Modern approaches to the classification of world languages. Classification of languages \u200b\u200bPrinciples of the classification of languages \u200b\u200bof the world (genealogical, typological, argeological, functional, cultural and historical classification)

Consider the origin of the languages: when the number of languages \u200b\u200bwas small. These were the so-called "protofists". Over time, the protofists began to spread along the ground, each of them became the attorney of their linguistic family. Language family is the largest unit of classification of the language (nations and ethnic groups) on the basis of their linguistic relationship.

Next, the generics language families Unlocked on language groups languages. Languages \u200b\u200bthat occurred from one language family (that is, there were from one "proto language") referred to as the "language group". Languages \u200b\u200bwith one language group retain a lot of common roots, have a similarity of grammatical system, phonetic and lexical coincidences. Now there are more than 7,000 languages \u200b\u200bfrom more than 100 language language families.

Linguists have established more than one hundred major linguistic language families. It is assumed that the linguistic families are not related to each other, although there is a hypothesis about the single origin of all languages \u200b\u200bfrom a single language. The main language families are shown below.

As can be seen from the list of ~ 45% of the earth's population speaks in the languages \u200b\u200bof the Indo-European family of languages.

Language groups of languages.

Further, the genericants of language families broke up into language groups of languages. Languages \u200b\u200bthat occurred from one language family (that is, there were from one "proto language") referred to as the "language group". The languages \u200b\u200bof one language group have many coincidences in the roots of words, in grammatical strict and phonetics. There is a smallest division of groups on the subgroups.

Indo-European Language Family is the most common language family in the world. The number of natives of the languages \u200b\u200bof the Indo-European family exceeds 2.5 billion people who live on all the dwelling continents of the Earth. The languages \u200b\u200bof the Indo-European family occurred as a result of the consistent decay of the Indo-European Praäthazy, which began about 6 thousand years ago. Thus, all the languages \u200b\u200bof the Indo-European family come from a single Pyranceo European language.

Indo-European family includes 16 groups, including 3 dead groups. Each group of languages \u200b\u200bcan be divided into subgroups and languages. The table shown below does not indicate the smallest division on the subgroups, as well as absent dead Languages and groups.

The classification of languages \u200b\u200bexplains the reason for the difficulty of learning foreign languages. The carrier of the Slavic language, which belongs to the Slavic group of the Indo-European family of languages, is easier to learn the language slavic GroupThan the language of another group of Indo-European family, such as the languages \u200b\u200bof the Romanesque Group (French) or the German Group of Languages \u200b\u200b(English). It is even more difficult to explore the language of another language family, for example, Chinese language, which is not included in the Indo-European family, and refers to the Sino-Tibetan family of languages.

Choosing foreign language For study, guided practical, and more often the economic side of the case. To obtain well-paid work, choose such in demand languages \u200b\u200bas English or German.

Audio Course Voxbook will help you in learning English

Additional materials on language families.

Below is the main language families and languages \u200b\u200bincluded in them. Indo-European language family is disassembled above.

Sino-Tibetan (Sino-Tibetan) Language family.

Sino-Tibetan is one of the largest language families in the world. Includes more than 350 languages \u200b\u200bspeaking more than 1200 million people. Sino-Tibetan languages \u200b\u200bare divided into 2 groups, Chinese and Tibeto-Burmese.
● Chinese group forms chinese and its numerous dialects, the number of native speakers of more than 1050 million people. Distributed in China and beyond. and minsk Languages with the number of native speakers of more than 70 million people.
● The Tibeto Burmese group includes about 350 languages, with the number of carriers of about 60 million people. Distributed in Myanmar (former Burma), Nepal, Bhutan, Southwestern China and Northeast of India. Basic languages: Burmese (up to 30 million speakers), Tibetan (more than 5 million), Karensky languages \u200b\u200b(more than 3 million), manipuri (more than 1 million) and others.

Altai (hypothetical) Language family includes Turkic, Mongolian and Tunguso-Manchurian language groups. Sometimes they include Korean and Japanese-Ryukyan language groups.
● Turkic language group - widespread in Asia and Eastern Europe. Number of speaking more than 167.4 million people. They are divided into the following subgroups:
· Bulgarian subgroup: Chuvashsky (Dead - Bulgarian, Khazar).
· Ogzovskaya subgroup: Turkmen, Gagauz, Turkish, Azerbaijani (Dead - Oguz, Pechenezhsky).
· Cypchak subgroup: Tatar, Bashkir, Karaites, Kumyksky, Nogai, Kazakh, Kyrgyz, Altai, Karakalpak, Karachay-Balkarsky, Crimean-Tatar. (Dead - Polovtsy, Pechenezhsky, Goldenopa).
· Carluk subgroup: Uzbek, Uygur.
· East Hong subgroup: Yakutsky, Tuvinsky, Khakassky, Shorsky, Karagassky. (Dead - Aarhon, Oldugurian.)
● Mongolian linguistic group includes several close-friendly Mongolia, China, Russia and Afghanistan. Includes modern Mongolian (5.7 million people), Khalha-Mongolian (Halha), Buryat, Khamnigan, Kalmyk, Oyratsky, Shira-Yugur, Mongor, Baoan-Dongskinsky Cluster, Mogoliy - Afghanistan, Dagur (Dakhur) languages.
● Tungus-Manchurian language group related languages \u200b\u200bin Siberia (including Far East), Mongolia and the North of China. Number of carriers 40 - 120 thousand people. Includes two subgroups:
· The Tungus subgroup: Evenki, Evenksky (Lamutsky), Ungidal, Nanaja, Udseisky, Ulch, Orochsky, Udahesky.
· Manchurian subgroup: Manchurian.

