home
medical psychology
Status category. The question of the category of state as an independent part of speech

Status category. The question of the category of state as an independent part of speech

20.09.2019

In the school course of the Russian language, words denoting a state are studied. Schoolchildren often confuse them with adverbs and adjectives, although they have differences.

The category of state is words, the morphological features of which allow us to classify them as adverbs, because they answer the questions "what is it?" And How?" and are intended to describe the emotions or moods of animate objects or the physical processes associated with inanimate objects and their environment or environment. For example: The house was restless.

But not so long ago, impersonal predicates, or predicates - another name that the words of the category of state carry, - some linguists began to consider. But at the same time, there is no unity among scientists on the issue of criteria for belonging to it. The words that make it up are grammatically heterogeneous. Sometimes it includes short forms of adjectives that are not used in full form. For example: obliged, must, glad, etc.

The category of the state is expressed by words that are most often the main members in impersonal sentences and occupy an independent position. They denote a static situation and have homonyms, so they are difficult to distinguish from adverbs and short forms of adjectives. For example:

2. Calmly and the river flows smoothly (adverb);

3. Animal calmly(brief

The category of state has the following distinguishing features: firstly, it names the mood or emotions of a living being, and also describes the environment. Secondly, it is often part of a nominal compound predicate in an impersonal sentence, where there is no subject. For example:

1. In the shade chilly And damp.

(habitat condition: cool, damp, light, warm, etc.)

2. Him hurt

(physiological sensations of living beings: heard, not seen, painful, cramped and stuffy, etc.)

3. Ah! How happily!

Person: offensive, joyful, scary, annoying and sorry, etc.)

4. Sin not see it!

5. Get up early.

(spatial as well as temporal characteristics: late, early, far, close, high).

If the category of state (examples are given below) describes animate objects, then their names are expressed in the form of the dative case. If - the natural environment, then its name is often presented in the form of a prepositional case. For example:

1. to one bad (for one - D.p., name of the person).

2. Summer in the park shady and cool (in the park - P.p., the name of the object of the natural environment).

Predicates have permanent and non-permanent morphological features. The permanent category is their immutability. And fickle - this is for those words that were formed from For example:

On the south side warmer.

The syntactic role of the words of the state category is limited to the predicate in one-part impersonal sentences.

1. Although difficult, but we must go forward!

2. How quiet around!

Often predicates are used together with the words "will be" and "used to be", "became" and "was", "will become" and "is being", etc. For example:

1. But was quiet.

2. used to and noisy.

In order to correctly determine the belonging of a lexical unit to the category of state, the student needs to know the rules well and practice by doing exercises. At the same time, in order not to confuse it with an adverb and a short adjective, you need to parse the word according to the scheme, indicating the syntactic role in the sentence.

From the first third of the 19th century in Russian grammars, a category of words was consistently distinguished, intermediate between names and verbs and expressing mainly a state. As grammatical features of this category of words, they noted: their use either exclusively or mainly in the function of a predicate, their invariability in cases - with proximity to adjectives and nouns - and the meaning of time, inseparable from their grammatical forms. These words differed from adverbs by the presence of peculiar "nominatives" - sometimes with gender forms, like the past tense of a verb, the meaning of time, attitude to a person or shades of impersonality, and most importantly, by the fact that these words did not indicate a sign of quality and action. In separate groups of these words, the similarity with short forms of adjectives was striking. A. Kh. Vostokov in his "Russian Grammar" adds this entire category of words to the category of the verb. He includes here all generally short forms of adjectives, considering them "conjugated words." Even brighter, according to Vostokov, the shade of verbality, conjugation appears in some impersonal words that are similar to nouns or adverbs, and in some generic and personal predicative (predicative) words that are similar to short adjectives, but which do not have correlative full forms among adjective names. Yes, the words lzya(cf. it is forbidden), sorry lazy(in this colloquial usage: too lazy to get up so early) Vostokov refers to impersonal verbs. Listing the verbs that control the infinitive, Vostokov puts in their number happy, ready(among verbs denoting disposition to action), much, can, should(among the verbs denoting the possibility and need of action).

