Morpheme parsing words (parsing a word by composition) begins with highlighting the stem and formative morphemes - the end and / or formative suffix (if any).
In this case, it is necessary to remember about j, which can be "hidden" in a jotted vowel after a vowel or separator mark... If it covers the stem of the word, it must be entered (impression). If this is not done, you can make a mistake in the composition of the suffix or not notice the suffix in the word at all. So, for example, in Russian there is no suffix -ni-, but there is a suffix -ni] -: to sing? - ni] -e. The word heavenly contains in its composition the suffix -j-, which is not expressed in any way at the literal level: under-heaven-es -] - e.
After that, the base of the word must be divided into the root (roots) and word-forming morphemes (if any). To do this, the root is highlighted in the word as a common part of related words, then what remains in the word is highlighted as a prefix (prefixes) and suffix (suffixes) in accordance with our ideas about whether there is such a suffix or such a prefix in Russian. But such analysis may lead to errors, in its procedure there is not enough substantiation. To avoid mistakes, morphemic parsing of the stem must be associated with word-formation parsing.
Morphemic parsing (parsing a word by composition)
When morphemic parsing of a word (parsing a word by composition), first, the ending and the formative suffix (if any) are highlighted in the word, the stem is emphasized.
Thereafter stem of a word breaks down into morphemes.
There are two opposing approaches to the morphemic division of the basis: formal-structural and formal-semantic.
The essence of the formal-structural morphemic analysis is that in the base, first of all, the root is distinguished as a common part of related words. Then, what goes to the root, the student should be aware of as a prefix (prefixes) in accordance with the student's ideas about whether he has encountered similar elements in other words. Likewise with suffixes. In other words, the main thing in the analysis is the effect of recognition by the student of morphemes, the external similarity of some parts different words... And this can lead to massive errors, the reason for which is ignoring the fact that the morpheme is a significant linguistic unit.
Errors in determining the root of a word are associated with the lack of distinction between the synchronous morphemic and historical (etymological) composition of the word. Errors in the selection of prefixes and suffixes are associated with the morpheme articulation algorithm - with the idea of ​​the majority of students about the word as a string of morphemes that must be "recognized" as already encountered in other words. An extreme expression of analyzes of this kind is cases of the type of key (cf. let-chik), I-schik (general). But even with a correctly defined root, very often one has to deal with an incorrect definition of the number and composition of prefixes and suffixes, if there are more than two of these morphemes in a word.
The formal-structural approach is opposed to the formal-semantic (formal-semantic) approach.
Main installation this approach and the morphemic parsing algorithm consist in the continuity of morphemic articulation and derivational parsing. The fact that this approach is expedient and even the only possible has been written by many scientists and methodologists for many decades.
The algorithm for the morphemic parsing of the stem consists in constructing a word-formation chain “vice versa”: prefixes and suffixes are, as it were, “removed” from the word, while the root is highlighted last. When parsing, it is constantly necessary to correlate the values ​​of the derivative and the values ​​of its producing; a productive basis in modern Russian is a motivating basis. If there is no relation of motivation between the meaning of the derivative and the meaning of the producing (in our view) word, the producing is chosen incorrectly.
Thus, the order of parsing a word by composition is as follows:

1. highlight the ending, the shaping suffix (if they are in the word);
2. highlight the basis of the word - a part of the word without endings and formative suffixes;
3. select a prefix and / or a suffix at the base of a word through the construction of a word-formation chain;
4. select the root in the word.

Examples:

1. carpentry

Sample reasoning:
carpentry - the initial (infinitive) form of the verb - carpentry; the verb is in the past tense indicative mood, which is expressed by the formative suffix -l-, masculine singular, which is expressed by the zero ending (compare: carpentry-and).
The basis is carpentry.
The verb carpentry is derived from the noun carpenter, motivated through it: carpentry - ‘to be a carpenter’; the difference between the base carpenter- and the carpenter is the suffix -, in the bases the alternation of c / h is presented.
Carpenter's noun modern language non-derivative, since it cannot be motivated through the word raft. Hence the carpenter is / carpenter root.
Thus, the word form carpenter has a zero ending with the masculine singular meaning, the form-forming suffix -л- with the meaning of the past tense of the indicative mood, the word-forming suffix -a with the meaning of being what is named in the motivating basis, the root carpenter-. The basis of the word is carpentry.
"carpenter, which is" hidden "in the letter e after the vowel. Therefore, this sound belongs to the stem, closes it. The stem of the word is dressing [y '] -.
The word dressing is derived from the verb dress: dressing is ‘the process of dressing; the same as to wear '. The difference between the basis of dressing- and the verb basis of dressing is the segment -ni [y '] -, which is a word-forming suffix.
The verb to dress is arbitrary from the verb to dress and has an imperfect meaning. Word formation means - suffix -va-.
The verb to put on is unproductive, but the language has verbs to split-to-child with the same root, but with different prefixes, therefore, we are dealing with the associated root -de- and the prefix o-.
Thus, the word form dressing has the ending -e with the meaning of the nominative or accusative singular, word-forming morphemes: the suffix -ni [y '] - with the meaning of an abstract action, the suffix -va- with the meaning of an imperfect form, the prefix o- and the associated root - de-. The basis of the word for dressing is.
Sample of writing:
dressing (noun)