Languages \u200b\u200bof Austronesian Language Family are common in Taiwan, Indonesia, Java - Sumatra, Brunei, Philippines, Malaysia, East Timor, Oceania, Kalimantane and Madagascar. This is one of the largest families (the number of languages \u200b\u200bover 1000, the number of accelerating over 300 mil. People). Are divided into the following groups:
● Western Austronesian Languages
● Languages \u200b\u200bEastern Indonesia
● Oceanian languages

AFRAZY (or Semit Hamitskaya) Language Family.

● Semis Group
· Northern subgroup: Aisa.
· South Group: Arabic; Amhar and others.
· Dead: Aramaic, Akkadsky, Phoenician, Khannei, Hebrew (Hebrew).
· Hebrew (revived official language Israel).
● Kushitskaya Group: Galla, Somalia, Besja.
● Berber Group: Tuareg, Cabil, etc.
● Chadskaya Group: House, Guvandara DR.
● Egyptian group (dead): Ancient Egyptian, Coptic.

The languages \u200b\u200bof the pre-European population of the Industan Peninsula:
● Dravidian group: Tamil, Malayam, Cannar.
● Andhra Group: Teleuga.
● Central Indian Group: Gondi.
● Brahui language (Pakistan).

Japanese-Ryukyu (Japanese) Family of languages \u200b\u200bare common in the Japanese archipelago and on the Islands of Ryuku. Japanese is an isolated language that is sometimes referred to as a hypothetical Altai family. The family includes:
· Japanese and dialects.

Korean language family is represented by one single language - Korean. Korean is an isolated language that sometimes attribute a hypothetical altai family. The family includes:
· Japanese and dialects.
· Ryukyan languages \u200b\u200b(Amami-Okinawsky, Sakisimsky and Jonagun language).

Tai Cadai (Thai-Kadai, Dong Thai, Parakaya) The family of languages \u200b\u200bis common in the Indochina Peninsula and in the surrounding areas of South China.
● Liules Lee (Guy (Lee) and Jiamao) Thai languages
· Northern subgroup: Northern dialects of the Zhuang language, Bui, SEC.
· Central subgroup: Tai (THO), Nung, southern dialects of the Zhuang language.
· South-Western subgroup: Thai (Siamese), Lao, Shansky, Khamti, Assky, Languages \u200b\u200bof black and white Tai, Yuan, Lians, Khyn.
● Dong-Shui Languages: Dun, Shui, Mac, Ten.
● B.
● Kadai Languages: Lakua, Lati, Galaio languages \u200b\u200b(North and South).
● Liules Lee (Lee (Lee) and Jiamao)

The Ural Language Family includes two groups - Finno-Ugorskaya and Selfie.
● Finno-Ugric Group:
· Baltic-Finnish subgroup: Finnish, Izhora, Karelian, Veps, Estonian, Water, Liv Languages.
· Volga subgroup: Mordovian, Mariy language.
· Perm subgroup: Udmurt, Komi-Zyryansky, Komi-Permytsky and Komi-Yazvinsky.
· Ugric subgroup: Khanty and Mansiysk, as well as Hungarian.
· SAMA subgroup: languages \u200b\u200bon which Saama say.
● Self-language languages \u200b\u200bare traditionally divided into 2 subgroups:
· Northern subgroup: Nenets, Nganasan, and Other languages.
· Southern subgroup: Selkup.

Linguistics is engaged not only by studying the languages \u200b\u200bof the world, but also their classification. Language classification is the distribution of world language languages \u200b\u200bon the basis of certain signs, in accordance with the principles underlying the study.

There are different classifications of languages. The main are:

• - genealogical (genetic), based on the concept of language relationship;
• - typological (morphological), based on the concept of structural similarity of languages;
• - Geographic (AREAL).

The genealogical classification is based on the concept of linguistic relationship, and typological classification - on the concept of similarity languages.

The purpose of the genealogical classification of languages \u200b\u200bis to determine the place of a given language in the circle of related languages, to establish its genetic connections. The main method of research is the comparative historical, the main classification category is the family of languages \u200b\u200b(also branch, group, subgroup).

The purpose of the typological classification of languages \u200b\u200bis to establish language types at different levels - phonetic, morphological, syntax.

Related languages \u200b\u200bare subject to study in comparative historical linguistics. The relationship of languages \u200b\u200bis manifested in their systematic material similarity, i.e. In the similarity of the material from which the exponents of morpheme and words, identical or loved ones are constructed. For example, Dr. ind. Kas Tava Sunus.? or T. Kas Tavo Sunus?Such similarities cannot be random. It indicates the relationship of languages. The presence of common morpheme speaks of the general origin of languages.

Rodance of languages \u200b\u200bis the material proximity of two or more languages, manifested in sound and meaningful similarity and language elements different levels - words, roots, morpheme, grammatical forms, etc. Related languages \u200b\u200bare characterized by material proximity inherited from the epoch of their linguistic unity.

Genetic learning of languages \u200b\u200bis the study of languages \u200b\u200bin terms of their origin: the presence / absence of kinship or greater / less kinship. Recognition of kinship languages \u200b\u200bassumes that related languages \u200b\u200bare "descendants" of one common language (PRAYAZKA, BASES Language). The team of people who spoke in this language in a certain era was collapsed due to certain historical reasons, and each part of the team has changed "according to its independent isolated development", as a result of which they were formed independent languages.

A large or less degree of kinship depends on how long a division of languages \u200b\u200boccurred .. The longer the languages \u200b\u200bdeveloped themselves, the further they "moved" from each other, the more distant the relationship between them.

During the centuries, related languages \u200b\u200bhave undergone significant changes. As a result, there were much more discrepancies in these languages \u200b\u200bthan general traits.

The phonetic appearance of words is changing. Phonetic changes are systemic, legiturated, as a result, strict phonetic correspondences are observed. For example, lat. Corresponds to it. [H]: Caput (Head) - HAUPT; Cornu (Horn) - Horn; Collis (neck) - hals. The fact of the presence of a system of natural sound correspondence is the most evident in the establishment of kinship of languages. Sound compliances reflect the regular nature of sound transformations of language units.

