Historical changes in word composition

The morphemic composition of a word is not established and constant. Over the centuries, the composition of many words has changed due to changes in the life of society. Just as the trunk and branches of a tree grow from the root, so related words arise from the same root. In many words, the roots are hidden, just like in a tree, we do not see them. And knowing these ancient roots is very important.

The science of etymology helps us in this (from the Greek “etymon” - truth and “logos” - teaching). This is the science of the origin of words.

Let's highlight the modern root in the word Sun. To do this, select words with the same root: sun, solar, etc. So, the root is sun - This is how a modern student will understand this word. But in ancient times the sun was designated by the word SOL. As we see, changes have occurred in the history of the language.

The same thing happened with other words. For example, the word “people” comes from ancient foundations"clan", which meant a group of people of the same tribe. Nowadays, the prefix na - has merged with the root. Square - from the ancient “flat” - flat, wide, formed by adding the suffix - hell (see “Appendix No. 1”)

In the process of historical development of the language, some prefixes and suffixes ceased to be used to form new words. Such prefixes and suffixes are called unproductive.

In the Russian language there are words with unproductive prefixes:

Pa-: stepson, stepdaughter, flood, etc.;

Great-: great-grandson, great-grandmother, etc.;

Su-: twilight, twilight, snowdrift, loam.;

In Russian there are words with non-productive suffixes:

En: tusk, shower;

Knowledge: illness, fear, life, etc.;

Yay, drool.

Some prefixes and suffixes have merged so closely with the root of the word that they cannot always be separated from it, for example: memory, remember, take and others. At morphemic parsing Prefixes and suffixes do not separate such words from the root, but sometimes it is useful to highlight such morphemes to explain their spelling.

In the book “Pocket School” F, Krivin writes: “The root has disappeared in the verb “take out”. All other parts of the word remained in place: the prefix you-, and the suffix - well-, and even

T, known for its instability. And the root disappeared.

It was ancient root im-, which has existed for centuries in a variety of words in our language: to have, to remove, to raise and many others. It is also preserved in the imperfect form of the verb - to take out. And it disappeared somewhere during the formation of the perfect form... The prefix and suffix got down to work together and successfully replaced the root of the word.

At first glance, you can’t even tell that the word “take out” doesn’t have a root.

Spelling changes in the 20th century

The first spelling reform (1917-1918) consisted of changing a number of Russian spelling rules, which most noticeably manifested itself in the form of the exclusion of several letters from the Russian alphabet.

October 10, 1918 (published in Izvestia on October 13) resolution of the presidium Supreme Council of the National Economy “On the withdrawal from circulation of common letters of the Russian language” (meaning letters with general meaning: i = and, ? = e, ? = f).

In accordance with the reform:

· were letters excluded from the alphabet? (yat), ? (fita), І (“and decimal”); instead of them, E, F, I should be used, respectively;

· the hard sign (Ъ) at the end of words and parts of complex words was excluded, but retained as separator(rise, adjutant);

· the rule for writing prefixes in s/s was changed: now all of them (except s- itself) ended in s before any voiceless consonant and in s before voiced consonants and before vowels (break, break apart, part > break, burst, but part);

· in the genitive and accusative cases of adjectives and participles the endings - ago, - yago were replaced by - ogo, - his (for example, new > new, best > better, early > early), in the nominative and accusative cases of the feminine and neuter plural - ыя, -ія - on - ы, - ь (new (books, publications) > new);

· feminine plural word forms he?, one?, one?хъ, one?мъ, one?mi were replaced by they, one, one, one, one;

· word form of the genitive case singular her (neya) - on her (her).

In the last paragraphs, the reform, generally speaking, affected not only spelling, but also spelling and grammar, since the spellings on?, odn?, ee (which reproduced Church Slavonic orthography) to some extent managed to enter into Russian pronunciation, especially in poetry (where they participated in rhyme: he?/wives? in Pushkin, mine/her in Tyutchev, etc.).

Did the reform say nothing about the fate of a letter that was rare and out of practical use even before 1917? (Izhitsy); in practice, after the reform, it also completely disappeared from the alphabet.

“In 1929 a new Spelling Commission was created; she had to complete the improvement of Russian spelling. But the project, which appeared in 1930, was not approved. Since 1934, another work began in Moscow and Leningrad: not on reform, but on streamlining spelling. It was supposed to lead to the creation of a unified spelling code. The work of the commissions of the 30s gave rise to a number of valuable studies that determined the principle of constructing Russian orthography (A.M. Peshkovsky 1930; N.N. Durnovo 1930; S.P. Obnorsky 1939). Among the scientists there were both supporters of strengthening the traditional-historical principle of spelling, and adherents of the phonetic one. For example, the proposals of S.P. Obnorsky in many cases came down precisely to the introduction of etymological and historical writings (see below). But the phonemic basis of Russian writing was studied especially fruitfully (N.F. Yakovlev 1928; R.I. Avanesov and V.N. Sidorov 1930; A.A. Reformatsky 1937). However, the work of the commissions in the 1930s did not produce practical results.”

“A.M. Peshkovsky intended to coordinate the spelling of words in the dictionary with a large spelling and grammatical reference book, which was being prepared under his editorship for publication by the Soviet Encyclopedia publishing house. But he did not complete the editing of the large reference book. (...) After the death of A.M. Peshkovsky's vocabulary and spelling work was completed by prof. D.N. Ushakov, whose spelling dictionary was published already in 1934.” The last 3 volumes of the dictionary were edited by S.I. Ozhegov. Perhaps this explains the different spellings of the word “barber”: the old “barber” in the article “almaviva”, but the new “barber” in the article of the same name.

The Glavnauki Project on New Spelling, published in 1930 with a circulation of 15,000 (Moscow, 1930), and the Proposals for Improving Russian Spelling, published in 1964, were aimed at simplifying Russian spelling. In the 2000 project, as one of its authors and editors writes, “the task of improving Russian writing was not set,” “yet minor changes turned out to be very desirable ... They are aimed at correcting regularly broken rules.”

The solutions that were proposed in the projects of 1930 and 1960 completely or partially coincided. For example, the general provisions were:

· do not write ь after sibilant consonants;

· leave only ь as a separating sign, respectively write: siel, entrance, exit, explain, announcement, rise, etc.;

· after hissing words under stress, write o, without stress - e, i.e., for example: yellow, black - turn yellow, turn black; berezot - gnaws; flowot—will flow out; reflective - expressed, baked - baked, etc.;

· gender component - always write with a hyphen, i.e. not only half a cucumber, half a liter, but also half an hour, half a year, half a meter and so on. (This proposal was repeated in the draft new Code of Practice 2000).

Both projects envisaged a change in the use of ы and и after ц. But in the draft of 1930, not only after c, but also after w and w, it was proposed to write s: circus, socialism, revolutions; fatty, write and below. The 1964 project provided for after q always and: gypsy, chicken; fathers, streets, pale faces and so on.

