FUNCTIONAL-SEMANTIC ANALYSIS AS THE BASIS OF SYSTEMIC STUDY OF LANGUAGE UNITS. FUNCTIONAL-SEMANTIC CATEGORY OF COMPARISON

Krylova Maria Nikolaevna
Azov-Black Sea State Agricultural Engineering Academy
Candidate of Philological Sciences, Associate Professor of the Department of Professional Pedagogy and Foreign Languages

Annotation
The article provides an overview of the history of the development of the functional-semantic approach in linguistics and describes its basic concepts. The structure of the category of comparison of the modern Russian language is considered in a functional-semantic key.

FUNCTIONAL-SEMANTIC ANALYSIS AS A BASIS FOR SYSTEMATIC RESEARCH OF LANGUAGE UNITS. FUNCTIONAL-SEMANTIC CATEGORY OF COMPARISON

Krylova Maria Nikolaevna
Azov-Black Sea State Agroengineering Academy
PhD in Philological Science, Assistant Professor of the Professional Pedagogy and Foreign Languages ​​Department

Abstract
The paper reviews the history of the development of functional-semantic approach in linguistics, its basic concepts are described. The structure of the category of comparison of modern Russian language is considered a functional-semantic way.

Bibliographic link to the article:
Krylova M.N. Functional-semantic analysis as the basis for a systematic study of linguistic units. Functional-semantic category of comparison // Humanitarian research. 2013. No. 9 [Electronic resource]..03.2019).

In research conducted by modern linguists great value has a functional approach to linguistic facts and phenomena as “an approach in which a certain general meaning is recognized as the starting point of the study, and then various multi-level linguistic means are established that serve to express this general meaning.” This approach follows from language research in the vein of functional linguistics.

For functional linguistics, the main characteristic is attention to the functioning of language as a means of communication. It arose as one of the branches of structural linguistics in the 50-60s of the twentieth century. The advantage of the functional-system approach is the ability to study each phenomenon of language from the point of view of both its internal structure and its functioning. Language is studied in specific situation, in action, in the close connection of various linguistic phenomena. M.G. convincingly speaks about the need for researchers to turn to the functional side of language. Petrosyan: “The functional approach...allows us to study an object from the point of view not of its internal structure, but of its functioning, its connections with environment... Provides an opportunity to study language in its specific implementation, in action, to explore linguistic means of transmitting extralinguistic situations ... Meets the natural conditions of speech communication, when various linguistic means are used in synthesis, in their inextricable connection.”

The functional-semantic approach and, accordingly, the concept of a functional-semantic field (FSF) goes back to the analysis of language as a system that is a complex mechanism, which was theoretically proven by I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay and F. de Saussure. Currently, the systematic nature of the language is recognized by both Russian and foreign linguists.

In foreign linguistics, field theory was studied by German scientists J. Trier and W. Porzig. Studying mainly lexical material, these scientists developed a theory of lexical fields built on paradigmatic (J. Trier) and syntagmatic (W. Porzig) principles.

Domestic linguists (V.G. Admoni, I.P. Ivanova, E.V. Gulyga, M.M. Gukhman, G.A. Zolotova, etc.) have done a lot to develop functional linguistics and field theory. V.G. Admoni attached great importance to the systemic perception of linguistic phenomena: “Language, taken in the fullness of its existence, is complex, organically interconnected set diverse units". Particularly important are the studies of A.V. Bondarko, who substantiated the principles of functional grammar, proposed the concept of a functional-semantic field and the typology of FSP in the Russian language. A.V. Bondarko formulated the tasks of functional grammar as “the development of the dynamic aspect of the functioning of grammatical units in interaction with elements different levels language involved in expressing the meaning of an utterance." He justified the functional approach to describing groupings of multi-level units: “... The dominant principle is the need to convey meaning, for this purpose means of different levels are used, organized on a semantic basis.” Functional grammar and the concept of the morphological field as a subsystem in the functional-semantic field were developed by I.P. Ivanova: “In each part of speech there are units that fully possess all the characteristics of a given part of speech; this is, so to speak, its core. But there are also units that do not have all the characteristics of a given part of speech, although they belong to it. The field, therefore, includes central and peripheral elements; it is heterogeneous in composition."

E.V. Gulyga proposed another name for FSP - grammatical-lexical: “Various means of the grammatical and lexical level, designed to express and name general meanings, are interconnected not by random relationships, but by relationships that allow us to establish certain patterns. The set of interacting means forms a system - a grammatical-lexical field." The term that was proposed by E.V. Gulyga, E.I. Schendels, did not gain a foothold in linguistics, however, the field features they formulated are relevant at the present stage of development of linguistics.

In Russian linguistics, the concept of the field structure of phenomena in the grammar of a language by V.G. Admoni, who identified a center (core, core) and periphery in the structure of the field. This idea was developed by many linguists, for example, M.M. Gukhman writes: “The field includes hierarchically unequal components: in addition to the units that form its core and occupy a central position, it covers various types of formations located on the periphery, more or less close to the core that forms this field.” A.V. Bondarko notes: “The core (center) of the FSP is the unit of language that is most specialized for expressing a given semantic category.” The center is characterized by the best concentration of all features characteristic of a given linguistic unit. In peripheral units, the phenomenon of the absence of one or more signs is noted.

The structural typology of the FSP (according to A.V. Bondarko) is as follows:

1. Monocentric fields (strongly centered) fields that rely on a strong center - a grammatical category. In the Russian language these are aspectuality, temporality, modality, collateral, and comparativeness.

2. Polycentric fields (weakly centered) that do not have a strong center. In Russian, this is the field of taxis, beingness, state, subjectivity, objectivity, etc.

The consideration of linguistic units in the form of a field is called the field approach. Yu.N. Vlasova, A.Ya. Zagoruiko write: “Initially it was used at the lexical level to study semantics lexical units. Subsequently, the concept of field expanded significantly; it began to be used in relation to units of a different level, primarily grammatical.”

Modern linguistics has accumulated significant experience in complex analysis of the composition of various functional semantic categories (FSK), or fields. L.A. Brusenskaya examined the Russian category of number in functional and semantic aspects(1994); A.G. Narushevich described the category of animate-inanimate (2001); M.Yu. Romenskaya analyzed the FSP of the ban in modern Russian (2002); E.Yu. Dolgova considers the category of impersonality of the Russian language, the features of its functioning (2008). A great contribution to the description of the FSK of various semantics was made by the team of authors of the textbook “Modern Russian Language: Communicative and Functional Aspect” (2000). In this manual G.F. Gavrilova analyzes FSK intensity (in a complex sentence) and imperativeness; BUT. Grigorieva – FSK modality and personality, L.V. Marchenko – category of quality; T.L. Pavlenko – FSK intensity; A.F. Panteleev – categories of temporality and taxis, etc.