Related languages \u200b\u200bhaving one common "ancestor" form language seven.. For example, an Indo-European family of languages \u200b\u200bhas an Indo-European language-foundation as a language, which collapsed to dialects, gradually turning into independent languages, related to each other. Indo-European Praävik is not recorded in written monuments. The words and forms of this language can only be reduced (reconstructed) by scientists based on the comparison of related languages. Restored form - Praform, archetype. It is marked with * (asterisk), for example: * nevos. - Pressure for words: English. newlat. novus., TAX. nau, it. neu., arm. nOR., Russian. new. Language learning kinship genealogic typological

To recreate the ancient appearance of this word, the most rational choice is the choice of Greek and Latin forms, allowing reconstructing archetype * NEVOS. When comparing words and forms, it is always preferred by the languages \u200b\u200bof an older formation.

The material similarity of languages \u200b\u200bis not always obvious. Sometimes words, very hopeful on sound, are bound by natural complex phonetic correspondences and, therefore, are genetically identical, for example, Russian. child And it. Kind.(K\u003e H).

Comparison of related languages \u200b\u200bis carried out with the help of a comparative historical method.

Reliable testimony of kinship of languages \u200b\u200bare common grammatical forms. They, as a rule, are not borrowed upon contact with the languages.

In most cases, it is not about complete comparability, but on regular correspondences in a phonam composition of morpheme with close semantics.

It is necessary to strive for comparison to cover the maximum volume of words and a large circle of languages.

The most productive and methodologically correct is not a direct comparison of the morph of the languages, but the design of hypothetical praforms: if we assume that these languages \u200b\u200bare related, then for each row, semantically related morph of these languages \u200b\u200bshould have existed in the language of the Prauza to which they all go beyond. Therefore, it is necessary to show that there are rules according to which it is possible to explain the transition from some prames to all existing moofhems in these languages. So, instead of direct comparison of Russian ber.- and its analogues in other languages \u200b\u200bare assumed that there was a form in Pyranceo European language * bher, which, according to certain laws, passed into all the formations witnessed in the possession languages.

The comparative historical method uses reconstruction. Reconstruction is a complex of receptions and procedures for recreating unnecessary language states, forms, phenomena by historical comparison of the relevant units of a separate language, groups or family of languages.

The main meaning of reconstruction consists in the most adequate and consistent disclosure of phased development and the historical change in private subsystems and systems in general languages \u200b\u200bascending to one ancestor.

Some Language Phenomena of the General Language Basics may be preserved in one group of related languages, and in the other may disappear. The preserved language phenomena - relics allow you to restore the initial picture of the ancestor language. The absence of such relics makes it difficult to work comparativists.

Those language phenomena that appear in the language later are called innovation.

In recent decades, a new method has become used to determine the degree of kinship of languages, which allows us to determine how to determine how or other languages \u200b\u200bhave long been separated. This method is the GLOTHROMOLOGY proposed by the American linguist M. Svalchy. The Method of Glotchronology is based on the following assumptions. In the vocabulary of each language there is a layer that makes up the so-called basic dictionary. The vocabulary of the main dictionary is used to express the simple, necessary concepts. These words should be presented in all languages. They are in the smallest degree of change in the course of history. The main dictionary is updated very slowly. The speed of such an update is constant for all languages. This fact is used in the GLOTSHONOLOGY. It has been established that the vocabulary of the main dictionary is replaced at a rate of 19-20% in the millennium, i.e. Of each 100 words of the main dictionary through the millennium, approximately 80 is stored. This was established by estimates on the material of languages \u200b\u200bhaving a long test history.

For glott-chronological studies, the most important part of the main dictionary is used. Take 200 units - 100 main, or diagnostic, and 100 additional. The main lexical units include words as hand, leg, moon, rain, smoke, in additional dictionary - such words as bad, lip, bottom.

For. To determine the time of the divergence of two languages, it follows for each of them to make lists of 200 words of the main dictionary, i.e. give equivalents of these words in these languages. Then it is necessary to find out how many steam semantically identical words from two such lists can be considered relatives associated with regular phonetic correspondences. Lists, we get a doubled word difference.

Examination on linguistics on the topic:

"Languages \u200b\u200bof the world: classification and methods of study"

Plan

1. Basic classification of world languages

2. Typological classification of languages: languages \u200b\u200bof analytical and synthetic system

3.Gamealog classification

a) Comparative historical method in linguistics

b) the question of the doodine of Europeans

4. Language families, branches and groups in the modern world

5. Essence of Indo-European languages

Bibliography

1. Main classification of world languages

Currently, the land has 3 to 5 thousand languages. The difference is associated with the difference in dialects and languages, secondly, with the definition of the range and the field of use, thirdly with the assessment of the "vitality" of the language.

Multiplicity of languages \u200b\u200bcauses the need to classify. In modern linguistics, 4 classifications have been developed:

1) Areal (geographical)

2) Functional

3) typological (morphological)

4) genealogic

The first is based on the study of the language map of the world. Describes the borders of distribution.

The second is based on the study of the functions and areas of language use (cultural, diplomatic, education language, etc.)

The most important are typological and genealogical classification.

2. Typological classification of languages: languages \u200b\u200bof analytical and synthetic system

The second direction is working out the typological (morphological) classification of languages \u200b\u200bbased on the data of morphology, regardless of genetic or spatial proximity, based exceptionally on the properties of the language structure. The typological classification of languages \u200b\u200bseeks to cover the material of all languages \u200b\u200bof the world, reflect their similarities and differences and at the same time to identify the possible language types and the specifics of each language or group of typologically similar languages, while relies on data not only morphology, but also phonology, syntax, semantics.