1. Name part of speech.

Determine if the given word form changes or does not change.

2. Highlight ending(prove).

Change the word, set its meaning, indicate the way of expressing the ending (zero or materially expressed). Give examples of words with this ending.

3. Select the base.

Determine its composition and character: simple - complex, articulated - indivisible, intermittent or continuous.

4. Highlight suffixes.

To establish their meaning, function (derivational, formative, fundamental, evaluation), way of expression. Give examples of 2-3 words with the same suffixes.

5. Select prefixes.

Establish their meaning and function. Give examples of 2-3 words with the same prefixes.

6. Select the root.

Find related words and forms with all the allomorphs of the root, name these allomorphs. Indicate alternation at the root. Determine if the root is free or connected (prove).

7. Indicate whether there are changes in the morphemic composition of the word: in the composition of the root, prefix, suffix (simplification, decomposition, complication). Establish its cause.

Examples of morphemic word analysis

Waited ( beforerailway butl Ø Xia )

1. A verb, a variable word.
2. Waited but smitten, waited and smiling. Zero ending ( Ø ) indicates that the verb in m. p., in singular. h. Examples of words with the same ending: showed Ø Xia, laughed Ø Xia.
3. The foundation waited-Xia - simple, segmented, intermittent.
4. Suffix - but- - basic, suffix - l- - formative (meaning of past tense verbs), postfix - Xia- - derivational and formative. Examples of words with the same suffixes: bunch butlXia , swear butlXia .
5. Console before- - word-formation, denotes an action taken to the end. Examples of words with the same prefix: before rode, before walked before flew.
6. Root - railway - ; railway al - railway yeah - about Jew avshiy; -railway - //-railway "- //-Jew - - the root is free, because in the modern Russian language there is the word "wait", where the root is equal to the base.
7. There are no historical changes in the composition of the word.

Ring ( tolts about )

1. A noun, a variable word.
2. Rings but, ring ohm, oh ring e... Ending -about indicates that the noun cf. river, II store., in I. p. or V. p., in unit. h. Examples of words with the same ending: apples about, cloud about .
3. Word stem tolts- - simple, indivisible, continuous.
4. Root ring -; rings - rings - a ring; ring - //rings- //ringlets "- - the root is free, because in modern Russian there is a word" ring ", where the root is equal to the base.
5. There are changes in the morphemic composition of the word, historically it was: count b c about (related words were stake, well). Simplification. The reason is a change in phonetic structure language as a result of the fall of the reduced vowels and the loss of a motivated word.

Legend:

Ø - zero ending, - and- ending, ** ** - the base of the word, ** - suffix, Ø - zero suffix, *** - console, **** - root of the word: underpis chick Ø - underpis chick and .

Purpose of morpheme analysis(at school it is called parsing a word by composition) - identifying morphemic composition the words. As a result of morphemic analysis, we determine what morphemes a word consists of, what their meaning and function are.

To carry out morphemic analysis, you need to dismember a word in a certain sequence into morphemes. Analysis of the structure of a word must start from the end of the word. First of all, having established the belonging of a word to a certain part of speech, it is necessary to draw a conclusion about its mutability and immutability.

In the words to be changed, we highlight the ending (materially expressed or zero) - the variable part of the word and the stem. Immutable words do not have an end, therefore, their stem coincides with the word boundary.

Next, you need to determine the type of stem: derivative or non-derivative. If the stem is non-derivative, then it is equal to the root morpheme. Highlighting the root, we indicate its categorical meaning (feature, action, etc.). If the base is derivative, we find the generating base and by comparing them we isolate the affix, indicate its meaning, function. Using the criterion of G.O. Distiller, we select affixes until the producing base is non-derivative, that is, equal to the root. In other words, we establish a word-formation chain and gradually divide the word to the root.