Works have appeared in which a certain FSK is analyzed based on the language of a specific author or work: ; ; individual linguistic components of a particular category, for example, adverbs of measure and degree as an expression of the category of gradation: etc.

Of interest are the works whose authors compare the FSP and the means of their expression in different languages. E.V. Korneva considers the semantic category of reflexivity from the standpoint of the theory of functional-semantic fields, reveals the national specificity of recurrence in Russian and German languages. V.V. Beskrovnaya compares the FSP of locativity in Russian and English, citing the fact that “a comparative approach to language phenomena allows us to understand them more deeply and to identify patterns of their use in speech.”

The concepts of FGC and FSP are being developed and clarified. For example, S.G. Agapova uses the term “functional-pragmatic field”, understanding it as the implementation of a particular field in a statement, depending on the principles and rules speech behavior accepted in society.

In this situation, the development of FSK comparison (comparativeness) turns out to be timely and logical, since, according to M.I. Cheremisina, “if you look at the category of comparison from the point of view of classical syntax, it will inevitably appear as a motley variety of syntactic forms, united only by functional commonality. They all express a certain general syntactic meaning, which is intuitively grasped and evaluated as a “comparison.”

On the linguistic basis of the modern German language, FSP comparativity was described by E.V. Gulyga, E.I. Schendels, establishing the constituents of the field, semantic microfields, and recognizing the degree of comparison of adjectives and adverbs as a dominant. They also comprehended the functions of comparison: “It would be wrong to believe that the function of comparison is purely stylistic. By comparing objects with each other according to their qualities, establishing their similarities with each other, we reveal more deeply the phenomena of objective reality.”

Attempts to describe the functional field of comparison using the material of the Russian language were made in the works of Yu.N. Vlasova, M.I. Konyushkevich, O.V. Kravets, A.V. Nikolaeva, E.M. Porksheyan, E.V. Skvoretskaya and others. For example, E.V. Skvoretskaya, using the terminology of E.V. Gulyga notes: “According to the theory of the grammatical-lexical field, all means of expressing comparison interact with each other and function together, forming a comparative field.” O.V. Kravets maximally splits the field into microfields of different levels, analyzes real and unreal comparison as components of the microfield of similarity and concludes: “FSPK (functional-semantic field of comparativeness - M.K.) is a field of mixed type. Its complex, multi-level structure makes it possible to distinguish higher levels microfield fields according to the principle of a field with ontological stratification, and at lower levels - according to the principle of a field with epistemological stratification."

From the standpoint of the functional approach, the semantic essence of the category of comparativeness lies in the presence of “points of intersection with the categories of quality and quantity,” confirmation of which we see in the performance of comparison of the main functions - descriptive, characterizing, excretory, evaluative.

The FSK of comparison is characterized by a variety of ways of formally expressing comparative semantics. Comparison is observed at various language levels: lexical, morphological, syntactic. Methods of expressing comparative semantics are usually divided into conjunctions (using comparative conjunctions as, as if, exactly, as if, as if, as if etc.) and non-union. Comparisons can also be classified in terms of completeness, the presence of all components. Comparisons where there is an operator and a basis for comparison are usually called explicit in linguistics: comparative clauses, comparative phrases. Comparisons where the module and/or operator are omitted (not formally expressed, but implied) are called implicit: comparisons in the form of application, predicate, instrumental case and other constructions.

Summarizing and supplementing the above studies, let us present the structure of the FSK for comparison of the modern Russian language in the following form.

CoreFSK comparisons are made up of constructions that represent this semantics as fully as possible. In our opinion, these include subordinate clauses (complete and incomplete) and comparative phrases, as the most common in the language and characterized by nai a large number structural and semantic features of syntactic units. We believe that at the level of syntax and sentence construction, comparison is expressed most clearly and adequately; here, in the comparative construction, all the elements of its logical structure are presented. Periphery The FSK of comparison includes all other ways of expressing comparative semantics at the grammatical and lexical levels:

Non-union complex sentences with parallelism of parts.

The binding part of a compound nominal predicate.

Prepositional-case combinations with prepositions like, similar etc.

Combining the comparative degree of an adjective or adverb with a noun. r. p.

Nouns in the instrumental case.

Comparative and superlative adjective or adverb.

Comparative adverbs.

Negative comparisons built by type no - but.

Comparisons in the form of applications.

Genitive constructions.

Adjective combination similar with a pretext on.

Comparisons using verbs of comparative semantics.

Comparisons in the form of adjectives.

Comparisons with compares. particles as if, exactly, as if, like and under.

Constructions that include demonstrative words.

Lexical comparisons using words in shape, color, shape.

When analyzing linguistic elements of such a diverse structure, the functional-semantic approach is preferable, since “it helps to critically approach the traditional distribution of information about meanings based on a common conceptual category.” Nevertheless, it is also necessary to involve data obtained about one or another category of language using other approaches. As we noted earlier, “the combination of this method with linguocultural analysis makes it possible to comprehensively consider the functional-semantic category of comparison, manifested at various language levels: lexical, morphological, syntactic, and identify its ability to present the most accurate picture of the implementation of cultural connotations through language.”

So, the functional-semantic approach to the study of language phenomena involves a comprehensive consideration of multi-level linguistic means, united semantically. It allows you to see the field structure of the language, understand the rigor of the language system, and comprehend the reasons for operating with means of different levels when conveying meaning.

However, it is not enough to limit ourselves only to this approach when studying such a complex and multifaceted phenomenon as FGC comparison; We consider it very important to combine a functional-semantic approach with a linguoculturological one.