The basis for the inclusion of the language to the typological classification of languages \u200b\u200bis the type of language, that is, the characteristics of the fundamental properties of its structure. However, the type is not implemented in the language absolutely; In each language, several types are represented in each language, that is, each language is polipological. Therefore, it is appropriate to say, to what extent in the structure of this language there is one or another type; At this reason, attempts are made to give a quantitative interpretation of the typological characteristics of the language.

The following typological classification of languages \u200b\u200bis most adopted:

insulating (amorphous) type - unchangeable words in the grammatical significance of the order of words, weak contrast of significant and service roots (for example, Ancient Chinese, Vietnamese, Yoruba);

agglutinizing (agglutinative) type - a developed system of unambiguous affixes, the absence of grammatical alternations in the root, the word-byfection for all words belonging to one part of speech, a weak bond (presence of clear boundaries) between morphs (for example, many Finno-Ugric languages, turkic languages, gant languages);

flecting (Flexive) Type combines languages \u200b\u200bwith internal flexia, that is, with grammatically significant alternation at the root (Semitic languages), and languages \u200b\u200bwith an external flexia, fuzia, that is, with a simultaneous expression of several grammatical values \u200b\u200bby one affix (for example, with hands - an efficient case, multiple number), strong bond (lack of clear boundaries) between morphs and the diversity of declosion and hinge; In ancient and some modern Indo-European languages, internal flexia and fusion are combined.

The typological classification of languages \u200b\u200bcannot be considered final mainly due to its inability to reflect the entire specifics of a separate language, taking into account its structure. But it contains in an implicit form of the possibility of clarifying it by analyzing other areas of the language. For example, in insulating languages \u200b\u200bsuch as classical Chinese, Vietnamese, Guinean, there are monositelations of the word equal to the morpheme, the presence of political disease and a number of other interrelated characteristics.

Linguistic relativity Concept - the theory of the dependence of the style of thinking and fundamental ideological paradigms of the collective native speaker from the specifics of the latter. "The language of the people is his spirit, and the spirit of the people there is his language," and in this sense "every language is a kind of worldview" (Humboldt). Thus, the typology of social life can and should be explained, based on the variability of cultures expressing themselves on different languages. In this regard, within the framework of the linguistic relativity of the concept, a hypothetical model of the development of world culture is issued, which could not be based on an Indo-European language matrix and the European rational-logical deudtivism corresponding to it and the linear concept of irreversible time, but a radically other language material. It is assumed that this would lead to the formation of world culture of fundamentally different type

Typical synthetic languages \u200b\u200binclude ancient written Indo-European languages: Sanskrit, ancient Greek, Latin, Gothic, Staroslavansky; Currently, largely Lithuanian, German, Russian (albeit both with many active features of analytics); to analytical: Romanesque, English, Danish, Novogreic, Novoperside, Novo Indian; From Slavic - Bulgarian.

Languages \u200b\u200bsuch as Turkic, Finnish, despite the prevailing role in their grammar affixation, have many analytics in strictly due to the agglutinating nature of their affixation; The same languages \u200b\u200bas Arabic, synthetic, because the grammar in them is expressed inside the word, but they are rather analytic on the agglutinating tendency of affixation. Of course, in this respect there are deviations and contradictions; So, B. german Articture - Analytical phenomenon, but it is inclined by case, is syntheticism; The multiple number of nouns in English is expressed, as a rule, once, the phenomenon is analytic.

3. Genealogical classification

Genetic classification is based on the sign of kinship - common origin, which has been established only after the concept of language relationship and approval in linguistic studies of the principle of historicism (19th century). It develops as a result of learning languages \u200b\u200bwith the help of a comparative historical method. At the same time, the relationship of some languages \u200b\u200bis recognized as proven if the overall origin of a significant part of the morpheme of these languages, all grammatical affixes and many roots has been detected. Including in those parts of the vocabulary, which are usually distinguished by special stability: pronouns, the names of some parts of the body, the words with the meaning "water", "fire", "sun", "be", "give", "there", "drink And others. The overall origin of the roots and affixes is confirmed by the presence of regular intersective phonetic correspondence in them. If a comparative historical phonetics has been created, which allows you to approximately reconstruct the roots of the ancestor's language and trace (according to strict rules), their transformation into the roots of the descendants' tongues, then the relationship of the latter is considered established.

In this sense, the relationship of the following families of languages \u200b\u200bin the old world: Indo-European, Ural (with Finno-Ugorskaya and the Self-Europe), Turkic, Mongolian, Tunguso-Manchur, Dravidian, Carvela, Semit Hamitskaya (Afrazian), in the 60s. 20 V. United into the Nostratic (Borean) Language Family. It was possible to build comparative phonetics of these languages, traced regular phonetic correspondences in more than 600 roots and affixes. Among Eurasia languages \u200b\u200boutside the groupings are the Chinese-Tibetan family of languages, the Yenisei, Andaman family, isolated languages: Basque, Burusha, Aynsky and some languages \u200b\u200bof antiquity: Sumerian, Cassian, Khattsky, etc. All numerous language groups of Africa (except Semitian-Khamitic) are combined In three hypothetical families: Nigero-Kordofan, Nilo-Sugar and Koisanskaya.

Genetic classification of languages \u200b\u200bexists in the form of a single scheme. As a linguistic one, it does not coincide with the anthropological and, in particular, does not imply the belonging to the peoples speaking related languages \u200b\u200bto a single race. Although the formation of language families occurs constantly, the formation of them applies, as a rule, to the era before the advent of class society. Modern genetic classification of languages \u200b\u200bdoes not provide grounds for supporting popular in the old linguistics concept about the monogenesis of the languages \u200b\u200bof the world.

Comparative historical method B. late XIX. Century When the factors of the similarities of these languages \u200b\u200bwere established during the study of languages.