In morphemic analysis, morphonological phenomena are also indicated if they are observed in the composition of the word in question. At the end of the parsing, a graphic representation of the morphemic composition of the word is given.

It is important to remember that the division of words into morphemes should always be meaningful, reasonable. Having seen a familiar morpheme, you cannot mechanically divide the word into its component parts. So, if in the structure of indefinite verbs the element -th is an ending, then in a noun elbow it is part of the root, and in brightness- in the composition of the suffix.

In the practice of school and university teaching of word formation, it is difficult to isolate the stem and ending in words ending in vowels e, e, y, i, and. Being at the end of a word after vowel and after b and b, iotated vowels e, e, y, i, and denote two sounds and can combine the stem [j] and the ending vowel.

ё -, at the end of a word after

yu -, vowel and after b and b

To accurately determine the boundaries between the stem and the ending above the iotated letter, you should write down its sound value and compare the form in question with other forms of the given word. Cm.:

luck ,

luck,

luck etc.

Comparing the forms, we find the common part luck-, which is the basis, and the variable parts of word forms -e, -a, -y will be endings.

The present and future tense forms of the verb are also analyzed, for example, work ... In the present tense, verbs change by person and number: work , work, work ... work... Expanding the iotated vowels, we compare the resulting forms:

work j-y ,

work j-eh,

work j-uh,

work j-ut etc.

Common part for all forms work j- there is a basis, and -y- the end of a word form work , since in other forms instead of -y find -esh, -ut etc.

Challenges and analysis possessive adjectives type hunting, fox, since their phonetic appearance is similar to the forms of adjectives such as prickly, rare... The above adjectives end in the sound complex - ui, but the boundaries between the base and the ending are different for them. Let's compare the forms of change in the cases of those and other adjectives.

prickly, hunting

prickly-his, hunting-ego,

prickly-him, hunting-emu,

prickly, hunting

prickly, hunting,

(oh) prickly, hunting.

When changing an adjective barbed in all forms, a common part is highlighted prickly, which is the basis, the changeable part th there is an ending. In adjective forms hunting a common part hunting j-- the foundation . In original form hunting the same base, only in front of the iota in the place of the zero sound there is a vowel of complete formation -and -: hunter and th... Ending in word form hunting zero.

The result of the morphemic analysis is as follows: prickly - prickly, hunting– hunting- So in forms like barbed sound complex th is an ending, and in possessive adjectives like hunting it is part of the basis, or to be more precise, -andj- (-j-) is a word-forming suffix indicating belonging to the one who is called the producing stem .

Order of morpheme analysis

1. Determine the part of speech of the analyzed word.
2. Determine if a word is mutable or immutable. If it changes, give several word forms.
3. Select the ending, characterize it by grammatical meaning, by function.
4. Select the base, determine its type: derivative or non-derivative.
5. By comparing the derivative and the generating bases, i.e. with the help of derivational analysis, sequentially select all morphemes from the end of the word.
6. Describe morphemes (root or affix; connected or free roots; word-forming or form-forming suffixes; materially expressed or zero morphemes; discontinuous or continuous morphemes, etc.).
7. Indicate morphonological phenomena, if any.
8. Graphically depict the morphemic composition of a word using the following symbols: - prefix, - root, - suffix, postfix, - interfix, - inflection, - word stem.

Morpheme Analysis Samples

But loneliness does not oppress, it is done freely; Nikitich, squinting, looked around - he knew: he was the only undivided master of this large white kingdom. (V. Shukshin)

Loneliness

1. Noun.
2. Variable part of speech. Changes in cases (does not change in numbers, since loneliness is the noun Singularia tantum). Wed: loneliness-oh, loneliness-a, loneliness-u.
3. -about- ending, has grammatical meaning I. p., Singular. The ending function is inflectional.
4. The foundation loneliness- derivative.
5. Manufacturing base - alone+ -estv-(the suffix, has the word-formation meaning "abstract sign-state", performs a word-forming function. In the process of word formation by means of -estv- there is an alternation of phonemes: ˂k // ch˃).
6. One-+ -OK-(the suffix has a word-formation meaning “characterized by a feature called a motivating word.” The function of the suffix is ​​word-forming).
7. Numeral one non-derivative.
8. Root - one-... The categorical meaning of the root is quantitative, since at the top of the word-formation nest there is the numeral one. The root is free.
9. Graphic image morphemic composition of the word: loneliness.

