Historical changes in word structure. Historical changes in the morphemic structure of words

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the process of historical development of a language, the morphemic composition of a word undergoes one or another change. These changes mainly come down to such phenomena as simplification, re-decomposition And complication.

1. Simplification- this is such a historical change in the morphemic composition of the stem of a word, as a result of which a previously derived stem becomes non-derivative, indivisible into morphemes (= root) 2. When simplified, the root seems to absorb other morphemes. For example, in words rowan, work, ring, good, day, east in modern Russian, non-derivative (= root) stems are distinguished rowan-, rabot-, ring-, dob-, day-, east- (cf.: rowan-a, rowan-ov-y, rowan-ov-k-a etc.; work-a, work-nickname, work-a-t etc.; ring-o, ring-to-o, ring-e-va etc.; kind, kind, kind etc. day, day etc.; east, eastern etc.). Initially, these bases were derivatives: for example, the base of the word Rowan historically formed from ripple- (“pockmarked”) using the suffix -in- ; stem of the word Job from slave- (“orphan”, “forced worker”) using the suffix -from- 2 ; stem of the word ring – from colo (“circle”) using the suffix -ts- , stem word Kind – from doba(“suitable”) using the suffix -R- ; stem of the word day - from the root so - (cf.: weave, joint) using the attachment su-; stem of the word East from the root current (cf.: stream, flow) using the attachment sun -.

Simplification occurred, as a rule, in two positions.

1. At the junction of a root and a suffix. For example, word stems haze, tray, scarf are now non-derivative; in the past, they were all formed in a suffixal way. Yes, noun haze arose from the stem of the word mga (“damp, cold fog, very light rain”) and the suffix - l - 1 ; word tray – based on the word stem lot (“gutter, flat trough”) and the suffix - OK 2 ; word handkerchief – based on the word stem boards (“piece of matter”) and the suffix - OK 3 .

2. At the junction of the prefix and the root. For example, the stem of the word ridiculous divided onto the console Not- and the root is mold - (molded- “beautiful, good”). Now this basis has ceased to be divided, since the word has fallen out of use molded .

Base word lovely historically divided into a prefix pre - and root - flattery - (“cunning, intrigues”). Now it is non-derivative, since the word lovely has acquired a new meaning.

There are three main reasons for simplification:

1. Loss of semantic connection between the derived word and the word, the basis of which served as a generative one. So, for example, the words marriage(marriage) and take in modern language they have lost their semantic connection with each other. Each of these words has its own vocabulary nest (cf.: marriage, marriage, pre-marriage, etc. and br-a-t, you-br-a-t, re-br-a-t etc.). Therefore the word marriage is perceived as root. The same can be said about words spring And native: since the semantic connection between them is lost, the word spring now acts as a non-derivative (cf.: spring, spring-ok, spring-ov-y, etc. and genus, genus, genus, etc.). Violation of the semantic connection between words air And spirit, window And eye, temple And hang led to the simplification of the basic words air, window And temple.

2. Loss of words from the dictionary, the bases of which served as productive words for the formation of words that are now simplified. So, in words oath, fun, benefit, shirt the basics have undergone simplification, since the words have now fallen out of use attack(“to reach something, grab, touch”), baviti(“to hesitate”) lie(“lightness, freedom”), rub(“bad clothes”), the roots of which served as the basis for the formation of the analyzed words. The same can be said about words valor, bad weather, illness, slob, the stems of which are now non-derivative due to the fact that words that existed in the past doble("brave"), weather("bucket"), arc(“strength, health”), ryakha(“dandy”) have disappeared from the modern dictionary.

3. Phonetic changes, which led first to a darkening of the morphemic structure of the word, and then to simplification. Thus, due to the operation in ancient times of the phonetic law, according to which after the prefix about - initial root sound V dropped out, there was a simplification of words such as wrapper(cf.: rev+screw), cloud(cf.: about + cloud), region b (cf.: about+power), convoy(cf.: ob+cart), turnover(cf.: rev+gate). Sound changes led to a simplification of the word stem meticulous(instead of precise, where the root is easily distinguished - exactly-), musty(instead of stale, cf.: choke, where the root stands out -dox-).