On the basis of established similarity, a hypothesis about the relationship of these languages \u200b\u200band the unity of their origin arises, so gradually the comparative historical method has become the basis for the formation of a special industry in the linguistics.

The key to the formation and development of comparative historical linguistics was and remains of the place of habitat of proteino-european-carriers of Pyranceo European language. In pre-war literature, North of Europe was often postulated as ancestral, the German peoples were declared the most pure carriers of the Aryan race.

After the idea of \u200b\u200bthe North European Pranodine was debunking (in Indo-European languages, there is even a general designation of the sea), the following main teachings on the doodine of Europeans were formed:

· Academic hypothesis

1. The most generally accepted Kurgan hypothesis proposed by Maria Gimbutas in 1956. According to her, the Pranodina Indo-Europeans are the Volga and Black Sea Steppes (a yammy culture). Gradually, the various branches of Indo-European waves migrated in different directions from the ancestor. The longest of the initial districts occupied the ancestors of the Balts and Slavs.

2. In Anatolian hypothesis (formulated by Renfrew), it is assumed that Pyranceo-European language existed earlier than it is considered to be at about neolithic, at 7-6 thousand BC. In Anatolia (the monument of Indo-European people is considered to be Chatal-Hyuk), after which 6 thousand. Indo-European languages \u200b\u200bcrossed the Bosphorus and spread in Southeast Europe.

Lecture No. 1.4

Classifications of languages

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

Genealogical classification of languages. The concepts of "Language Rodium", "Comparative Historical Method".

III. Typology classification of languages.

I.. One of the tasks of linguistics is the systematization of existing languages \u200b\u200b(about 2500), differing in the prevalence and social functions, the peculiarities of the phonetic structure and vocabulary, morphological and syntactic characteristics.

There are two approaches to the classification of languages:

grouping on the generality of the language material (roots, affixes, words), and thus, in general, the genealogical classification;

grouping on generality building and type, primarily grammatical, regardless of origin - typological classification.

When comparing languages \u200b\u200byou can detect easily catchy lexical

and phonetic, i.e. Material compliances that suggest certain patterns or regularity of the relationship between languages \u200b\u200band nations are carriers of these languages.

The community of linguistic material (material proximity) is associated with the differentiation of dialects of the once single language. The discrepancies of dialects were caused by different reasons: a change in social and historical conditions, migrations, contacts with other languages \u200b\u200band dialects, geographical and political separation, etc. The tribes that spoke on different dialects of one, previously common language, settle down on new territories removed from each other, could not communicate as before. Contacts weakened, and language differences increased. Strengthening centrifugal trends led to the formation of new languages, although genetically related. The systematization of related languages \u200b\u200breflects the genealogical classification.

In the languages \u200b\u200bof the world, general features are found in the structure of proposals, the composition of the main parts of speech, in the formative and word-forming structures - the so-called typological similarity.

This similarity is due to the principal unity of human nature, the unity of his biological and mental organization, which is manifested in a number of dependencies between the communicative-intellectual needs and the possibilities of the person and the structure of its language. If in a number of languages \u200b\u200bobserved typological similarity

it covers a large series of systemically related phenomena, then such languages \u200b\u200bcan be considered as a certain language type. The systematization of the languages \u200b\u200bof the world according to certain types is reflected in typological classifications.

II.. Genealogical classification of languages - Study, description and grouping of world languages \u200b\u200bbased on general origin from one source language.

The genealogical classification comes from the concept of kinship of languages. Related languages Languages \u200b\u200bare recognized, leading their origin from one base language - the PRAYAZKOM and with virtue of this some features:

the presence of materially related roots and affixes;

the presence of natural sound matches.

Establishing genetic identity of languages, clarification of their degree

relationship and relationships are carried out with the help of a comparative historical method. Comparative historical method - This is a combination of research techniques used in the study of related languages \u200b\u200bin order to establish the general patterns of their development and the reconstruction of the Praevka.

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

The establishment of the genetic identity of the languages \u200b\u200bshould be made by comparing the most archaic forms. Because Related languages \u200b\u200bhave changed and diverged with each other, it is necessary to penetrate their state.

Comparison of presumably related languages \u200b\u200bbegins with a vocabulary comparing, and not the entire array is investigated common words, but only those that in their meanings are the most ancient. These are the following semantic groups of words:

Forms of the verb of the 3rd face of the unit. and MN.ch. of the present time of expressive inclinations (Wed: SanskR. á sti - s.á nTI "Have", Lat. eST. – sUNT.goth. iST. – sind., Dr.Slav. ѥst - Sl);

The terms of kinship (for example, "Mother": SanskR. m.ā t.á r.lat. mater., D.Isl. moder., Dr.Slav. mather,sovr. English mother., it. Mutter.);

The names of some plants and animals (for example, "mouse": SanskR. m.ū h.lat. mus., Dr. Topnem. mus., Dr.Slav. mouse, Sovr.angl. mouse., it. Maus.);

Names of parts of the human body, some instruments of labor, some of the phenomena of nature (for example, "tooth": SanskR. d.á ntam. - wines. Pad. units, lat. dentem. - wines. Pad. E.C., Sovr.angl. tooth., it. Zahn., Franz. dENT );

Names of pronouns, numerical up to 10 (for example, "two": Vediysk. d.(u.)v.ā , lat. duo., Dr.Irol. dau., Dr.Slav. dwa, Sovr.angl. two., it. zwei.).

These groups of words should be equally represented in compared languages, because There is no vocabulary associated with civilization. The purpose of their comparison, in addition to establishing the nature of the ratio of general words in different languagesIt is also an analysis of the phonetic and morphological structures of the word. The relationship of languages \u200b\u200bis manifested both in the coincidence of entire words and in the similarity (formal and semantic) minimum significant units of the language - Morpham.