There have been mowing here for a long time. (V. Shukshin)

MORPHEMIC AND EDUCATIONAL
Parsing a word

T.A.ROCHKO

Morphemic and derivational parsing of a word are very close in terms of the methodology and are closely related to each other. However, in school practice- in most schools where education is conducted according to standard programs, too little attention is paid to word formation (only the methods of word formation are explained), so students remain in the dark about how the word formation process takes place and why it is generally necessary to know what word formation is.
Ideally, the study of the composition of the word, the study of the principles of combining morphemes into a word should serve to teach word creation and, in general, creative
language acquisition. In the fullest extent, this problem is solved by a team of authors who have created a textbook on the Russian language edited by M.V. Panova.
Students get acquainted with the morphemic analysis of a word back in primary school: when learning to read and write, you need to know what is the root in a given word in order to find a single-root test word; you need to be able to highlight the ending in order to form words correctly, etc. The entire study of the composition of a word is subject to "spelling", reproduction of ready-made "details" of the language.
From the elementary grades, students are taught to address the etymology of the word. The fact is that a large number of words in the Russian language are written according to the traditional principle, i.e. the explanation of their spelling lies deep in the history of the word. In addition, the search for distant relatives of the word, its "family" ties not only contributes to the memorization of its appearance, but also awakens interest both in the history of the language and in the language itself.
The ultimate goal of etymological analysis of a word is to find etymon(from the Greek. etymon- "truth") - the original meaning and form of the word. The study of the origin of a word is an extremely interesting activity, forcing children to look into such dictionaries as the "Dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language" by V.I. Dahl, "School etymological dictionary" by Shansky and Bobrov, "Etymological dictionary" by Vasmer, in dictionaries of foreign words.
For example, the word finger in modern language, non-derivative. IN Explanatory dictionary ed. D.N. Ushakov, we find an explanation: "The finger is one of the five movable end parts of the hand or foot of a person." In the dictionary of V.I. Dalia next to the word finger worth the word stick... In the explanatory article we read that the "movable end parts of the hands" were called earlier fingers and only the part that is opposed to the palm was called metaphorically finger in its resemblance to with a stick, apparently, a branch, a twig of a tree. Later all fingers renamed to fingers, but they forgot about the resemblance to sticks.
So, in the etymological analysis, we will single out the root -pal- familiar to us by words stick and pal-it-a(a huge club is a combat weapon of epic heroes). And in case of synchronous derivational and morphemic analysis, we will call the word non-derivative and select only the ending.
As we can see, there are connections in the language that go deep into the past. Such connections are studied diachrony(from the Greek. dia- "through, through", and chronos- "time"). But there are connections that exist now, here, they are fresh, understandable to any native speaker - these are modern connections, models, meanings. In contrast to diachrony, this aspect of the study of the state of language is called synchronic; synchronicity(from the Greek. synchronos- "simultaneous").
The most difficult part of studying how a word is formed is distinguishing between the living and historical connections of the word.
Do modern native speakers feel a kinship in words? pupil - keen-sighted - homeless - sight - sighted - contempt - oversight - shame - spectacle etc.? All of these words are associated with the concept of ‘see through the eyes’, ‘observe’ and have the root -view - / - sp-... But, apparently, it is still difficult for a modern person to put next to the words keen-sighted and a shame(formerly: ‘some action worth u-zr-et’). Therefore, if we feel and can confirm with etymological explanations the kinship between words that at the present stage of language development seem to be too far apart, it is imperative to explain in which aspect - synchronic or diachronic - we are considering words. Unfortunately, school teachers almost never specify the nature of the study of the word (and prefer diachrony, although by design the school course should be synchronous). In addition, the school teacher asks students more about the composition of the word, and not about the way of "creating the word", which is encrypted in it.
What is the difference between morphemic and derivational analysis?

Morphemic word analysis

Morpheme (from the Greek. morphe- "form") - one of the basic units of the language, often defined as the minimum sign, i.e. a unit in which a certain content (signified) is assigned to a certain phonetic form (signifier) ​​and which is divided into simpler units of the same kind.
To carry out a morphemic analysis of a word means to find out from which minimal significant units the word is composed, and to determine what the status of these constituent units is.
Morphemes are divided into two main groups: root and affixal (from lat. affixus- "attached"), i.e. those that attach to the root.
Root- the carrier of the basic lexical meaning of the word.
Roots are free, then they are found in the language in the form of an independent word without a derivational affix, i.e. with materially expressed or zero ending or without it, if the word has no grammatical form: fire, fiery, flint; game, play, toy; there, there; where, somewhere;
Metro.