Bibliography

1. Romenskaya M.Yu. Microfield of indirect prohibition of the functional-semantic field of prohibition in the modern Russian language // Speech activity. Text: Interuniversity. Sat. scientific tr. / Rep. ed. N.A. Senina. Taganrog: Taganrog State Publishing House. ped. Institute, 2002. pp. 185-189.
2. Petrosyan M.G. Functional-semantic approach to the study of the category of existentiality // Collection scientific works graduate students and young teachers. Part 3: Philology. Rostov-on-Don: Publishing house of the Russian State Pedagogical University, 1999. pp. 98-111.
3. Admoni V.G. Grammatical structure as a system of construction and general theory of grammar. L.: Nauka, 1988. 239 p.
4. Bondarko A.V. Functional grammar. L.: Nauka, 1984. 134 p.
5. Ivanova I.P., Burlakova V.V., Pocheptsov G.G. Theoretical grammar of modern English language: Textbook. M.: Higher School, 1981. 285 p.
6. Gulyga E.V., Shendels E.I. Grammatical and lexical fields in modern German. M.: Education, 1969. 184 p.
7. Gukhman M.M. Units of analysis of the inflectional system and the concept of field // Phonetics. Phonology. Grammar: Collection of articles. M.: Nauka, 1971. pp. 163-170.
8. Bondarko A.V. Functional-semantic field // Linguistics. Big encyclopedic dictionary/ Ch. ed. V.N. Yartseva. M.: Great Russian Encyclopedia, 1998. pp. 566-567.
9. Vlasova Yu.N., Zagoruiko A.Ya. Principles of identifying fields of different levels in a language // Language. Discourse. Text: International scientific conference dedicated to the anniversary of V.P. Malashchenko: Proceedings and materials. In 2 hours. Part 1. Rostov-on-Don: Publishing House of the Russian State Pedagogical University, 2004. P. 47-50.
10. Modern Russian language: Communicative and functional aspect: Tutorial. Rostov-on-Don: Publishing house of the Russian State Pedagogical University, 2000. 163 p.
11. Kokina I.A. Categories of intensity and their stylistic and compositional functions in artistic speech (based on the language of A. P. Chekhov’s work “The Steppe”) // Collection of scientific works of graduate students and young teachers. Part 3: Philology. Rostov-on-Don: Publishing house of the Russian State Pedagogical University, 1999. pp. 77-84.
12. Ismagulova D.O. Modal microfield of possibility in the novel by I.S. Turgenev “Rudin” // Problems of speech communication: Interuniversity. Sat. scientific tr. / Ed. M.A. Kormilitsyna, O.B. Sirotinina. – Saratov: Publishing house Sarat. Univ., 2008. Vol. 8. Materials of the International. scientific-practical conf. “The current state of Russian speech: evolution, trends, forecasts.” pp. 301-308.
13. Kim A.A. Linguistic expression of the category of grading by adverbs of measure and degree // Units of language: functional-communicative aspect (Proceedings of the interuniversity conference). Part 1. Rostov-on-Don: Publishing house of the Russian State Pedagogical University, 2001. pp. 143-145.
14. Korneva E.V. Comparative analysis of functional-semantic fields of reflexivity in the Russian and German languages ​​// Theoretical and Applied Linguistics. Issue 1. Problems of philosophy of language and comparative linguistics. Voronezh: VSTU Publishing House, 1999. pp. 81-94.
15. Beskrovnaya V.V. Comparative approach to the study of the functional-semantic field of locativity // II International scientific conference dedicated to the anniversary of Professor G.F. Gavrilova: Proceedings and materials. At 2 o'clock. I . Rostov-on-Don: Publishing house of the Russian State Pedagogical University, 2005. pp. 33-35.
16. Agapova S.G. On the problem of functional-pragmatic fields // Units of language: functional-communicative aspect (Proceedings of the interuniversity conference). Part 1. Rostov-on-Don: Publishing house of the Russian State Pedagogical University, 2001. pp. 145-149.
17. Cheremisina M.I. Comparative constructions of the Russian language; Rep. ed. K.A. Timofeev. Novosibirsk: Nauka, 1976. 270 p.
18. Skvoretskaya E.V. System of means of expressing comparison-contrast in the Russian literary language XVIII century // Questions of syntax of the Russian language / Ed. V.M. Nikitina. Vol. 2. Ryazan: RGPI, 1974. P. 107-113.
19. Kravets O.V. Microfield of similarity (real comparison) of the functional-semantic field of comparativeness in the modern Russian language // Speech activity. Text: Interuniversity. Sat. scientific tr. / Rep. ed. N.A. Senina. Taganrog: Taganrog State Publishing House. ped. Institute, 2002. P. 100-105.
20. Nikolaeva A.V. On the relationship between the functional-semantic categories of comparativeness, quality and quantity // Units of language: functional-communicative aspect (Proceedings of the interuniversity conference) Part 1. Rostov-on-Don: RGPU, 2002. pp. 173-176.
21. Brusenskaya L.A. Semantic and functional aspects of interpretation of the category of number in the Russian language. Abstract... Dr. Philol. Sci. Krasnodar, 1994. 43 p.
22. Krylova M.N. A combination of functional-semantic and linguistic-cultural analysis in the study of modern Russian comparison // Innovations and traditions of science and education. Materials of the II All-Russian Scientific and Methodological Conference. Part 2 / Ed. S.V. Lesnikova. Syktyvkar: Syktyvkar state. Univ., 2011. pp. 277-286.

Number of views of the publication: Please wait

The principle of unambiguity: each name must have only one meaning (extensional). Violation of this principle is associated with an error called “ value substitution ».

The existence of Pluto has been proven by astronomers.

Pluto is a god.

The existence of God has been proven by astronomers.

Here the word "Pluto" is used in two meanings: in the first premise it means a planet of the solar system, in the second - a deity from ancient greek mythology. When the meanings of a word differ so clearly, the substitution is easy to notice. But if they at least partially coincide with each other, for example, one is ordinary, and the other is extensional (or, conversely, specialized), the error may go unnoticed. Sometimes the value is changed in several steps, each of which in itself does not raise suspicion.

Principle of objectivity: the sentence must talk about the objects denoted by the names included in it (and not about these names themselves). Violation of this principle is associated with an error called “ autonomous use of names ».

Compare two sentences: 1) A chair is a piece of furniture 2) Chair is a noun. In the first, the word “chair” is used correctly, since we are talking about an object, and in the second, it is used autonymously, since we are talking about this word itself. To avoid such mistakes, you should always use quotation marks in cases where you need to say something about language expressions. Offer " Chair is a noun"built correctly. If we ignore the quotes, we risk getting a rather ridiculous conclusion:

Chair is a noun.

Some chairs have four legs

Some nouns have four stems.

The principle of interchangeability: when replacing names with the same meaning, the sentence in which this replacement is carried out must not change its truth value (a true sentence must remain true, and a false sentence must remain false).

Let the sentence “The Earth revolves around the Sun” be given. Let’s replace “Sun” with “the central body of the Solar System.” It is obvious that the meanings of these expressions are the same. As a result of this replacement, from a true sentence we obtain another true sentence: “The Earth rotates around the central body of the Solar System.”