However, the point of view of A. Kh. Vostokov seemed too radical to the majority of Russian grammarians of the first half of the 19th century. In the name of historical and genetic prerequisites about the relationship of short forms of adjectives with nouns, it was rejected by Pavsky and then by K. S. Aksakov. A. A. Potebnya joined this tradition. Only M. Katkov briefly agreed with Vostok's definition of short adjectives as conjugated forms.

In addition, softened echoes of Vostokov's concept can be found in grammatical works of a generalizing and at the same time educational type, such as I. I. Davydov's "Experience of a General Comparative Grammar of the Russian Language" or F. I. Buslaev's "Historical Grammar".

So, F.I. Buslaev wrote: “A noun or auxiliary belongs to the middle verbs, either alone or in combination with an adjective, to mean a predicate ... For example, he was ill for a long time".

Only N. P. Nekrasov in the book "On the Meaning of Forms of the Russian Verb" acted as a decisive and even extreme follower of Vostokov's concept, coming to it from the other side: "How a verb through an adjective form can acquire the meaning of a purely adjectival name, for example, to give birth - darling ... to be able - skillful, to burn - burnt ... and others, so, on the contrary, an adjective, through a short form with a neuter gender ending or with an indifferent ending, can take on the meaning of a verb, for example:

And, full, what an expense! ..

It would just become a hunt.

Here it is full from the adjective full, -oh, -oh has the meaning of a verb in an absolutely personal form in -And(i.e., in the form of an imperative mood. - V.V.).

No, it's not funny when the painter is useless

It stains me with Raphael's Madonna.

It's funny here from the adjective funny, -oh, -oh also has the meaning of a verb, because the quality expressed by it, according to the meaning of speech, seems to be inherent in the subject under the condition of a certain duration. It is known that each adjective with a short ending can have the meaning of a verb when it stands in the place of a predicate in a sentence. Thus, the verb in the development of its forms is transformed into an adjective (cf. the forms of participles and their evolution. - V.V.), the adjective in the abbreviation of its forms is transformed into a verb.

Before A. A. Shakhmatov's "Essay on the Modern Russian Literary Language", the question of the category of state remained in such an indefinite position. For example, prof. V. A. Bogoroditsky pointed out that impersonal expressions of nominal origin, like can, need, now are for the sense of verbs or verbal particles, and referred to the forms of time inherent in them (cf. past tense could have, had to).

Acad. A. A. Shakhmatov approved the discovery of Vostokov with his authority, also recognizing the short forms of adjectives as conjugated words. But A. A. Shakhmatov in his "Essay on the Modern Russian Literary Language" and in "The Syntax of the Russian Language" dealt mainly with individual morphological and syntactic features of the short form of the adjective. He did not put "categories of state" in a number of other "parts of speech". This step was taken by Prof. L. V. Shcherboy in his article "On parts of speech in the Russian language".

V. G. Belinsky in his statement “Language constantly lives and moves, developing and improving” indicated the main criterion for a living language - development. Indeed, new words, new phenomena in vocabulary and grammar appear in the modern Russian language. The Russian language really lives. The very word "stand" does not even apply to him. Words acquire coloring, for example, emotional. And both vocabulary and grammar help the Russian language move forward. Vocabulary allows us to understand the meaning of words, and grammar allows us to link them together and give the necessary understandable form so that we and the interlocutor understand each other better.

On the other hand, the material that is given in the grammars and reference books of the Russian languages within the framework of the traditional generally accepted nomenclature, in general, satisfies practical needs and therefore, it seems, there is no need to revise it and check the sequence.

The issue of separating the words of the category of state into an independent part of speech is still debatable in linguistics. There is no unambiguous definition of this class of words, which is defined in different ways: words of the category of state, category of state, predicative adverbs, impersonal predicative words, etc. In addition, the exact number of lexico-semantic groups of words of the state category is not determined, the morphological and syntactic features of these words are not clearly indicated.

For the first time, the phenomenon of the Russian language under consideration was singled out as a special part of speech by L.V. Shcherba in the work “On Parts of Speech in the Russian Language” (1928). The academician called it by its general meaning a category of state. He quite broadly understood this category, including in it not only some predicative adverbs, but also short adjectives and even prepositional-case forms of nouns with the meaning of state, acting as a predicate in a sentence (without memory, in a frock coat, married, intends, etc.).