Both projects proposed abolishing the spelling of double consonants in different positions. The 1930 project was especially radical in this regard, leaving the “right” to double consonants only at the junction of prefix and root, as well as in the words zhuzhat, quarrel, saved, fused; Among the examples: wooden, straw, excited, Russian, Odessa, art, commission, communist, class, opposition, Ana, tones, Muler. The 1964 proposals provided for the abolition of double consonants only in words of foreign origin with the caveat: “Double consonants are written only in the words: bath, gamma, sum (the list of words is not yet final).”

Both projects contained a clause about a change in the spelling of particles. In the 1930 project it was proposed to extend the hyphen spelling to particles, but in the 1964 project it was proposed to establish separate writing for something, - either, - something; something in pronominal words (someone, whoever, etc.).

As this list of proposals, far from complete, shows, in comparison with the decree of 1917, the projects of 1930 and 1964 were much more voluminous and not as “generally understood” as in 1917.

In 1885, the book by Y.K. Grota “Russian Spelling”, compiled on behalf of the Second Branch of the Imperial Academy of Sciences and published in volume 36, number 1, “Collection of the Department of Russian Language and Literature of the Imperial Academy of Sciences”.

First of all, let's point out general rule compatibility of vowels with consonants.

Of the hard vowels, y is not written after guttural g k x and after hissing vowels z w h sch; both consonants allow after themselves only and, i.e. Only combinations are possible: ki hi zhi shi chi shi, not gy ky hy, etc.

In the ancient language, on the contrary, in order for the gutturals to retain their sound, s were written after them, for example. gybel, kyev, hytr, because before and they could not resist and moved into other sounds.

The same consonants, as well as c, do not tolerate the vested vowels I, Yu. Therefore, only combinations are possible: ga ka ha zha sha cha sha gu ku hu zhu shu chu schu, and not gya kya... gyu kyu, etc., however, it should be noted that in the ancient language, due to the softness of the hissing and c , very often the markings appeared: zha shya chya shcha tsia zhu shyu and so on. ь is never written after guttural g k x and after c.

The material structure of a word changes over time. These changes also affect the morphemic composition of both the stem and the entire word. Science distinguishes three main types of historical changes in morphemic structure words: a) simplification, b) re-decomposition, c) complication.

Simplification (the term of V. A. Bogoroditsky, a famous Russian linguist) is the transition of a word from a more complex composition of morphemes to a simpler one as a result of combining two morphemes into one. Thus, in the word rubakh, the ancient root rub- is no longer recognized separately from the ancient suffix -akh-, the root and suffix have merged into one new root morpheme rubah-; in the word red, the ancient root kras- and the suffix -н- that followed it are no longer recognized; these two morphemes have merged into one - krasn-.

Re-decomposition (the term of V. A. Bogoroditsky) is a movement of the boundary between morphemes, as a result of which the appearance of the morpheme changes, and sometimes its function. Thus, in ancient times, the plural case forms rivers, rivers, rivers had a border between the base and the ending after the sound [a], but now the border passes after the sound [k]. In the word clearly, the boundary between the prefix and the root passed before the sound [a] (я), now it passes before the sound [n] (compare the words clearly, clearly, entertainingly, etc.). Re-decomposition can lead to the emergence of new, previously non-existent morphemes, for example, the suffixes -enie, -inc-, -teln-, etc.

A complication is the appearance of a boundary between morphemes in a place where there was none; this is the division of one morpheme into two. The word Zonnedek - umbrella, borrowed from the Dutch language - was divided by the consciousness of Russian people into umbrella and ik under the influence of Russian words like little house, leaf and the like. In the words academician, chemist, the suffix -ik stands out noticeably (cf. academy, chemistry). By analogy, we tend to highlight the same suffix in the words botanist, logician, comedian, physician, tragedian, physicist, etc. But etymology does not seem to provide grounds for this. Borrowed integral fundamentals are already “complicated” on the basis of the Russian language.

Word formation.

Methods of word formation are those actions that the language performs when producing a new word. Let's consider the main method - affixation

The method of affixation consists of attaching affixes to the roots (or stems). Affixes are morphemes with grammatical meaning. Affixes do not exist in languages ​​outside of words; they accompany the root, serving for word formation and inflection. Based on their position relative to the root, affixes can be divided into prefixes, which come before the root, and postfixes, which come after the root.

There are languages ​​that do not use prefixes (Turkic, Finno-Ugric), and express all grammar with postfixes; in such languages, all words begin with a root, which can be followed by a chain of postfixes; other languages ​​prefer prefixes and do not use (with rare exceptions) postfixes; for example, in the Swahili language the verb form wa-ta-si-po-ku-ja [watasi-pokuja] - “if they do not come”, where wa means the 3rd person plural, ta is the future tense, si is negation, ro - convention, ki - verbal prefix - expander of a monosyllabic root and ja [ja] - root with the meaning “to come”. Indo-European languages, to which Russian also belongs, use both prefixes and postfixes, but with a clear preference for the latter; Wed pre-sta-i-tel-n-y, where there is one prefix and four postfixes.

The division of postfixes into suffixes and inflections is not based on their location; It is not necessary that the suffix be behind the root before the inflection, and the inflection is at the end of the word, for example in German Kind - “child”, Kinder - “children”, and Kinderchen - “children”, where -er is plural inflection, and -chen - suffix with the meaning of diminutive; Wed in Russian “reflexive forms”, where the inflection does not end the word, and behind it there is still a reflexive suffix -sya, which does not change by case: workers, workers, workers, etc.
In addition to prefixes and suffixes as such (which is most often found in the languages ​​of the world), there are also other types of affixes.

1) Interfaces are service morphemes that do not have their own meaning, but serve to connect roots in complex words. They are used exclusively in word-formation function. These are, for example, the connecting vowels in Russian: lob-o-trya, sheep-e-bull, kash-e-var, blood-o-drinker, or the German “connecting consonant” -s- in such cases as: Ort -s-kunde - “local history”, Alter-s-heim - “nursing home”, where in masculine and neuter words (der Ort, das Alter) the connective -s- goes back to the inflection of the genitive case (des Orts, des Alters) .

2) Confixes - combinations of two affixes: a prefix and a postfix, which, although they represent two morphemes, act together; for example, in German verb forms: loben - “to praise” and ge-lob-t - “praised”, where the prefix ge- and postfix -t “surround” the root and together form the word - the same in German confinement of the prefix ge- and postfix -en in participial forms: ge-fund-en - “found”, etc., used in the formation of the complex past tense.

3) Infixes are affixes inserted into the middle of the root. This is, for example, in the Tagalog language (Indonesian family of languages) the infix -it- in the examples: s-um-ulat - “write” from sulat - “letter”, p-um-asok - “enter” from pasok - “entrance” "or in the same language the infix -in- to denote a verb in the passive form: s-in-ulat - “was written” or p-in-ataj - “was killed” from pataj - “dead man”; There are similar infixes in other Indonesian languages.