Simplification helps to enrich the vocabulary of the language. Thanks to simplification, the language is replenished with new words with non-derivative stems. So, based on one root - genus- as a result of the simplification action, new root words were formed: people, nature, breed, spring, harvest, freak etc. Each of these words now has its own related derivative words. For example: people - folk, nationality, populist, populism, democracy, population and etc.; nature – natural, natural history and etc.; spring - spring, spring and etc.; harvest - fruitful, productivity and etc.; freak - ugly, ugliness, ugliness and etc.

2. Re-decomposition- this is a change in the boundary between morphemes in a word, as a result of which the sound element of one morpheme or the morpheme as a whole passes into the composition of another. For example, the word homestead in modern Russian it is divided into morphemes: estate; and historically it was divided: in-the-garden(cf.: plant, garden), prefix that stood out earlier at - and suffix -b-(-b-) joined modern root – estates (cf.: estate). Word neighborhood in modern language it has a morphemic composition: vicinity-n-ost-, and in the past it was divided: o-cross-n-ost-(cf.: cross), console O- around("around"). Word negligence negligence-, and in the past: negligence-(cf.: do not save) previously highlighted prefix -Not- and suffix -n- included in the root.

An example of re-decomposition is the movement of thematic vowels of the stem that took place in the past into the composition of the endings. So, for example, in the personal forms of the Old Russian verb the endings were distinguished: know, know, know, know, love, love, love, love; in modern language: you know, you know, you know, you know; love, love, love, love, thematic vowels e And And verb stems moved to endings. We see the same in nouns like wife, which in ancient times had the following endings: wife-m, wife-mi, oh wife-x, and in modern language: wives, wives, oh wives, thematic vowel A the stems of nouns became part of the endings. In both the first and second cases, there was a “reduction of stems in favor of endings.”

b) non-derivative adjectives, where -To- included in root: near To-y, smooth, grief To- oh, thunder To-yy, sting To- ah, gesture To- yay, kike To- oh, chilly To- yay, crepe To- yay, mole To- yay, chalk To- yay, soft To- oh, lie down To- yay, bottom To- y, flat To-th, ed. To- y, res To- yay, rob To- oh sweet To- yay, tone To- oh, fragile To- yay, yay To- yy.

Re-decomposition can occur:

1. Between prefix and root: word appreciation in modern language it is divided into the following morphemes: appreciation, and in ancient times it was divided: appreciation(cf.: know, find out). Previously highlighted prefix at- has now become part of the root. Word sophistication in modern language it is divided: sophistication, and in ancient times: sophistication(cf.: spicy). Standout in the past, prefix from- became part of the modern root sophisticated

2. Between root and suffix: word solemnity now has the following morphemic composition: solemnity, and in the past it was divided: solemnity(cf.: bargaining, celebration). Previously allocated suffix -est - became part of the modern root celebrations -. Word thoroughness in modern language: thoroughness; in past: sh-a-tel-n-ost(cf.: outdated. diligence- “zeal, diligence”). Previously allocated suffixes -a-, -tel-, -n- included in the root.

3. Between suffixes: nouns hotness And future in modern language they are divided into: hotness, futility, and in the past: hotness, hotness. The previously highlighted suffix - n - merged with the suffix - awn , forming a new suffix - ness , since the words fell out of use hot, future.

4. Between prefixes: verb become weak is currently divided into morphemes: weakened; in the past he was divided; oh-no-strength, since there was a verb become powerless(“weaken, exhausted, deprived of strength”). Previously highlighted prefix O - merged with the console demon -, forming a new prefix obes -.