Therefore, the next stage of the study is a mafe comparison that expands the comparison base. Common morpheme in related languages \u200b\u200bis much larger than common words. This is one of the signs of kinship of languages. The importance of the criterion of grammatical correspondence is that the word-substitution forms, in contrast to words and grammatical models of words, as a rule, are not borrowed (cf., lat. aM.- a.- t., it. lieb.- t., RUS. loves).

A Morpham comparison makes it possible to show the phonetic similarity and nonstability of words and parts of the words of related languages. This similarity and disabilities received the name of phonetic correspondences. Setting sound matches is an important link for comparison.

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

When establishing sound correspondences, it is necessary to take into account historical changes, which, due to the internal laws of development of each language, are manifested in the latter in the form of phonetic laws (for example, Russian wife Corresponds to Norwegian kona.because In the Scandinavian German languages \u200b\u200b[k] occurs from [G], and in the Slavic [G] in the position before the glaces of the front row changed in [F], Wed. Greek. gyne. "female").

All indications regarding each element under consideration in several related languages \u200b\u200bshould be taken into account. The correspondence of the elements of only two languages \u200b\u200bmay be random.

The use of comparative historical contributes to the reconstruction of the defense. Reconstruction of Praävika - Complex and procedures for recreating unnecessary forms and phenomena by comparing the relevant units of related languages. For example, knowing the phonetic, grammatical and semantic compliances of Indo-European languages, can be based on the lat. fumus. "Smoke", ancient Greek. thymos. "Breath, Spirit", vision. smoke and others. Restore for this word PRAFORM dhumos.. The language-foundation is completely impossible to fully restore, but the basic data of phonetics, grammar and vocabulary (in the smallest) can be reconstructed.

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

Different degree of kinship of languages \u200b\u200bis transmitted by the terms "Family", "Group", "Subgroup".

A family - this is the whole set of languages \u200b\u200bof this kinship (for example, indo-European family).

Group (branch) - association within the family of languages \u200b\u200bthat detect greater material proximity (for example, slavic group, German group etc.).

Subgroup - Combining inside the group of languages, the relationships of which are sufficiently transparent, which makes it possible for their carriers to almost unhindered each other (for example, east Slavic subgroup: Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian languages).

III. A comparative study of the structural properties of languages \u200b\u200bregardless of the nature of genetic relations between them is called typology. The subject of structural typology is the internal organization of the language as a system, i.e. The similarity of the structure of the languages \u200b\u200bat one level. Formal and contense typology differ.

Formal typology studies means of expressing language values, i.e. Grammar categories that are necessarily expressed in the statement in this language.

Contensity typology oriented on semantic categories Language and methods of their expression, which, in contrast to grammatical, can be expressed by units of all levels.

The grounds for classification in typology can be different. Traditional typological (morphological) classification Reflects the desire to highlight the types of languages \u200b\u200bon the basis of the general principles of the structure of grammatical forms. This classification is based on counterproofing roots and affixes.

The following types of languages \u200b\u200bare usually established in the morphological classification: root (or insulating), agglutinative (or agglutinating), flexive, incorporing (or polysinthetic).

Insulating (or root ) languages - These are languages \u200b\u200bin which words do not change, each root in which is isolated from the other, and grammatical ties between them are expressed using the order of words and intonation (for example, Chinese).

The lack of external signs of belonging to the grammatical category contributes to the development of grammatical conversion of 1 words of one grammatical form to another influenced by the grammatical environment.

All insulating languages \u200b\u200bon corner-insulation and basic insulating, i.e. having word-forming affixes.

TO corner-insulating languages Once AV Flegem was applied amorphous terms (formless), because Words in these languages \u200b\u200bare deprived of all forms. This subtype is characterized by the following features:

In such languages, there is not only word-substitution, but also

word-forming affixes;

In these languages \u200b\u200bthere are no parts of speech;

Every word represents a pure root, and the offer is

the sequence of unchanged roots (for example, in Chinese cha

in buhewhere [cha] "tea", [in] "I", [boo] "not", [Hee]"Drink", translated into

russian i do not drink tea);

New concepts, new words are formed by the addition of roots (for example,

in Chinese shui "water", fu"Carry", shui+ fu"Vodonos");

A system of tones is developed, depending on which the word value changes.

Basic insulating languages - these are modern languages \u200b\u200bin which the SDLVA does not change, but in these languages \u200b\u200bthere are some word-forming and forming affixes (for example, in Malay roemah. "house", bE.- roemah. "Live, live").

Agglutinutiv or agglutinating (Lat. agglutinare. "Blind") languages - These are the languages \u200b\u200bfor which a developed system of word formation and word is characterized, the absence of morphological alternations, a single system of declining and hiding (for example, Turkic languages).

This type of languages \u200b\u200bdiffers from other affixing techniques to attach affixes and those functions that they perform: unambiguous, standard affixes are mechanically joined by the word.

In the agglutinative word of the border between the morphemes, the root does not have options, and each affix has only one value and each value is expressed in just one affix (for example, Kaz. mecpex Terra"Schools", -expresses the value of the set. numbers -He. - Date value. case).

In agglutination languages, the positional way of the formal expression of grammatical values \u200b\u200bis dominated: the multivalued word is based on the principle of gradual concretization of the foundation, from affixes with a wider value of the affixes more privately and with a less wide value (for example, Kaz. ui-Leri.m.i.z-de-gi.-ler den."From those who are at home": each subsequent affix, expressing grammar meanings, clarifies the root).

Since in agglutination languages, the connection between the morphemes is weak, then they developed a phonetic remedy for bonding morpheme - singarmonicism- In all attachment affixes, the exact same series is used as the root (for example, Kaz. j.e. r-L.e. r "Earth").