The principle of interchangeability seems self-evident, but there are linguistic contexts in which replacing equal with equal leads to a contradiction. Consider the sentence “Ptolemy believed that the Sun revolved around the Earth.” He believed this to be true. Let's check it out. Let us replace the word “Sun” with the expression “central body of the solar system”, which has the same meaning. We get the conclusion: “Ptolemy believed that the central body of the solar system revolves around the Earth,” which is absurd.

In logic, such situations are known as " antinomies of the naming relation “- they arise when a certain object is known (pleasant, accessible, etc.) to the subject in one aspect, and unknown (unpleasant, inaccessible, etc.) in another. This sometimes results in the apparent incompatibility of two designations for the same object.

How to preserve the principle of interchangeability and avoid antinomies? It is necessary to distinguish between two ways of using linguistic expressions. First - extensional , in which expressions simply highlight objects. Second - intensional : objects denoted by expressions are considered in a certain sense, aspect (an indicator of which can be the so-called epistemic operators – the words “knows”, “believes”, “searches”, “thinks”, etc.). If an expression is used in a certain aspect, then it can be replaced by another expression with the same meaning only if the objects are considered in the second expression in the same aspect.

SEMANTIC PRINCIPLE OF CLASSIFICATION OF PARTS OF SPEECH

There are several principles for dividing full-valued words into categories. One of these principles is the semantic principle. It was considered, in particular, (Panov M.V. On parts of speech in the Russian language // Scientific reports of higher school. Philological sciences, 1960, No. 4). According to the idea, parts of speech should have a certain commonality, and this commonality should not be root, but affixal and relate not to the sound of the affixes (form), but to their meaning (content). In fact, word forms coward, coward,cowardly, although they share a common root morpheme, they cannot be classified as one part of speech. Word forms wrote And scarecrow, sleepy And push, ice cream And big, although they contain formally identical affixal elements -l-, -n~, -oe, obviously belong to different parts of speech. Therefore, it is necessary to discover some meaningful affixal community, which should serve as the basis for dividing words into parts of speech.

The classification is based on an extremely general meaning - participation in the naming function. There are several such functions. One of them - procedurality- is seen in any verbal word form, regardless of the meaning of the root, which may not have a procedural meaning. Other function - sign. It comes after process in the hierarchy of functions. Based on the absence of the procedural function and the presence of the attribute function, the adjective is distinguished as a part of speech. At the same time, the participle is not singled out as a part of speech, since it has a procedural function. This circumstance is the basis for classifying participle forms as parts of speech. The third function is direct or indirect relation to the object. On this basis, the adjective and verb are contrasted with the adverb. The first ones directly characterize the object: the adjective is non-processual, the verb (with a participle!) is procedural. An adverb does not directly characterize an object; it performs the function of a characteristic of the characteristic itself, i.e., a verb or an adjective. The same function of the attribute of the attribute is also performed by the gerund. However, unlike adverbs, gerunds have a procedural nature.

Word forms that do not have any of the indicated meanings in their affix part are nouns, which, when posing the question in this way, include cardinal and collective numerals. All other grammatical differences between word forms do not affect the identification of parts of speech.

A similar - functional-semantic - approach to identifying parts of speech in the Russian language was previously carried out . He was inclined to distinguish four independent parts of speech in the Russian language: noun, adjective, verb and adverb. However, based on the consideration of the semantic-functional categories of lexemes he identified, it was possible to discover a tense place in the system of Russian parts of speech identified in this way. He looks at phrases run a race And running a race. The first phrase is natural both lexically and grammatically. The second phrase is also lexically natural. But grammatically it is illegal: race- adverb, i.e. a sign of a sign, but running- a noun, i.e. grammatically not a sign or a process. Collocation run fast- both lexically and grammatically consistent. Collocation fast run grammatically also logical, but lexically - no, because lexically running is not something objective. Thus, the opposition of adjectives and adverbs in the aspect under consideration turns out to be somewhat blurred. Many examples can be given when an adverb acts as a sign in relation to

to the noun directly: soft-boiled eggs,crew cut hair, squiggle tail etc.

In comparison with traditionally identified parts of speech, the proposed scheme differs in some features. There are no pronouns or numerals in this scheme. However, these losses are a logically inevitable result of the consistent application of the semantic-functional principle of division. In accordance with this principle, all traditionally allocated pronouns are distributed among nouns, adjectives and adverbs. Numerals share the same fate. Ordinal ones are included in adjectives, quantitative and collective ones are included in nouns, and word forms like twice, thrice, although they are associated with counting, as they were traditionally related to adverbs, they remain among adverbs even with the indicated approach. Classification according to the principle of “naming function” is only in its utmost general values gives a pattern that resembles traditional parts of speech. In principle, classification based on this principle can be detailed. Then it will lead to the identification of groups of lexemes (or word forms) that have functional and semantic commonality. So, for example, groups of personal and impersonal verbs can be distinguished within verbs; within adverbs, a group of adverbs denoting a characteristic attribute, and a group of adverbs denoting a state (I'm cold, he has no time), etc.

Despite the objective value of the classification considered and its special importance for semantics and syntax, it cannot fully satisfy a specialist in the field of morphology, since it does not sufficiently take into account the morphological categories represented or not represented in a particular group of lexemes or word forms. This last circumstance - the actual morphological characteristics of words - can be used as the basis for a different identification of parts of speech.

MORPHOLOGICAL PRINCIPLE OF CLASSIFICATION OF PARTS OF SPEECH

THE SAME SET OF MORPHOLOGICAL CATEGORIES. The classification of lexemes can be based on the expression of the same morphological categories. In this case, the lexemes house, animal, winter form one group, because all their word forms express the morphological categories of number, case, and only these categories. On the other hand, all these lexemes will be opposed to the lexemes kind, old, big, since all word forms of the latter express such morphological categories as gender, number, case, brevity-completeness.

However, classification according to the principle of “severity of the same set of morphological categories” does not always lead to such clear results as in the above-described case of contrasting nouns and adjectives. Principal

Major difficulties arise when different word forms of one lexeme express different sets of morphological categories.

