of the yus”, i.e. letters and and a, which he defined as denoting nasal vowels, based on the juxtaposition:

Vostokov was the first to point out the need to compare the data contained in the monuments of dead languages ​​with the facts of living languages ​​and dialects, which later became a prerequisite for the work of linguists in a comparative historical sense. This was a new word in the formation and development of the comparative historical method.

In addition, Vostokov, using the material of the Slavic languages, showed what the sound correspondences of related languages ​​are, such as, for example, the fate of combinations tj, dj in Slavic languages ​​(cf. Old Church Slavonic svђsha, Bulgarian light[svesht], Serbo-Croatian cbeha, Czech swice, Polish swieca, Russian candle - from common Slavic *svetja; and Old Church Slavonic, Bulgarian between, Serbo-Croatian mezha, Czech mez, Polish miedw, Russian boundary - from common Slavic *medza), correspondence to Russian full-vowel forms like city, head(cf. Old Slavonic grad, Bulgarian hail, Serbo-Croatian hail, Czech hrad- castle, kremlin, polish grod- from common Slavic *gordu; and Old Church Slavonic chapter, Bulgarian chapter, Serbo-Croatian chapter, Czech hiva, Polish gfowa- from common Slavic *golva etc.), as well as the method of reconstructing archetypes or proto-forms, i.e., original forms not attested by written monuments. Through the works of these scientists, the comparative method in linguistics was not only declared, but also shown in its methodology and technique.

Great merit in refining and strengthening this method on a large comparative material of Indo-European languages ​​belongs to August Friedrich Pott (1802-1887), who gave comparative etymological tables of Indo-European languages ​​and confirmed the importance of analyzing sound correspondences.

At this time, individual scientists describe in a new way the facts of certain related language groups and subgroups.

Such are the works of Johann-Caspar Zeiss (1806-1855) on the Celtic languages, Friedrich Dietz (1794-1876) on the Romance languages, Georg Curtius (1820-1885) on the Greek language, Jacob Grimm (1785-1868) on the Germanic languages, and in in particular in German, Theodor Benfey (1818–1881) in Sanskrit, Frantishek Miklosic (1818–1891) in Slavic languages, August Schleicher (1821–1868) in Baltic languages ​​and German, F.I. Buslaev (1818–1897) in Russian and others.

Of particular importance for the verification and approval of the comparative historical method were the works of the novelistic school of F. Dietz. Although the use of the method of comparison and reconstruction of archetypes has become commonplace among comparative linguists, skeptics were legitimately puzzled by not seeing the actual verification of the new method. Romance brought this test with its research. The Romano-Latin archetypes, restored by the school of F. Dietz, were confirmed by written facts in the publications of Vulgar (folk) Latin, the language-ancestor of the Romance languages.

Thus, the reconstruction of the data obtained by the comparative-historical method was proved in fact.

To complete an outline of the development of comparative historical linguistics, one should also cover the second half of the 19th century.

If in the first third of the XIX century. scientists who developed the comparative method, as a rule, proceeded from idealistic romantic premises (the brothers Friedrich and August-Wilhelm Schlegel, Jacob Grimm, Wilhelm Humboldt), then by the middle of the century natural-scientific materialism became the leading direction.

Under the pen of the largest linguist of the 50-60s. XIX century, naturalist and Darwinist August Schleicher (1821–1868), the allegorical and metaphorical expressions of the Romantics: “the body of the language”, “youth, maturity and decline of the language”, “family of related languages” - acquire a direct meaning.

According to Schleicher, languages ​​are the same natural organisms as plants and animals, they are born, grow and die, they have the same pedigree and genealogy as all living beings. According to Schleicher, languages ​​do not develop, but grow, obeying the laws of nature.

If Bopp had a very vague idea of ​​the laws in relation to language and said that “one should not look for laws in languages ​​that could offer more staunch resistance than the banks of rivers and seas,” then Schleicher was sure that “the life of linguistic organisms in general takes place according to certain laws with regular and gradual changes, "and he believed in the operation of" the same laws on the banks of the Seine and Po and on the banks of the Indus and the Ganges.

Based on the idea that “the life of a language is no different from the life of all other living organisms - plants and animals”, Schleicher creates his theory of the “family tree” , where both the common trunk and each branch are always divided in half, and raise languages ​​to their primary source - the parent language, the “primary organism”, in which symmetry, regularity should dominate, and all of it should be simple; therefore, Schleicher reconstructs vocalism on the model of Sanskrit, and consonantism on the model of Greek, unifying declensions and conjugations according to one model, since the variety of sounds and forms, according to Schleicher, is the result of the further growth of languages. As a result of his reconstructions, Schleicher even wrote a fable in the Indo-European parent language.

Schleicher published the result of his comparative historical research in 1861–1862 in a book entitled Compendium of Comparative Grammar of the Indo-Germanic Languages.

Later studies by Schleicher's students showed the inconsistency of his approach to comparing languages ​​and to reconstruction.

Firstly, it turned out that the “simplicity” of the sound composition and forms of the Indo-European languages ​​is the result of later eras, when the former rich vocalism in Sanskrit and the former rich consonantism in Greek were reduced. On the contrary, it turned out that the data of rich Greek vocalism and rich Sanskrit consonantism are more reliable ways to reconstruct the Indo-European proto-language (studies by Collitz and I. Schmidt, Ascoli and Fikk, Osthoff, Brugmann, Leskin, and later by F. de Saussure, F.F. Fortunatov, I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay and others).

Secondly, the original "uniformity of forms" of the Indo-European proto-language also turned out to be shaken by research in the field of the Baltic, Iranian and other Indo-European languages, since older languages ​​\u200b\u200bmay have been more diverse and "multi-form" than their historical descendants.

The "young grammarians", as Schleicher's students called themselves, opposed themselves to the "old grammarians", representatives of Schleicher's generation, and above all renounced the naturalistic dogma ("language is a natural organism"), which their teachers professed.

The neo-grammarists (Paul, Osthoff, Brugmann, Leskin and others) were neither romantics nor naturalists, but relied in their "unbelief in philosophy" on the positivism of Auguste Comte and on the associative psychology of Herbart. The “sober” philosophical, or rather emphatically anti-philosophical position of the neo-grammarists does not deserve due respect. But the practical results of the linguistic research of this numerous galaxy of scientists from different countries turned out to be very relevant.

In this school, the slogan was proclaimed that phonetic laws (see Chapter VII, § 85) do not act everywhere and always in the same way (as Schleicher thought), but within a given language (or dialect) and in a certain era.

The works of K. Werner (1846-1896) showed that deviations and exceptions of phonetic laws are themselves due to the action of other phonetic laws. Therefore, as K. Werner said, “there must be, so to speak, a rule for incorrectness, you just need to open it.”

In addition (in the works of Baudouin de Courtenay, Osthoff, and especially in the works of G. Paul), it was shown that analogy is the same regularity in the development of languages ​​as phonetic laws.

The exceptionally subtle works on the reconstruction of archetypes by F. F. Fortunatov and F. de Saussure once again showed the scientific power of the comparative historical method.

All these works were based on comparisons of various morphemes and forms of Indo-European languages. Particular attention was paid to the structure of the Indo-European roots, which in the era of Schleicher, in accordance with the Indian theory of “ups,” were considered in three forms: normal, for example vid, in the first step of the ascent - (guna) ved and in the second step (vrddhi) vayd, as a system of complication of a simple primary root. In the light of new discoveries in the field of vocalism and consonantism of the Indo-European languages, the existing correspondences and differences in the sound design of the same roots in different groups of Indo-European languages ​​and in individual languages, as well as taking into account stress conditions and possible sound changes, the question of Indo-European roots was put differently. : the most complete form of the root was taken as primary, consisting of consonants and a diphthongic combination (syllabic vowel plus i,and , n , t,r,l); due to reduction (which is associated with accentology), weakened variants of the root at the 1st step could also arise: i, and,n, t,r, l without a vowel, and further, on the 2nd degree: zero instead of i , and or and, t,r, l non-syllabic. However, this did not fully explain some of the phenomena associated with the so-called “Shwa Indogermanicum”, i.e. with an indefinite faint sound, which was portrayed as ?.

F. de Saussure in his work "Memoire sur Ie systeme primitif des voyelles dans les langues indoeuropeennes", 1879, exploring various correspondences in the alternations of the root vowels of the Indo-European languages, came to the conclusion that and uh could be a non-syllabic element of diphthongs, and in the case of a complete reduction of the syllabic element, it could become a syllabic element. But since this kind of "sonantic coefficients" was given in various Indo-European languages, then e, then a, then oh, it was to be assumed that the "seams" themselves had a different appearance: ? 1 , ? 2 , ? 3. Saussure himself did not draw all the conclusions, but suggested that the "algebraically" expressed "sonantic coefficients" BUT and O corresponded to sound elements that were once inaccessible directly from the reconstruction, the “arithmetic” explanation of which is still impossible.

After confirming the texts of Vulgar Latin of Romanesque reconstructions in the era of F. Dietz, this was the second triumph of the comparative historical method, associated with direct foresight, since after deciphering in the 20th century. Hittite cuneiform monuments turned out that in the disappeared by the first millennium BC. e. In the Hittite (non-Sith) language, these "sound elements" are preserved and they are defined as "laryngeal", denoted h, and in other Indo-European languages ​​the combination he gave e, ho gave b, a eh > e, oh > o / a, whence we have the alternation of long vowels in the roots. In science, this set of ideas is known as the "laryngeal hypothesis". The number of disappeared "laryngeal" is calculated differently by different scientists.

F. Engels wrote about the comparative-historical method in Anti-Dühring.

“But since Herr Dühring deletes all modern historical grammar from his curriculum, then for teaching the language he is left with only old-fashioned, dissected in the style of old classical philology, technical grammar with all its casuistry and arbitrariness due to the lack of a historical foundation. His hatred of the old philology leads him to elevate its worst product to the rank of "the central point of the truly educational study of languages." It is clear that we are dealing with a philologist who has never heard anything about historical linguistics, which over the past 60 years has received such a powerful and fruitful development - and therefore Herr Dühring is looking for "highly modern educational elements" of the study of languages ​​not Bopp, Grimm and Dietz, and Heise and Becker of blessed memory. Somewhat earlier in the same work, F. Engels pointed out: “The matter and form of the native language” become understandable only when its emergence and gradual development are traced, and this is impossible if you do not pay attention, firstly, to its own dead forms and, secondly, related to living and dead languages.

Of course, these statements do not negate the need for descriptive, and not historical, grammars, which are needed primarily at school, but it is clear that it would be impossible to build such grammars on the basis of "the blessed memory of Heise and Becker", and Engels very accurately pointed out the gap "school grammatical wisdom" of that time and the advanced science of that era, which developed under the sign of historicism, unknown to the previous generation.

For comparative linguists of the late XIX - early XX century. The “proto-language” is gradually becoming not the desired, but only a technical means of studying real-life languages, which was clearly formulated by Antoine Meillet (1866–1936), a student of F. de Saussure and the neogrammarists.

"The comparative grammar of the Indo-European languages ​​is in the same position as the comparative grammar of the Romance languages ​​would be if the Latin language were not known: the only reality it deals with is the correspondences between the attested languages"; “Two languages ​​are said to be related when they are both the result of two different evolutions of the same language that was in use before. The totality of related languages ​​constitutes the so-called language family" , "the method of comparative grammar is applicable not to restore the Indo-European language in the form in which it was spoken, but only to establish a certain system of correspondences between historically attested languages" . "The totality of these correspondences constitutes what is called the Indo-European language".

In these reasonings of A. Meillet, despite their sobriety and reasonableness, two features characteristic of positivism of the late 19th century were affected: firstly, the fear of broader and bolder constructions, the rejection of attempts to research going back centuries (which is not was afraid of the teacher A. Meillet - F. de Saussure, who ingeniously outlined the "laryngeal hypothesis"), and, secondly, anti-historicism. If we do not recognize the real existence of the base language as the source of the existence of related languages ​​that continue it in the future, then we should generally abandon the entire concept of the comparative historical method; if one accepts, as Meillet says, that “two languages ​​are said to be related when they are both the result of two different evolutions of the same language that was in use before”, then one should try to investigate this “previously used source language” , using both the data of living languages ​​and dialects, and the testimony of ancient written monuments and using all the possibilities of correct reconstructions, taking into account the development data of the people, the bearer of these linguistic facts.

If it is impossible to completely reconstruct the base language, then it is possible to achieve the reconstruction of its grammatical and phonetic structure and, to some extent, the basic fund of its vocabulary.

What is the attitude of Soviet linguistics to the comparative historical method and to the genealogical classification of languages ​​as a conclusion from comparative historical studies of languages?

1) The related commonality of languages ​​follows from the fact that such languages ​​originate from one base language (or group parent language) through its disintegration due to the fragmentation of the carrier collective. However, this is a long and contradictory process, and not a consequence of the “splitting of a branch in two” of a given language, as A. Schleicher thought. Thus, the study of the historical development of a given language or a group of given languages ​​is possible only against the background of the historical fate of the population that was the bearer of a given language or dialect.

2) The basis language is not only a “set of ... correspondences” (Meillet), but a real, historically existing language that cannot be completely restored, but the basic data of its phonetics, grammar and vocabulary (to the least) can be restored, which was brilliantly confirmed by the data the Hittite language in relation to the algebraic reconstruction of F. de Saussure; behind the set of correspondences, the position of the reconstructive model should be preserved.

3) What and how can and should be compared in the comparative-historical study of languages?

a) It is necessary to compare words, but not only words and not all words, and not according to their random consonances.

The “coincidence” of words in different languages ​​with the same or similar sound and meaning cannot prove anything, since, firstly, this may be the result of borrowing (for example, the presence of the word factory as fabrique, fabrik, fabriq etc. in a variety of languages) or the result of a random coincidence: “so, in English and in New Persian the same combination of articulations bad means "bad", and yet the Persian word has nothing to do with the English: it is pure "play of nature." "A combined examination of the English lexicon and the New Persian lexicon shows that no conclusions can be drawn from this fact".

b) You can and should take the words of the compared languages, but only those that can historically belong to the era of the “base language”. Since the existence of a language-base should be assumed in the communal-clan system, it is clear that the artificially created word of the era of capitalism factory not suitable for this. What words are suitable for such a comparison? First of all, kinship names, these words in that distant era were the most important for determining the structure of society, some of them have survived to this day as elements of the main vocabulary of related languages (mother, brother, sister) part has already “been in circulation”, i.e., it has moved into a passive dictionary (brother-in-law, daughter-in-law, yatry), but both words are suitable for comparative analysis; for example, yatry, or yatrov, -“brother-in-law’s wife” is a word that has parallels in Old Church Slavonic, Serbian, Slovenian, Czech and Polish, where jetrew and earlier jetry show the nasal vowel that links this root to words womb, inside, inside[values] , with French enrailles etc.

Numerals (up to ten), some primordial pronouns, words denoting parts of the body, and then the names of some animals, plants, tools are also suitable for comparison, but there may be significant differences between languages, since during migrations and communication with other peoples, one word could be lost, others could be replaced by strangers (for example, horse instead of horse), others are simply borrowed.

The table on p. 406, shows lexical and phonetic correspondences in various Indo-European languages ​​under the headings of the indicated words.

4) Some "coincidences" of the roots of words or even words are not enough to clarify the relationship of languages; as in the 18th century. W. Johns wrote, “coincidences” are also necessary in the grammatical design of words. We are talking about grammatical design, and not about the presence in languages ​​of the same or similar grammatical categories. Thus, the category of the verb aspect is clearly expressed in the Slavic languages ​​and in some African languages; however, this is expressed materially (in the sense of grammatical methods and sound design) in completely different ways. Therefore, on the basis of this “coincidence” between these languages, there can be no talk of kinship.