4) Transfixes are affixes that, breaking a root consisting of only consonants, themselves break and serve as a “layer” of vowels among consonants, defining the word form and formalizing it grammatically, i.e., they have a certain grammatical meaning. This phenomenon is characteristic of Semitic languages ​​(Hebrew, Akkadian, or Assyro-Babylonian, Phoenician, Arabic).

5) In many languages, zero affixes play an important role (0 as we already discussed above in connection with the concept of a negative form). A zero affix is ​​the absence of an affix in one form of a paradigm when there are affixes in other forms of the same paradigm.

Thus, for the word horn, zero inflection is an indicator of the nominative singular, since all other singular cases and all plural cases have positive inflections. For short adjectives, for example beautiful, zero inflection shows the masculine gender and the singular (there is no case in this case, since short adjectives in Russian are not inflected). In the declension of names in Turkic languages, the zero affix is ​​an indicator of the singular for all cases, which is opposed to the postfix -lar (with its phonetic varieties) for the plural (bala - “child”, balaga - “child”, balada - “in the child” and etc.)

Course work

HISTORICAL CHANGES IN WORD STRUCTURE

Introduction

1.5 Substitution and diffusion

2.1 Examples of simplification

2.2 Examples of re-expansion

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

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

In the process of historical development of the language, the method of forming stems changed, and in some cases the morphological composition of the word also changed: many morphemes lost their role in the composition of the stem of the word. Thus, at the base of the word west, the morpheme - for - 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 for the following reasons:

) a change in the lexical meanings of words that were previously correlated as productive and derivative;

) change in the sound composition of a word;

) loss of correlative generating stems or related words from the dictionary;

) the influence of the morphological structure of words of a productive type on the morphological structure of words of unproductive types, or etymologically isolated.

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

Target course work- theoretical and practical study of historical changes in the structure of words.

) reveal the historical nature of the structure of the word;

) consider the processes of simplification, re-decomposition, conditioning, decorrelation, substitution and diffusion;

) after conducting a practical study of historical changes in the structure of words, give examples of specific processes.

The course work used research by the following authors: Shansky N.M., Babaytseva V.V., Nikolina N.A., Valgina N.S., Rosenthal D.E., Fomina M.I. and etc.

The course work consists of an introduction, two chapters - theoretical and practical, a conclusion and a list of references.

Chapter I. Theoretical analysis of historical changes in the structure of words

1.1 Historical nature of the morphological structure of the word

In the process of historical development, the methods of word formation and the morphological composition of the word change. This explains the fact that quite often the definition of the modern morphological structure of a word does not coincide with the definition of its actual origin, as a result of which the distinction between word-formation analysis and etymological analysis turns out to be fundamentally important.

Reasons for historical changes in the morphological structure of words:

.Changes in the lexical meanings of words that were historically correlated as productive and derivative stems.

2.Changing the sound composition of words: pillowcase - pillowcase- words with the same root, but the structure is different.

.Loss of generating stems or related words from the dictionary.

.The influence of the morphological structure of words of a productive type on the morphological structure of words of a non-derivative type.

Analysis of the morphemic structure in diachronic terms allows us to identify the main historical processes leading to changes in the morphemic structure of a word. These are the processes of simplification, re-decomposition, complication of the base, decorrelation, diffusion and substitution of morphemes. They occur in a word as a result of one or another violation or, on the contrary, the establishment of direct correlative connections between the derivative and the generating bases.

The word is historically changeable (its phonemic composition, meaning, morphemic appearance changes). Modern morphemic and word-formation structures may not coincide with historical correspondence, as evidenced by morphemic and word-formation analyzes of words.

1.2 Complete and incomplete simplification; its reasons

Simplification -a phenomenon in which stems that previously had a complex morphemic composition become simple in composition or less complex; that is, this is the transformation of a derivative stem into a non-derivative one, the loss of division into morphemes in the word (verb slack offonce isolated both prefix and suffix in its composition, as he was motivated by the word Lyn,which meant "lazy person").

By degree of completion this process There are two types of simplification:

) incomplete.

Complete- simplification of words, in which the stem loses the ability to be divided into morphemes, as a result of which new non-derivative stems are presented as pure roots and such stems can only be decomposed with the help of etymological analysis.

Incomplete - simplification, in which new non-derivative stems still retain traces of their former derivation.

So, simplification is the morphological process by which a word with a complex morphological composition loses the meaning of its individual morphological parts and becomes a simple symbol of a given representation. So, for example, the words “taste” (cf. kus-at, kus-ok), “forget”, etc. have only a holistic meaning and the morphological composition of these words (v-kus, forget, etc.) is no longer felt. Thus, when surveying ?When used, the connection between a word and its related words is lost, as a result of which it becomes isolated from them.

In many words, simplification has not yet occurred, and they, while having a holistic meaning, at the same time retain a connection with other words related in morphological parts; so, for example, the word “table” is associated with a whole group of words related by root (for example, canteen, stolnik, etc.) and suffix (for example, ruble, shtofik, etc.). Here we see the phenomenon of antagonism or struggle between association by contiguity (= connection of a word with its integral meaning) and association by similarity (= connection of morphological parts of the same word with other related formations). And since in living speech the holistic (real) meaning plays a predominant role, then a change is made in this direction, i.e. The morphological composition of many words, thanks to their use, ceases to be felt, and the words become simple symbols of ideas, and thus the place of the genetic meaning in their constituent parts is replaced by a real meaning.

Some circumstances are especially favorable to the approval of the simplification of words; Thus, sound changes may occur in a word, as a result of which it may diverge so much from related words that it can no longer be associated with them (cf. set on edge || pinch; end || beginning, etc.); further, related words may fall out of use, as a result of which the given word becomes lonely and no longer decomposes (cf. ring, originally a diminutive for the word colo, which has fallen out of use); finally, significant changes in meaning compared to simple words also contribute to simplification.

Thus, words that in the minds of individuals of a previous time were decomposed into morphological parts, in the minds of individuals of a subsequent time (under certain conditions) are no longer decomposed and become simple. The perception of words with a complex, morphological composition as simple ones especially falls during the period of childhood (i.e., to the share of each new generation), due to the predominant role at this age of association by contiguity, through which a close connection is established between an image or representation and its name as , a simple symbol.

Morphological simplification leads to the emergence of new roots in the language based on the previous prefix and root (e.g., by-dol, by-suda, by-yas, v-kus, task, su-prug, forget, etc.), or a root and suffix (ring-o, stick -a, sand-ohm, etc.); At the same time, a corresponding change occurs in the sense of the morphological composition of words. Words in which simplification has occurred can be distributed with new prefixes and suffixes, for example. Forget< перезабыть, вкус < вкусный и т.п. То, что генетическое значение уступает свое место реальному значению слова, представляет огромную экономию и важность для мысли; если бы рядом с реальным значением слова в нашем уме всякий раз являлось и генетическое, то это служило бы невообразимым тормозом мышления.