The most complex structure in this regard in the Russian language is the word forms traditionally included in the verb. Even the forms of the present and past tenses differ in the set of expressed morphological categories. The present expresses a category of person missing in the past. And in the past the category of gender that is absent in the present is expressed. The morphological categories of verbs in the forms of the indicative, subjunctive and imperative moods do not coincide. Even more striking are the differences in the sets of morphological categories of personal forms of the verb and infinitive, personal forms of the verb and participles, infinitive and participles. With all this, both the infinitive and the personal forms of all moods, and the participle, and the gerund should be considered word forms of one lexeme, since the meanings that distinguish these word forms can be considered obligatory and regular (see more about this in the “Verb” section). From this circumstance it follows that classification according to the principle of “expression of the same set of morphological categories” can be consistently carried out only for word forms. For lexemes such a classification is impossible in principle.

Another circumstance makes it difficult to apply this criterion. It lies in the fact that among Russian lexemes there are many that consist of one word form and, therefore, do not express a single morphological category. Tokens such as coat, taxi, hydro, according to the principle of “expression of morphological categories,” they are sharply opposed to the majority of Russian nouns, which express morphological categories of both number and case in their word forms. Tokens of type beige, khaki, semantically identical to adjectives, do not possess any morphological categories inherent in adjectives. Therefore, classification according to the principle of “expression of morphological categories” is possible only for grammatically formed word forms.

In this case, will be presented following types word forms:

1) nouns (express case and number); This also includes quantitative and collective numerals;

2) adjectives (express case, number, gender and brevity/completeness);

3) infinitives (express aspect and voice);

4) participles (express aspect);

5) participles (express case, number, gender, brevity/completeness, type, voice, tense);

6) verbs of the indicative mood of the present/future tense (express number, aspect, voice, tense, person, mood);

7) verbs of the indicative mood of the past tense (express number, gender, aspect, voice, tense, mood);

8) verbs of the subjunctive mood (express number, gender, aspect, voice, mood);

9) imperative verbs (express number, aspect, voice, person, mood);

10) grammatically uncharacterized word forms: indeclinable nouns and adjectives, comparative degree and adverbs.

This is exactly what independent parts of speech in the Russian language should look like if their identification were based on one single feature - the presence of common morphological features expressed in the word form itself.

In comparison with traditional parts of speech, this classification turns out to be more compact for a name (there are no different categories of pronouns, cardinal and ordinal numbers) and much less compact for a verb.

THE SAME SET OF PARADIGM MEMBERS. Within the morphological approach to identifying parts of speech, another classification is possible. It can be based on the structural features of the paradigm. It is clear that in this case nouns, for example, would be opposed to adjectives. After all, the paradigm of the latter includes the opposition of word forms by gender, which is absent in nouns. True, in this case neither nouns nor adjectives would be able to maintain their unity. Moreover, such fragmentation would occur not only due to unchangeable nouns and adjectives. Among nouns, a large group of lexemes that have word forms of only one number (singular or plural, it does not matter) would need to be contrasted with lexemes that have forms of both numbers (house-houses And youth, milk). Then in the category of lexemes like youth, milk It would be necessary to include numerals - collective and quantitative, as well as personal and interrogative pronouns. After all, all these lexemes have word forms of only one number.

Adjective lexemes would be divided into three parts: lexemes with short and full word forms (white), lexemes only with full word forms (big), lexemes with short word forms only (glad).

Opposed to nouns and adjectives by the very nature of the set of word forms, the verb should in this case be divided into several groups depending on the presence or absence of an aspectual pair, the personal form of the passive voice, certain participles and gerunds, etc.

SYNTACTIC PRINCIPLE OF CLASSIFICATION OF PARTS OF SPEECH

We should not forget that the actual morphological approach to identifying parts of speech remains completely powerless in relation to unchangeable words. Here only semantic and syntactic approaches are possible.

When applied to unchangeable words, that is, to lexemes consisting of one word form, the syntactic principle turns out to be very effective. The essence of this principle is to determine those types of lexemes with which the words of interest to us can or cannot be combined, as well as to understand the functions that these words perform in a sentence. Thus, among unchangeable words, nouns are combined with nouns, adjectives and verbs (HPP of Siberia, Krasnoyarskhydroelectric power station, build a hydroelectric power station), are subject, predicate, object, definition, circumstance; adjectives combine with nouns (beige suit), are a definition or predicate; adverbs combine with verbs and adjectives (dressed like summer, warm like summer), are circumstances of different types.

In addition, this principle of division requires recognition among unchangeable words as a special class of so-called forms of comparative degree, comparative. These words, unlike nouns, adjectives and adverbs, are combined only with verbs and nouns (one hundredgrow older, brother is older than sister). In addition, the use of a syntactic criterion requires the selection of a group of words that relate only to the sentence as a whole (perhaps perhapsno, of course, what good etc.). These words are usually called modal words. Thus, the use of a syntactic criterion allows us to identify parts of speech from unchangeable words. It is important to note that the selection of nouns and adjectives among unchangeable words could be carried out on the basis of a semantic criterion. The semantic criterion easily distinguishes adverbs from unchangeable words. However, only the application of a syntactic criterion introduces various gradations among adverbs.

One attempt to isolate a special part of speech based on the syntactic principle of classifying word forms was widely discussed in Russian grammatical literature. It's about about word forms that are not verbal, but are used as a predicate (he’s cold, we’re glad, you should, too lazy to work, too lazy to talk etc.). These word forms received the status of a special part of speech, the so-called state category. The combination of all these word forms into one part of speech takes into account the commonality of their syntactic function and a certain semantic homogeneity associated with this commonality, noted in the very name “state category”. Morphologically, all these word forms are characterized differently: Cold does not express morphological categories, glad, we should have a number laziness, lack of time- number, case.

Consistent application of the syntactic principle to all word forms leads to paradoxical conclusions. So, short adjectives, for example, should be contrasted with full ones. The former can act both as a definition and as a predicate, while the latter can only act as a predicate. The syntactic functions of various verb forms - personal, participial, participial - will be defined differently. True, on the basis of syntactic functions, the word forms of cardinal and collective numerals can be contrasted with the word forms of nouns themselves: it is known that cardinal and collective numerals cannot be combined with adjectives.

Perhaps defining syntactic functions in relation to lexemes could yield more familiar results? This is wrong. Within one lexeme, differently morphologically designed word forms coexist. In exactly the same way, different word forms of the same lexeme can perform different syntactic functions. Therefore, classification based on the principle of “syntactic function” for lexemes is impossible in principle, just as classification based on homogeneous morphological design is impossible for lexemes.

RESULTS OF DIFFERENT CLASSIFICATIONS

We can draw some conclusions. The problem of identifying parts of speech is the problem of classifying word forms.

The semantic criterion in its most generalized meanings highlights four classes full-meaning word forms - noun, adjective, verb and adverb.