Agglutinating languages \u200b\u200bare divided into languages \u200b\u200bwith suffix agglutination (Kazakh language), languages \u200b\u200bwith prefix agglutination (languages \u200b\u200bof Africa), languages \u200b\u200bwith suffixing-prefix agglutination (Georgian language).

Flexive or fusion (Lat. fusio. "Flow") languages - These are languages \u200b\u200bfor which the polyfunctionality of grammatical morpheme is characterized, the presence of fusion, morphological combinations, an extensive system of declining and liner (for example, Indo-European languages).

In the languages \u200b\u200bof this type, as in agglutinative, the main method of expressing grammatical values \u200b\u200bis affixation. But along with an external flexion, internal flexia is widely used, i.e. Change in the root, expressing grammatical meaning (for example, in English. man. – mEN. "Male - Men": the alternation is in the root, the value of the plural is transmitted).

Another characteristic feature of the flexive system is the fusion technique of the Morpham compound in the word. In the fusion word, the boundaries between the morphmes are inalted (for example, in the word footwear Morphemes are tightly paired, the root is associated, i.e. without service morpheme is not used); Service morphemes simultaneously express several grammatical values \u200b\u200b(for example, in Russian Word wife flexion -but It has three meanings: female genus, nominative case, single).

For flexive languages, the homonymy and synonymity of affixes are also characteristic (for example, in Russian -In- may have a meaning of unity: pea And the value is large: house-in-a; in words tables, houses, childrendifferent flexions express multiple number); The various position of affixes in relation to the root (roots, prefixes, suffixes, infixes).

Incorporing (Lat. iN. "in", corpus. "Body", i.e. "Implementation, something in the body", incorporere. "Insert") or polysinthetic (Greek. poly. "Many" and synthesis "Connection, combination") languages - These are the languages \u200b\u200bfor which the in-wittyness of the morphological structure of the word is characterized, which allows the inclusion of the proposal of other members to one member (for example, a direct addition to the verb fag may be included. Incorporing languages \u200b\u200binclude the languages \u200b\u200bof the Indians of North America, Chukotka-Kamchatsky, etc.

The word in such languages \u200b\u200bacquires the structure only in the proposal: outside the sentence there is no word, the proposal is the main unit of speech, which includes words (for example, the Chukchi word-proposal you - Ata Kaa - Nma - RKYN"I kill fatty deer", the basis of this word-offers you are NMA RKYNin which are incorporated kaa "Deer" and his definition ata "fatty").

Many languages \u200b\u200boccupy an intermediate position on this scale of morphological classification. Often, the "analytical languages" and "synthetic languages" are used to characterize the grammatical language.

Analytical languages or languages \u200b\u200banalytical building Called languages \u200b\u200bin which grammatical values \u200b\u200bare expressed with independent words, i.e. The dismembered transmission of lexical and grammatical values \u200b\u200bis carried out. The analytism of the language is manifested in the morphological unchanged of the word and the availability of complex structures in which grammatical importance is transmitted either by a service word or independent (for example, a Russian form will love - Analytical, the value of the future time of the 1st person of the unit is transmitted by the auxiliary verb) the presence of complex structures in which the grammatical importance is transmitted either by a service word or an independent REC).

Synthetic languages or languages \u200b\u200bof synthetic building are called such in which grammatical values \u200b\u200bare expressed by the advantage of affixes, i.e. Grammatical importance and lexical are transmitted uncredited, in one word with the help of affixes, internal flexions, etc. (for example, in the word move-and-ls With the help of affixes are transmitted the values \u200b\u200bof the past time, female, units. numbers).

In its pure form, analytism and syntheticism are not represented in any language of the world, because Each language also has those and other elements, although their ratio can be different (for example, in Russian, along with the predominance of synthetism, there are analytical forms; english It is a flexive language of the analytical type, but synthetic forms are also observed in it).

In addition to the morphological typological classification, there are classifications based on other structural criteria, - syntactic, phhematic, etc. So, the phonological classification of Slavic languages \u200b\u200bis known. Typological patterns are detected and in syntax.

training:

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

2. Maslov Yu.S. Introduction to linguistics. M.: Higher School, 1987. - C.22

3. Reformed A.A. Introduction to linguistics. M.: Aspect Press, 2001. - with.

additional:

1. Amanbaeva G.Yu. Linguistic typology: studies. Manual for students

humanitarian universities. Karaganda: Crack Publishing House, 2002.

2. Meskovskaya N.B. General Linguistics: Structural T Social Tyology

languages: studies. Manual for students of philological and linguistic

specialties. M.: Flint: Science, 2001.

3. Theoretical foundations of the classification of the languages \u200b\u200bof the world. M., 1980.

4. Theoretical foundations of the classification of world languages. Problems of kinship.

1Conversion(Lat. conversio. "Transformation") - the formation of a new word by moving it from one part of speech to another.

According to one of the most authoritative English-speaking sites devoted to the study of the language of the world, there are currently 7106 languages \u200b\u200bon Earth. This includes only live languages. According to some researchers, languages \u200b\u200bcan be allocated much more. It depends on how to carry out the border between the language and the dialect. To explore such a variety of languages, it is necessary to undergo their processing and classification.

Language classifications can be based on various principles. You should select the two most frequently used in scientific literature Classification. Namely, the genealogical (or genetic) and morphological (or typological).

"Genetic classification is the classification of languages \u200b\u200bon the basis of the presence or absence of them the nearest overall ancestor." The genealogical classification is based on the principle of kinship, by finding common origin. "It develops as a result of learning languages \u200b\u200bwith a relatively historical method" and exists in the form of a single scheme.

The scheme includes the following discharges:

language families are genetic linguistic associations that have a common ancestor (PRAYASK); An example of such an association can be the family of Indo-European languages, where the overall ancestor - the Indo-European language, collapsed about 6-7 thousand years ago;

isolated languages \u200b\u200b(or isolates) - single-ring families (a Basque language can serve as an example);

unclassified languages \u200b\u200bare poorly studied languages \u200b\u200bthat, due to the lack of sufficient data about them, cannot be attributed to any language group.