Prof. Abakumov S.I. took into account the syntactic function of the words of the state category and called them impersonal predicative words. Shakhmatov A. A. used the term "predicative adverbs".

The doctrine of the category of state was further developed in the works of Academician V.V. Vinogradov, professors E. Galkina - Fedoruk, N. S. Pospelov, A. V. Isachenko, A. N. Tikhonov, N. S. Valgina and other scientists. However, they also had great differences in their approach to the study of this part of speech. V. Vinogradov, for example, included in the category of state not only impersonal predicative words, but also short adjectives such as glad, much, cheerful, short passive participles in -o (accepted, brought, sold, etc.) and some words and phrases ( tipsy, in spirit, I am without hind legs) and attributed to all of them the presence of forms of time and mood, since they act as a predicate.

As early as the beginning of the 19th century. N. Koshansky, A. Vostokov, F. Buslaev paid attention to the fact that the words sorry, laziness, impossible, ashamed, possible and others cannot be attributed to adjectives, nouns, or adverbs due to their special lexical meaning , immutability, use in the function of the predicate. They attributed these words either to impersonal verbs, or simply to verbs. A. Shakhmatov called such words predicative adverbs and considered them to be conjugated. A. Peshkovsky, on the one hand, doubted the possibility of referring them to adverbs, and on the other hand, he was not sure of their complete difference from adverbs. He believed that the unusual function of these words - impersonal predicativity - creates the possibility for a change in meaning.

According to Bulanin L. L., Meshchaninov I. I., Shapiro A. B., Migirin V. N., the category of state is not a special part of speech (“Grammar - 80”), for a number of reasons:

I can't have sweets.

I'm close to home.

3. It is syntactically very difficult to determine which sentence is in front of us, two-part or one-part.

He was afraid to be alone with Anna. (Two-part.)

He was afraid to be alone with Anna. (One-part.)

Babaitseva V. V. and Maksimov L. Yu. consider this construction as a transition between a two-part and one-part sentence.

Migirin V. N. and Bulanin L. L. call the words of the category of state as subjectless adjectives.

"Grammar - 80" and "Brief Grammar" by N. Yu. Shvedova refer the words of the state category to different parts of speech:

1. to adverbs (they are called predicative adverbs, or predicatives): sad, cheerful, ashamed, windy, stuffy;

2. to nouns: laziness, hunting, reluctance, shame, time, trouble, time.

Time for lunch. It's time to sleep. Too lazy to go.

According to Shcherby L.V., "a new classification can be especially imposed by the language system itself." In this case, it is very difficult or simply impossible for it to find a place among the elements of this system, and it becomes necessary to go beyond its limits. This is exactly the situation with the category of state, which is still one of the most controversial problems for Russian linguists.

It is the processes of evolution and further development of the Russian language, in the opinion of the author of this article, that determine the expediency of singling out a new category from among the other categories that have long been accepted and established in the language.

As previously mentioned, a significant contribution to the study of the category of state was made by domestic scientists, who, having discovered this phenomenon in Russian, made a similar discovery possible in other languages. L.V. was the first to single out a group of words denoting a state. Shcherba in his article "On Parts of Speech in the Russian Language" (1928). The formal features of this category, in his opinion, would be "immutability, on the one hand, and use with a bunch, on the other: the first it would differ from adjectives and verbs, and the second from adverbs" . He refers here such expressions as "I'm glad, I'm ready, I'm cold, etc." However, the author did not consider the new category to be bright and convincing in the Russian language. Trying to avoid the term "state" for lack of a better one, D.I. Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky tried to attribute such words to predicative adverbs, but already at that time it was clear that they could not be considered as such, since they differed greatly from them.

A.A. came closest to this issue. Shakhmatov after the publication of the "Essay on the Modern Russian Literary Language", where he dealt mainly with individual morphological and syntactic features of the short form of the adjective. V.V. Vinogradov. Practically applying the created L.V. Shcherboi criterion of the syntactic properties of the word, he created a new systematization of the parts of speech in his work "Russian language". Thus, the morphological, derivational and semantic properties of the word were taken into account. Thus, already in the first half of the 20th century, Russian scientists accumulated a substantial amount of data on the category of state, which made it possible to attempt to single out this category in other languages.