But if the same grammatical meanings are expressed in languages ​​in the same way and in the corresponding sound design, then this indicates more than anything about the relationship of these languages, for example:

Russian language	Old Russian language	Sanskrit	Greek (Doric) language	Latin language	Gothic language
take	kerzht	bharanti	feronti	ferunt	bairand

where not only roots, but also grammatical inflections – ut, - wait , - anti, -onti, -unt, -and exactly correspond to each other and go back to one common source [although the meaning of this word in other languages ​​differs from the Slavic ones - “to carry”].

The importance of the criterion of grammatical correspondences lies in the fact that if it is possible to borrow words (which happens most often), sometimes grammatical patterns of words (associated with certain derivational affixes), then inflectional forms, as a rule, cannot be borrowed. Therefore, a comparative comparison of case and verb-personal inflections most likely leads to the desired result.

5) When comparing languages, the sound design of the compared language plays a very important role. Without comparative phonetics there can be no comparative linguistics. As already mentioned above, the complete sound coincidence of the forms of words in different languages ​​cannot show and prove anything. On the contrary, partial coincidence of sounds and partial divergence, subject to regular sound correspondences, may be the most reliable criterion for the relationship of languages. When comparing the Latin form ferunt and Russian take at first glance it is difficult to find common ground. But if we make sure that the initial Slavic b in Latin regularly corresponds f (brother - frater, bean - faba, take -ferunt etc.), then the sound correspondence of the initial Latin f Slavic b becomes clear. As for inflections, the correspondence of the Russian at before the consonant of Old Slavonic and Old Russian and (i.e. nasal about ) in the presence of combinations vowel + nasal consonant + consonant (or at the end of a word) in other Indo-European languages, since such combinations in these languages ​​did not give nasal vowels, but were preserved in the form - unt, - ont(i),-and etc.

The establishment of regular "sound correspondences" is one of the first rules of the comparative-historical method of studying related languages.

6) As for the meanings of the compared words, they also do not have to coincide completely, but may diverge according to the laws of polysemy.

So, in Slavic languages city, hail, grod etc. mean "settlement of a certain type", and coast, brig, bryag, brzeg, breg etc. mean "shore", but the words corresponding to them in other related languages Garten and Berg(in German) means "garden" and "mountain". It's not hard to guess how *gord- originally "enclosed place" could have taken on the meaning of "garden", and *berg could get the meaning of any "shore" with or without a mountain, or, conversely, the meaning of any "mountain" near the water or without it. It happens that the meaning of the same words does not change when related languages ​​diverge (cf. Russian beard and the corresponding German Bart-"beard" or Russian head and the corresponding Lithuanian galva-"head", etc.).

7) When establishing sound correspondences, it is necessary to take into account historical sound changes, which, due to the internal laws of the development of each language, appear in the latter in the form of “phonetic laws” (see Chapter VII, § 85).

So, it is very tempting to compare the Russian word walk and Norwegian gate-"the outside". However, this comparison does not give anything, as B. A. Serebrennikov correctly notes, since in the Germanic languages ​​\u200b\u200b(to which Norwegian belongs) voiced plosives (b,d, g) cannot be primary due to the “movement of consonants”, that is, the historically operating phonetic law. On the contrary, at first glance, such difficult-to-compare words as Russian wife and Norwegian kona, can easily be brought into line if you know that in the Scandinavian Germanic languages ​​[k] comes from [g], and in Slavic [g] in the position before the front vowels changed into [g], thereby the Norwegian kona and Russian wife ascend to the same word; cf. Greek gyne-“woman”, where neither movement of consonants, as in Germanic, nor “palatalization” of [g] in [g] before front vowels, as in Slavic, occurred.

If we know the phonetic laws of the development of these languages, then we cannot be “scared” by such comparisons as Russian I and Scandinavian ik or Russian one hundred and Greek hekaton.

8) How is the reconstruction of the archetype, or proto-form, carried out in the comparative-historical analysis of languages?

For this you need:

a) Match both root and affix elements of words.

b) Comparing the data of written monuments of dead languages ​​with the data of living languages ​​and dialects (testament of A. Kh. Vostokov).

c) Make a comparison according to the method of "expanding circles", i.e., proceeding from a comparison of closely related languages ​​to the relationship of groups and families (for example, compare Russian with Ukrainian, East Slavic languages ​​with other Slavic groups, Slavic with Baltic, Balto-Slavic - with other Indo-European ones (testament by R. Rask).

d) If we observe in closely related languages, for example, such a correspondence as Russian - head, Bulgarian - chapter, Polish - glowa(which is supported by other similar cases, like gold, gold, zloto, as well as crow, crow, wrona, and other regular correspondences), then the question arises: what kind of archetype (protoform) did these words of related languages ​​have? Hardly any of the above: these phenomena are parallel, and not ascending to each other. The key to solving this issue is, firstly, in comparison with other “circles” of related languages, for example, with Lithuanian galvd-"head", from German gold-"golden" or again with Lithuanian arn - “crow”, and secondly, in summing up this sound change (the fate of groups *tolt, tort in Slavic languages) under a more general law, in this case under the "law of open syllables", according to which in Slavic languages ​​sound groups about , e before [l], [r] between consonants should have given either “full vowel” (two vowels around or [r], as in Russian), or metathesis (as in Polish), or metathesis with vowel lengthening (whence about > a, as in Bulgarian).

9) In the comparative-historical study of languages, borrowings should be highlighted. On the one hand, they do not give anything comparative (see above about the word factory); on the other hand, borrowings, remaining in the same phonetic form in the borrowing language, can retain the archetype or, in general, the more ancient appearance of these roots and words, since the borrowing language did not undergo those phonetic changes that are characteristic of the language from which the borrowing originated. So, for example, the full-vowel Russian word oatmeal and a word that reflects the result of the disappearance of former nasal vowels, tow available in the form of ancient borrowing talkkuna and kuontalo in Finnish, where the form of these words is preserved, closer to the archetypes. Hungarian szalma-"straw" shows the ancient connections of the Ugrians (Hungarians) and the Eastern Slavs in the era before the formation of full-vowel combinations in the East Slavic languages ​​and confirms the reconstruction of the Russian word straw in common Slavonic form *solma .

10) Without a correct reconstruction technique, it is impossible to establish reliable etymologies. For the difficulties of establishing the correct etymology and the role of comparative-historical study of languages ​​and reconstruction, in particular in etymological studies, see the analysis of the etymology of the word millet in the course "Introduction to Linguistics" by L. A. Bulakhovsky (1953, p. 166).

The results of almost two hundred years of research into languages ​​using the method of comparative historical linguistics are summarized in the scheme of the genealogical classification of languages.

It has already been said above about the uneven knowledge of the languages ​​of different families. Therefore, some families, more studied, are set out in more detail, while other families, less known, are given in the form of drier lists.

Language families are divided into branches, groups, subgroups, sub-subgroups of related languages. Each stage of fragmentation unites closer languages ​​in comparison with the previous, more general one. Thus, the East Slavic languages ​​show a greater proximity than the Slavic languages ​​in general, and the Slavic languages ​​show a greater proximity than the Indo-European ones.

When listing languages ​​within a group and groups within a family, living languages ​​are listed first, and then dead ones.

The enumeration of languages ​​is accompanied by minimal geographical, historical and philological commentary.

§ 78. GENEALOGICAL CLASSIFICATION OF LANGUAGES

I. INDO-EUROPEAN LANGUAGES

(over 96 living languages ​​in total)

1) Hindi and Urdu (sometimes united under the common name Hindustani) - two varieties of one new Indian literary language; Urdu is the official language of Pakistan, written in the Arabic alphabet; Hindi (official language of India) - based on the Old Indian script Devanagari.

2) Bengal.

3) Punjabi.

4) Lahnda (landy).

5) Sindhi.

6) Rajasthani

7) Gujarati.

8) Marathi.

9) Sinhalese.

10) Nepali (Eastern Pahari, in Nepal).

11) B ihari.

12) Oriya (otherwise: Audrey, utkali, in eastern India).

13) Assamese.

14) Gypsy, separated as a result of resettlement and migrations in the 5th - 10th centuries. n. e.

15) Kashmiri and other Dardic languages.

16) Vedic - the language of the most ancient sacred books of the Indians - the Vedas, which developed in the first half of the second millennium BC. e. (recorded later).

17) Sanskrit t. The "classical" literary language of the ancient Indians from the 3rd century. BC e. to the 7th century n. e. (literally Sanskrit samskrta means "processed", as opposed to prakrta - "not normalized" spoken language); rich literature, religious and secular (epos, dramaturgy), remained in Sanskrit; the first Sanskrit grammar of the 4th c. BC e. Panini, revised in the 13th century. n. e. Vopadeva.

18) Pali is a Middle Indian literary and cult language of the medieval era.

19) Prakrits - various spoken Middle Indian dialects, from which the New Indian languages ​​\u200b\u200bcame; replicas of minor persons in Sanskrit dramaturgy are written on prakrits.

(more than 10 languages; finds the greatest proximity with the Indian group, with which it unites into a common Indo-Iranian, or Aryan, group;

arya - tribal self-name in the most ancient monuments, from it both wounds, and Alans - self-name of the Scythians)

1) Persian (Farsi) - writing based on the Arabic alphabet; for Old Persian and Middle Persian, see below.

2) Dari (Farsi-Kabuli) is the literary language of Afghanistan, along with Pashto.

3) Pashto (Pashto, Afghan) - a literary language, from the 30s. state language of Afghanistan.

4) Baloch (baluchi).

5) Tajik.

6) Kurdish.

7) Ossetian; dialects: Iron (Eastern) and Digor (Western). Ossetians are the descendants of the Alans-Scythians.

8) Tats - Tats are divided into Muslim Tats and "Mountain Jews".

9) Talysh.

10) Caspian (Gilyan, Mazanderan) dialects.

11) Pamir languages ​​(Shugnan, Rushan, Bartang, Capykol, Khuf, Oroshor, Yazgulyam, Ishkashim, Vakhan) are the non-written languages ​​of the Pamirs.

12) Yagnobsky.

13) Old Persian - the language of cuneiform inscriptions of the Achaemenid era (Darius, Xerxes, etc.) VI - IV centuries. BC e.

14) Avestan is another ancient Iranian language that has come down in the Middle Persian lists of the holy book "Avesta", which contains the religious texts of the cult of the Zoroastrians, the followers of Zarathushtra (in Greek: Zoroaster).

15) Pahlavi - Middle Persian language III - IX centuries. n. e., preserved in the translation of the "Avesta" (this translation is called "Zend", from where for a long time the Avestan language itself was incorrectly called Zend).

16) Median - a kind of northwestern Iranian dialects; no written monuments have been preserved.

17) Parthian is one of the Middle Persian languages ​​of the 3rd century. BC e. - III century. n. e., common in Parthia to the southeast of the Caspian Sea.

18) Sogdian - the language of Sogdiana in the Zeravshan valley, the first millennium AD. e.; ancestor of the Yaghnobi language.

19) Khorezmian - the language of Khorezm along the lower reaches of the Amu-Darya; the first - the beginning of the second millennium AD. e.

20) Scythian - the language of the Scythians (Alans), who lived in the steppes along the northern coast of the Black Sea and east to the borders of China in the first millennium BC. e. and the first millennium AD. e.; preserved in proper names in Greek transmission; ancestor of the Ossetian language.

21) Bactrian (Kushan) - the language of ancient Bactria along the upper reaches of the Amu-Darya, as well as the language of the Kushan Kingdom; the beginning of the first millennium AD

22) Saka (Khotanese) - in Central Asia and in Chinese Turkestan; from V - X centuries. n. e. texts written in the Indian Brahmi script remained.

Note. Most contemporary Iranian scholars subdivide the living and dead Iranian languages ​​into the following groups:

BUT. Western

1) Southwestern: ancient and middle Persian, modern Persian, Tajik, Tat and some others.

2) Northwestern: Median, Parthian, Baloch (Baluchi), Kurdish, Talysh and other Caspian.

B. Eastern

1) Southeastern: Saka (Khotanese), Pashto (Pashto), Pamir.

2) Northeastern: Scythian, Sogdian, Khorezmian, Ossetian, Yagnob.

3. Slavic group

BUT. Eastern subgroup

1) Russian; adverbs: northern (great) Russian - “surrounding” and southern (great) Russian - “aking”; The Russian literary language developed on the basis of the transitional dialects of Moscow and its environs, where from the south and southeast the Tula, Kursk, Oryol and Ryazan dialects spread features alien to the northern dialects, which were the dialectal basis of the Moscow dialect, and displaced some of the features of the latter, as well as by mastering the elements of the Church Slavonic literary language; in addition, in the Russian literary language in the XVI-XVIII centuries. included various foreign language elements; writing based on the Russian alphabet, reworked from the Slavic - "Cyrillic" under Peter the Great; ancient monuments of the 11th century. (they also apply to the Ukrainian and Belarusian languages); the state language of the Russian Federation, an interethnic language for communication between the peoples of the Russian Federation and adjacent territories of the former USSR, one of the world languages.

2) Ukrainian (or Ukrainian; before the revolution of 1917 - Little Russian or Little Russian; three main dialects: northern, southeastern, southwestern; the literary language begins to take shape from the 14th century, the modern literary language has existed since the end of the 18th century. base of the Podneprovsky dialects of the southeastern dialect; writing based on the Cyrillic alphabet in its post-Petrine variety.

3) Belarusian; writing since the 14th century. based on Cyrillic. Dialects northeastern and southwestern; the literary language is based on the Central Belarusian dialects. B. Southern subgroup

4) Bulgarian - formed in the process of contacting Slavic dialects with the language of the Kama Bulgars, from where it got its name; writing based on the Cyrillic alphabet; ancient monuments from the tenth century. n. e.

5) Macedonian.

6) Serbo-Croatian; the Serbs have a Cyrillic script, the Croats have a Latin script; ancient monuments from the 12th century.

7) Slovenian; writing based on the Latin alphabet; the oldest monuments from the X-XI centuries.

8) Old Church Slavonic (or Old Church Slavonic) - the common literary language of the Slavs of the medieval period, which arose on the basis of the Solun dialects of the Old Bulgarian language in connection with the introduction of writing for the Slavs (two alphabets: Glagolitic and Cyrillic) and the translation of church books to promote Christianity among the Slavs in IX –X centuries. n. e., among the Western Slavs was replaced by Latin in connection with Western influence and the transition to Catholicism; in the form of Church Slavonic - an integral element of the Russian literary language.

B. Western subgroup

9) Czech; writing based on the Latin alphabet; ancient monuments from the 13th century.

10) Slovak; writing based on the Latin alphabet.

11) Polish; writing based on the Latin alphabet; ancient monuments from the XIV century.

12) Kashubian; lost its independence and became a dialect of the Polish language.

13) Lusatian (abroad: Sorabian, Vendian); two options: Upper Lusatian (or Eastern and Lower Lusatian (or Western); writing based on the Latin alphabet.

14) Polabsky - died out in the 18th century, was distributed along both banks of the river. Labs (Elbes) in Germany.

15) Pomeranian dialects - died out in the medieval period due to forced Germanization; were distributed along the southern coast of the Baltic Sea in Pomerania (Pomerania).

4. Baltic group

1) Lithuanian; writing based on the Latin alphabet; monuments from the 14th century.

2) Latvian; writing based on the Latin alphabet; monuments from the 14th century.

4) Prussian - died out in the 17th century. in connection with forced Germanization; the territory of the former East Prussia; monuments of the XIV-XVII centuries.

5) Yatvyazh, Curonian and other languages ​​on the territory of Lithuania and Latvia, extinct by the 17th-18th centuries.

5. German group

A. North Germanic (Scandinavian) subgroup

1) Danish; writing based on the Latin alphabet; served as a literary language for Norway until the end of the 19th century.

2) Swedish; writing based on the Latin alphabet.