Currently, some scientists also allocate so-called macros (when some language families are a common ancestor). The existence of most macros allocated is questioned. The only macros that have sufficiently substantiated theories of their existence are Nostratic (in her the Indo-European, Altai, Ural and other families) and Afrazian macros. Sometimes these two macros are combined into one macro.

When constructing a single classification of languages \u200b\u200bbased on the genetic principle, scientists face some difficulties in the delimitation of truly native languages \u200b\u200bfrom those that "reached" during their historical Development. "Language changes, as you know, in the language occur, firstly, during the so-called vertical transmission, vertical transmission from the older generation to the younger and, secondly, which is very important, during the horizontal transmission - the transmission of elements from one language in The other during the intersective contacts. " Because The language does not exist in isolation, but very often subject to change from the outside, there is a huge number of different kinds of borrowing. Because of such an influence of some languages \u200b\u200bto other historical linguists (comparativists), sometimes it is sometimes difficult to distinguish a linguistic family from the language union formed in the process of interaction languages. The textbook examples should be considered such pairs of languages \u200b\u200bas Chinese and Japanese, in which there is a huge percentage of Chinese vocabulary, and French and English (80% of English vocabulary is borrowing from French).

"The typological classification of languages \u200b\u200barose later attempts to the genealogical classification and proceeded from other prerequisites." In contrast to the genealogical classification, the morphological classification is based on the similarity and difference of the language structure. It is built on a formal aspect. In creating this classification, such linguists participated as A. Schlegel, H. Steightal, V. Gumboldt, A. Schleiher and American linguist E. Sepir.

In the morphological classification 4 types of languages \u200b\u200bare allocated: root, flexive, agglutinative and incorporating.

Root (amorphous, insulating or root-insulating) languages \u200b\u200b- languages \u200b\u200bfor which the complete or almost complete absence of word is characteristic. In such languages, a very large grammatical significance bears the order of words. This group includes such languages \u200b\u200bas Chinese, Vietnamese, Donggansky, O. It is also believed that English is developing in this direction.

Flexive (or fusional) languages \u200b\u200bare languages \u200b\u200bfor which a developed word system is characterized. They are inherent in the ability to transfer a whole complex of grammatical values \u200b\u200bwith one indicator. For example, in the word "at home?" The end of "A" transmits the value of the genus (male), the number (multiple) and case (nominative). This group should include Slavic, Baltic, Italy and some of the Indian and Iranian languages.

Agglutinative (or agglutinating) languages \u200b\u200bare languages \u200b\u200bin which a developed word-developed system is also represented, but unlike flexive languages, in the languages \u200b\u200bof agglutinative type, each grammatical significance has its own indicator. An example is the Komi-Permytsky word "syn" (eyes). In the appropriate case of the plural, it looks like "SINNEZ", where the Morphem "NEZ" is an indicator of the plural, and the "ON" Morphem is an indicator of the cleaner case. In this example, we see that morphemes that form grammar form Words join the root. Such agglutination is called postfiging. Also agglutination can be prefiguring when morphemes are joined before the root. Bilateral agglutination is possible when some morphemes are joined before the root, and others, respectively, after.

Obviously, the classification, free of deficiencies of the traditional morphological classification of languages \u200b\u200b"(the fuzzy of basic concepts, non-promisculation of different-type classification criteria, the invertation of the ideas about the necessary and sufficient criteria, the inconsistency of specific language structures) and also includes phonological, syntactic, semantic characteristics of the structure of the language, currently Time can not be created yet. " It should be understood that it is impossible to fully attribute the language to some one concrete type. It may include a feature of several types, it can move from one group to another during evolution. It is important to understand that this or that language refers to any group on its prevailing characteristics.

In addition to the two classifications submitted, it will not be superfluous to mention others. Language Glotttogenesis agglutinative

First, languages \u200b\u200bcan be divided by another one grammatical sign - syntactic, two classes:

synthetic languages \u200b\u200b- languages \u200b\u200bin which the syntactic roles of words are determined by the developed system of flexions and affixes (Russian);

analytical languages \u200b\u200b- languages \u200b\u200bwhere syntactic roles are determined service words (particles and pretexts) and word order (English).

It should be said that languages \u200b\u200bcan be natural (actually, which are presented in the genealogical classification) and artificially created (or designed). The second class includes one of the most famous artificially created languages \u200b\u200b- Esperanto. The class of fictional languages \u200b\u200bis also highlighted. The difference of fictional languages \u200b\u200bfrom artificial is to create their own. Artificial languages \u200b\u200bare invented for real communication. Typically, such languages \u200b\u200bare really studied and used in certain circles. Fictional languages \u200b\u200bare languages \u200b\u200bfrom fiction or others artistic worksInvented by the authors to create languages \u200b\u200bof non-existent worlds. Examples of such languages \u200b\u200bfrom the literature can serve as elven and other languages \u200b\u200bof the Mediterranean, fucked by Tolkin. Also for fictional languages \u200b\u200bshould be attributed to the "Vi from the movie" Avatar "James Cameron, where for the fictional language even has its own dictionary. If artificial languages The practical goals are carried out exclusively, the fictional languages \u200b\u200bare created with aesthetic purpose.

TO natural languageswhich are not included in the genealogical classification, contact languages \u200b\u200bshould also be attributed (Pijins, Creoles and various mixed languages). Contact languages \u200b\u200bare usually created on the basis of several languages. natural way As a result of communication of people, ethnic groups speaking different languages. An example is Spanglish, which appeared on the basis of English and Spanish.

IN scientific works You can find a huge number of classifications built on various aspects. The list below is not exhaustive.