Separate impersonal-predicative words with the form of nouns, as well as adjectives and adverbs in –o attracted the attention of linguists as early as the beginning of the 19th century. Already A. Kh. Vostokov, F. I. Buslaev understood that such words as pity, laziness, impossible, ashamed, ashamed, cannot be attributed to either nouns, short adjectives, or adverbs. But usually they were ranked as a verb. A.Kh. Vostokov in his “Russian Grammar” added not only words to the category of the verb sorry, laziness, lie, you can, you must, but also short adjectives that do not have corresponding full ones - glad, ready, much.

F.I. Buslaev, despite the fact that in many respects did not support Vostokov’s point of view, such words, unfortunately, laziness in his “Historical Grammar” also considered impersonal verbs.

Some modal words of the state category, for example, must, must and others, attributed to impersonal verbs and V.I.Dal.

The isolation of impersonal predicative words from nouns, adjectives and adverbs and their closeness to verbs was recognized by V.A. Bogoroditsky. In the General Course of Russian Grammar, he noted that the words can, must, must, must “have already received the meaning of verbality due to the fact that they are always accompanied or implied by the verb“ to be ””.

A.A. Shakhmatov of the form “felt sorry”, “became worse”, “felt ashamed”, etc. considered conjugated and called predicative adverbs ("Syntax of the Russian language").

Much attention was paid to impersonal predicative words by prof. A.M. Peshkovsky. Looking at the words can't, ashamed, sorry, he emphasized that they, “not being adverbs, i.e. without denoting a sign, they are nevertheless used only with verbs, and, moreover, not with every verb, but almost exclusively with the verb to be. Peshkovsky, on the one hand, deeply doubted the possibility of referring impersonal predicative words to adverbs: “We always mentally attribute adverbs either to a verb or to an adjective,” and impersonal predicative words are not used either with verbs or with adjectives. On the other hand, he was not sure that it was a completely different group of words from adverbs. Peshkovsky said that this category of words "should be separated in the most decisive way" from short neuter adjectives. Thus, Peshkovsky subtly described the lexico-grammatical nature of impersonal predicative words, but he did not classify them with any part of speech and did not dare to single them out as a separate group of words.

For the first time, the question of the category of state as a special part of speech was raised by Acad. L.V. Shcherba in the work "On parts of speech in the Russian language." In this work, Shcherba first notes that in the Russian language there is a group of such words as impossible, possible, time, sorry, cold, light, fun, etc., that they are used with a bunch and function as a predicate in impersonal sentences, which they serve to express a state. Shcherba proposed to call such words the “category of state”. As their formal features, he noted immutability and use with a bunch.

He described in detail the category of the state and without hesitation singled it out as an independent part of the speech of Acad. VV Vinogradov in his work “Russian language. The grammatical doctrine of the word. He referred to the category of state "indeclinable-nominal and adverbial words that have the form of time ... and are used only in the function of the predicate." V.V. Vinogradov notes that the category of state is an actively developing part of speech, that it is formed from short adjectives, adverbs in -o, nouns, short passive participles in -o, some phraseological combinations and units under the strong "organizing influence" of the verb .

However, there are still disagreements about the allocation of the category of state to a special part of speech. These disagreements, apparently, are explained by the fact that the process of forming a special part of speech has not yet been completed and in different words it reaches a different degree. Most clearly at the present stage of language development, the signs of a special lexico-grammatical category are expressed in impersonal predicative words, and therefore the allocation of words like happy, ready, intending, unconscious, married and others in personal constructions cannot be considered indisputable.

Although the process of forming words of the category of state as a special part of speech is currently ongoing, some words of this group are very ancient in their formation and were in use even in the Old Russian language.

ETC: lzЂ, impossible, necessary, sorry, any, any.