3) Norwegian; writing based on the Latin alphabet, originally Danish, since the literary language of the Norwegians until the end of the 19th century. was Danish. In modern Norway, there are two forms of the literary language: riksmol (otherwise: Bokmål) - bookish, closer to Danish, Ilansmol (otherwise: Nynorsk), closer to Norwegian dialects.

4) Icelandic; writing based on the Latin alphabet; written monuments from the 13th century. ("sagas").

5) Faroese.

B. West German subgroup

6) English; Literary English developed in the 16th century. n. e. based on the London dialect; 5th–11th centuries - Old English (or Anglo-Saxon), XI-XVI centuries. - Middle English and from the 16th century. - New English; writing based on the Latin alphabet (no changes); written monuments from the 7th century; language of international importance.

7) Dutch (Dutch) with Flemish; writing in Latin; in the Republic of South Africa live Boers, settlers from Holland, who speak a variety of the Dutch language, the Boer language (in other words: Afrikaans).

8) Frisian; monuments from the 14th century.

9) German; two adverbs; Low German (Northern, Niederdeutsch or Plattdeutsch) and High German (Southern, Hochdeutsch); the literary language was formed on the basis of southern German dialects, but with many features of the northern ones (especially in pronunciation), but still does not represent unity; in the VIII-XI centuries. - Old High German, in the XII-XV centuries. - Middle High German, from the 16th century. - New High German, developed in the Saxon offices and translations of Luther and his associates; writing based on the Latin alphabet in two varieties: Gothic and Antiqua; one of the largest languages ​​in the world.

10) And d and sh (or Yiddish, New Hebrew) - various High German dialects mixed with elements of Hebrew, Slavic and other languages.

B. East German subgroup

11) Gothic, which existed in two dialects. Visigothic - served the medieval Gothic state in Spain and Northern Italy; had a written language based on the Gothic alphabet, compiled by Bishop Wulfila in the 4th century. n. e. for the translation of the Gospel, which is the most ancient monument of the Germanic languages. Ostrogothic - the language of the Eastern Goths, who lived in the early Middle Ages on the Black Sea coast and in the southern Dnieper region; existed until the 16th century. in the Crimea, thanks to which a small dictionary compiled by the Dutch traveler Busbeck has been preserved.

12) Burgundian, Vandal, Gepid, Herul - the languages ​​of the ancient Germanic tribes in East Germany.

6. Romanesque group

(before the collapse of the Roman Empire and the formation of Romance languages ​​- Italian)

1) French; literary language developed by the 16th century. based on the Île-de-France dialect centered in Paris; French dialects were formed at the beginning of the Middle Ages as a result of the crossing of the popular (vulgar) Latin of the Roman conquerors and the language of the conquered Gaulish natives - Gallic; writing based on the Latin alphabet; the oldest monuments from the 9th century. n. e.; the middle French period from the 9th to the 15th centuries, the new French - from the 16th century. French became an international language earlier than other European languages.

2) Provencal (Occitan); the language of the national minority of southeastern France (Provence); as a literary one existed in the Middle Ages (the lyrics of the troubadours) and survived until the end of the 19th century.

3) Italian; the literary language developed on the basis of the Tuscan dialects, and in particular the dialect of Florence, which arose due to the crossing of vulgar Latin with the languages ​​\u200b\u200bof the mixed population of medieval Italy; writing in the Latin alphabet, historically - the first national language in Europe.

4) Sardinian (or Sardinian).

5) Spanish; formed in Europe as a result of crossing folk (vulgar) Latin with the languages ​​of the native population of the Roman province of Iberia; writing based on the Latin alphabet (the same applies to Catalan and Portuguese).

6) Galician.

7) Catalan.

8) Portuguese.

9) Romanian; formed as a result of crossing folk (vulgar) Latin and the languages ​​​​of the natives of the Roman province of Dacia; writing based on the Latin alphabet.

10) Moldavian (a kind of Romanian); writing based on the Russian alphabet.

11) Macedonian-Romanian (Aromunian).

12) Romansh - the language of the national minority; since 1938 it has been recognized as one of the four official languages ​​of Switzerland.

13) Creole languages ​​- crossed Romance with local languages ​​​​(Haitian, Mauritian, Seychelles, Senegalese, Papiamento, etc.).

Dead (Italian):

14) Latin - the literary state language of Rome in the republican and imperial era (III century BC - the first centuries of the Middle Ages); the language of rich literary monuments, epic, lyrical and dramatic, historical prose , legal documents and oratory; the oldest monuments from the VI century. BC e.; the first description of the Latin language in Varro, I century. BC e.; classical grammar of Donat - IV century. n. e.; the literary language of the Western European Middle Ages and the language of the Catholic Church; along with ancient Greek - a source of international terminology.

15) Medieval Vulgar Latin - folk Latin dialects of the early Middle Ages, which, when crossed with the native languages ​​​​of the Roman provinces of Gaul, Iberia , The Dacias, etc., gave rise to the Romance languages: French, Spanish, Portuguese, Romanian, etc.

16) Oscan, Umbrian, Sabel and other Italian dialects are preserved in fragmentary written monuments of the last centuries BC. e.

7. Celtic group

A. Goidel subgroup

1) Irish; written records from the 4th c. n. e. (ohmic writing) and from the 7th c. (on a Latin basis); is literary and at the present time.

2) Scottish (Gaelic).

3) Manx - the language of the Isle of Man (in the Irish Sea).

B. Brythonic subgroup

4) Breton; Bretons (formerly Britons) moved after the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons from the British Isles to the European continent.

5) Welsh (Welsh).

6) Cornish; in Cornwall, a peninsula in southwestern England.

B. Gallic subgroup

7) Gallic; extinct since the formation of the French language; was distributed in Gaul, Northern Italy, the Balkans and even in Asia Minor.

8. Greek group

1) Modern Greek, from the XII century.

2) Ancient Greek, X century. BC e. – V c. n. e.; Ionic-Attic dialects from the 7th-6th centuries. BC e.; Achaean (Arcado-Cypriot) dialects from the 5th c. BC e., northeastern (Boeotian, Thessalian, Lesbos, Aeolian) dialects from the 7th century. BC e. and western (Dorian, Epirus, Cretan) dialects; the oldest monuments from the 9th century. BC e. (poems by Homer, epigraphy); from the 4th century BC e. a common literary language of Koine based on the Attic dialect centered in Athens; the language of rich literary monuments, epic, lyrical and dramatic, philosophical and historical prose; from III-II centuries. BC e. works of Alexandrian grammarians; along with Latin - a source of international terminology.

3) Middle Greek, or Byzantine, is the state literary language of Byzantium from the first centuries AD. e. until the 15th century; the language of monuments - historical, religious and artistic.

9. Albanian group

Albanian, written monuments based on the Latin alphabet from the 15th century.

10. Armenian group

Armenian; literary since the 5th century. n. e.; contains some elements dating back to the Caucasian languages; the ancient Armenian language - Grabar - is very different from the modern living Ashkharabar.

11. Hitto-Luvian (Anatolian) group

1) Hittite (Hittite-Nesit, known from cuneiform monuments of the 18th-13th centuries BC; the language of the Hittite state in Asia Minor.

2) Luvian in Asia Minor (XIV-XIII centuries BC).

3) Palai

4) Carian

5) Lydian Anatolian languages ​​of the ancient era.

6) Lycian

12. Tocharian group

1) Tocharian A (Turfan, Karashar) - in Chinese Turkestan (Xinjiang).

2) Tokharsky B (Kuchansky) - in the same place; in Kucha until the 7th century. n. e.

Known from manuscripts around the 5th-8th centuries. n. e. based on the Indian Brahmi script discovered during excavations in the 20th century.

Note 1. For a number of reasons, the following groups of Indo-European languages ​​converge: and ndo - Iranian (Aryan), Slavic - Baltic and Italo-Celtic.

Note 2. The Indo-Iranian and Slavo-Baltic languages ​​can be grouped under sat?m-languages, as opposed to the other kentom-languages; this division is carried out according to the fate of the Indo-European *g and *k mid-palatal, which in the first gave front-lingual fricatives (catam, simtas, sto - “hundred”), and in the second remained back-lingual plosives; in Germanic due to the movement of consonants - fricatives (hekaton, kentom(later centum), hundert etc. - "one hundred").

Note 3. The question of belonging to the Indo-European languages ​​​​of the Venetian, Messapian, obviously, the Illyrian group (in Italy), Phrygian, Thracian (in the Balkans) as a whole can be considered resolved; Pelasgian languages ​​(Peloponnese before the Greeks), Etruscan (in Italy before the Romans), Ligurian (in Gaul) have not yet been clarified in their relationship to the Indo-European languages.

A. Western group: Abkhazian-Adyghe languages

1. Abkhaz subgroup

1) Abkhazian; dialects: Bzybsky - northern and Abzhuysky (or Kadorsky) - southern; writing until 1954 on the basis of the Georgian alphabet, now - on the Russian basis.

2) Abaza; writing based on the Russian alphabet.

2 . Circassian subgroup

1) Adyghe.

2) Kabardian (Kabardino-Circassian).

3) Ubykh (Ubykhs emigrated to Turkey under tsarism).

B. Eastern group: Nakh-Dagestan languages

1. Nakh subgroup

1) Chechen is written on a Russian basis.

2) Ingush

3) Batsbi (tsova-tushinsky).

2. Dagestan subgroup

1) Avar.

2) Darginsky.

3) Laksky.

4) Lezginsky.

5) Tabasaran.

These five languages ​​are written on the basis of Russian. Other languages ​​are unwritten:

6) Andean.

7) Karatinsky.

8) Tindinsky.

9) Chamalinsky.

10) Bagvalinsky.

11) Ahvakhsky.

12) Botlikh.

13) Godoberinsky.

14) Tsezsky.

15) Bezhtinsky.

16) Khvarshinsky.

17) Gunzibsky.

18) Ginuhsky.

19) Tsakhursky.

20) Rutulsky.

21) Agulsky.

22) Archinsky.

23) Budukhsky.

24) Kryzsky.

25) Udinsky.

26) Khinalug.

3. Southern group: Kartvelian (Iberian) languages

1) Megrelian.

2) Laz (Chan).

3) Georgian: writing in the Georgian alphabet from the 5th century. n. e., rich literary monuments of the Middle Ages; dialects: Khevsurian, Kartli, Imeretian, Gurian, Kakhetian, Adjarian, etc.

4) Svansky.

Note. All languages ​​that have a written language (except Georgian and Ubykh) have it based on the Russian alphabet, and in the previous period for several years - on Latin.

III. OUTSIDE THE GROUP-BASQUE

IV. URAL LANGUAGES

1. FINNO-UGRIAN (UGRO-FINNISH) LANGUAGES

A. Ugric branch

1) Hungarian, writing on a Latin basis.

2) Mansi (Vogul); writing on a Russian basis (since the 30s of the XX century).

3) Khanty (Ostyak); writing on a Russian basis (since the 30s of the XX century).

B. Baltic-Finnish branch

1) Finnish (Suomi); writing based on the Latin alphabet.

2) Estonian; writing based on the Latin alphabet.

3) Izhora.

4) Karelian.

5) Vepsian.

6) Vodsky.

7) Livsky.

8) Sami (Saami, Lappish).

B. Perm branch

1) Komi-Zyryansky.

2) Komi-Permyak.

3) Udmurt.

G. Volga branch

1) Mari (Mari, Cheremis), dialects: upland on the right bank of the Volga and meadow - on the left.

2) Mordovian: two independent languages: Erzya and Moksha.

Note. Finnish and Estonian are written based on the Latin alphabet; in the Mari and Mordovians - for a long time on the basis of the Russian alphabet; in Komi-Zyryan, Udmurt and Komi-Perm - on the Russian basis (since the 30s of the XX century).

2. SAMOYED LANGUAGES

1) Nenets (Yurako-Samoyed).

2) Nganasan (Tavgian).

3) Enets (Yenisei - Samoyed).

4) Selkup (Ostyak-Samoyed).

Note. Modern science considers the Samoyedic languages ​​to be related to the Finno-Ugric languages, which were previously considered as an isolated family and with which the Samoyedic languages ​​form a larger association - the Uralic languages.

1) Turkish (formerly Ottoman); writing since 1929 based on the Latin alphabet; until then, for several centuries - based on the Arabic alphabet.

2) Azerbaijani.

3) Turkmen.

4) Gagauz.

5) Crimean Tatar.

6) Karachay-Balkar.

7) Kumyk - was used as a common language for the Caucasian peoples of Dagestan.

8) Nogai.

9) Karaite.

10) Tatar, with three dialects - middle, western (Mishar) and eastern (Siberian).

11) Bashkir.

12) Altai (Oirot).

13) Shor with Kondom and Mras dialects.

14) Khakassian (with dialects of Sogai, Beltir, Kachin, Koibal, Kyzyl, Shor).

15) Tuva.

16) Yakut.

17) Dolgansky.

18) Kazakh.

19) Kyrgyz.

20) Uzbek.

21) Karakalpak.

22) Uighur (New Uighur).

23) Chuvash, a descendant of the language of the Kama Bulgars, writing from the very beginning based on the Russian alphabet.

24) Orkhon - according to the Orkhon-Yenisei runic inscriptions, the language (or languages) of a powerful state of the 7th-8th centuries. n. e. in Northern Mongolia on the river. Orkhon. The name is conditional.

25) Pecheneg - the language of the steppe nomads of the 9th-11th centuries. n. e.

26) Polovtsian (Cuman) - according to the Polovtsian-Latin dictionary compiled by Italians, the language of the steppe nomads of the 11th-14th centuries.

27) Ancient Uighur - the language of a huge state in Central Asia in the 9th-11th centuries. n. e. with writing based on a modified Aramaic alphabet.

28) Chagatai - literary language of the XV-XVI centuries. n. e. in Central Asia; Arabic graphics.

29) Bulgarian - the language of the Bulgarian kingdom at the mouth of the Kama; the Bulgar language formed the basis of the Chuvash language, part of the Bulgars moved to the Balkan Peninsula and, having mixed with the Slavs, became an integral element (superstratum) in the Bulgarian language.

30) Khazar - the language of a large state of the 7th-10th centuries. n. e., in the lower reaches of the Volga and Don, close to the Bulgar.

Note 1. All living Turkic languages ​​except Turkish have been written since 1938–1939. on the basis of the Russian alphabet, until then for several years - on the basis of Latin, and many even earlier - on the basis of Arabic (Azerbaijani, Crimean Tatar, Tatar and all Central Asian, and foreign Uighurs still). In sovereign Azerbaijan, the question of switching to the Latin alphabet has been raised again.

Note 2. The question of the grouping of the Turko-Tatar languages ​​has not yet been finally resolved by science; according to F. E. Korsh, three groups: Northern, South-Eastern and South-Western; according to V. A. Bogoroditsky, eight groups: North-Eastern, Abakan, Altai, West Siberian, Volga-Ural, Central Asian, South-Western (Turkish) and Chuvash; according to V. Schmidt, three groups: Southern, Western, Eastern, while V. Schmidt classifies the Yakut as Mongolian. Other classifications were also proposed - V. V. Radlov, A. N. Samoylovich, G. J. Ramstedt, S. E. Malov, M. Ryasyanen and others.

In 1952, N. A. Baskakov proposed a new classification scheme for the Turkic languages, which the author thinks of as “periodization of the history of the development of peoples and Turkic languages” (see: Izvestiya AN SSSR. Branch of Literature and Language, vol. XI, no. 2), where ancient divisions intersect with new ones and historical with geographical ones (see also: Baskakov N.A. Introduction to the study of Turkic languages. M., 1962; 2nd ed. - M., 1969).

2. MONGOLIAN LANGUAGES

1) Mongolian; writing was based on the Mongolian alphabet, received from the ancient Uighurs; since 1945 based on the Russian alphabet.