The morphological criterion highlights nine classes formalized word forms and unformed word forms.

The syntactic criterion applied to a morphologically uncharacterized group makes it possible to distinguish among the latter nouns, adjectives, adverbs, comparatives ( comparative degree), state category and modal words. It is in principle possible to apply the syntactic criterion to word forms, but its results will conflict with the results of morphological and semantic analysis.

PRINCIPLES OF CLASSIFICATION AND TRADITIONAL TEACHING ABOUT PARTS OF SPEECH

From the above it is clear that the traditional doctrine of parts of speech is an a priori classification, the logical foundations of which are very heterogeneous. However, this classification makes it possible to place any word form or lexeme in a suitable category. There is a place for nouns, adjectives, numerals, verbs, and adverbs. At the same time, due to logical imperfection, traditional classification separates what, for some logical reasons, should be together.

School numerals, for example, combining cardinal collective and ordinal numerals on a semantic basis, separate the latter from adjectives, despite their morphological and syntactic commonality. The desire to distinguish the category of state among Russian parts of speech is explained by the fact that units with the same syntactic functions also exist in the category “nouns” (lack of time, laziness), and in the “adjectives” section (glad, much) and in the “adverbs” section (boring, fun).

It is precisely in the “a priori” nature that both the strength of the traditional doctrine of parts of speech—the ability to characterize any object, verified over centuries—and its weakness, openness to criticism of the logical foundations underlying the classification, lie.

One cannot fail to note one more advantage of the traditional classification of parts of speech. Some units, while remaining quite logical, can be simultaneously placed in one and another category. This is very convenient, since in a number of areas of the system of parts of speech there are constant transitions (adjectives into nouns, participles into adjectives, etc.).

All these circumstances predetermine the viability of the traditional doctrine of parts of speech.

As already noted, the doctrine of parts of speech is important not only for morphology, but also for other sections of the description of the Russian language. The traditional doctrine of parts of speech does not reflect the results of any of the above classifications (compare with the criteria for defining a word), but represents a kind of compromise between all these principles. A significant role in achieving such a compromise is played by the fact that those allocated by for various reasons parts of speech form very different groups. Compare, for example, nouns and the so-called state category, verb and modal words.

LITERATURE ON THE TOPIC

“PARTS OF SPEECH AS LEXICAL-GRAMMATICAL CLASSES OF WORDS”

Zhirmunskiy V.M. On the nature of parts of speech and their classification. - In the book: Questions of the theory of parts of speech based on the material of languages ​​of various types. L., 1965.

P a n o v M. V. On parts of speech in the Russian language. - Scientific reports of higher school. Philol. Sciences, 1960, No. 4.

S t e b l i n - Kamenskiy M.I. On the question of parts of speech. - Vestnik of Leningrad State University, 1954, No. 6.

Shcherba L.V. About parts of speech in the Russian language. - In the book: Selected works on the Russian language. M., 1957. .-

204
Two branches of the science of language are devoted to recording speech in writing: graphics and spelling. These terms also have a second meaning. The term graphics refers to a set of writing tools used to record speech. The main means of graphics are letters.
The second meaning of the term spelling is a set of rules that provide a uniform way of writing words and their forms.
Spelling and graphics are closely related to each other, therefore these sections in the science of language are considered in interrelation.1
Spelling rules are established on the basis of orthographic principles.
U different authors a different number of principles are identified (often with different names and with different interpretations and illustrations).
So, L.V. Shcherba identified 4 principles of spelling:

1. phonetic; 2) etymological, or word production, otherwise morphological; 3) historical;

1. ideographic.2

L.L. Kasatkin identifies the following principles of spelling: phonemic (basic), morphematic (or morphological), traditional, phonetic, lexicosyntactic and differentiating spellings.3
The main traditionally distinguished principles of spelling are phonetic, morphological, traditional.
According to V.F. Ivanova, “...spelling principles are regulating ideas for choosing letters where a sound (phoneme) can be indicated variably.”4
PRINCIPLES OF RUSSIAN SPELLING
Considering the variety of “ideas” regulating modern writing, it is advisable to highlight the following principles of spelling:

1. phonetic (phonetic spellings);
2. morphemic;
3. morphological;
4. syntactic;
5. traditional;
6. semantic.5

205
The identified principles are determined by the structural and semantic organization of the language system, the structure and meaning of its units.6
Let's consider the highlighted principles.
The phonetic principle is characteristic of both graphics and spelling.
Russian letter is generally phonetic, since in it the sounds usually correspond to “their” letters. So, the words [table], [house], [gift], [sail] and the like are written in accordance with the pronunciation. This type of writing is called sound-letter or letter-sound. Different names are due to different approaches: “from sound to letter” or “from letter to sound.” More scientific, of course, is the sound-to-letter approach.7
The letter-to-sound approach is central to the book.
V.F. Ivanova “Modern Russian language. Graphics and spelling" (Moscow, 1976).
The approach from letter to sound is the main one in the theoretical part of school textbooks, although there is also another approach, for example: indicating the softness of consonants in writing.8
The phonetic principle is the leading principle of Russian graphics. Considering the influence of pronunciation (sound) on some spellings, the phonetic principle is also included among the principles of Russian orthography.
The phonetic principle regulates the writing of the letters 3 and C in the prefixes: without-, voz-, vz-, from-, raz-, roz-, niz-, through-, through-. The letter 3 is written if followed by a voiced consonant, and C - if it is unvoiced: cf. mediocrity - stupidity.
In the prefixes raz- (ras-) and roz- (ros-), A is written under stress, and O in an unstressed position.
SPELLING AND PUNCTUATION ISSUES
The influence of pronunciation is also reflected in spellings such as search, joke, search, artless, etc.
The frequency discrepancy between the sound and the letter determines the need for other principles, of which the main one is morphemic.
Researchers called the morphemic principle of spelling morphological and recognized it as the main, leading principle of spelling. It is advisable to differentiate morphemic and morphological principles, since each of them serves as a justification for different spellings.
The morphemic principle determines the preservation of the graphic unity of morphemes (roots, prefixes, suffixes). The graphic unity of these morphemes is usually not associated 206 with the place of stress, which determines positional changes vowels
in the roots: garden, gardens, gardener; in prefixes: record, note, write down; in suffixes: singer, hotel, chicken.
Deviations from the uniform spelling of morphemes are associated primarily with the alternation of sounds (phonemes) determined by their pronunciation (the action of the phonetic principle), position, historical reasons, etc.
A large number of spelling rules take into account the graphic (literal) unity of morphemes. Thus, the main rule determining the writing of vowels in roots without stress is the selection of words with the same root with a stressed vowel. For example, water - water, window - windows, etc.
Most prefixes maintain uniform spelling regardless of stress, part of speech, or lexical meaning of words. Such prefixes include prefixes in-, for-, on-, to-, from-, etc. However, there are prefixes that react to the subsequent sound. The prefix s- is preserved before voiced consonants: [s[begat - run away, but, for example, the prefix will not change its graphic appearance before voiceless consonants: restless - restless.
Gst and prefixes, the spelling of which is regulated by the lexical meanings of words. Such prefixes include when- and ire-: to arrive (= to arrive), but to remain (to be somewhere), etc.
Most of the suffixes retain the unity of spelling regardless of stress, for example: -liv- - talkative, helpful; -from- - work, kindness; -nick- - rider, conductor, waterman, etc.
PRINCIPLES OF RUSSIAN SPELLING
There are suffixes, the spelling of which depends on a number of conditions: on the preceding consonant (for example, bear cub, but foal); from the place of stress in the word (snowball, but ravine), etc.
The literal uniformity of the roots can be determined by the combination of Russianisms and Church Slavonicisms in one nest: head - head, coast - coast; counselor - leader, clothes - clothes; night - night, daughter - daughter, etc.
207
Such alternations are possible in prefixes (for example, stand up - rise up) and suffixes (for example, standing - standing).
The morphological principle9 determines the spelling of word endings when they change. This principle is based on a number of rules related to the declension and conjugation of modified words.
The ending, unlike other morphemes (word-forming ones), is an inflectional morpheme. The rules for writing endings in a significant number of cases are determined by the word’s belonging to the part of speech.
There are a large number of rules determining the spelling of the endings of inflected words, regulated by the morphological principle of spelling.
The syntactic principle of spelling regulates the continuous, hyphenated and separate spellings of words highlighted “in the speech stream” in their syntactic connections.
Let us note some cases of spelling regulated by syntactic conditions:

1. spelling of words included in the transition zone formed by interacting parts of speech10;
2. some merged, hyphenated and separate spellings.

Spelling of words included in the transition zone and
characterized by syncretistic properties, is the Achilles heel of Russian graphics and spelling.
It is with this group of words that the problems of continuous, hyphenated and separate spelling are primarily associated,
who “have already lagged behind the crows, but have not yet reached the peahens.” Determining the place of such words on the transitivity scale is not always easy.
SPELLING AND PUNCTUATION ISSUES
The oppositional links are link A (the source is the separate spelling of words that retain complete syntactic and semantic independence) and link B, which contains fused and hyphenated spellings.
The largest number of “difficult” words to write is associated with the adverbialization of prepositional-case combinations. Such words occupy syncretic links on the transitivity scale: Ab, AB and aB.
Separate spellings are typical for words of the Ab link when adverbialization is just beginning, that is, when the prepositional-case combination still retains substantive components in semantics, performing the functions of adverbials. The presence of substantive semes can be evidenced by agreed and inconsistent definitions: at the (very) top of the roof.
In the AB unit, the spelling of syncretic combinations is the most debatable: under the arm and under the arms, under the arm and under the arms. The possibility of continuous writing is due to the weakening or even loss of the lexical meaning of the word mouse.11
In link aB there are words in which the substantive component of the semantics of the noun is weakened, but... its presence, although weak, allows in some cases definitions, at least in the form of the word most, which strengthens the substantive seme in the “former” noun: on (most )fly; In fact...
The absence of distinct markers for words in the links of the syncretic zone, the active process of adverbialization, preservation of the original source (the basis for the formation of adverbs), etc. - all this (and not only this!) creates difficulties for differentiating separate and combined spellings of prepositional combinations as a function of circumstances.
There is no uniformity in the writing of semi-nominal prepositions. Wed: within an hour, for a week, but due to illness, etc. 12 Compare:
(to have) in mind - to mean in a way - like
to the meeting - towards at the expense - about in spite of - in spite of the fly - to death from evil - out of spite at the expense - about into the distance - into the distance firstly - around
PRINCIPLES OF RUSSIAN SPELLING
Separate and combined spellings of the above words are determined by their syntactic functions, compatibility with other words (cf.: to meet a friend - to meet a friend).
209
The uncertainty of the combined and separate spellings noted above is due to their position in the zone of transition formed by the opposition: A - noun with prepositions - B - adverb.
No less difficult to spell are the passive participles of the present and past tenses, which have undergone adjectivation. The transition zone, represented by a scale where A is a participle, B - (or aB) is an adjective, is characterized by a large number of cases where it is difficult to resolve the issue of continuous and separate spelling of NOT even in the presence of bright marker words dependent on the “participle” (? ) or "adjective".
We will give only examples of phrases with postpositive and prepositive dependent words to show the different degrees of adjectivation of the agreed forms.

1. (Not) visible to the world tears (not) words expressible thoughts (not) a reflection perceptible to the eye by anyone (not) offended pigeons (not) a comparable feeling
2. no one (not) seen strange (not) feather grass outraged by the wind (not) admitted to the exam student (not) defeated by doctors people