The reason for the development and spread of the category of state lies in the contradiction between the morphological and syntactic properties of names and verbs. Morphologically, the name is opposed to the verb, and syntactically, the name can also be a predicate, like a verb. However, a name in Russian cannot acquire the basic semantic properties of a verb, even if it is used only as a predicate. A deep grammatical difference is established between the concept of an action that takes place in time, endowed with complex shades of spatial and specific meanings and sometimes involving a diverse objective environment, and between the concept of a qualitative state in which persons and objects appear or which persons and objects may have. According to V.V. Vinogradov, “... a complex and finely developed system of the verb with its categories of person, tense and mood, with its various forms of control should have had a huge organizing effect on the new category of state ... But the deep line between the categories of state and action remains . There are no voice differences in the grammatical category of the state; aspectual shades are introduced here only by auxiliary verbs. The most striking here are the forms of time and face.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

Introduction

Interest in the category of state is largely due to the lively nature of this category, the constant choice of words by a linguistic personality to express modern meanings, nominate new phenomena and realities.

The relevance of the study is determined by the controversy, ambiguity of understanding by linguists of the nature of the words of the category of state as a part of speech, the need for a historical study of the formation, development of words of the category of state as an independent part of speech in the Russian language.

The words of the state category are one of the important means of artistic representation: they convey the subtlest shades of the emotional and mental states of the subject, give an emotionally expressive description of the state of the environment.

The object of this study is the words of the category of state as an independent part of speech in modern Russian.

The subject of the research is the functioning of the words of the state category in various spheres, forms of the modern Russian language.

The purpose of the work is to analyze the category of state as an independent part of speech in modern Russian.

The implementation of this goal involves the solution of the following tasks:

1. Present the evolution of the views of Russian linguists on the category of state as part of speech.

2. Identify the characteristic features of the words of the category of state in the Russian language.

3. Describe the grammatical, morphological and semantic features of the words of the state category.

4. Study the literature on the issue of words of the category of state.

Chapter 1.Theoretical foundations of the studycategories of state as an independent part of speech

1.1 The main problems of the doctrine of transitivity processes at the level of parts of speech

Parts of speech expand their composition on the basis of word formation, borrowing and transitivity (or transformation). Compared with the sections of word formation and borrowing, the doctrine of transformation in the field of parts of speech has been developed much less. Transformation is considered only in connection with individual parts of speech: the noun section talks about substantiation, the adjective section - about adjectivation, the adverb section - about adverbialization, the pronoun section - about pronominalization, etc. Meanwhile, word formation and borrowing are studied not only in separate parts of speech. There are special sections that cover the issues of word formation and borrowing. For example, the doctrine of word formation sets out general issues of word production: 1) types of word-formation means, 2) features of word formation of individual parts of speech, 3) combining the difference: word-formation means, 4) delimitation of word-formation and grammatical categories, 5) the role of phonetic factors in word formation, 6 ) stylistic differentiation of derivational means, etc.

In the section on borrowing words, a wide range of issues is considered, among which the following can be noted: 1) sources of borrowing, 2) phonetic, morphological and semantic development of borrowed words, 3) semantic grouping of borrowed words in individual languages, 4) signs of borrowed words, 5) stylistic the use of borrowed words, etc.

It is also necessary to create a general section on transformation in the field of parts of speech. Sufficient materials have been accumulated and preparatory work has been done to create a new section of the science of the Russian language. The development of all three sections will make it possible to establish general patterns of enrichment of the Russian language in the sphere of parts of speech.

What basic questions should be raised and resolved in the doctrine of transformation in the field of parts of speech? The range of these questions is varied, and some of them have already been raised and partially resolved in separate monographs, articles, and textbooks. Without pretending to be an exhaustive enumeration, we point out many important problems of the doctrine of transitivity in the field of parts of speech: 1) the classification of all cases of transitivity in the field of parts of speech, 2) the classification of all cases of transitivity within one part of speech (for example, the transformation of a personal verb into an impersonal , subjective adjective into non-subjective, dual forms into plural and sub.), 3) criteria for distinguishing between transformations and word formation, 4) elementary processes and stages of transformation in different cases of transitivity, 5) classification of cases of impossibility of transformation (explain why in some cases transformation is possible, in others not), 6) a dictionary of words that arose on the basis of transformation, 7) conditions that favor transformation and impede it, 8) single-stage and multi-stage transformation, 9) transformation in one direction and transformation in different directions, 10) emigration transformation and immigration, 11) reversible and irreversible transformation, 12) the influence of the lexical meaning of words, their functioning and morphological properties on transformational possibilities, 13) the significance of the question of transformation to clarify the sequence of appearance of parts of speech, 14) transformation and problem, classification of parts of speech, 15 ) the use of transformation to enrich parts of speech at different stages of the development of the Russian language, 16) the simultaneous change of different features and their sequential change during transformation, 17) the impact of changing some features on the transformation of others, for example, the effect of functional shifts on lexical, functional and phonetic signs, or the influence of lexical shifts on functional, morphological and phonetic features, or the influence of morphological shifts on the lexical, functional and phonetic features of a word, 18) why it becomes necessary to use transformation in the field of parts of speech as a source of enrichment of the vocabulary of the language.