2) Buryat; from the 30s 20th century writing based on the Russian alphabet.

3) Kalmyk.

Note. There are also a number of smaller languages ​​(Dagur, Tungxiang, Mongolian, etc.), mainly in China (about 1.5 million), Manchuria and Afghanistan; No. 2 and 3 have since the 30s. 20th century writing on the basis of the Russian alphabet, and until then, for several years - on the basis of the Latin alphabet.

3. TUNGUS-MANCHUR LANGUAGES

A. Siberian group

1) Evenki (Tungus), with Negidal and Solon.

2) Even (Lamut).

B. Manchurian group

1) Manchu, dying out, had rich monuments of medieval writing in the Manchu alphabet.

2) Jurchen - a dead language, known from the monuments of the XII-XVI centuries. (hieroglyphic writing modeled after Chinese)

B. Amur group

1) Nanai (Gold), with Ulchi.

2) Udei (Udege), with Oroch.

Note. No. 1 and 2 have since 1938–1939. writing on the basis of the Russian alphabet, and until then, for several years - on the basis of the Latin alphabet.

4. INDIVIDUAL LANGUAGES OF THE FAR EAST NOT INCLUDED IN ANY GROUPS

(presumably close to Altai)

1) Japanese; writing based on Chinese characters in the 8th century. n. e.; new phonetic-syllabic writing - katakana and hiragana.

2) Ryukyu, obviously related to Japanese.

3) Korean; the first monuments based on Chinese characters from the 4th century BC. n. e., modified in the 7th century. n. e.; from the 15th century - folk Korean letter "onmun" - an alphabetic-syllabic system of graphics.

4) Ainu, mainly on the Japanese Islands, also on O. Sakhalin; now out of use and superseded by Japanese.

VI. AFRASIAN (SEMITE-HAMITE) LANGUAGES

1. Semitic branch

1) Arabic; international cult language of Islam; there are, in addition to classical Arabic, regional varieties (Sudanese, Egyptian, Syrian, etc.); writing in the Arabic alphabet (on the island of Malta - based on the Latin alphabet).

2) Amharic, the official language of Ethiopia.

3) Tigre, Tigray, Gurage, Harari and other languages ​​of Ethiopia.

4) Assyrian (Aysor), the language of isolated ethnic groups in the countries of the Middle East and some others.

5) Akkadian (Assyro-Babylonian); known from the cuneiform monuments of the ancient East.

6) Ugaritic.

7) Hebrew - the language of the oldest parts of the Bible, the cult language of the Jewish Church; existed as a colloquial language until the beginning of AD. e.; from the 19th century on its basis, Hebrew was formed, now the official language of the state of Israel (along with Arabic); writing based on the Hebrew alphabet.

8) Aramaic - the language of the later books of the Bible and the common language of the Near East in the era of the III century. BC e. - IV century. n. e.

9) Phoenician - the language of Phoenicia, Carthage (Punic); dead b.c. e.; writing in the Phoenician alphabet, from which subsequent types of alphabetic writing originated.

10) G e z - the former literary language of Abyssinia IV-XV centuries. n. e.; now a cult language in Ethiopia.

2. Egyptian branch

1) Ancient Egyptian - the language of ancient Egypt, known from hieroglyphic monuments and documents of demotic writing (from the end of the 4th millennium BC to the 5th century AD).

2) Coptic - a descendant of the ancient Egyptian language in the medieval period from the 3rd to the 17th centuries. n. e.; the cult language of the Orthodox Church in Egypt; writing is Coptic, the alphabet is based on the Greek alphabet.

3. Berber-Libyan branch

(North Africa and West Central Africa)

1) Ghadames, Siua.

2) Tuareg (tamahak, ghat, taneslemt, etc.).

4) Kabyle.

5) Tashelhit.

6) Zenetian (reef, shauya, etc.).

7) Tamazight.

8) West - Numidian.

9) Eastern Numidian (Libyan).

10) Guanches, which existed until the 18th century. languages ​​(dialects?) of the natives of the Canary Islands.

4. Kushite branch

(North East and East Africa)

1) Bedauye (beja).

2) Agavian (aungi, bilin, etc.).

3) Somalia.

4) Sidamo.

5) Afarsakho.

6) Opomo (galla).

7) Irakv, ngomvia, etc.

5. Chadian branch

(Central Africa and West-Central Sub-Saharan Africa)

1) Hausa (belongs to the Western Chadian group) is the largest language of the branch.

2) Other Western Chadians: Gvandara, Ngizim, Boleva, Karekare, Angas, Sura, etc.

3) Central Chadian: tera, margi, mandara, kotoko, etc.

4) East Chad: m u b i, sokoro, etc.

VII. NIGERO-CONGO LANGUAGES

(territory of sub-Saharan Africa)

1. Mande languages

1) Bamana (bambara).

2) Soninka.

3) Soso (susu).

4) Maninka.

5) Kpelle, scrap, mende, etc.

2. Atlantic languages

1) Fula (fulfulde).

5) Cognacs.

6) Gola, dark, bull, etc.

3. Ijoid languages

Represented by the isolated language Ijo (Nigeria).

4. Kru languages

6) Wobe et al.

5. Kwa languages

4) Adangme.

6) Background, etc.

6. Language dogon

7. Gur languages

1) Bariba.

2) Senari.

3) Suppire.

4) Gourenne.

6) Kasem, k a b e, kirma, etc.

8. Adamawa–Ubangyan languages

1) Longuda.

7) Ngbaka.

8) Sere, Mundu, Zande, etc.

9. Benuecongo languages

The largest family in the Niger-Congo macrofamily covers the territory from Nigeria to the east coast of Africa, including South Africa. It is divided into 4 branches and many groups, among which the largest is the Bantu languages, which in turn are divided into 16 zones (according to M. Gasri).

2) Yoruba.

5) Jukun.

6) Efik, ibibio.

7) Kambari, birom.

9) Bamileks.

10) Kom, lamnso, tikar.

11) Bantu (Duala, Ewondo, Teke, Bobangi, Lingala, Kikuyu, Nyamwezi, Gogo, Swahili, Congo, Luganda, Kinyarwanda, Chokwe, Luba, Nyakyusa, Nyanja, Yao, Mbundu, Herero, Shona, Sotho, Zulu, etc. ).

10. Kordofanian languages

1) Kanga, Miri, Tumtum.

6) Tegali, tagoy, etc.

VIII. Nilo-Saharan languages

(Central Africa, geographic Sudan zone)

1) Songhai.

2) Saharan: kanuri, tuba, zagawa.

4) Mimi, mabang.

5) Eastern Sudanese: wilds, mahas, bale, suri, nera, ronge, tama, etc.

6) Nilotic: Shilluk, Luo, Alur, Acholi, Nuer, Bari, Teso, Naidi, Pakot, etc.

7) Central Sudanese: kresh, sinyar, capa, bagirmi, moru, madi, logbara, mangbetu.

8) Kunama.

10) Kuama, komo, etc.

IX. Khoisan languages

(on the territory of South Africa, Namibia, Angola)

1) Bushman languages ​​(Kungauni, Hadza, etc.).

2) Hottentot languages ​​(Nama, Koran, Sandawe, etc.).

X. Sino-Tibetan languages

A. Chinese branch

1) Chinese is the most spoken language in the world. Folk Chinese is divided into a number of dialect groups that differ greatly primarily phonetically; Chinese dialects are usually defined geographically. A literary language based on the northern (Mandarin) dialect, which is also the dialect of the capital of China - Beijing. For thousands of years, the literary language of China was Wenyan, which was formed in the middle of the 1st millennium BC. e. and existed as a developing but incomprehensible bookish language until the 20th century, along with the more colloquial literary language Baihua. The latter became the basis of the modern unified literary Chinese language - Putonghua (based on Northern Baihua). The Chinese language is rich in written records from the 15th century. BC e., but their hieroglyphic nature makes it difficult to study the history of the Chinese language. Since 1913, along with hieroglyphic writing, a special syllabo-phonetic writing “Zhuan Zimu” was used on a national graphic basis for pronunciation identification of reading hieroglyphs by dialects. Later, more than 100 different projects for the reform of Chinese writing were developed, of which the project of phonetic writing on the Latin graphic basis has the greatest promise.

2) Dungan; the Dungans of the People's Republic of China have an Arabic script, the Dungans of Central Asia and Kazakhstan are originally Chinese (hieroglyphic), later - Arabic; since 1927 - on a Latin basis, and since 1950 - on a Russian basis.

B. Tibeto-Burmese branch

1) Tibetan.

2) Burmese.

XI. THAI LANGUAGES

1) Thai - the state language of Thailand (until 1939 the Siamese language of the state of Siam).

2) Lao.

3) Zhuang.

4) Kadai (li, lakua, lati, gelao) - a group of Thai or an independent link between Thai and Austro-Nesian.

Note. Some scholars consider the Thai languages ​​to be related to Austronesian; in former classifications they were included in the Sino-Tibetan family.

XII. LANGUAGES

1) Miao, with dialects of Hmong, Hmu, etc.

2) Yao, with the dialects of Mien, Kimmun, etc.

Note. These little-studied languages ​​of Central and South China were formerly included in the Sino-Tibetan family without sufficient grounds.

XIII. DRAVID LANGUAGES

(languages ​​of the most ancient population of the Indian subcontinent, presumably related to the Uralic languages)

1) Tamil.

2) Telugu.

3) Malayalam.

4) Kannada.

For all four, there is a script based on (or type of) the Indian Brahmi script.

7) Brahui and others.

XIV. OUTSIDE THE FAMILY - THE LANGUAGE OF BURUSHASKI (VERSHIKSKY)

(mountainous regions of Northwest India)

XV. AUSTRIASIAN LANGUAGES

1) Munda languages: Santali, Mundari, Ho, Birhor, Juang, Sora, etc.

2) Khmer.

3) Palaung (rumai), etc.

4) Nicobar.

5) Vietnamese.

7) Malacca group (semang, semai, sakai, etc.).

8) Nagali.

XVI. AUSTRONESIAN (MALAY-POLYNESIAN) LANGUAGES

A. Indonesian branch

1. Western group

1) Indonesian, got the name from the 30s. XX century., Currently the official language of Indonesia.

2) Batak.

3) Chamsky (Chamsky, Jarai, etc.).

2. Javanese group

1) Javanese.

2) Sundanese.

3) Madura.

4) Balinese.

3. Dayak or Kalimantan group

Dayaksky and others.

4. South Sulawesian group

1) Saddan.

2) Boogie.

3) Makasarsky and others.

5. Philippine group

1) Tagalog (Tagalog).

2) Ilocan.

3) Bikolsky and others.

6. Madagascar group

Malagasy (formerly Malagasy).

Kawi is an ancient Javanese literary language; monuments from the ninth century. n. e.; by origin, the Javanese language of the Indonesian branch was formed under the influence of the languages ​​​​of India (Sanskrit).

B. Polynesian branch

1) Tonga and Niue.

2) Maori, Hawaiian, Tahiti, etc.

3) Samoa, uvea, etc.

B. Micronesian branch

2) Marshall.

3) Ponape.

4) Truk and others.

Note. The classification of the Austronesian macrofamily is given in an extremely simplified form. In fact, it covers a huge number of languages ​​with an extremely complex multi-stage subdivision, regarding which there is no consensus. (V. V.)

XVII. AUSTRALIAN LANGUAGES

Numerous small indigenous languages ​​of Central and Northern Australia, most famously Arantha. Apparently, a separate family is formed by the Tasmanian languages ​​on about. Tasmania.

XVIII. PAPUAN LANGUAGES

Languages ​​of the central part of about. New Guinea and some smaller islands in the Pacific. A very complex and not definitively established classification.

XIX. PALEOASIATIAN LANGUAGES

A. Chukchi–Kamchatka languages

1) Chukchi (Luoravetlan).

2) Koryak (Nymylan).

3) Itelmen (Kamchadal).

4) Alyutorsky.

5) Kereksky.

B. Eskimo-Aleut languages

1) Eskimo (Yuit).

2) Aleutian (Unangan).

B. Yenisei languages

1) Ket. This language reveals features of kinship with the Nakh-Dagestan and Tibetan-Chinese languages. Its bearers were not natives of the Yenisei, but came from the south and assimilated by the surrounding people.

2) Kottic, Aryan, Pumpokol and other extinct languages.

D. Nivkh (Gilyak) language

E. Yukagiro–Chuvan languages

Extinct languages ​​(dialects?): Yukagir (formerly Odul), Chuvan, Omok. Two dialects have been preserved: Tundra and Kolyma (Sakha-Yakutia, Magadan region).

XX. INDIAN (AMERINDIAN) LANGUAGES

A. Language families of North America

1)Algonquian(Menbmini, Delaware, Yurok, Mikmak, Fox, Cree, Ojibwa, Potowatomy, Illinois, Cheyenne, Blackfoot, Arapah O, etc., as well as the disappeared Massachusetts, Mohican, etc.).

2)Iroquois(Cherokee, Tuscarora, Seneca, Oneida, Huron, etc.).

3)Sioux(Crow, Hidatsa, Dakota, etc., along with several extinct ones - ofo, biloxi, tutelo, katavoa).

4)gulf(natchez, tunic, chickasaw, choctaw, muskogee, etc.).

5)On-dene(haida, tlingit, eya k; Athabaskan: Navajo, tanana, tolova, chupa, mattole, etc.).

6)Mosan, including Wakasha(kwakiutl, nootka) and Salish(chehalis, skomish, calispel, bellacula).

7)Penutian(Tsimshian, Chinook, Takelma, Klamath, Miwook, Zuni, etc., as well as many extinct ones).

8)hocaltec(karok, shasta, yana, chimariko, pomo, salina, etc.).

B. Language families of Central America

1)Uto-Aztec(Nahuatl, Shoshone, Hopi, Luiseño, Papago, Bark, etc.). This family is sometimes combined with languages kiowa - tano(kiowa, pyro, teva, etc.) within the framework of the tano-aztec phylum.

2)Maya Quiche(Mam, Kekchi, Quiche, Yucatec Maya, Ixil, Tzeltal, Tojolabal, Chol, Huastec, etc.). The Maya, before the arrival of Europeans, reached a high level of culture and had their own hieroglyphic writing, partially deciphered.

3)Ottoman(Pame, Otomi, Popolok, Mixtec, Trick, Zapotec, etc.).

4)Miskito - Matagalpa(Miskito, Sumo, Matagalpa, etc.). These languages ​​are sometimes included in Chibchan–s k and e.

5)Chibchanskiye(karake, rama, getar, guaymi, chiocha, etc.). The Chibchan languages ​​are also spoken in South America.

B. Language families of South America

1)Tupi Guarani(tupi, guarani, yuruna, tupari, etc.).

2)Kechumara(Quechua is the language of the ancient state of the Incas in Peru, currently in Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador; Aymara).

3)Arawak(chamicuro, chipaya, itene, uanyam, guana, etc.).

4)Araucanian(Mapuche, Picunche, Pehuiche, etc.).

5)pano takana(chacobo, kashibo, pano, takana, chama, etc.).

6)same(Canela, Suya, Xavante, Kaingang, Botokudsky, etc.).

7)Caribbean(wayana, pemon, chaima, yaruma, etc.).

8) Alakaluf language and other isolated languages.