Simplification could occur for various reasons: it could be the result of a change in the phonetic appearance of the word ( cloud? *about-volok-o - that which envelops the earth ), arise as a result of the loss of the generating lexeme from the dictionary ( nobles-A? vel-maybe-A - great - big, great , i.e. one who can do a lot ). Loss of productivity of any service morpheme could also lead to simplification: *su-tk-i, *su-prug-? ?day, spouse? - the prefix has disappeared in modern language su-.Or another example: in the Russian language of our days, the words feast, giftare indivisible and non-derivative and are included in the following word-forming nests: gift-? - gift-and-t, gift-and-t, gift-ok-? , as a giftetc. Historically, these nouns were formed using the suffix - R- from verbs: pi-ti?*feast-? , yes ?*gift-? , that is, they were both derivative and divisible.

Thus, simplification- a linguistic process as a result of which a word with a derived base<#"center">1.3 Enrichment of language in connection with the process of re-decomposition

Let us move on to consider the phenomenon called re-decomposition and which consists in the fact that words in the minds of individuals of a certain time are not associated with the same similar parts with which they were associated in the minds of individuals of a previous time.

Let's start with the re-decomposition between the base and the ending. An example of a re-decomposition of this kind can be the forms wives, wives, wives, which were originally decomposed into a base and an ending in a different way than now, namely in them a belonged to the base: zhen-m, zhen-mi, zhen-kh. But since this vowel was repeated before the endings of all other words of the same declension (fish-m, ruk-m, etc.), it began to be felt as belonging to inflection, and therefore the original stems, ending with vowels, began to end with a consonant sound , i.e. for example, wives-am, wives-ami, wives-ah.

The consolidation of such a morphological division could be facilitated by the fact that in some case forms the original thematic vowel, merging with the ending, changed beyond recognition (cf. wife, where y = st. - sl. ?; and goes back to ae. *-am), and therefore it seemed not to be the basis.

That such a re-decomposition has actually occurred is proven by the fact that the new endings - am, - ami and - ah in the Russian language have spread by analogy to all other declensions (cf. in masculine r. slaves || Art. - syll. RAB- ?ХЪ, on Wed. R. affairs || Art. glory D ?L- ?ХЪ, etc.). A similar reduction of stems in favor of endings has occurred in the present day. verb tense; for example, carries, we carry, were initially morphologically decomposed into nes-t, nes-m, and subsequently the thematic vowel moved to the ending, i.e. carries, bears; also in the past vr. and undefined incl. the vowel of the base moved to the ending, for example, in the forms on - al, - at, - ate, etc.

The process of re-decomposition is also observed in the area of ​​suffixes in the production of words, and the sounds that completed the stem in the producing word go to the newly added suffix; for example, when the nouns na - ik are formed from the adjectives na - ny, then all these derived words, having a consonant n in front of their suffix, are associated with each other by the similarity of the new suffix - nik (for example, Ozor-n-oi< озор-ник, охот-н-ый < охот-ник); подобным же путем развились новые суффиксы - щик, - ильник, - альщик, - овщик и т.п., могущие затем получать особые оттенки значения и употребляться независимо от первоначальных условий возникновения. Более разросшиеся суффиксы, естественно, образовались в языке позже по сравнению с более простыми.

Rearrangement between prepositions (or prefixes) and the root is relatively rare. This should include the occurrence of n in the forms of the 3rd person pronoun: his || him, him || him, etc.; did the initial and second forms originally belong to three prepositions? s (съ), в (въ), к (къ), which ended with it; but since this n was retained only in the position before the initial vowels or j of the next word, but was not preserved before consonants, complexes without n became a permanent part of our prepositions, i.e. in, with and k, with which the meaning characteristic of these prepositions was associated, the final n in those cases when it was retained began to be felt as belonging to the next pronominal form; through the analogy of the form with the initial n, they began to be used after all other prepositions, for example, about him, etc.

Did the separation of n from the preposition also occur with nouns? viscera, entrails (sv. womb), food (sv. food). Of similar origin, n in the verbs inspire, listen (and by analogy? understand, etc.), consume (cf. eat). Thus, the old explanation of what is being considered by euphony turns out to be untenable, since it does not have an etymological basis.

Examples of reorganization between a root and a preposition should also include the common pronunciation of “Tuesday”, “Arshava”, etc., which is explained as follows. In Russian, prepositions ending in a consonant, in addition to this short form, are also in full form with the fluent o, for example. in || in, over || necessary, etc.; in their short form, these prepositions appear before forms beginning with a vowel sound or a simple consonant (for example, to the fire, to Arkhangelsk, to Warsaw); and for forms beginning with two consonants, they are in full form (for example, on Tuesday). This is where random coincidences of expressions based on the initial sounds arose: on Tuesday and into the fire, into Arkhangelsk and into Warsaw (where instead of vv a simple v can be heard), etc.; and these coincidences led to an incorrect expansion by proportional analogy:

Vogon: fire = Tuesday: x

x = Tuesday

vaarkhangelsk: arkhangelsk = warsaw: x

x = arshava.

So, re-decomposition is called this type of change in the base of a word, when it was and remains derivative, articulated, but the morphemes begin to be isolated differently than before: in modern language - leader,and the historical appearance of the word and composition - * leader-atay-? . The word came from the substantive type of declension (r.p. - counselor, d.p. - counseloretc.) to adjective ( counselor, counselor, counseloretc., g. R. - counselor, plural h. - counselors). As we can see, the phonetic composition of the word was transformed and as a result of this, the boundaries of morphemes in it changed: the suffix - atayreduced in favor of finishing.

This process, when part of the stem moves away to the ending, was observed in words different parts speech. Moving the border of the base from right to left occurred in the present tense of verbs, e.g. verb forms carries, carriesoriginally morphologically decomposed into I bear it, I bear it, and subsequently the thematic vowel moved to the ending, i.e. I carry it, I carry it.

Re-decomposition could also occur under the influence of analogy. The endings of the plural forms of masculine and neuter nouns - am, ami, ah (tables, tables, desks; selam, selam, selah)appeared on the model of the corresponding forms of feminine nouns ( parties, parties, parties),that is, it appeared table-aminstead of table-ohm...Vowel Aended up as part of the ending, and under the influence of the analogy of the entire declension paradigm, the previous division side-m, side-mi, side-x,at which Abelonged to the base, was replaced by division sides, sides, sides,with expansion of inflection due to the base.

Re-decomposition could occur not only between the stem and the ending, but also between other parts of the word. There are known cases of changes in boundaries between a prefix and a root or a preposition and a subsequent word. In the Old Russian language there were prepositions vn, kn, sn.When they were used with the oblique case forms of personal pronouns ( to him, hisetc.), then there was a re-decomposition of the stems and the consonant njoined to the pronoun: * kun him? to him (to him), take name? with him (with him), in him? into him (into him).

Re-expansion played a certain role in the formation of the system of endings for various parts of speech. These questions are addressed by historical grammar. Also of interest are cases when a change in boundaries occurs between morphemes that form the basis of a word, affecting the root of the word as the carrier of the main lexical meaning.

So re-decomposition is redistribution of morphemic material within a word while maintaining its derivative character. Words, while remaining compound, begin to be divided differently.