The reasons for re-decomposition are the same as those for simplification. However, the most important and common is obsolescence of the generating word while preserving other related formations in the language. So, adjective tiny, which now includes the root - tiny- and the suffix - rel -, originally divided into tiny. The re-decomposition occurred as a result of the loss of the generating word - the noun - from the Russian literary language tiny(with suffix - from, cf.: pulp). Noun lord, which now highlights the root power ’- and suffix -elin , originally divided into power'-el-in ruler(“Mr”) using the suffix - in . The re-decomposition occurred as a result of the loss of the generating word - the noun - from the modern Russian language ruler. Adjective silent, now consisting of morphemes silent, originally divided into silent, since it was formed on the basis of an ancient noun silent(“silence”) using the suffix -iv- ; in turn the word silent formed on the basis of molk (“silence”) through the suffix –al -. The re-decomposition occurred as a result of the words falling out of the dictionary of the modern Russian language silent And silent (cf.: dialect silence) .

Re-expansion plays an important role in the development of the word-formation system of the Russian language: thanks to it, the language is enriched with new morphemes - suffixes and prefixes. For example, as a result of re-decomposition, modern suffixes arose - teln - from tel -+-n , -aln - from al -+-n -, -nothing - from - Nick - +-A -, -ny - (-eny -) from - n -(-en -)+-th - etc., prefixes without -(obes -), under -, not without - and etc.

3. Complication is the transformation of a previously non-derivative base into a derivative. As a result of this process, one morpheme (root) begins to be divided into two: a root and a suffix. Thus, complication is the opposite of simplification.

Complication often occurs in borrowed words. There are two cases here.

1. Complication by analogy, under the influence of native Russian words: for example, a noun borrowed from the Dutch language umbrella at the time of its assimilation into the Russian language (beginning of the 18th century) it had a non-derivative stem and suffix -IR- didn't stand out. However, external structural similarity with words like table, leaf led (by analogy) to emphasis in the word umbrella suffix -hic- and root umbrella - (cf.: umbrella, umbrella-shaped).

2. Complication due to the appearance in the process of assimilation of a borrowed word of related new formations on Russian soil, containing the same non-derivative stem. For example, non-derivative at the time of borrowing from French word engraving under the influence of words that appeared in the Russian language engrave, engraver became derivative and highlighted the suffix -legal- and root grav-. Word agitation under the influence of new words agitate, agitator began to highlight the suffix -ations-. Word lecture due to the appearance of a related word next to it lecturer began to be divided into roots lecture- and suffix -iii-.

4. Morphemic analysis

Articulation is a fundamental concept of morphemic analysis, didactically related to the concept of derivativeness as the central concept of word-formation analysis.

Morphemic analysis – analysis of a word by composition: establishing the morphemic structure of a word (its division), determining the types, meanings and functions of morphemes.

Target morphemic analysis – establish the morphemic composition (morphemic structure) of a word.

The morphemic composition of a word is the totality of all the structural elements that stand out in it. The morphemic composition of a word includes not only materially expressed and zero morphemes, but also interfixes.

Tasks morphemic analysis of a word consists of the following: 1) find out whether a given word is divisible, 2) determine the boundaries between morphemes, 3) identify connections between morphemes in a word.

Morphemic analysis should be performed in a certain order: 1) determine the part-speech affiliation of the word, its changeability/immutability; 2) highlight the ending (materially expressed / zero) and the basis of the inflection; 3) select the root (roots for compound words), determine its type (free / bound); 4) highlight affixes (prefix, root, suffix, postfix, interfix), determine their role (word-forming / formative).

Therefore, the ultimate goal of morphemic analysis is to determine which significant parts(morphemes) constitute a word, reveal their meaning and functions.

Important role The works of I.A. played a role in the development of the morphemic analysis methodology. Baudouin de Courtenay, F.F. Fortunatova, V.A. Bogorditsky, G.O. Vinokura, E.A. Zemskoy, V.V. Lopatina, A.N. Tikhonova and others.

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

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

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

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

bullfinch-– from a synchronic point of view simplification

bullfinch-– from a diachronic point of view

There are several reasons for simplification:

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

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

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

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

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

same– from a synchronic point of view

same– from a diachronic point of view

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

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

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

juggler-– from a synchronic point of view

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

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

voj-in-– from a synchronic point of view

fight + -in

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

V oj-i + -in(singularity suffix)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can be lined up next rows related words: sunset, roll up, roll, sloping etc.; sunrise– ascend, come in, walk, move and etc.; west– west, Westerner; train– train, road train, electric train etc. Now, comparing related words, we highlight roots and service morphemes: behind-cat-□, sun-move-□, west-□, train-□.