APPENDIX

NUMBER OF PEOPLES OF THE WORLD BY LANGUAGE FAMILIES AND GROUPS

(in thousand people, 1985)

I. Indo-European family 2,171,705

Indian group 761 075

Iranian group 80 415

Slavic group 290 475

Baltic group 4 850

German group 425 460

Roman group 576 230

Celtic group 9 505

Greek group 12,285

Albanian group 5,020

Armenian group 6 390

II. Caucasian languages ​​7 455

Abkhaz-Adyghe group 875

Nakh-Dagestan group 2,630

Kartvelian group 3 950

III. Basques 1090

IV. Uralic languages ​​24,070

1. Finno-Ugric family 24,035

Ugric group 13,638

Finnish group 10 397

2. Samoyed family 35

V. Altaic languages 297 550

1. Turkic family 109,965

2. Mongolian family 6,465

3. Tungus-Manchurian family 4,700

4. Separate peoples of the Far East, not included in any groups

Japanese 121510

Koreans 64890

VI. Afroasian (Semitic-Hamitic) family 261,835

Semitic branch 193 225

Kushite branch 29,310

Berber-Libyan branch 10,560

Chadian branch 28,740

VII. Niger-Congo family 305,680

Mande 13 680

Atlantic 26780

Kru and qua 67430

Adamada–Ubanguy 7320

Benuecongolese 174,580

Kordofanskiye 570

VIII. Nilo-Saharan family 31,340

Saharan 5 110

Eastern Sudanese and Nilotic 19,000

Songhai 2 290

Central Sudanese 3,910

Other 1,030

IX. Khoisan family 345

X. Sino-Tibetan family 1,086,530

Chinese branch 1,024,170

Tibeto-Burmese branch 62,360

XI. Thai family 66510

XII. Miao-yao 8 410

XIII. Dravidian family 188,295

XIV. Burishi (burushaski) 50

XV. Austroasiatic family 74,295

XVI. Austronesian (Malayo-Polynesian family) 237 105

XVII. Aboriginal Australians 160

XVIII. Papuan peoples 4,610

XIX. Paleoasian peoples 140

Chukchi–Kamchatka group 23

Eskimo-Aleut group 112

Yukagirs 1

XX. Indian peoples 36,400

§ 79. TYPOLOGICAL (MORPHOLOGICAL) CLASSIFICATION OF LANGUAGES

The typological classification of languages ​​arose later than attempts at genealogical classification and proceeded from other premises.

The question of the "type of language" arose for the first time among the Romantics.

Romanticism was the ideological trend that at the turn of the 18th and 19th centuries. had to formulate the ideological achievements of the bourgeois nations; for the romantics, the main issue was the definition of national identity.

Romanticism is not only a literary trend, but also a worldview that was characteristic of the representatives of the "new" culture and which replaced the feudal worldview.

Romanticism as a cultural and ideological trend was very controversial. Along with the fact that it was romanticism that put forward the idea of ​​nationality and the idea of ​​historicism, the same trend, in the person of its other representatives, called for a return back, to the outdated Middle Ages and to admiring the “old times”.

It was the Romantics who first raised the question of the "type of language." Their thought was this: "the spirit of the people" can manifest itself in myths, in art, in literature and in language. Hence the natural conclusion that through the language you can know the "spirit of the people."

Thus, a remarkable book of its kind by the leader of the German romantics, Friedrich Schlegel (1772–1829), On the Language and Wisdom of the Indians (1809), appeared.

Based on the comparison of languages ​​made by V. Jonze, Friedrich Schlegel compared Sanskrit with Greek, Latin, and also with the Turkic languages ​​and came to the conclusion: 1) that all languages ​​can be divided into two types: inflectional and affixing, 2) that any language is born and remains in the same type and 3) that inflectional languages ​​are characterized by "richness, strength and durability", while affixing ones "lack living development from the very beginning", they are characterized by "poverty, scarcity and artificiality".

The division of languages ​​into inflectional and affixing F. Schlegel did, based on the presence or absence of a change in the root. He wrote: “In the Indian or Greek languages, each root is what its name says, and is like a living sprout; by virtue of the fact that the concepts of relations are expressed by means of an inner change, a free field is given for development.... All that has thus been obtained from a simple root retains the impress of kinship, is mutually connected, and therefore is preserved. Hence, on the one hand, wealth, and on the other hand, the strength and durability of these languages.

“... In languages ​​that have affixation instead of inflection, the roots are not at all like that; they can be compared not with a fertile seed, but only with a pile of atoms ... their connection is often mechanical - by external attachment. From their very inception, these languages ​​lack the germ of a living development... and these languages, whether wild or cultivated, are always heavy, confused, and often especially distinguished by their wayward-arbitrary, subjectively-strange and vicious character.

F. Schlegel hardly recognized the presence of affixes in inflectional languages, and interpreted the formation of grammatical forms in these languages ​​as internal inflection, wishing to bring this “ideal type of languages” under the formula of the Romantics: “unity in diversity”.

Already for F. Schlegel's contemporaries it became clear that all languages ​​of the world cannot be divided into two types. Where should one attribute, for example, the Chinese language, where there is neither internal inflection nor regular affixation?

F. Schlegel's brother, August-Wilhelm Schlegel (1767–1845), taking into account the objections of F. Bopp and other linguists, reworked the typological classification of his brother's languages ​​(“Notes on the Provençal Language and Literature”, 1818) and identified three types: 1 ) inflectional, 2) affixing, 3) amorphous (which is characteristic of the Chinese language), and in inflectional languages, he showed two possibilities of grammatical structure: synthetic and analytical.

What were the Schlegel brothers right and wrong about? They were certainly right in that the type of language should be derived from its grammatical structure, and by no means from vocabulary. Within the limits of the languages ​​available to them, the Schlegel brothers correctly noted the difference between inflectional, agglutinating and isolating languages. However, the explanation of the structure of these languages ​​and their assessment cannot be accepted in any way. First, in inflectional languages, not all grammar is reduced to internal inflection; in many inflectional languages, grammar is based on affixation, and internal inflection plays a minor role; secondly, languages ​​such as Chinese cannot be called amorphous, since there can be no language outside the form, but the form in the language manifests itself in different ways (see Chapter IV, § 43); thirdly, the assessment of languages ​​by the Schlegel brothers leads to incorrect discrimination of some languages ​​at the expense of exaltation of others; Romantics were not racists, but some of their arguments about languages ​​and peoples were later used by racists.

Wilhelm von Humboldt (1767–1835) went much deeper into the question of the types of languages. Humboldt was a romantic idealist, in philology he was the same as his contemporary Hegel was in philosophy. Not all of Humboldt's propositions can be accepted, but his penetrating mind and exceptional erudition in languages ​​make us most carefully evaluate this major linguist philosopher of the 19th century.

The main premises of W. Humboldt about language can be reduced to the following provisions:

“A person is a person only thanks to language”; “there are no thoughts without language, human thinking becomes possible only thanks to language”; language is “a connecting link between one individual and another, between an individual and a nation, between the present and the past”; “Languages ​​cannot be considered as aggregates of words, each of them is a certain kind of system through which sound is connected with thought”, and “each of its individual elements exists only thanks to the other, and everything as a whole owes its existence to a single all-pervading force.” Humboldt paid special attention to the issue of form in language: form is “constant and uniform in the activity of the spirit, transforming organic sound into an expression of thought”, “...absolutely in language there cannot be formless matter”, form is “synthesis in spiritual unity separate linguistic elements, in contrast to it, are considered as material content. Humboldt distinguishes between the external form in the language (these are sound, grammatical and etymological forms) and the internal form, as a single all-pervading force, that is, the expression of the “spirit of the people”.

As the main criterion for determining the type of language, Humboldt takes the thesis of "the mutual correct and energetic penetration of the sound and ideological form into each other."

Humboldt saw particular criteria for defining languages: 1) in an expression in the language of relations (transfer of relational meanings; this was also the main criterion for the Schlegels); 2) in the way the sentence is formed (which showed a special type of incorporating languages) and 3) in sound form.

In inflectional languages, Humboldt saw not only “internal changes” of the “wonderful root”, but also “addition from the outside” (Anleitung), i.e., affixation, which is carried out differently than in agglutinating languages ​​(a century later, this difference was formulated by E. Sapir, see above, Chapter IV, § 46). Humboldt explained that the Chinese language is not amorphous, but isolating, that is, the grammatical form in it manifests itself differently than in inflectional and agglutinating languages: not by changing words, but by word order and intonation, thus this type is a typically analytical language.

In addition to the three types of languages ​​noted by the Schlegel brothers, Humboldt described a fourth type; the most accepted term for this type is incorporating.

The peculiarity of this type of languages ​​(Indian in America, Paleo-Asiatic in Asia) is that the sentence is built as a compound word, i.e. unformed word roots are agglutinated into one common whole, which will be both a word and a sentence. Parts of this whole are both the elements of the word and the members of the sentence. The whole is a word-sentence, where the beginning is the subject, the end is the predicate, and additions with their definitions and circumstances are incorporated (inserted) into the middle. Humboldt explained this with a Mexican example: ninakakwa, where ni-"I", naka-"ed-" (i.e. "eat"), a kwa- object "meat-". In Russian, three grammatically designed words are obtained I eat meat and vice versa, such a fully-formed combination as ant-eater, does not make an offer. In order to show how it is possible to “incorporate” in this type of languages, we will give one more example from the Chukchi language: you-ata-kaa-nmy-rkyn -“I kill fat deer”, literally: “I am fat-deer-killing-do”, where is the skeleton of the “body”: you-nwe-rkyn, in which is incorporated kaa -"deer" and its definition ata -"fat"; The Chukchi language does not tolerate any other arrangement, and the whole is a word-sentence, where the above order of elements is also observed.

Attention to this type of language was later lost. So, the largest linguist of the middle of the XIX century. August Schleicher returned to the typological classification of the Schlegels, only with a new justification.

Schleicher was a student of Hegel and believed that everything that happens in life goes through three stages - thesis, antithesis and synthesis. Therefore, it is possible to outline three types of languages ​​in three periods. This dogmatic and formal interpretation of Hegel was combined with Schleicher's ideas of naturalism, which he learned from Darwin, and believed that language, like any organism, is born, grows and dies. Schleicher's typological classification does not provide for incorporating languages, but indicates three types in two possibilities: synthetic and analytical.

The Schleicher classification can be represented as follows:

1. Isolating languages

1) R- pure root (for example, Chinese).

2) R + r- root plus function word (for example, Burmese).

2. Agglutinating languages

Synthetic type:

1) Ra- suffixed type (for example, Turkic and Finnish

2) aR- prefigured type (e.g. Bantu languages).

3) R– Infected type (for example, Batsbi language).

Analytical type:

4) Ra (aR) + r - an affiliated root plus a function word (for example, Tibetan).

3. Inflectional languages

Synthetic type:

1) Ra- pure internal inflection (e.g. Semitic languages).

2) aR a (R a a) - internal and external inflection (for example, Indo-European, especially ancient languages).

Analytical type:

3) aR a (R a a) + r- inflected and affixed root plus function word (for example, Romance languages, English).

Schleicher considered isolating or amorphous languages ​​to be archaic, agglutinating languages ​​to be transitional, ancient inflectional languages ​​to be the era of prosperity, and inflectional new (analytical) languages ​​to be attributed to the era of decline.

Despite the captivating logic and clarity, Schleicher's scheme of typology of languages ​​as a whole is a step backwards compared to Humboldt. The main drawback of this scheme is its “closedness”, which makes it necessary to artificially fit the variety of languages ​​into this Procrustean bed. However, due to its simplicity, this scheme has survived to this day and was once used by N. Ya. Marr.

Simultaneously with Schleicher, H. Steinthal (1821–1899) proposed his own classification of types of languages. He proceeded from the main provisions of W. Humboldt, but rethought his ideas in psychological terms. Steinthal divided all languages ​​into languages ​​with a form and languages ​​without a form, and by the form one should understand both the form of the word and the form of the sentence. Steinthal called languages ​​with no inflection as joining languages: without a form - the languages ​​of Indochina, with a form - Chinese. Steinthal defined languages ​​with the presence of inflection as modifying, without form: 1) through repetition and prefixes - Polynesian, 2) through suffixes - Turkic, Mongolian, Finno-Ugric, 3) through incorporation - Indian; and modifying, with the form: 1) through the addition of elements - the Egyptian language, 2) through internal inflection - the Semitic languages ​​​​and 3) through the "true suffixes" - the Indo-European languages.

This classification, like some subsequent ones, details the Humboldt classification underlying it, but the understanding of "form" clearly contradicts the initial provisions in it.

In the 90s. 19th century Steinthal's classification was revised by F. Misteli (1893), who pursued the same idea of ​​dividing languages ​​into formal and formless, but introduced a new feature of the language: wordless (Egyptian and Bantu languages), imaginary (Turkic, Mongolian, Finno-Ugric languages) and historical ( Semitic and Indo-European). Incorporating languages ​​are singled out in a special category of formless languages, since in them the word and the sentence are not distinguished. The advantage of F. Misteli's classification is the distinction between root-isolating languages ​​(Chinese) and base-isolating languages ​​(Malay).

F. N. F and n k (1909) based his classification on the principle of constructing a sentence (“massiveness” - as in incorporating languages ​​or “fragmentation” - as in Semitic or Indo-European languages) and the nature of the links between the members of the sentence, in particular the question about agreement. On this basis, an agglutinating language with consistent class agreement (Subia from the Bantu family) and an agglutinating language with partial agreement (Turkish) are distributed by Fink into different classes. As a result, Fink shows eight types: 1) Chinese, 2) Greenlandic, 3) Subiya, 4) Turkish, 5) Samoan (and other Polynesian languages),

6) Arabic (and other Semitic languages), 7) Greek (and other Indo-European languages), and 8) Georgian.

Despite many subtle observations on languages, all three of these classifications are built on arbitrary logical foundations and do not provide reliable criteria for resolving the typology of languages.

Of particular note is the morphological classification of languages ​​by F. F. Fortunatov (1892) - very logical, but insufficient in coverage of languages. F. F. Fortunatov takes as a starting point the structure of the word form and the correlation of its morphological parts. On this basis, he distinguishes four types of languages: 1) “In the vast majority of the family of languages ​​that have the forms of individual words, these forms are formed through such a selection in the words of the stem and affix, in which the stem or does not at all represent the so-called inflection [here available in kind of internal flexion. - A. R.], or if such inflection can appear in stems, then it does not constitute a necessary accessory of word forms and serves to form forms separate from those formed by affixes. Such languages ​​in the morphological classification are called ... agglutinating or agglutinative languages ​​... i.e. actually gluing ... because here the stem and affix of words remain, according to their meaning, separate parts of words in word forms, as if glued.

2) “Semitic languages ​​belong to another class in the morphological classification of languages; in these languages ​​... the stems of words themselves have the necessary ... forms formed by the inflection of stems ... although the relation between stem and affix in Semitic languages ​​is the same as in agglutinative languages ​​... I call Semitic languages ​​inflectional-agglutinative ... because the relation between stem and affix in these languages ​​is the same as in agglutinating languages.

3) “Indo-European languages ​​belong to ... the third class in the morphological classification of languages; here ... there is an inflection of the stems in the formation of those very forms of words that are formed by affixes, as a result of which the parts of words in the forms of words, i.e., the stem and the affix, represent here by meaning such a connection between themselves in the forms of words that they do not have in any agglutinative languages, nor in inflectional-agglutinative languages. It is for these languages ​​that I keep the name inflectional languages ​​... "

4) “Finally, there are languages ​​in which there are no forms of individual words. These languages ​​include Chinese, Siamese and some others. These languages ​​in the morphological classification are called root languages ​​... in root languages, the so-called root is not part of the word, but the word itself, which can be not only simple, but also difficult (complex) ".

There are no incorporating languages ​​in this classification, there are no Georgian, Greenlandic, Malayo-Polynesian languages, which, of course, deprives the classification of completeness, but on the other hand, the difference in the formation of words in Semitic and Indo-European languages ​​is very subtly shown, which until recently was not distinguished by linguists.