1.4 Complexity and decorrelation

In addition to the processes of re-decomposition and simplification, when considering changes in the morphemic composition of a word, one should also take into account the process of complication, which is a phenomenon directly opposite to the process of simplification both in essence and in form.

Complication appears to us as the process of transforming a previously non-derivative base into a derivative. As a result, his word, which previously had a non-derivative character, becomes divisible into certain morphemes.

Complication, or recomposition, is manifested in the fact that, under the influence of segmented words of a particular structure, a word that turns out to be lonely is brought under the appropriate model, and its non-derivative basis begins to be divided into morphemes contrary to etymology. It is this type of complication that is observed in the words umbrella and echidna. It can also be noted for the noun flask (Polish flaszka "flask"), understood by analogy with lid, plaque, book, cart, etc., as a derivative with the suffix - to (a), as a result of which it was the "original" shape of the flask was "restored".

We find it, if this etymology is correct, in the now lost Old Russian word teremn, usually explained as a borrowing from Greek. ????????"with plug-in between ?And ?Greek word, since the combination of plural sounds, giving a closed syllable, was impossible in the Old Russian language until the 11th-12th centuries." The word teremn in this case "was understood as an adjective with the most common other - Russian. suffix - н-, and from it the noun terem was formed."

A complication of a similar nature was experienced in the Russian language by the Turkic word basmachi (literally “raiders” from basma “raid”), adopted by the Russian language by analogy with the words reckless people, executioners, interpreters, etc. as a form of the nominative plural, as a result of which a pure non-derivative stem (the articulation of the stem was lost at the time of borrowing) turned into the stem basmach - and ending - i.

All this led to the fact that “through” reverse word formation “a form unusual for the Uzbek language arose” - basmach.

Note that the processing of agentive formations of Turkic origin in - chi, - chy (-chik, - shchik) may be different, as evidenced, for example, by the nouns treasurer (Tat. Treasurers) and domrachey (Turkic. Domrachi), re-formatted into its suffix part according to the model of rich people, trumpeters, dogs, etc. .

The only example of a complication of purely phonetic origin seems to be a change in the basis of verbs like prick, grind, weed, flog, fight, in which the non-derivative stem turned into a derivative as a result of koloti) and subsequent acquisition >development of full consonance (cf. *kolti appeared on the function of the class indicator of the verb.

In the vast majority of words, the complication of their stems occurs not as a result of the reasons discussed above (that is, morphological assimilation by root or affix and sound changes), but due to the appearance in the process of borrowing next to one or another foreign word related to it, containing the same non-derivative base, as a result of the establishment of word-formation semantic connections between words of the same root.

So, for example, the noun engagement appeared in the Russian literary language in the Peter the Great era from the French language in the form of a word with a non-derivative base.

When, next to it in our speech (in the first half of the 19th century), the single-root word engagement began to be used, its base underwent a process of complication and began to be divided into the related non-derivative base engagement - and the irregular suffix - element. The word lecture, of Latin origin, came to our language from Polish as a non-derivative. However, due to the later appearance next to it of the related word lecturer, it also experienced a process of recomposition, and its stem split into the root lect - and the suffix - cij-.

Naturally, at the same time, a similar process of complication occurs in the corresponding related words: engage > angazh-ir-a (t), lecturer > lecture-or ().

As examples of complication when borrowing, one can also cite the words epic, cosmos, plenum, minimum, rozan, etc., in which the corresponding process in the morphological structure of the word led to the fact that in the Russian language Greek, Latin and German inflections are< оs, ум < um, ан < en превратились в суффиксы (ср. однокорневые им слова эпический, космический, пленарный, минимальный, роза).

Thus, most often, complication is observed not in native Russian words, but in foreign words and occurs in them in the process of establishing semantic-word-formation correlations between them. Such relationships can be established both between simultaneous borrowings from one source language, and between borrowings at different times (even from different languages, if the words are recognized and perceived as related), and even more so - between borrowed and native Russian words (if they contain same root).

From what has been said, it is clear that the process of complication has great importance for the development of the word-formation system of a language: it is thanks to it that the language gains the opportunity to assimilate foreign language word-formation morphemes, enriches its word-formation inventory at the expense of foreign language affixal material.

In addition to the “external” processes of simplification, re-decomposition and complication, which are directly reflected in changes in the morphemic composition of a word, when considering various changes in the word-formation structure, “internal” processes should also be taken into account. One of them - the most important - can be called decorrelation.

Decorrelation means a change in the nature or meaning of morphemes and their relationships in a word while the latter retains the same number and order of morphemes that was originally observed in it.

Decorrelation, thus, does not lead to a change in the morphemic composition of the word as such. The word continues to be divided in the same way as it was divided earlier; the same number of morphemes are distinguished in it as were distinguished during its formation. However, the morphemes that make up a word turn out to be completely different in their meaning or character and are in completely different connections with each other.

Thus, the decorrelation in the words catcher, frost, love led to the fact that the forming stems lov-, frost-, love - began to be perceived (cf. catch, freeze, love) as verbal, although these. words are formed from nominal stems: from the noun lov' "catcher" (cf. fisherman, trapper, bird catcher, etc.), from the noun frost "first frosts" (cf. dial. zapeski, thickets, literary suburb), from the same stem , as the adjective lyub "darling, beloved."

Accordingly, they changed their character and suffixes in these words. For example, the suffix - to (and) in the word frost began to act as a word-forming element, although at first it was a diminutive and formed a form of subjective assessment.

As a result of the decorrelation process, while maintaining the same suffix - enuj - in the nouns respect and communication in the derivative stem, the nature of the non-derivative stem changed: the words began to directly and directly correlate with the verbs respect and communicate, although they are etymologically derived from the verbs respect (as a correlative formation of the perfect form to respect) and communicate.

Decorrelation is also observed in the word insole, now correlative with the verb to lay, but actually formed with the help of the suffix - ьк - the noun stele (cf. other - Russian insole "tire, bedding" and stele "roof, ceiling". In this in the word, it was expressed in the transition of the nominal formative stem to the verbal one.

Decorrelation in words like brothers, husbands, sons-in-law, on the contrary, affected only affixes. As a result, its derivational collective suffix - j - turned into a formative suffix indicating the base of the plural, and the ending - a from the inflection of the nominative singular became an inflection of the nominative plural.

Thanks to ... the decorrelative process, for example, words in - ba (walking, carving, alchba, etc.) from denominal formations, as they are in origin, turned into verbal ones; the suffix - sha, which previously had only the meaning of a wife (general's wife, sultana), has developed the meaning of a female person (prizewoman, elevator operator, etc.).

So the complication - it is the transformation of a previously non-derivative base into a non-derivative one. As a result, the word, which at the time of its appearance in the Russian language had a non-derivative character, becomes divisible into morphemes. In most cases, the process of complicating the basics occurs in borrowed words.

Decorrelation is a change in the nature or meaning of morphemes and their relationship in a word. Decorrelation does not lead to a change in the morphemic composition of the word as such.