Affixal morphemes are also divided into two groups: grammatical, or formative, affixes and derivational affixes.

Form-building affixes serve to form a word; these include endings, or inflections, and the so-called formative suffixes, for example, suffixes of the comparative degree of adjectives and adverbs :. Formative affixes are not included in the stem of the word, which is the guardian lexical meaning words, the pledge of the identity of the word to itself in case of any change in grammatical form.
However, the verb has two stems that serve as the basis for the formation of its different forms. One basis - basis of the present- serves as the basis for the formation of all forms of the present. time, the participle is valid. pledge present time, the participle of the passive voice of the present. vr., deypich. nonsov. kind, form of imperative mood.
The second base - past tense- serves as the basis for the formation of past tense forms, participles of actions. pledge last time. and the sacrament suffered. pledge last vr., deypich. owls. species, infinitive.
Thus, all affixes attached to one or another verb stem (for example, the past tense suffix -l-) are considered only as formative:

Among nouns and adjectives there are a number of words that are called unchangeable, for example, cinema, subway, pots, mufflers, karate; beige, bordeaux, avia, luxury etc. They have nothing to indicate the form in which they are used in the sentence. They have no ending. None! And zero too.

case forms to each other. When opposed, one form is reflected from another, signaling its existence and at the same time its meaning. The juxtaposition of one grammatical form with another is an important concept of grammar. There can be no grammatical form without opposition. And since it is not there, then there is nothing to indicate the ending. This is why immutable words have no ending.

« Pa - under, under, aftermath or humiliation, the lowest degree. " More examples of words with this prefix: ruin, pabedit(make trouble after trouble) , whelp(abusive address to someone who supposedly has not grown to a puppy), pavolna(round excitement after the storm, peg, swell), Pavoloka(fabric, than enveloping or dressing), pavorot(Return trip).
Console by- different from other prefixes, and from na- including, first of all, the derivational meaning that it introduces into the derivative, newly formed word.

Suffix located behind the root morpheme. And only one suffix is ​​located at the very end of the word, after all grammatical affixes, this is the suffix that forms reflexive verbs -sya / -s (studied, hid, lazy, failed to study, execute)... Its special location is a tribute to the past, the memory that it was once a pronoun (unstressed short version myself) and could even take any place in a sentence, not just after the verb. (This right is reserved for the word Xia in some Slavic languages, for example, in Polish.)
The number of prefix and suffix morphemes in the language is not only limited, but also small in comparison with the number of root morphemes.
In dictionaries, for example, in the "Dictionary of Russian morphemes" A.I. Kuznetsova and T.F. Efremova, morphemes, in particular, are presented in a separate list. The root list contains 4400 units, prefixes are about 34 units (many of them have variants, for example: -without- / without-, -from - / - iso-, -pod - / - sub- etc.; options were not considered separately). There are slightly more suffixes than prefixes, but much less than roots - about 500.
However, not all suffixes are equally active in modern Russian. Of the most active (or, as they are called, productive) suffixes are just a few:

The process of singling out a suffix in a word is complicated by the fact that in Russian it is impossible to “mechanically apply” one morpheme to another. At the junction of morphemes, there are processes associated with phonological restrictions on the combination of certain sounds. For example: 1) alternation of phonemes bake - bake
<к>/<ч>, love - love<бл’>/<б’>, circle - surround<г>/<ж> etc.; 2) an additional phoneme or a group of phonemes appears, which serve as "shock absorbers" when connecting morphemes with each other, compare: bor-ets, creator-ets and zh- (l) -ets, pe- (v) -ets; sugar-n-th, road-n-th and highway- (j) -n-th, coffee- (j) -n-th; seeker and in-places-and- (l) -isch-e; gatekeeper and movie- (w) -nik, domino- (w) -nik.
What is in parentheses is called differently by different scientists. Some suggest the term submorph(from lat. sub- ‘under’, i.e. non-main, non-main morpheme element, or something morpheme-like); others suggested the term interfix(literally: attached between morphemes; lat. inter- 'between').
Some linguists include an additional sound element in the suffix, so several unambiguous suffixes are obtained, cf., for example, -shnik- (petau-shnik) and -nik- (worker-nickname)... But the bearer of the basic meaning, 'the name of the person', is still the element Nick-, i.e. the one that is in all words with a given derivational meaning. We propose to call this meaningless (desemantized, asemantic) element submorph and enclose it in parentheses in order to more clearly highlight the main, significant suffix.
The fact is that the term interfix scientists proposed to name the element that is well known to schoolchildren under the name of the connecting vowel, for example, in the words: sea-food, sheep-bull, house-o-build etc. For scientists considering a chain of morphemes combined into a word, it is important to single out the meaning-forming elements and somehow designate the "interlocking", insignificant elements, and it does not matter: they stand between two roots or between a root and a suffix: ancient Russian, there-o- (w) -n... And a schoolboy who has long been familiar with the connecting vowel and has just learned about the existence of "interfixes" does not care - for him these elements are different. Let be interfix remains behind the vowels about and e : snow-o-move, empty-o-crap, false witness, kraj-e-ved, ard-e-purifier.
In some words, it is difficult to find a connecting vowel in a word, since it coincides, merges with a part of the word due to its euphony: meter about bridge, dost about remarkableness... Sometimes the interfix is ​​difficult to find because the whole part of the word is "lost" - usually the syllable. This phenomenon in linguistics is called haplology(from the Greek. haploos- simple, logos- word, teaching) - the loss of one or two immediately following identical or similar syllables: standard bearer> standard bearer; Lermontov expert> Lermontov expert; tragicomedy> tragicomedy; pinkish> pinkish.
If the first part compound word numeral, then the ending of the numeral also plays the role of an interfix:
Sometimes scientists distinguish another morpheme unit - confix(from lat. co (n)- ‘s, together’): under -...- nick (window sill, cup holder), for -...- j- (district, zagorje).
In addition, there are morphemes that are not repeated in the language, but stand out as such, because the other parts of the word are definitely morphemes: glass-tier, mel-yuzg-a, pocht-amt, boy-ugan... Such morphemes are called unifixes(unique, unrepeatable).
So, the main morphemes are named. How do you find them in a word?
The correct establishment of the boundaries between morphemes is determined by considering a word (or its form, i.e. word form) in the series of structures of the same type (one-root and one-affix).

A complete morphemic analysis assumes that we have established the form and meaning of each element. In obvious cases, any schoolchild can cope with morphemic analysis, but there are cases that are not easy even for professionals, and then the student is left with only one thing - to use reference literature and refer to authority.

Word-formation analysis

Only children are constantly engaged in the creation of words. For an adult native speaker - if he is not a linguist or a poet - the word is a psychologically unchanging given: it does not need to be created, although it can be analyzed. Therefore, morphemic analysis is perceived by a non-specialist as something natural, and word-formation (the purpose of which is to restore the process of the emergence of a word in a language and to understand whether the mechanisms that allow it to be recreated are still alive in modern language) is like a strange mental gymnastics.
The very idea of ​​derivational analysis is based on the idea that one word can form another. Let's say there is a verb in the language learn; take away from him -th(suffix containing information that this is a verb in the infinitive form); add a suffix with the meaning "a person performing an action called this verb"; make a noun teacher... Since the language is a frugal system, it is usually the same word-formation model used in it repeatedly. The words were formed according to the same pattern sculptor, reader, connoisseur, keeper and many others.
The theory of word formation allows not only to analyze existing words, but also to predict the appearance of new words. Word-formation analysis should underlie the morphemic (and not vice versa, as some schoolchildren think): after all, the existence of a special suffix -tel- with the meaning "a person performing an action called a given verb", scientists guessed by comparing pairs of words like teach - teacher, read - reader.
Word formation studies derivatives and compound words in the dynamic ("how words are made") and in the static ("how they are made") aspects, which was discovered by the Russian linguist Professor L.V. Shcherboy. Hence, there are two sections of word formation: diachronic (historical) and synchronic (modern). There is a point of view that word formation is always diachronous (ON Trubachev).
E.A. Zemskaya called her work on synchronic word formation "Word formation as an activity": this work proves that not only children and poets, but all of us in speech often re-create words already existing in the language.

The basic concepts of derivational analysis are as follows:
Non-derivative stem- the stem of a word that is not derived from anything, for example, sea, blue, run, sleep, still.
Derived base- such a framework that includes original, or producing, basis(which can be both derivative and non-derivative and from which the word is derived) and word-formative means(derivational affix).
Word formation meaning- an increase in the meaning of a derived word compared to the original.
Ways of word formation. First of all, these are ways affix:


Conversion- a way of word formation, consisting in the transition of a word from one part of speech to another: favorite children (ex.) - favorite film (adj.); vacationer from labors (acc.) - a beach for vacationers(noun); workers materials (adj.) - working and kolkhoz woman (noun)
Composition- a way of word formation, consisting in the morphological combination of two or more roots (stems).