Although, when characterizing the Semitic languages, Fortunatov does not mention internal inflection, but speaks of “forms formed by the inflection of the stems,” but this is also repeated when characterizing the Indo-European languages, where “there is an inflection of the stems in the formation of those very forms of words that are formed by affixes”; something else is important here - the ratio of this “inflection of the bases” (however one understands it) and the usual affixation (i.e., prefixation and postfixation), which Fortunatov defines as agglutinating and opposes a different connection of affixes and stems in Indo-European languages; therefore, Fortunatov distinguishes between Semitic languages ​​- "inflectional-agglutinative" and Indo-European - "inflectional".

The new typological classification belongs to the American linguist E. Sapir (1921). Considering that all previous classifications are “a neat construction of a speculative mind”, E. Sapir made an attempt to give a “conceptual” classification of languages, based on the idea that “every language is a formalized language”, but that “a classification of languages, built on the distinction of relations, purely technical” and that it is impossible to characterize languages ​​from only one point of view.

Therefore, E. Sapir puts the expression of different types of concepts in the language as the basis of his classification: 1) root, 2) derivational, 3) mixed-relational and 4) purely relational; the last two points should be understood in such a way that the meanings of relations can be expressed in the words themselves (by changing them) together with lexical meanings - these are mixed relational meanings; or separately from words, for example, word order, function words and intonation - these are purely relational concepts.

The second aspect of E. Sapir is the very “technical” side of the expression of relations, where all grammatical ways are grouped into four possibilities: a) isolation (i.e. ways of function words, word order and intonation), b) agglutination, With) fusion (the author deliberately separates the two types of affixation, since their grammatical tendencies are very different) and d) symbolization, where internal inflection, repetition and mode of stress are combined.

The third aspect is the degree of "synthesis" in grammar in three stages: analytical, synthetic and polysynthetic, i.e. from the absence of synthesis through normal synthesis to polysyntheticism as "over-synthesis".

From all that has been said, E. Sapir obtains a classification of languages ​​given in the table on p. E. Sapir managed to very successfully characterize the 21 languages ​​listed in his table, but from his entire classification it is not clear what a “language type” is. Most interesting are the critical remarks concerning the former classifications - there are many interesting thoughts and sound ideas. However, after the works of F. F. Fortunatov, it is completely incomprehensible how E. Sapir could characterize the Arabic language as “symbolic-fusion”, when in languages ​​such as Semitic, affixation is agglutinating, not fusional; in addition, he characterized the Turkic languages ​​​​(using Turkish as an example) as synthetic, however, the Soviet scientist E. D. Polivanov explained the analytical nature of agglutinating languages. In addition, and this is the main thing, Sapir's classification remains absolutely ahistorical and ahistorical. In the preface to the Russian edition of Sapir's book "Language", A. M. Sukhotin wrote:

“The trouble with Sapir is that for him his classification is only a classification. It gives one thing - “a method that allows us to consider each language from two or three independent points of view in its relation to another language. That's all…". Sapir, in connection with his classification, not only does not pose any genetic problems, but, on the contrary, decisively eliminates them ... ”(p. XVII).

Basic type	Technique	Degree of synthesis	Example
A. Simple clean	1) Insulating	Analytical	Chinese, en
relational	2) Insulating	Nam (Viet
languages	with agglutin	namsky), ew,
tion	Tibetan
B. Complicated purely	1) Agglutinate	Analytical	Polynesian
relational	shchy, isolate
languages	shchy
2) Agglutinate	Synthetic	Turkish
shchy
3) Fusion-ag	Synthetic	Classical
glutinous	Tibetan
4) Symbolic	Analytical	Shilluk
B. Simple sme	1) Agglutinate	Synthetic	Bantu
shanno-relya	shchy
tional languages	2) Fusion	Analytical	French
G. Complex laughter	1) Agglutini	polysynthetics	Nootka
shanno-relya	roaring	cue
tional languages	2) Fusion	Analytical	English, la
tinsk, gre
chesky
3) Fusion,	Slightly synthetic	Sanskrit
symbolic	cue
4) Symbolico-fu	Synthetic	Semitic
zionic

In one of his recent works, Tadeusz Milewski also does not connect the typological characteristics of languages ​​​​with the historical aspect and, based on the correct position that “typological linguistics grows directly from descriptive linguistics”, and sharply contrasting typological linguistics with comparative-historical, offers such a “cross” classification of types languages, based on syntactic data: “... in the languages ​​of the world there are four main types of syntactic relations: ... 1) subject to intransitive predicate [i.e. e. not possessing the property of transitivity. - A. R.], 2) the subject of the action to the transitive predicate [i.e. e. having the property of transitivity. -BUT. R.], 3) an object of action to a transitive predicate, 4) definitions to a defined member ... Typology of phrase structures [i.e. e. syntagm. - A. R.] and sentences can thus be of two kinds: one relies only on the form of syntactic indicators, the other on the scope of their functions. From the first point of view, we can distinguish three main types of languages: positional, inflectional and concentric. In positional languages, syntactic relations are expressed by a constant word order ... In inflectional languages, the functions of the subject, subject, object of action and definition are indicated by the very form of these words ... Finally, in concentric languages ​​(incorporating), the transitive predicate, using the form or order of the pronominal morphemes included in it, indicates on the subject of the action and the object…” This is one aspect.

The second aspect analyzes the differences in the volume of syntactic means, and the author notes that "in the languages ​​of the world there are six different types of combination of the four main syntactic functions." Since there is no typology proper in this analysis, and there are only indications of which combinations of these features are found in which languages, then all this reasoning can be omitted.

Elsewhere in this article, T. Milevsky divides the languages ​​​​of the world according to another principle into four groups: "isolating, agglutinative, inflectional and alternating". New, in comparison with Schleicher, here is the allocation of alternating languages, which include Semitic languages; T. Milevsky characterizes them as follows: “Here comes the combination of all functions, both semantic and syntactic, within the word, which, due to this, forms a morphologically indecomposable whole, most often consisting of only one root.” This assertion, in the light of what has been said above (see Ch. IV, § 45), is false; it is necessary to single out the type of Semitic languages, but by no means in the way that T. Milevsky suggests (see the definitions of F. F. Fortunatov above).

The question of the typological classification of languages, therefore, is not resolved, although for 150 years there has been much and interestingly written on this topic.

One thing remains clear, that the type of language must be determined primarily on the basis of its grammatical structure, the most stable, and thus the typifying property of the language.

It is necessary to include in this characteristic the phonetic structure of the language a, which Humboldt still wrote about, but could not do, since at that time there was no phonetics as a special linguistic discipline.

In a typological study, two tasks must be distinguished: 1) the creation of a general typology of the languages ​​of the world, united in certain groups, for which one descriptive method is not enough, but it is necessary to use a comparative historical one, but not at the previous level of neogrammar science, but enriched with structural methods understanding and description of linguistic facts and patterns, so that for each group of related languages ​​it would be possible to build its typological model (the model of the Turkic languages, the model of the Semitic languages, the model of the Slavic languages, etc.), rejecting everything purely individual, rare, irregular and describing the type language as a whole, as a structure according to strictly selected parameters of different tiers, and 2) a typological description of individual languages, including their individual features, distinguishing between regular and irregular phenomena, which, of course, must also be structural. This is necessary for a two-way (binary) comparison of languages, for example, for applied translation purposes of any type, including machine translation, and, first of all, for developing a methodology for teaching a particular non-native language, in connection with which such an individual typological description for each matched pair languages ​​should be different.

BASIC READING FOR THE MATERIAL IN CHAPTER VI (CLASSIFICATION OF LANGUAGES)

Linguistic encyclopedic dictionary. M.: Sov. encycl., 1990.

Questions of methods of comparative-historical study of Indo-European languages. M.: Ed. Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1956.

Gleason G. Introduction to descriptive linguistics / Russian translation. M., 1959.

Ivanov Vyach. Sun. Genealogical classification of languages ​​and the concept of linguistic kinship. Ed. Moscow State University, 1954.

Kuznetsov PS Morphological classification of languages. Moscow State University, 1954.

Meie A. Introduction to the comparative study of Indo-European languages ​​/ Russian translation. M. - L., 1938.

Morphological typology and the problem of language classification. M. - L.: Nauka, 1965.

The peoples of the world. Historical and ethnographic reference book; Ed. Yu. V. Bromley. M.: Sov. encycl., 1988.

General linguistics. The internal structure of the language; Ed. B. A. Serebrennikova. M.: Nauka, 1972 (section: Linguistic typology).

Comparative-historical study of languages ​​of different families. Current state and problems. Moscow: Nauka, 1981.

Theoretical foundations of the classification of languages ​​of the world; Ed. V. N. Yartseva. Moscow: Nauka, 1980.

Theoretical foundations of the classification of languages ​​of the world. Kinship problems; Ed. V. N. Yartseva. Moscow: Nauka, 1982.

Notes:

See ch. VI - "Classification of languages", § 77.

Boduende Courtenay I.A. Language and languages. The article was published in the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Efron (Polutom 81). See: Baudouin de Courtenay I. A. Selected Works on General Linguistics. M., 1963. T. 2 S. 67–96.

Similar statements are made by F. F. Fortunatov in the work of 1901–1902. “Comparative Linguistics” (see: Fortunatov F.F. Selected Works. M., 1956. T. 1.S. 61–62), by F. de Saussure in the work “Course of General Linguistics” (Russian translation by A. M. Sukhotina. M., 1933. S. 199-200), E. Sapir in the work "Language" (Russian translation. M., 1934. S. 163-170), etc.

For more information about language and speech, see: Smirnitsky A.I. Objectivity of language existence. Moscow State University, 1954, as well as Reformatsky A. A. Principles of synchronous description of a language // On the relationship between synchronous analysis and historical study of languages. Ed. AN SSSR, 1961. S. 22 ff. [trans. in the book: Reformatsky A. A. Linguistics and poetics. M., 1987].

See: Fortunatov F. F. On teaching Russian grammar in secondary school // Russian Philological Bulletin. 1905. No. 2. Or: Fortunatov F.F. Selected works. M.: Uchpedgiz, 1957. T. 2.

See: Baudouin de Courtenay I. A. Experience in the theory of phonetic alternations // Selected works on general linguistics. M., 1963. T. 1. S. 267 et seq.

De Saussure F. Course of General Linguistics / Russian translation. A. M. Sukhotina, 1933. S. 34.

From Greek syn-"together" and chronos-"time", i.e. "simultaneity".

The name "Romance" comes from the word Roma, as Rome was called by the Latins, and now by the Italians.

See ch. VII, § 89 - on the formation of national languages.

Cm . there.

The question of whether these groups represent one family of languages ​​has not yet been resolved by science; rather, one can think that there are no family ties between them; the term "Caucasian languages" refers to their geographical distribution.

A number of scientists are of the opinion about the possible distant relationship of the three language families - Turkic, Mongolian and Tungus-Manchu, forming the Altai macrofamily. However, in the accepted usage, the term "Altaic languages" denotes a conditional association rather than a proven genetic grouping. (V.V.).

In view of the fact that in Turkology there is no single point of view on the grouping of Turkic languages, we give them a list; at the end, different points of view on their grouping are given.

At present, the Altaic and Shor languages ​​use the same literary language based on Altaic.

Cm .: Korsh F. E. Classification of Turkish tribes by language, 1910.

See: Bogoroditsky V. A. Introduction to Tatar linguistics in connection with other Turkic languages, 1934.

Cm .: Schmidt W. Die Sprachfamilien und Sprachenkreise der Erde, 1932.

Paleoasian languages ​​- the name is conditional: Chukchi-Kamchatka represent a community of related languages; the rest of the languages ​​are included in Paleoasiatic rather on a geographical basis.

See ch. IV, § 56.

Humboldt V. About the difference between the organisms of human languages ​​and the influence of this difference on the mental development of mankind / Per. P. Bilyarsky, 1859. See: Zvegintsev V. A. The history of linguistics of the XIX-XX centuries in essays and extracts. 3rd ed., add. M .: Education, 1964. Part I. C. 85–104 (new ed.: Humboldt V. fon. Selected works on linguistics. M., 1984.).

Milevsky T. Premises of typological linguistics // Studies in structural typology. M., 1963. S. 4.

See ibid. C. 3.

There. S. 27.

Milevsky T. Premises of typological linguistics // Studies in structural typology. M., 1963. S. 25.

There are 2500-3000 languages ​​on Earth. These languages ​​differ both in their prevalence and social functions, as well as in the peculiarities of the phonetic structure and vocabulary, morphological and syntactic characteristics. In linguistics, there are a number of classifications of languages. The main ones are four: areal (geographical), genealogical, typological and functional.

Genealogical classification is based on the definition of kinship between languages. At the same time, the common origin of related languages ​​is proved and their development from a single, often reconstructed in special ways, language, which is called the parent language, is demonstrated. In the genealogical classification of languages, first of all, the degree of their kinship and ties is ascertained.

Typological (morphological), operates with classes of languages ​​that are combined according to those features that are chosen as reflecting the most significant features of the linguistic structure (for example, the way morphemes are combined). The best known is the morphological classification of languages, according to which languages ​​are distributed through the abstract concept of type into the following four classes: 1) isolating, or amorphous, such as Chinese. 2) agglutinative, or agglutinating, for example, Turkic and Bantu languages. 3) incorporating, or polysynthetic, for example, Chukchi-Kamchatka. 4) inflectional languages, such as Slavic, Baltic.

Areal (geographic), An areal classification of languages ​​is also possible for idioms within the genealogical classification of languages ​​(for example, the Polissya area, covering Belarusian-Ukrainian dialects), and for languages ​​of different genetic affiliation (for example, the Carpathian area of ​​Hungarian-Slavic dialects). In the areal classification, signs associated with contact phenomena play an important role. Areal classification is also possible within one language in relation to its dialects; it underlies linguistic geography. Geographic classification is associated with the place of distribution (original or late) of a particular language (or dialect). Its purpose is to determine the area of ​​a language (or dialect), taking into account the boundaries of its linguistic features. The main research method is linguogeographical. A special category of areal classification of languages ​​is formed by language unions, which are formed as a result of speech interaction in the sphere of household communication. within the framework of a linguistic union, the related and unrelated languages ​​and dialects that are part of it converge, united by a certain commonality of household vocabulary, syntactic constructions, and characteristic features of morphology and phonetics. Thus, the areal classification consists in studying the language map of the world, the linguistic characteristics of different countries, as well as the distribution of individual languages ​​or groups of languages.

Functional classification languages ​​is multidimensional. It takes into account three main divisions:

1) the connection of a language with the people to which it belongs,

2) the functions that the language performs in society,

3) the prevalence of the language outside the main ethnic area. According to the connection of language with the people, three main social types of language are distinguished - tribal language, language nationalities, National language. The social type of language is determined by the social community of people. According to the coverage of people, languages ​​are divided into languages narrow and wide use. Narrow USE languages ​​ARE tribal and minority languages. National LANGUAGES are used not only as languages ​​of interethnic, but also INTERNATIONAL communication. In this case, the use of language goes beyond the LIMITS of its ethnic area, and it becomes not only a means of communication, but also a means of fixing the data of science and art.

Cultural and historical the classification deals almost exclusively with literary and written languages, with written variants of languages ​​that serve ethnic groups of peoples or nations.

Lecture #14

Language classifications

Similarities and differences between languages. The similarity is material and typological.

Genealogical classification of languages. The concepts of "linguistic kinship", "comparative-historical method".

III. Typological classification of languages.

I. One of the tasks of linguistics is the systematization of existing languages ​​(about 2500), which differ in prevalence and social functions, features of the phonetic structure and vocabulary, morphological and syntactic characteristics.

There are two approaches to the classification of languages:

grouping according to the commonality of linguistic material (roots, affixes, words), and thus according to the common origin - genealogical classification;

grouping according to the common structure and type, primarily grammatical, regardless of origin - typological classification.

When comparing languages, you can find easily perceptible lexical

and phonetic, i.e. material correspondences, which imply certain patterns or regularities in the relationship between languages ​​and peoples - speakers of these languages.