1.5 Substitution and diffusion

Quite often there are cases when a word begins to be divided differently over time, but this different word-formation structure is not associated either with the redistribution of the existing morphemic material within the stem, or with the partial phonetic application of one morpheme to another, but is the result of the replacement of one morpheme different, and precisely replacement, and not rethinking (as is observed with decorrelation). This process can be called substitution. As a result, its morphemic composition of the derived stem remains quantitatively the same, only one of the links in the word-formation chain changes, but thereby the word-formation structure of the word as a whole is seriously transformed.

The main reasons for the substitution of morphemes are two:

) analogous processes of influence on the morphological structure of a word by a productive word-formation model and an etymologically related lexical unit;

) folk etymological convergence of words with different roots.

An undoubted and striking example of the replacement of stems as a result of the second of the reasons just mentioned is the word witness “an eyewitness, a person who was a direct observer of any event or occurrence,” in which the stem view (of the verb to see) replaced the original one in the Old Russian language ?d - (c ?d ?ti "to know"), cf. etc. - Russian sv ?d ?tel "eyewitness, witness at trial."

On the contrary, the word mediocre, literally before our eyes, experienced the process of replacing the stem literally before our eyes due to lexical-semantic contamination, which, under the influence of the adjective mediocre, received the semantics “having no talent, mediocre.”

In the “Dictionary of the Modern Russian Literary Language” this fact has not yet been noted; next to the word mediocre (given without any marks, although at present it is clearly outdated), the adjective mediocre is interpreted as archaic and regional with only one “etymological” meaning - "unlucky, unfortunate, destitute."

However, speech practice convinces that such a qualification of this word does not reflect the truly existing situation: the use of this word, erroneous from a genetic point of view, has already become the norm, and now the adjective mediocre does not act as a dialectally outdated synonym for the word unfortunate, but is a commonly used word, semantically directly and directly related to the word talent. The stem talan in mediocre thereby turns out to be a phonetic variant (before the next n) of the stem talent.

Diffusion of morphemes is usually observed at the junction of a prefix and a non-derivative stem or at the junction of a non-derivative stem and a suffix, but it is also possible at the junction of two non-derivative words; the phonetic application of a prefix to a non-derivative stem can be seen in the words pridu and razevat. In the verb I will come, this diffusion arose as a result of the condensation of two and into one sound (cf. in the Old Russian language: “Priide with ?naughty women ?> "; "And I will come to ?there is a Moscow ?"; "At the coming post ?“Thou shalt not cross Ierdan”, etc.) In the verb to open (cf. razzyava), the phonetic commissure of morphemes arose after contraction into one sound z.

In one case, the diffusion of a non-derivative stem and suffix covered an entire word-formation model, which became a special structural type. These are infinitives such as stove, moch, guard, protect, cut, flow, etc., in which, even in the pre-literate era, in the sound [h "] the final consonant of the root [k] or [g] was combined into one whole. and the infinitive - ti. And here the diffusion of morphemes is the result of a phonetic change that led to the merging of two sounds into one (commonly * mogti > mokti > mochi, and then in mochi; the same in other verbs).

Diffusion of morphemes, simultaneous with the process of word production, when partial phonetic adhesion of neighboring morphemes occurs already during the formation of a word as a specific linguistic unit, is also observed in other words. Undoubtedly, this is the origin of the diffusion in the words pinkish, brownish, beige, lilac, etc., in which - ov; - ev are simultaneously both a part of the formative stem of the original adjective and a part of the suffix of incompleteness of quality - ovat, - evat-.

Haplological simplification, leading to the merging of two sk (the suffix of the city and the suffix of relative adjectives) in one sound complex sk, is observed in the process of derivation of adjectives from toponymic names in - sk: Omsk, Pyatigorsk, Vitebsk, etc.

Among the words in which the application of neighboring morphemes refers simultaneously to both the root and the suffix and appeared at the moment of their formation, and is not the result of a later diffusion process, also belongs the word kick, which arose by analogy with the verbal relations dvinu - move, shove - shove, shout - shout, push - push, shove - shove, etc. in place of a pair of kicks - five, when the kick caused someone to kick next to it (cf. dial. press - I’ll press) .

In the word-formation square lackey: lackey - fascist: fascist, the combination st, present both in the suffix - ist and in the suffix - sting, is haplologized already in the process of derivation, immediately leading to the emergence of fascist. A similar phenomenon is sometimes found in verbs with the suffix - stvov - such as participate, dominate, honor, narrate.

It was the actual present participles from these verbs (participating, narrating, etc.) that were primarily the model for the emergence of words like fascist.

Such diffusion of morphemes at the moment of word production, in contrast to the diffusion of significant parts of a word that occurs over time on the basis of an agglutinative juxtaposition of morphemes special in relation to each other, can be called application.

Application acts as one of the means of combining morphemes in a word in the process of derivation and with diffusion as one of the types of changes in the morphological structure of a word it coincides only in the nature of its manifestation, externally, but not in essence.

Thus, morpheme substitution - a case when a word begins to be divided in a different way, and this different structure is the result of replacing one morpheme with another. As a result of this process, the morphemic composition of the derived stem remains quantitatively the same; only one of the links in the word-formation chain changes, but thereby the word-formation structure of the word as a whole changes.

Diffusion is the interpenetration of morphemes while maintaining or at the same time clear independence and specificity of the significant parts of the word. The derived stem continues to be divided into morphemes, but the individuality of the isolated morphemes in a certain link of the word-formation chain is weakened due to the partial phonetic application of one morpheme to another.

So, finishing the first - theoretical - chapter of the course work, we can conclude that in all processes associated with changes in the structure of a word, the derivational correlation of the word plays a decisive role, determining its division into morphological elements. Thus, if simplification is associated with the loss of correlation, and complication, on the contrary, with its acquisition, then re-decomposition as a process is determined by a change in correlation. And since correlation is a structural-semantic connection of words, then all the considered processes of changing the morphological structure of a word are essentially semantic-morphological processes. In this regard, G.S. is right. Zenkov, who believes that the beginning of re-decomposition is semantic shifts in the derived word (or rather, in the correlative pair “producing - derivative”). It is only important to always keep in mind that in word formation any semantic shift is materialized, i.e. is at the same time a structural shift, that all semantic changes are constantly and inextricably linked with the structure of the word, as long as we are talking about morphological word formation.

Chapter II. A practical study of historical changes in word structure

.1 Examples of simplification

Examples of simplification and the reasons that led to it are reflected in Table 1.