This kind of change includes: simplification, re-decomposition, complication of the stem, decorrelation of morphemes.

Simplification is a change in the morphemic structure of a word in which the (derivative) stem, previously divided into morphemes, turns into a non-derivative (root).

Examples: week (semantics have been lost - the connection with the word do), furrier (the words skora - skin, skin, and skornya - a product made of leather or fur have disappeared); chisel - chisel, oil - smear (here are phonetic changes in the derived word, as a result of which the connection with the generating word is lost); the bases of words - sign and sound - became non-derivative, since the suffix -къ- was lost.

Re-decomposition. In this case, the previous boundaries between morphemes are lost, while maintaining the division of the derived stem into morphemes. The reason is the loss of the producing word by the language while preserving related words: rookery - lying (cf. shooting - shooting range); with the loss of the word rookery, the word rookery began to correlate with the verb to lie, and at its base one suffix began to stand out: -bisch- instead of -b- and -ish-.

Re-decomposition of the stem most often occurs at the junction of the generating stem and the suffix, less often - at the junction of the generating stem and the prefix.

As a result of the reorganization of the basics, new affixes appear in the Russian word-formation system. For example: the suffix -nik- (mentor) appeared as a result of the combination of the adjective suffix -n- and the noun suffix -ik- (cf. double - double); the suffix -inka- in words with the meaning of a small dose of a particle of a substance (dewdrop, speck) appeared as a result of the merger of the suffix of singularity -in(a)- and the diminutive -k(a)- (straw - straw); from the combination of prefixes o- and without-, non- and additional-, new prefixes without- were formed; under- (anesthetize, dehydrate, under-release, underdeveloped).

Complication of a stem is a change in the morphemic structure of a word, in which a previously non-derivative stem turns into a derivative (divided into morphemes).

This process is opposed to the process of simplification. Complication of the stem usually occurs in words borrowed from the Russian language. One of the reasons for the complication of the basics is the establishment of semantic-word-formation correspondences between related borrowed words. Thus, the word refined (French Raffinade") was borrowed into Russian at the beginning of the 19th century and had a non-derivative basis. With the advent of the verb to refine (French Raffiner), the root and suffix began to be isolated in its basis: rafinad (cf. the basis of the verb rafin -irova-t).

Complication of the stem can also occur as a result of the establishment of semantic word-formative correspondences between borrowed and Russian words. For example: the borrowed word flask (Polish flazka) was originally a word with a non-derivative stem. Under the influence of Russian single-structure words like dorozhka - road, the word flask appeared, and the base of the word flask became articulated - it began to be divided into a root and a suffix, that is, it underwent complication (flask-k-a).

Decorrelation of morphemes is a change in the nature or meaning of morphemes and their relationship in a word while maintaining the divisibility of the word, number and order of morphemes. For example: the suffix -j- in words like brothers, husbands from a word-forming one with the meaning of collectiveness has turned into a formative one, through which the basis of forms is formed plural nouns.

° Test questions!

1. Do you know changes in the composition and structure of words? List all existing species.

2. Talk about what simplification is.

3. How is re-decomposition characterized?

4. What is the essence of complicating the base?

5. What is morpheme decorrelation?

Methods of forming independent parts of speech

Noun

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

Adjective

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

Numeral

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

Pronoun

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

Verb

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

Adverb

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

Forming words by moving from one part of speech to another

Many adverbs are formed by transition from other parts of speech. Thus, we can note adverbs formed by rethinking
- nouns ( at home, spring),
- adjectives ( in vain, in the open),
- gerunds (sitting, lying down),
- numerals (doubled).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Historical changes in word structure. Historical changes in the morphemic structure of words

More on the topic §5. Change in the composition and structure of the word:

Means and method of word formation

Methods of forming independent parts of speech

Forming words by moving from one part of speech to another