The commonality of linguistic material (material closeness) is associated with the differentiation of dialects of the once common language. Differences in dialects were caused by various reasons: changing socio-historical conditions, migrations, contacts with other languages ​​and dialects, geographical and political isolation, etc. Tribes that spoke different dialects of the same, previously common language, settling in new territories remote from each other, could not communicate as before. Contacts weakened, and linguistic differences grew. The strengthening of centrifugal tendencies led over time to the formation of new languages, although they were genetically related. The systematization of related languages ​​reflects the genealogical classification.

In the languages ​​of the world, common features are also found in the structure of sentences, the composition of the main parts of speech, in the form and word-formation structures - the so-called typological similarity.

This similarity is due to the fundamental unity of human nature, the unity of its biological and mental organization, which manifests itself in a number of dependencies between the communicative and intellectual needs and capabilities of a person and the structure of his language. If in a number of languages ​​the observed typological similarity

covers a large series of systemically interconnected phenomena, then such languages ​​can be considered as a certain language type. The systematization of the languages ​​of the world according to certain types is reflected in typological classifications.

II. Genealogical classification of languages- the study, description and grouping of the languages ​​of the world on the basis of a common origin from a single source language.

Genealogical classification proceeds from the concept of kinship of languages. related languages languages ​​are recognized that originate from one base language - the parent language and, therefore, have some features:

the presence of materially related roots and affixes;

the presence of regular sound correspondences.

Establishing the genetic identity of languages, elucidating the degree of their

family relations and connections is carried out using the comparative historical method. Comparative historical method- this is a set of research techniques used in the study of related languages ​​in order to establish the general patterns of their development and reconstruction of the parent language.

The comparative-historical method is based on a number of requirements, the observance of which increases the reliability of the conclusions.

The establishment of the genetic identity of languages ​​should be done by comparing the most archaic forms. Because related languages ​​have undergone changes and diverged from each other, it is necessary to penetrate into their pre-written state.

Comparison of presumably related languages ​​begins with a dictionary comparison, and not the entire array of common words is examined, but only those that are the most ancient in their meaning. These are the following semantic groups of words:

Forms of the verb of being, 3rd person singular. and pl. the present tense of the indicative mood (cf.: Skt. á sti - sá nti "is", lat. est – sunt, goth. ist – sind, other slav eat - network);

Terms of kinship (for example, "mother": Skt. mā tá r, lat. mater, other isl. moder, other slav mater, modern English mother, German Mutter);

The names of some plants and animals (for example, "mouse": Skt. mū h, lat. mus, other upper mus, other slav mouse, modern English mouse, German Mouse);

The names of parts of the human body, some tools, some natural phenomena (for example, "tooth": Skt. dá ntam- win.pad unit, lat. dentem - wine fall unit, modern English teeth, German Zahn, French dent );

Names of pronouns, numerals up to 10 (for example, "two": Vedic. d(u)vā , lat. duo, OE dau, other slav two, modern English two, German zwei).

These groups of words must be equally represented in the compared languages, since unwritten languages ​​lack the vocabulary associated with civilization. The purpose of their comparison, in addition to establishing the nature of the correlation of common words in different languages, is also the analysis of the phonetic and morphological structures of the word. The relationship of languages ​​is manifested both in the coincidence of whole words, and in the similarity (formal and semantic) of the minimum meaningful units of the language - morphemes.

Therefore, the next stage of the study is the comparison of morphemes, which expands the base of comparison. There are much more common morphemes in related languages ​​than there are common words. This is one of the signs of the relationship of languages. The importance of the criterion of grammatical correspondences lies in the fact that inflectional forms, unlike words and grammatical models of words, as a rule, are not borrowed (cf., lat. am- a- t, German lieb- t, russ. loves).

Comparison of morphemes makes it possible to show the phonetic similarity and dissimilarity of words and parts of words in related languages. This similarity and dissimilarity is called phonetic correspondences. Establishing sound correspondences is an important link for comparison.

According to the rule of phonetic correspondences, a sound that changes in a certain position in one word undergoes similar changes in the same conditions in other words (for example, the initial Slavic b in Latin in some cases corresponds to f, dating back to Indo-European * bh: brother – frater, bean -faba, take -ferunt).

When establishing sound correspondences, it is necessary to take into account historical changes that, due to the internal laws of the development of each language, appear in the latter in the form of phonetic laws (for example, Russian wife corresponds to Norwegian kona, because in Scandinavian Germanic languages ​​[k] comes from [g], and in Slavic [g] in the position before front vowels changed to [g], cf. Greek gyne "woman").

All indications regarding each element under consideration in several related languages ​​should be taken into account, since the correspondence of elements of only two languages ​​may be accidental.

The use of the comparative historical contributes to the reconstruction of the proto-language. Protolanguage reconstruction- a set of techniques and procedures for recreating unattested forms and phenomena by comparing the corresponding units of related languages. For example, knowing the phonetic, grammatical and semantic correspondences of the Indo-European languages, it is possible, on the basis of lat. fumus "smoke", ancient Greek. thymos "breath, spirit", ancient Slav. smoke and others. to restore the protoform for this word dhumos. The base language cannot be completely restored, but the basic data of phonetics, grammar and vocabulary (to the least extent) can be reconstructed.

The results of studies of languages ​​by the method of comparative historical linguistics are summarized in the genealogical classification of languages.

Different degrees of kinship of languages ​​are conveyed by the terms "family", "group", "subgroup".

A family- this is the whole set of languages ​​​​of a given kinship (for example, Indo-European family).

Group (branch) is an association within a family of languages ​​that show great material proximity (for example, Slavic group, Germanic group etc.).

Subgroup- an association within a group of languages, the family ties of which are quite transparent, which makes it possible for their speakers to understand each other almost freely (for example, East Slavic subgroup: Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian languages).

III. The comparative study of the structural properties of languages, regardless of the nature of the genetic relationships between them, is called typology. The subject of structural typology is the internal organization of language as a system, i.e. the similarity of the structure of languages ​​at one of the levels. There are formal and contensive typologies.

Formal typology studies the means of expressing the meanings of the language, i.e. grammatical categories that are necessarily expressed in an utterance in this language.

Contensive typology is focused on the semantic categories of the language and ways of expressing them, which, unlike grammatical ones, can be expressed by units of all levels.

The basis for classification in typology may be different. Traditional typological (morphological) classification reflects the desire to distinguish types of languages ​​based on the general principles of the structure of grammatical forms. This classification is based on the opposition of roots and affixes.

The following types of languages ​​are usually established in the morphological classification: root (or isolating), agglutinative (or agglutinating), inflectional, incorporating (or polysynthetic).

insulating (or root ) languages - these are languages ​​in which words do not change, each root in which is isolated from another, and grammatical connections between them are expressed using word order and intonation (for example, Chinese).

The absence of external signs of belonging to a grammatical category contributes to the development of grammatical conversion of 1 words of one grammatical form into another under the influence of the grammatical environment.

All isolating languages ​​into root-isolating and base-isolating, i.e. having derivational affixes.

To root isolating languages once A.V. Schlegel used the term amorphous (formless), because. words in these languages ​​are devoid of any form. This subtype is characterized by the following features:

In such languages ​​there are not only inflectional, but also

derivational affixes;

These languages ​​lack parts of speech;

Each word represents a pure root, and a sentence

a sequence of invariable roots (for example, in Chinese cha

boo heh, where [cha]"tea", [in]"I", [boo]"No", [heh]"to drink", translated into

Russian I don't drink tea);

New concepts, new words are formed by adding roots (for example,

in Chinese Shui"water", ugh"carry", Shui+ ugh"water carrier");

A system of tones has been developed, depending on which the meaning of the word changes.

Foundation languages- these are modern languages ​​in which the words do not change, but in these languages ​​there are some word-forming and formative affixes (for example, in the Malay language roemah "house", be- roemah"to live, live").

Agglutinative or agglutinating (lat. agglutinare"glue") languages - these are languages ​​that are characterized by a developed system of word formation and inflection, the absence of morphological alternations, a single system of declension and conjugation (for example, the Turkic languages).

This type of language differs from other affixing languages ​​by the technique of adding affixes and the functions that they perform: unambiguous, standard affixes are mechanically attached to the stem of a word.

In an agglutinative word, the boundaries between morphemes are quite distinct, the root has no variants, while each affix has only one meaning and each meaning is expressed by only one affix (for example, kaz. mektep-ter-ge"schools" -ter- expresses the value of the plural. numbers, -ge- date value. case).

In agglutinative languages, the positional method of formal expression of grammatical meanings dominates: a polysemantic word is built according to the principle of gradual concretization of the stem, from affixes with a wider meaning to affixes with more private and less wide meaning (for example, kaz. uy-ler-imis-de-gi-ler-den"from those who are at home": each subsequent affix, expressing the grammatical meaning, specifies the root).

Since in agglutinative languages ​​the connection between morphemes is weak, they have developed a phonetic means for bonding morphemes - synharmonism- in all joining affixes, a vowel of the same row as in the root is used (for example, Kaz. ande r-le R"lands").

Agglutinating languages ​​are divided into languages ​​with suffix agglutination(Kazakh language), languages ​​with prefix agglutination(languages ​​of Africa), languages ​​with suffix-prefix agglutination(Georgian language).

inflectional or fusional (lat. fusio"fusion") languages - these are languages ​​that are characterized by the multifunctionality of grammatical morphemes, the presence of fusion, morphological combinations, an extensive system of declension and conjugation (for example, Indo-European languages).

In languages ​​of this type, as in agglutinative ones, the main way of expressing grammatical meanings is affixation. But along with external inflection, internal inflection is widely used, i.e. a change in the composition of the root, expressing a grammatical meaning (for example, in English. man – men “man - men”: plural meaning is transmitted by alternation in the root).

Another characteristic feature of the inflectional structure is the fusion technique of combining morphemes in a word. In a fusion word, the boundaries between morphemes are indistinct (for example, in the word shoes morphemes are closely soldered, the root is connected, i.e. without service morphemes is not used); service morphemes simultaneously express several grammatical meanings (for example, in the Russian word wife flexion -a has three meanings: feminine, nominative, singular).

Inflectional languages ​​are also characterized by homonymy and synonymy of affixes (for example, in Russian –in- can have the value of singularity: pea and the value is big: house-in-a; in words tables, houses, children different inflections express the plural); different position of affixes in relation to the root (roots, prefixes, suffixes, infixes).

Incorporating (lat. in "in", corpus"body", i.e. "Introducing something into the body" incorporere "insert") or polysynthetic (gr. poly "many" and synthesis "connection, combination") languages - these are languages ​​that are characterized by the incompleteness of the morphological structure of the word, which allows the inclusion of its other members in one member of the sentence (for example, a direct object can be included in the verb-predicate). The incorporating languages ​​include the languages ​​of the Indians of North America, Chukchi-Kamchatka, etc.

The word in such languages ​​acquires a structure only as part of a sentence: there is no word outside the sentence, the sentence is the main unit of speech, which includes words (for example, the Chukchi word-sentence you - ata-kaa - nmy - rkyn"I kill fat deer", the basis of this word-sentence you are rkyn, which incorporates kaa"deer" and its definition ata"fatty").

Many languages ​​occupy an intermediate position on this scale of morphological classification. Often, the terms "analytical languages" and "synthetic languages" are also used to characterize the grammatical structure of a language.

Analytical languages or analytical languages called languages ​​in which grammatical meanings are expressed using independent words, i.e. dissected transmission of lexical and grammatical meanings is carried out. The analyticity of the language is manifested in the morphological immutability of the word and the presence of complex structures in which the grammatical meaning is conveyed either by a functional word or by an independent one (for example, the Russian form will love- analytical, the meaning of the future tense of the 1st person singular is transmitted by an auxiliary verb) in the presence of complex structures in which the grammatical meaning is transmitted either by a function word or by an independent speech).

Synthetic languages or synthetic languages are called those in which grammatical meanings are expressed mainly by affixes, i.e. grammatical meaning and lexical meaning are transmitted undividedly, in one word with the help of affixes, internal inflection, etc. (for example, in the word move-and-l-a with the help of affixes, the values ​​​​of the past tense, feminine, singular are transmitted. numbers).

In its pure form, analyticism and synthetism are not represented in any language of the world, because in each language there are both elements, although their ratio may be different (for example, in Russian, along with the predominance of synthetism, there are also analytical forms; English is an inflectional language of the analytical type, but synthetic forms are also observed in it).

In addition to the morphological typological classification, there are classifications built on the basis of other structural criteria - syntactic, phonemic, etc. Thus, the phonological classification of the Slavic languages ​​is known. Typological patterns are also revealed in syntax.

educational:

1. Kodukhov V.I. Introduction to linguistics. M.: Enlightenment, 1979. -

2. Maslov Yu.S. Introduction to linguistics. M.: Higher School, 1987. - p.221-

3. Reformatsky A.A. Introduction to linguistics. M.: Aspect Press, 2001. - p.

additional:

1. Amanbayeva G.Yu. Linguistic typology: Proc. student allowance

humanitarian universities. Karaganda: Publishing house of KarSU, 2002.

2. Mechkovskaya N.B. General Linguistics: Structural and Social Typology

languages: Proc. manual for students of philological and linguistic

specialties. M.: Flinta: Nauka, 2001.

3. Theoretical foundations of the classification of languages ​​of the world. M., 1980.

4. Theoretical foundations of the classification of world languages. Relationship problems.

1Conversion(lat. conversion "transformation") - the formation of a new word by moving it from one part of speech to another.

On the globe, according to rough estimates, there are over two and a half thousand languages; the difficulty in determining the number of languages ​​is primarily due to the fact that in many cases, due to insufficient knowledge, it is not clear that this is an independent language or a dialect of any language. There are languages ​​serving a narrow circle of speakers (tribal languages ​​of Africa, Polynesia, American Indians, "one-aul" languages ​​of Dagestan); other languages ​​represent nationalities and nations, but are associated only with a given nationality (for example, the Dungan language in Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan, the Mansi or Vogul language in the northern Trans-Urals) or nation (for example, the Czech, Polish, Bulgarian languages); others serve several nations (for example, Portuguese in Portugal and Brazil, French in France, Belgium and Switzerland, English in England and the USA, German in Germany and Austria, Spanish in Spain and in 20 republics of South and Central America) .

There are international languages ​​in which the materials of international associations are published; UN, Peace Committee, etc. (Russian, English, French, Spanish, Chinese, Arabic); Although Russian serves one nation, it is an international language for the peoples of the former USSR and one of the few international languages ​​in the whole world.

There are also such languages ​​that, in comparison with modern languages, should be considered dead, but they are still used under certain conditions; it is primarily Latin - the language of the Catholic Church, science, nomenclature and international terminology; here, to one degree or another, are ancient Greek and classical Arabic.

Linguistics knows two approaches to the classification of languages: the grouping of languages ​​according to the commonality of linguistic material (roots, affixes, words), and thus according to the common origin - this is the genealogical classification of languages, and the grouping of languages ​​according to the common structure and type, primarily grammatical, regardless of origin is a typological, or, in other words, morphological, classification of languages.

The genealogical classification of languages ​​is directly related to the historical fate of languages ​​and peoples, the speakers of these languages, and covers primarily lexical and phonetic comparisons, and then grammatical ones; morphological classification is connected with the structural-systemic understanding of the language and relies mainly on grammar.

The results of almost two hundred years of research into languages ​​using the method of comparative historical linguistics are summarized in the scheme of the genealogical classification of languages.

Language families are divided into branches, groups, subgroups, sub-subgroups of related languages. Each stage of fragmentation unites closer languages ​​in comparison with the previous, more general one. Thus, the East Slavic languages ​​show greater proximity than the Slavic languages ​​in general, and the Slavic languages ​​show greater proximity than the Indo-European ones.