By the method of connecting roots or stems in a complex word, a connection without a connecting vowel (i.e. without an interfix) and with a connecting vowel is distinguished.
For example:

a) the stem is attached to the whole word using an interfix: self-o-yo, sin- (e) -green;

c) compound words when truncating the first component of a compound word: caretaker(Head of the household), collective farm(collective farm), electoral commission(election Committee);

d) abbreviation - a word consists of the initial letters of a long name: Moscow Art Theater- Moscow Art Academic Theater, NEP- new economic policy, registry office- registration of acts of civil status.

The next important concept of word formation is word-formation model(i.e. the way of word formation in combination with word formation meaning). But the set of derivative words in which the same word-formative meaning is expressed by the same word-formative means is called derivational type... For example, the words salad bowl, pincushion, candy bowl, soap dish, cigarette bowl, macaroni bowl unites the general word-formation meaning “a noun is derived from a noun; denotes the name of the container where what is called the original basis is stored ", and the same word-formation means - the suffix -nits-.

Word formation chain... If the original (generating) stem of a word is a derivative, then you can find from which word it is itself formed. The result is a word-formation chain. For example, bluish< from blue(suf. cn.) < подсинить (suf. cn.) < синить (prefix cn.) < from blue(suf. cn.). To find the stem of a derivative word, you need to find a simpler word through which you can explain it. This criterion is called Vinokur criterion(named after G.O. Vinokur, who was the first to suggest using it). For example, the words understand, achieve will be considered non-derivative in modern language. Meanwhile, in the above words, the prefix and the root are easily distinguished if we abandon semantic derivation and analyze only formal correspondences (cf. borrow, comprehend). In this case, we can talk about a partial simplifying the basics.
If a word does not lend itself to explanation through a simpler, root word, it cannot be considered a derivative at the synchronic level, even if one of its sound complexes is very similar to a prefix or suffix. For example, the word comely can be interpreted as ‘beautiful, cute, pleasant’, but not as ‘suitable for something, suitable for something’, if you isolate the prefix in it with the meaning of approximation, attachment and the root - - ‘good, good’, i.e. ‘Suitable for some kind of work, business’. In explaining this word, we took a diachronic approach. Such "excursions" to the etymology should be specially stipulated when parsing a word.
Vinokur's criterion is not accepted by everyone. The logic of reasoning can be as follows.
Let's try to define articulation into morphemes (derivation) of words such as raspberry, mountain ash, buckthorn, viburnum... These words have a lot in common: 1) they name berry bushes and berries that grow on them; 2) have a common phonemic complex -in- in the end of the basis. It is necessary to determine: is their base a derivative? Let us assume that this is so. Then we can explain these words through a simpler single-root word, since the remaining after the allocation of the "suffix -in- The part of the word must be a root:

berry (?). Explanations, you see, are ridiculous. In modern Russian, it is impossible to interpret the meaning of these words through their constituent morphemes. Only the whole word has meaning. Hence, these words are non-derivative.

Using the Vinokur criterion, i.e. choosing a simpler single-root word, one can explain the division into morphemes of such, for example, words: black-and-a- black berry; red-hik- red mushroom, grouse- a variegated, speckled bird, slingshot- a horned stick, with bifurcated ends, like the horns of an animal, thimble- the item to be worn
on a finger, a finger to protect against needle pricks,
lane-in-a- a sleeping bag stuffed with something soft, including a feather , covering-l-o- a fabric that covers something on top), whip- a fence made of flexible branches, under-aspen-ov-uk- a mushroom that grows most often under aspen trees, vocabulary- a book where the interpretation of words is given, mitten- what is put on the hand, disguise-irova-th-Xia- hide, take cover, as if under a mask, ice cream- a delicious sweet mixture that has been frozen, etc.

Using Vinokur's criterion, we find a simpler word, a link in a chain of derived words:

Observing successively the links of the word-formation chain, we discover and mark the synchronous ways of word formation. Often, however, the chain of sequences can be built in different ways, for example:

hurry -> hasty -> haste -> unhurried
or
rush -> hurry up -> hurried -> unhurried -> unhurried,
make holes -> make holes -> make holes
or
perforate -> perforate -> perforate,
fast ® fast ® fast
or
fast -> fast -> fast.