Table 1. Examples of simplification

Historical composition of the wordSynonymous words with t.zr. the previous state of the language. Modern composition of the word. Same root words in modern times. language Reason for simplification *lg-from-a*lz-ya, not-lz-algot-algot-n-y, benefits-n-ik- ?Loss of the producing stem *vel-mozh-a*vel-iy from the language - big ; great-ik-y, maybe-etvelmozh-velmozh-n-y * perch-atk-iperst- ?glove-and-glove-n-th, glove-to-a*important*vag-a ( weight ) important-importance- ?, important*need*need-need-o, need- ?*petal- ?*petal- ? (sheet ) petal- ?petal-ek- ?*zd-a-nij-e*zd (zedo - art. - sl. clay ), so-zd-a-tzdanj-ezdanj-its-e*kol-ts-o*kol-o ( circle, circumference ), o-kol-o, kol-es-ring-oo-ring-eva-t, ring-k-o*kop-n-akop-i-t, *kop-a ( measure - a number of 60 things) kopn-akopen-k-a, kopn-i-t *su-tk-itk-a-t, s-tyk- ?, snowdrift- ?day-and-dayLoss of productivity ?pi-tipir- ?pir-ova-t Loss of productivity of the suffix *da-r- ?yes-tidar- ?give a gift- ?*good (= comfortable ) *deb-el-y, u-dob-n-y, *dob-a ( it's time, time ) good-ygood-o, for-good-i-t, kind-enk-y*sta-r-y (from the verb st-t) st-t, st-t-j-a, st-n-cij -astar-ystar-ost, old-e-t, old-i-t-sya *triumph-est-torg, bargain-ov-l-ya, triumph-seeking-triumph-triumph-y, solemn-enn -awn- ?Changes in semantic relationships between words *for-you-forget-forget-t-y, forget-t-e, forget-l-- ?*o-zher-el-ezher-l-o, mountain-l-o, zhr-a-tozherelj-eozherelj-its-e*v-kus- ?bite-a-th, bite-ok- ?taste- ?taste, taste, red a*dvor-ets- ?yard- ?, dvor-ts-ov-y, at-dvor-n-ydvorets ?palace-ov-y*s-plait-n-iples-ti, plait-en- ?gossip-isplet-its-a, gossip-icha-t*about-the-cloud-oob-dragging, about-volak-iva-t, dragging-and-t, on-dragging-to-the-cloud-cloud- n-th, cloud-n-ost, cloud-to-o Change in the phonetic appearance of the word *about-power- ?power- ?, ruler- ?, parish- ?region- ?region-n-oh*za-duh-l-yyv-doh- ?, breathe ?*vez-sl-vez-ti, transport-i-vesl-over-fun-n-yy*ps-ry (pesr - motley, spotted ) pi-a-t, ras-pi-a-nn-y motley-y motley-from-a, motley-e-t*ring-to- ?? sound- ?(he // en // y) ringing ?, ringing, ringing, sound-sound- ?sound- ?, sound-a-th, sound-ov-oh Change in the phonetic appearance of the word + disintegration of semantic connections between words from-s-to- ?elm-a-th, knot-ate- ?, co-union- ?, already- ?, uz-to-language- ?tongue-ok- ?, language-ov-oh 2.2 Examples of re-expansion

Examples of re-decomposition of word stems are given in Table 2.

Table 2. Examples of re-decomposition

Historical composition of the wordSynonymous words with t.zr. the previous state of the language Modern composition of the word Cognate words in modern language Reason for re-decomposition * about-vyaz-a-nn-ost-ivyaz-a-t, for-vyaz-a-t, knit-u, vyaz-a-n-yobjaz-a-nn -ost-obligation-a-tel-o, obligation-u-yu-s, obli-a-n- ?, obligationChange in the phonetic appearance of the word *in-roch-n-ypo-rock, in-rits-a-t, decide-ti ( speak ), from-speech, from-speech-violently- ?, depravity-n-ost- ?Changing the phonetic appearance of a word + breaking semantic relationships * len-t-yay- ?*ribbon ( lazy man ), laziness- ?lazy person- ?laziness- ?, len-i-t-sya, len-iv-y Loss of one of the related words from the language *ud-i-l-ish-e*ud-i-l-o - ( fishing rod stick ), ud-i-tud-i-lisch-eud-i-t, ud-point-a, ud-i-lschik- ?*o-be-strength*de-strength-e-t ( weaken ), strong-aobes-sil-e-tsil-a, strong-n-y*dust-in-k-a*dust-in-apyl-ink-apyl- ?, dust-n-y * snow-in-k-a * snow-in-asnezh-ink-asneg- ?, snow-n-y*o-no-harm-and-t*no-harm-and-no-harm-and-harm- ?, harm-n-y*alive-n-ost- ?*living, living, living- ?alive-oh, live*hot-yach-n-ost- ?*hotness-hotness- ?hot*not-up-to-you-slave-from-a-t*to-you-slave-from-a-tnedo-you-work-atv-work-a-t, work-a

2.3 Examples of complication and decorrelation

The table below (Table 3) gives examples of words whose stems have been complicated.

Table 3. Examples of complication

Historical composition of the wordSingle-structural and related. words that appeared in Russian. languageModern composition of the wordSynonymous words in modern languageThe reason for the complexity of the base *Agitation (German) agitation, agitation, agitator ?agitation [j] - [a] agitation, agitation-to-a, agitator-ator- ?Influence of related words * engraving (French) engraving, engraving ?grav-jur-a *delegation-a (lat.) delegate-at- ?, delegate-irova-tdeleg-atsij-adeleg-at- ?, delegate*umbrella- ?(Dutch) nose-hic- ?, mouth-hic- ?umbrella- ?umbrella- ?, umbrella-isch-eInfluence of single-structure words * flask-a (Polish) knife-k-a, knizh-k-aflyazh-k-flask-a, flask-echk-a

Examples of decorrelation: suf.: - a-, - i - ar-a-t, slow-i-t acquired a grammatical function in addition to word-formation. + suf.: - uch-, - yuch-, - ach-, - yach -, etc.).

Decorrelation in the verbs slow and zhuzhat led to the transformation of derivational suffixes - i-, - a-, with the help of which these verbs were formed from the adjective slow and the noun zhuzg, into simple indicators of verb classes.

2.4 Examples of substitution and diffusion

Substitution of stems represents the word witness - "eyewitness, a person who was a direct observer of any event or incident", in which the basis is view - (verb see)replaced the original one in the Old Russian language - vgyd - (vgydgti - "know"), cf. Old Russian. savg'dtel - "eyewitness, witness at trial").

The appearance of diffusion of morphemes in the word beskozyrka is peculiar. In the modern Russian literary language, this noun correlates with words without a visor and is included in the same word-formation series as the noun sleeveless, etc., according to which - to - in it should also be interpreted as belonging to the non-derivative base visor - visor , and as a subject suffix - k-, similar to the one that stands out completely freely in the word sleeveless.

In the verb kick there is an interpenetration of elements of the non-derivative stem пн and the suffix - well-, but it arose in it immediately, the uncontracted form nnut never existed. We observe the same diffusion, simultaneous with the process of word production, in the verb deceive, which arose, like the word kick, under the influence of perfective verbs na - nut from deceive (with the replacement of the suffix - and - by the suffix - well.

historical change word structure

Conclusion

Words in the process of their use often change not only their meaning and phonetic appearance, grammatical properties, nature and scope of application, but also their inherent word-formation structure. Processes such as simplification, re-decomposition, complication of the stem, decorrelation, diffusion and substitution of morphemes occur in a word as a result of one or another violation or, on the contrary, the establishment of direct relative connections between the derivative and the generating stems.