GENEALOGICAL CLASSIFICATION OF LANGUAGES

I. INDO-EUROPEAN LANGUAGES

Indian group

(over 96 living languages ​​in total)

Hindi and Urdu are two varieties of the same modern Indian literary language. And also Bengali, Sindhi, Nepali, Gypsy.

Dead: Vedic, Sanskrit.

Iranian group

(more than 10 languages, finds the greatest proximity with the Indian group,

with which it unites into a common Indo-Iranian, or Aryan, group)

Persian, Dari, Tajik, Ossetian, etc.

Dead: Old Persian, Avestan, etc.

Slavic group

A. Eastern subgroup

P u c s k i y Ukrainian Belarusian

B. Southern subgroup

Bulgarian Macedonian Serbo-Croatian

Slovenian

Dead: Old Church Slavonic.

B. Western subgroup

Czech Slovak Polish etc.

Dead: Pomeranian dialects.

Baltic group

Lithuanian Latvian Latgalian

Dead: Prussian and others

German group

A. North Germanic (Scandinavian) subgroup

1) Danish 2) Swedish

3) Norwegian 4) Icelandic 5) Faroese

B. West German subgroup

6) English

7) Dutch (Dutch) with Flemish

8) Frisian

9) German; two adverbs; Low German (Northern, Niederdeutsch or Plattdeutsch) and High German (Southern, Hochdeutsch); the literary language developed on the basis of South German dialects.

B. East German subgroup

Dead: Gothic, Burgundian, Vandal, etc.

Roman group

French, Provencal, Italian, Sardinian, Spanish, Portuguese, Romanian, Moldovan, Macedonian-Romanian, etc.

Dead:: Latin.

Celtic group

Irish, Scottish, Breton, etc. others

Dead: Manx

Greek group

Modern Greek, from the 12th century. Dead: Ancient Greek, X century. BC e.

Albanian group

Albanian

Armenian group

Armenian

Hitto-Luvian (Anatolian) group

Dead: Hittite, Carian, etc.

Tocharian group

Dead: Tocharian

P. CAUCASUS LANGUAGES

A. Western group: Abkhazian-Adyghe languages

Abkhaz, Adyghe, Kabardian, Ubykh, etc.

B. Eastern group: Nakh-Dagestan languages

Chechen, Ingush, Lezgi, Mingrelian, Georgian, etc.

III. OUTSIDE THE GROUP -BASQUE

IV. URAL LANGUAGES

FINNO-UGRIAN (UGRO-FINNISH) LANGUAGES

A. Ugric branch

Hungarian, Mansi, Khanty

B. Baltic-Finnish branch

Finnish, Estonian, Karelian, etc.

B. Perm branch

Komi-Zyryan, Komi-Perm, Udmurt

G. Volga branch

Mari, Mordovian

SAMOYED LANGUAGES

Nenets, Enets, etc.

V. ALTAI LANGUAGES

TURKIC LANGUAGES

Turkish, Azerbaijani, Turkmen, Uzbek, Crimean Tatar, Tatar, Yakut, Kazakh, Kyrgyz, etc.

MONGOLIAN LANGUAGES

Mongolian, Buryat, Kalmyk.

TUNGUS-MANCHUR LANGUAGES

Evenki, Manchurian, Nanai, etc.

NOT INCLUDED IN ANY GROUPS

(presumably close to Altaic) Japanese, Korean, Ainu.

VI. AFRASIAN (SEMITE-HAMITE) LANGUAGES

Semitic branch

Arabic, Assyrian, etc.

Dead: Hebrew.

Egyptian branch

Dead: Ancient Egyptian, Coptic

Berbero-Libyan branch

(North Africa and West Central Africa) Ghadames, Kabyle, etc.

Kushite branch

(Northeast and East Africa) Agave, Somali, Sakho, etc.

Chadian branch

(Central Africa and West Central Sub-Saharan Africa)

Hausa, Gwandara, etc.

VII. NIGERO-CONGO LANGUAGES

(territory of sub-Saharan Africa)

1. Mande languages(bamana, etc.)

2 Atlantic languages(fur, diola, etc.)

3. Kru languages(kru, seme, etc.) and other groups (total - 10)

VIII. NILO-SAHARAN LANGUAGES

(Central Africa) Songhai, fur, mimi, etc.

IX. Khoisan languages

(on the territory of South Africa, Namibia, Angola)

Bushman languages ​​(Kung, Auni, Hadza, etc.), Hottentot languages.

X. Sino-Tibetan languages

Chinese branch: Chinese, Dungan.

Tibeto-Burmese branch: Tibetan, Burmese.

XI. THAI LANGUAGES

Thai, Lao, etc.

XII. LANGUAGES

These are the little-studied languages ​​of Central and Southern China: Yao, Miao, well.

XIII. DRAVID LANGUAGES

(languages ​​of the oldest population of the Indian subcontinent)

Tamil, Telugu, etc.

XIV. OUTSIDE THE FAMILY - BURUSHASDI LANGUAGE

(mountainous regions of northwest India)

XV. AUSTRIASIAN LANGUAGES

Nicobar, Vietnamese, etc.

XVI. AUSTRONESIAN (MALAY-POLYNESIAN) LANGUAGES

A. Indonesian branch

Indonesian, Madurese, Tagalog (Tagalog).

B. Polynesian branch

Tonga, Maori, Hawaiian, etc.

B. Micronesian branch

Marshalsky, Truk and others.

XVII. AUSTRALIAN LANGUAGES

Many small indigenous languages ​​of Central and Northern Australia, most famously a p an n t a.

XVIII. PAPUAN LANGUAGES

Languages ​​of the central part of about. New Guinea and some smaller islands in the Pacific. A very complex and not definitively established classification.

XIX. PALEOASIATIAN LANGUAGES

Chukchi-Kamchatka languages

Chukchi, Koryak, Eskimo, Aleut, etc.

XX. INDIAN (AMERINDIAN) LANGUAGES

Language families of North America

1) Algonquin (Menomini, Yurok, Cree, etc.).

2) Iroquois (Cherokee, Seneca, etc.).

3) Penutian (Chinook, Clamack, etc.), etc.

Germanic and Romance languages: areas of distribution and distinctive features.

Germanic languages

Among the Indo-European languages, Germanic languages ​​rank first in terms of the number of people who speak them (over 400 million people out of 1600 million speakers of various Indo-European languages). Modern Germanic languages ​​include:

1. English spoken in the UK, USA, Australia, New Zealand. In these countries, it is the national language, the language of the vast majority of the population. In Canada, English is one of the two official languages, along with French, with Anglo-Canadians making up over 40% of the population. In the Republic of South Africa, English is also one of the official languages, along with Afrikaans (Boer). English was forcibly introduced as the language of colonial domination and was the official language in the former colonies and dominions of England, where along with it there were local languages ​​of the main population of these countries. With their release from the power of Great Britain, the English language loses its dominant position and is gradually being replaced by local languages. About 400 million people speak English.

2. The German language is spoken in Germany, Austria, in northern and central Switzerland, in Luxembourg, in France - in Alsace and Lorraine. It is also distributed in some other areas in Europe and the USA. About 100 million people speak German.

3. Dutch (Dutch) language - the language of the population of the Netherlands and Flanders, which unites the northern provinces of Belgium;

The Dutch language has some distribution in the USA, in the West Indies. Dutch is spoken by over 19 million people.

4. Afrikaans (Boer) - the language of the descendants of the Dutch colonists, one of the two official languages ​​of South Africa (the second official language of South Africa is English). It is spoken by about 3.5 million people.

5. Yiddish is the modern Hebrew language. Distributed in various countries among the Jewish population.

6. Frisian is not an independent national language; it is spoken by the population of the Frisian Islands, the northern coast of the Netherlands and a small region in northwestern Germany. Frisian is spoken by over 400,000 people.

The languages ​​listed above are West German subgroup. To North Germanic (Scandinavian) subgroup include the following languages: 1. Icelandic - the language of the population of Iceland (about 270,000 people). 2. Norwegian is the language of the population of Norway (about 4.2 million people). 3. Faroese - the language of the population of the Faroe Islands (about 50,000 people). 4. Swedish is the language of the population of Sweden (about 8 million people) and part of the population of Finland (about 300 thousand people). 5. Danish - the language of the population of Denmark (over 5 million people); Danish is also spoken in Greenland and the Faroe Islands. Scandinavian languages ​​- Swedish, Norwegian, and Danish - are common in some US states and Canada among immigrants from Scandinavian countries.

English developed from Anglo-Saxon, German from Old High German, subsequently drawing Low Saxon into its orbit as Low German, Dutch (with Flemish in Belgium) from Old Low Frankish, Afrikaans from Dutch, Yiddish developed on the basis of High German, like Swiss and Luxembourgish; the Scandinavian languages ​​(Swedish, Danish, Norwegian, and from the latter Icelandic and Faroese) arose from the Old Norse.

Distinctive features of the Germanic languages:

in phonetics: dynamic stress on the first (root) syllable; reduction of unstressed syllables; assimilative variation of vowels, which led to historical alternations in umlaut (by row) and refraction (by degree of rise); common German consonant movement;

in morphology: wide use of ablaut in inflection and word formation; the formation (next to a strong preterite) of a weak preterite by means of a dental suffix; distinguishing between strong and weak declensions of adjectives; manifestation of a tendency to analyticism;

in word formation: the special role of nominal word formation (basic composition); the prevalence of suffixation in nominal word production and prefixation in verb word production; the presence of a conversion (especially in English);

in syntax: tendency to fix word order;

in vocabulary: layers of native Indo-European and common Germanic, borrowings from the Celtic, Latin, Greek, French languages.

The presence already in ancient times, in addition to common innovations, phonetic and morphological differences between groups of languages; numerous isoglosses between Scandinavian and Gothic, Scandinavian and West Germanic, Gothic and West Germanic, testifying to historical ties in different eras.

Romance languages

The Romance group unites the languages ​​​​that arose on the basis of Latin:

Aromanian (Aromunian),

Galician,

gascon,

Dalmatian (extinct at the end of the 19th century),

Spanish,

Istro-Romanian

Italian,

Catalan,

Ladino (Jewish language of Spain)

Megleno-Romanian (Meglenite),

Moldavian,

Portuguese,

Provençal (Occitan),

Romansh; they include:

Swiss, or Western, Romansh / Graubünden / Curval / Romansh, represented by at least two varieties - Surselvian / Obwaldian and Upper Engadine, sometimes subdivided into more languages;

Tyrolean, or Central, Romansh / Ladin / Dolomite / Trentino and

Friulian/Eastern Romansh, often classified as a separate group,

Romanian,

Sardinian (Sardinian),

Franco-Provencal,

French.

Literary languages ​​have their own variants: French - in Belgium, Switzerland, Canada; Spanish in Latin America, Portuguese in Brazil. On the basis of French, Portuguese, Spanish, more than 10 Creole languages ​​arose.

In Spain and Latin American countries, these languages ​​are often referred to as Neo-Latin. The total number of speakers is about 580 million people. More than 60 countries use Romance languages ​​as national or official languages.

Zones of distribution of Romance languages:

"Old Romania": Italy, Portugal, almost all of Spain, France, south of Belgium, west and south of Switzerland, the main territory of Romania, almost all of Moldova, separate inclusions in the north of Greece, south and northwest of Yugoslavia;

"New Romania": part of North America (Quebec in Canada, Mexico), almost all of Central America and South America, most of the Antilles;

The countries that were colonies, where the Romance languages ​​(French, Spanish, Portuguese), without displacing the local ones, became official - almost all of Africa, small territories in South Asia and Oceania.

The classification of Romance languages ​​encounters difficulties due to the diversity and gradualness of transitions from language to language. In practice, the geographical principle is often used. Subgroups are distinguished: Ibero-Romance (Portuguese, Galician, Spanish, Catalan), Gallo-Romance (French, Provençal), Italian-Romance (Italian, Sardinian), Romansh, Balkan-Romance (Romanian, Moldavian, Aromunian, Megleno-Romanian, Istro-Romanian) . A division is also proposed, taking into account some structural features, into the languages ​​​​of "continuous Romania" (Italian, Occitan, Catalan, Spanish, Galician, Portuguese), "internal" language (Sardinian, the most archaic in structure), "external" languages, with a large number innovations and experienced the greatest influence of foreign system languages ​​(French, Romansh, Balkan-Romance). The languages ​​of "continuous Romany" reflect the general Romance language type to the greatest extent.

Main features of the Romance languages:

in phonetics: rejection of quantitative differences in vowels; the common Romansh system has 7 vowels (the best preservation in Italian); the development of specific vowels (nasals in French and Portuguese, labialized front vowels in French, Provençal, Romansh; mixed vowels in Balkan-Romanian); the formation of diphthongs; reduction of unstressed vowels (especially final ones); open/close neutralization e and about in unstressed syllables; simplification and transformation of consonant groups; the emergence of affricates as a result of palatalization, which in some languages ​​have become fricative; weakening or reduction of the intervocalic consonant; weakening and reduction of the consonant in the outcome of the syllable; a tendency towards openness of the syllable and limited compatibility of consonants; a tendency to phonetically link words in a speech stream (especially in French);

in morphology: preservation of inflection with a strong tendency towards analyticism; the name has 2 numbers, 2 genders, the absence of a case category (except for the Balkan-Romance), the transfer of object relations by prepositions; a variety of forms of the article; preservation of the case system for pronouns; agreement of adjectives with names in gender and number; formation of adverbs from adjectives by means of a suffix -mente(except Balkan-Romanian); a branched system of analytical verb forms; the typical scheme of a Romance verb contains 16 tenses and 4 moods; 2 pledges; peculiar impersonal forms;

in syntax: word order is fixed in some cases; the adjective usually follows the noun; determinatives precede the verb (except for the Balkan-Romance ones).

Literature

1. Akhmanova O.S. Dictionary of linguistic terms. M., 2003.

2. Bally Sh. Language and life. M., 2003.

3. Baranova L. A. Introduction to linguistics. M., 1981.

4. Benveniste E. Classification of languages. M., 1963.

5. Benveniste E. General linguistics. M, 2002.

6. Bloomfield L. Language. M., 2003.

7. Bondarko A.V. Linguistics of text in the system of functional grammar M., 2001.

8. Vezhbitskaya A. Language. Culture. Cognition. M., 1996.

9. Vinogradov V.V. Selected works. Lexicology and lexicography. M., 2000.

10. Gelb E.I. Experience in writing. M., 1992.

11. Demyankov V.Z. Typology of Languages ​​and Linguistic Universals (A Course of Lectures for Postgraduate Students). http://www.infolex.ru/Aspcom.htm

12. Zhirmunsky V.M. An Introduction to the Comparative Historical Study of the Germanic Languages. M.; L., 1980.

13. Foreign linguistics. III. M., 1999.

14. Zvegintsev V.A. Thoughts on linguistics. M., 1996.

15. Kolshansky G.V. Language and thought. M., 2005.

16. Laguta O.N. Logic and linguistics. M., 2000.

17. Lyons J. Introduction to theoretical linguistics. M., 1978.

18. Lyons J. Language and Linguistics. Introductory course. M, 2004.

19. Leontiev A.A. Psychology of communication. M., 1999.

20. Linguistic encyclopedic dictionary. M., 2002.

21. Luria A.R. Language and consciousness. M., 1998.

22. Novikov L.A. Selected works. Problems of linguistic meaning. M., 2001.

23. Novikov L.A. Semantics of the Russian language. M., 1982.

24. Reformatsky A.A. Introduction to linguistics. M., 2001.

25. Stepanov Yu.S. Fundamentals of general linguistics. M., 1975.

26. F. De Saussure. Course of general linguistics. M., 2001.

27. Susov I.P. History of linguistics. Tver, 1999.

28. Toporov V.N. Comparative-historical linguistics. M., 1990.

29. Chomsky N. Syntactic structures. M., 2000.

30. Schweitzer A.D. Sociolinguistics. M., 1990.