In such cases, in word-formation analysis, one derivative can have two or even three initial or productive stems. A.I. Kuznetsov and T.F. Efremov in the preface to the "Dictionary of Russian morphemes" cite as proof of such cases the remarkable words of F. Shimkevich, the author of "The root word of the Russian language, compared with all the main Slavic dialects and with 24 foreign languages" (St. Petersburg, 1842): "Each judges in his own way; but whoever has pleased everyone has not yet been born. "
E.A. Zemskaya following G.O. Distiller proposes such a way of presenting a word so that both the methods of word formation and the morphemic composition of the word become transparent. This method is carried out using different types of curly braces. At the same time, the largest number of different brackets enclose the initial stage of the formation of a word, and outside the brackets - grammatical affixes.
Word structure hierarchy airplane can be portrayed this way ((self- + -o + -years-) -n-) + th... This entry is read like this: the word airplane formed in a suffix way from the stem plane, which itself is formed by adding the foundations myself and years(fly) with a connecting vowel about.

Teacher: ((teacher- + -tel) + -nit-) + -a;
collective farmer: ((collective- + -khoz-) + -nik);
premium: (pre- + (mind- + -n-)) + -th;
rewriting: [((re- + rewriting-) + -yva-) + -nij-] + -e.

Compare how much shorter this type of writing the sequence of word formation is than the usual: write -> rewrite -> rewrite -> rewritej (e).

To parse a word according to its composition or to make its morphemic analysis means to indicate which morphemes it consists of. The morpheme is understood as the minimum significant part of the word.

The following morphemes exist in Russian:

• root is the most main part words that carry its meaning. Root words have a common root. For example, the words "leaf", "leaf" and "foliage" have a common root - "leaf". There are words that consist only of the root - "mushroom", "metro", "island". It happens that there are two roots - "ship", "waterfall". It happens that there are three roots - do not be afraid - "water and mud baths". Repeat the rule that applies to connecting vowels, so as not to make mistakes when writing them;
• suffix is ​​the significant part of the word. It is usually located after the root. Used to form new words. For example, in the word "teapot", "tea" is the root, "nick" is the suffix. There may be no suffixes in a word. Sometimes there are two suffixes - for example, in the word "boletus";
• the prefix is ​​another significant part of the word. Located in front of the root. The purpose is the same as that of the suffix - with its help new words are formed. In the word "suitable" "move" is a root, "under" is a prefix;
• The ending is a variable part of the word. What is it for? To link words in a sentence;
• The stem is a part of a word without an ending.

Each part of the word has a graphic designation. You can see how parts of a word are indicated in a textbook on the Russian language, in a morpheme dictionary or on the Internet.

Rules and exceptions for parsing by composition

Parsing a word online is easy if you know the rules by which it is done. At the initial stage, you can use the morphemic-spelling dictionary - it will help you not to make mistakes.

It is imperative that the word contains only the root - one or more. There are no words without a root. There are no words without a foundation. But there are very many words without suffixes, prefixes or endings. This shouldn't come as a surprise.

It often happens that the whole word represents the stem. This happens, for example, with adverbs. They refer to unchangeable parts of speech. The word "quickly" has no ending (the "o" in the word is a suffix), and therefore the whole word will be the basis.

Tikhonov's word-formation dictionary will help the student in conducting morphemic analysis. This textbook contains information on the composition of 100 thousand words of the Russian language. The dictionary is easy to use and should become your reference book during elementary school.

Those who have Internet skills will helpful resources, on which you can make a morphemic parsing of a word online. Train if your Russian language lessons at school are not enough for you.

A short cheat sheet (outline) on morphemic word parsing

Morphemic parsing consists of the following steps:

1. Determine which part of speech the word belongs to. To do this, you need to ask him a question. Take the word "trip" as an example. It answers the question "what?"
2. First of all, you need to find the ending in the word. To do this, you need to change it several times. Let's change it several times - “before the trip”, “during the trip”. We see that the changing part is "a". This is the ending.
3. The parsing of the word by composition continues with the definition of the root. Let's pick up the same root words - "train", "crossing". Let's compare these words - part of the "rides" does not change. This is the root.
4. We find out what the prefix is ​​in the word. To do this, we analyze once again the same root words - "train", "entrance". Accordingly, in the word "trip" the prefix "by".
5. The final stage- this is finding out where the suffix is ​​in the word. Remains the letter "k", which stands after the root and serves to form a word. This is the suffix.
6. We designate all parts of the word with the corresponding symbols.