(not) a crime proven by the investigator by anyone (not) spoken word
Morphemic composition of agreed word forms (word-forming suffixes of passive participles of the present and past tense) and the presence of dependent words
keeps them in the participle system, but in their categorical meaning the verbal semes are clearly weakened. Finding the place of such words on the transitivity scale is not easy, and therefore it is difficult to determine whether to write NOT together or separately.
SPELLING AND PUNCTUATION ISSUES
Differentiation of fused and hyphenated spellings large quantity complex adjectives is associated with the distinction between coordinating and subordinating phrases.
Compound adjectives, formed from subordinating phrases, are written together: agriculture - agricultural (institute); railway - railway (train); white marble - white marble (palace); able to pay - solvent (factory); frost-resistant - frost-resistant (variety), etc.
Complex adjectives formed from coordinating phrases are written with a hyphen: chess 210 and checkers - chess-checkers (tournament); commercial and industrial - commercial and industrial (complex); search and rescue - search and rescue (work); question and answer - question and answer (replicas), etc.
In some cases, adjectives in a coordinating phrase can be connected by the conjunction not only..., but also... For example: not only electronic, but also computing - electronic computing (machines).
Phrases are written through a hyphen, including a defined word (more general in meaning) and an application (more specific in meaning): philologist, civil engineer, correspondence student, vulture eagle, white hare, etc. Such formations are characterized by varying degrees unity: dining car, house museum, estate museum, sofa bed, rocking chair, etc.
Some difficult words are formed as a result of the merger of subordinate phrases: crazy, insane, forward-looking (but looking forward), fast-flowing, evergreen, long-lasting, five-day, thousand-year, etc.
The given examples do not exhaust the large list of spellings, which are based on syntactic units, most often various kinds of phrases. This is explained by the functional and systemic proximity of the phrase and the word.
The traditional (historical, etymological) principle regulates “writings that... no longer have support in modern word-formation and formative relations or in the phonetic system, but are preserved only by tradition.”13
PRINCIPLES OF RUSSIAN SPELLING
The traditional spellings are:
a) zhi, shi: life - [zhyztg], cone - [pgypgk];
b) a soft sign after sibilants (a soft sign, which once denoted the softness of the preceding consonant, is currently a means of differentiating masculine and feminine nouns): ball - rye, cloak - help, etc.
c) qi: circus - [tsirk] (words in which qi is written (cycle, cylinder, zinga, quote, figure) are borrowed), but gypsy, chicken, tsyts, on tiptoe;
d) “g” at the endings of adjectives and other adjectival words: white - [bolvъ], mine - [myievo], etc.;
e) spelling of so-called “dictionary” words with an unstressed unverified vowel at the root: boot, ram, dog, iron, etc.
Semantic principle differentiates lexical and grammatical meanings of words:
a) lexical meanings: develop - flutter, company (of friends) - (election) campaign;
b) lexical and grammatical meanings: burn (hands) - burn (hand), (act) at random - (hope) for luck, cry (child) - (not) cry.
Works on orthography do not always illustrate the principles of orthography in the same way. One of the reasons for this discrepancy is that many spellings are governed by more than one principle. So, often the phonetic principle complements the main one - the actual orthographic one.
Sometimes the spellings of one group are regulated different principles. Thus, the transfer of part of words to another line is determined by phonetic (transfer across syllables) and morphemic (preservation of the integrity of morphemes) principles.
The spelling of the particles NOT and NI is regulated by all of the above principles (and not only them!).14 Thus, the phonetic principle determines the spelling of NOT and NI (with an accent it is written NOT, without an accent - NI): someone - no one,
something - nothing, nowhere - nowhere, once - never, etc. These spellings also differentiate the lexical meanings of the corresponding pronouns.
SPELLING AND PUNCTUATION ISSUES
The morphemic principle regulates the combined and separate spellings of pronouns such as: no one - no one, no one - carried by whom, etc.
The influence of the morphological principle is especially significant. The rule: “It is written separately with verbs, gerunds, short participles, numerals, and also (most often) with state names” - is one of the main ones system rules.
The syntactic principle regulates the spelling of NOT and NI both as part of sentences and as part of stable combinations of words. Let us note some cases.
a) The particle is NOT written in rhetorical questions: Who 212 of us is not mistaken? We learn from mistakes. (M. Bubenkov.)
Which writer has not used metaphor! (V. Kataev.)
b) The particle NI is characteristic of subordinate clauses with conjunctive words who neither, that nor, how nor, where nor, wherever, etc.: Whatever you think about me, I don’t care. (N. Pomyalovsky.)
The rule about separate writing with implied opposition can be interpreted subjectively. Wed: The road is not long, but short. The road is not long if you wait with a friend.
A sentence without opposition markers can be interpreted subjectively.
c) The particle is NOT written in interrogative sentences with a rhematic frame NE... LI (L)?15:
Guys! Isn't Moscow behind us? (M. Lermontov.)
I asked: is it a demon of discord?
Did he move your hand mockingly? (N. Nekrasov.)
Aren't you ashamed to suffer for so long
Me with empty cruel expectation? (A. Pushkin.)
Isn’t it true? I met you... (A. Pushkin.)
- We are all human. Isn't it? (Ch. Aitmatov.)
d) The repeating particle NI performs the functions of a coordinating conjunction:
Neither power nor life amuse me. (A. Pushkin.)
I can't see the light of the sun,
There is no room for my roots. (I. Krylov.)
The conjunction particle NI is often included in stable combinations formed on the basis of coordinating phrases: neither fish nor meat; neither give nor take; for nothing, about nothing; neither more nor less, etc.
PRINCIPLES OF RUSSIAN SPELLING
Syntactic conditions transform the particle NI into a conjunction. And vice versa - the union turns into a particle in stable combinations. These transformations are the result of the interaction of syntax and morphology.
213
The semantic principle governs the spelling of particles NOT and NI. Semantics differentiate the writing of NOT and NI as part of one sentence: NOT expresses the negation of the predicative attribute (part of the predicate), and NI strengthens the main negation (amplifying NI can be part of negative pronouns): Not a single human foot has yet stepped on its extraordinary domain . (A. Gaidar.)
a) NOT and NOR are written together with words that are not used without them: ignorant, perplexed, undergrown, impossible, bride, etc.; worthless, worthless, sent down, etc.
b) NOT and NOR are used as meaning distinguishers: no one else, but nothing more than...; someone - no one, once - never... Often different spellings are corrected with emphasis ( phonetic principle).
One sentence can have several spellings, the spelling of which is governed by different spelling principles. So, in the sentence What goes around comes around, the spelling of the pronoun that (what, to what...), prefixes po- (cf. call, understand, etc.) obey the morphemic principle.
The vowel at the end of the 2nd person singular verb sow is regulated by a morphological principle.
The soft sign after the hissing ones (what goes around comes around) is explained by historical reasons.
In other cases, the phonetic principle of graphics applies: each sound is designated by its “own” letter.
The spelling of some words may define several principles. Thus, in the word windless, the spelling of the root -wind- is determined by the phonetic principle; the spelling of the prefix is ​​not regulated by morphemic (letter e) and phonetic (letter b from) principles; The spelling of the suffix -enn- is explained by the peculiarities of word production: the word bezvetrenny is formed from the archaic verb vetrit.
SPELLING AND PUNCTUATION ISSUES
Even monosyllabic words can illustrate the action of more than one principle: rye, mouse, hail, cart, etc.
Based on the principles of spelling, spelling rules are formulated, combined into groups corresponding basic principles. Knowledge of spelling rules and even spelling principles is not a guarantee of competent writing.16
Not all cases can be brought under these principles. In Russian writing there are many words with individual spellings (among such words there are many borrowings). Such cases are reflected in spelling dictionaries.