As a result, for example, of the complication of the stem, new root morphemes appeared, which, in turn, served as the basis for the emergence of nests of related words.

The meaning of a word, its material shell (phonetic or graphic appearance) and word-formation structure are always interconnected, and a change in any one of these components necessarily entails a transformation of others. In addition, words in a language do not exist in isolation, therefore any modification of the dictionary of a language of a certain period: the loss of a word from active use, the appearance of new words or new meanings of already existing linguistic units, etc. - can cause a variety of perturbations in the lexical composition of the language.

At the same time, when analyzing linguistic facts, it is necessary to clearly distinguish between the synchronic and diachronic aspects of language learning. With a synchronous approach language is studied as a certain organized system of means human communication, operating in a given period of time, The task of such a study is to describe the structure of language, to reveal the mechanism of its action. When studying synchronously, the question is not raised about why the language developed this way, what changes in previous periods led to its current state.

The goal of diachronic linguistics is the study of language as a product of historical development, the study of changes occurring in the language system over a given period of time. …Synchronic word formation studies the relationships of coexisting units, diachronic word formation studies the processes of transformation of one unit into another2 .

In order to successfully engage in etymological analysis, it is necessary to have at least minimal information on the history of the language. At the same time, establishing the original meaning of a word, elucidating changes in this meaning and their reasons is an extremely difficult question, which only scientists - philologists can handle. It requires the use of facts from related languages ​​and analysis of written monuments. Those who are not specifically engaged in etymological research turn to etymological dictionaries of the Russian language for reference.

Bibliography

1.Valgina N.S., Rosenthal D.E., Fomina M.I. Modern Russian language: Textbook / Edited by N.S. Valgina. - 6th ed., revised. and additional - M.: Logos, 2002. - 528 p.

2.Ginzburg E.L. Word formation and syntax. - M., 1979.

.Dmitriev I.K. About the Turkic elements of the Russian dictionary // "Lexicographic collection". - M., 1958. - Issue 3.

.Efremova T.F. Dictionary word-formation units of the Russian language. - M., 2006.

.Zemskaya E.A. Modern Russian language. Word formation. - M., 1973.

.Zemskaya E.A. Word formation as an activity. - M., 1992.

.Kostromina N.V., Nikolaeva K.A. and others. Russian language. Part 1. - M., 1989. P.15.

.Krongauz M.A. Prefixes and verbs in the Russian language: semantic grammar. - M., 1998.

.Kubryakova E.S. Types of linguistic meanings. Semantics of a derived word. - M., 1981.

.Lopatin V.V. Russian word-formation morphemics. Problems and principles of description. - M., 2007.

.Miloslavsky I.G. Questions of word-formation synthesis. - M., 2000.

.Nikolina N.A. Philological analysis of text: Textbook. aid for students higher ped. textbook establishments. - M.: Publishing center "Academy", 2003. - 256 p.

.Sverdlov L.G. About some verbal nouns // Etymological studies in the Russian language. ? M., 1963. - Issue. ?V .

.Ulukhanov I.S. Word-formation semantics in the Russian language and principles of its description. - M., 1997.

.Shansky N.M., Babaytseva V.V. and others. Modern Russian language. In 3 parts. 2nd ed., revised. and additional - M.: 1987.; Part 1 - 192 p., Part 2 - 256 p., Part 3 - 256 p.

.Etymological dictionary of the Russian language. - M., 1963 - 1965. - T.? . ? Issue 1, 2.

.Yakubinsky L.P. History of the Old Russian language. ? M., 1953.

.Yanko-Trinitskaya N.A. Formation of new words employment - employment // Questions of speech culture. ? M., 1961. - Issue 3.

Words in the process of their use often change not only their meaning and phonetic appearance, grammatical properties, nature and scope of application, but also their inherent word-formation structure. Processes such as simplification, re-decomposition, complication of the stem, decorrelation, diffusion and substitution of morphemes occur in a word as a result of one or another violation or, on the contrary, the establishment of direct relative connections between the derivative and the generating stems.

Simplification -a change in the morphological structure of a word, in which a derivative stem, previously broken up into separate significant parts, turns into a non-derivative, indivisible one. The word loses its ability to be divided into morphemes. This word-formation process is inextricably linked with the loss of the word’s previous semantic connections, as a result of which the word from the motivated name of this or that object of objective reality becomes unmotivated. In the process of simplification, 2 main steps can be noted - simplificationcomplete and incomplete. A complete simplification is the loss of the bases of words of their former ability to be divided into morphemes, as a result of which new non-derivative bases that have arisen at the base appear before us as pure roots. With incomplete simplification, new non-derivative stems still retain traces of their former derivation. Semantic and phonetic changes, archaization of related words should be mentioned as reasons causing the process of simplification.

For example: words cup and saucer are not perceived now as diminutives from bowl and dish (although this used to be the case), the word chasha in modern Russian is more often used in a related figurative meaning (to drink the cup of grief), and the word cup does not mean small bowl, having another derivative - cup. The same thing happened with the dish and saucer. Therefore, in the past, the derivatives cup and saucer, having lost the possibility of motivation, became unmotivated, underivative.

Re-decomposition - redistribution of morphemic material within a word while maintaining its derivative character. Words, while remaining compound, begin to be divided differently. For example, adjective friendly in modern Russian language is motivated by the word Friend and, therefore, has the suffix -estvenn-, whereas previously it was derived from the now lost word friendship and contained the suffix -enn-. The suffix -estv- merged with the suffix -enn- into one suffix - natural-. In the same way, by merging two adjacent suffixes: the suffix suffer. participle - t- and suffix of verbal noun. -iy-, one suffix -tiy- arose in words like development, occupation, taking.

Complication - transformation of a previously non-derivative base into a derivative. In the summary, the word, which at the time of its appearance in the Russian language had a non-derivative character, becomes divisible into morphemes. In most cases, the process of complicating the basics occurs in borrowed words. For example, words with the meaning of processes such as adaptation, agitation, approbation were borrowed into the Russian language as non-derivatives. However, with the appearance on Russian soil of related verbs in -irova(t), these words began to isolate in their composition the root and suffix -atsi-: adaptations - adapt, agitation - agitate.

Decorrelation - changing the nature or meaning of morphemes and their relationships in a word. Decorrelation does not lead to a change in the morphemic composition of the word as such. For example, decorrelation in the verbs slow and zhuzhat led to the transformation of the derivational suffixes -i-, -a-, with the help of which these verbs were formed from the adjective slow and the noun zhuzg, into simple indicators of verb classes. Very often, decorrelation leads to the appearance of free non-derivative bound bases in place. For example, the formerly free base pas- (reserve), bel- (squirrel) turned into bound. Decorrelation plays a role in the development of the word-formation system of the Russian language. important role. It captures a whole range of words belonging to the same structural type, therefore, there is a transformation of the word-formation system as a whole. (for example, words in -ba: walking, carving, etc.).