Giving a summary classification of transformations in the field of parts of speech in the Russian language over a thousand-year period of its development, at this level we will agree to understand the transformation as a complex process of changing the features of a word, which leads to the movement of a word from one part of speech to another or the movement of a word from one morphological category to another. within the same part of speech. The transformational possibilities of each part of speech will be called emigration transformation (ET), and enrichment due to the transformation of other parts of speech will be called immigration transformation (IT).

Most parts of speech have both emigration and immigration transformation. In significant parts of speech, with the exception of the dialect, the emigration transformation prevails over the immigration one. The official parts of speech, as far as we know the facts, are characterized by immigration transformation: they are enriched by the rebirth of words belonging to other parts of speech, but they themselves are not reborn into other parts of speech.

Comparing the role of word formation and the role of transformation in expanding the lexical composition of parts of speech, we can state the following: 1) Prepositions, conjunctions, particles, connectives, modal words, interjections, with the exception of their small layer with unknown etymology, appear only on the basis of transformation. After all, these parts of speech do not have their own word-formation apparatus. 2) Significant parts of speech are created both on the basis of word formation and on the basis of transformation. Nouns and adjectives develop to a greater extent on the basis of word formation and transformation. Transformation plays an important role in the development of adverbs. Modern verbs in all varieties appear only due to word formation or form formation.

From the point of view of the use of word formation and transformation of the part of speech of the modern Russian language, it can be divided into three categories:

1) Parts of speech that are created only on the basis of word formation, including shaping: verbs (infinitives, participles, gerunds, personal forms);

2) parts of speech that are created both on the basis of word formation and on the basis of transformation: nouns, adjectives, adverbs;

3) parts of speech that are created only on the basis of transformation: numerals, pronouns, category of state, modal words, interjections, prepositions, conjunctions, particles, copulas.

This classification is important for the modern Russian language. If this issue is considered from a diachronic point of view, then the following should be noted: infinitives and participles once arose on the basis of transformation. It is believed that infinitives arose on the basis of the transformation of verbal nouns. Participles arose in the written period of the life of the Russian language on the basis of the grammatical degeneration of short participles of the active voice of the present or past tense. Historically, adverbs arose on the basis of transformation. The word-formation model of adverbs was formed as a result of transformational processes. There are no reliable data yet to judge on the basis of what transformational processes the most ancient models of nouns, adjectives, participles and personal verbs were formed. It is likely that these word-formation models were formed on the basis of transitional processes. The possibility of borrowing some word-formation models is not excluded, as evidenced by the data of the modern Russian language.

In scientific and educational literature, in connection with different types of transitivity in the field of parts of speech, it is customary to talk about various processes, for which special names are used: substantiation (the rebirth of words belonging to other parts of speech into nouns), adjectivation (the rebirth of words into adjectives) , pronominalization (the rebirth of words into pronouns), numberization (the rebirth of words into numerals), adverbialization (the rebirth of words into an adverb), interjection (the rebirth of words into interjections). Each type of transition represents a complex process.

1. 2 Background on the status category

Prof. Abakumov S.I. took into account the syntactic function of the words of the state category and called them impersonal predicative words. Shakhmatov A. A. used the term "predicative adverbs".

According to Bulanin L. L., Meshchaninov I. I., Shapiro A. B., Migirin V. N., the category of state is not a special part of speech (“Grammar - 80”), for a number of reasons:

I can't have sweets.

I'm close to home.

3. It is syntactically very difficult to determine which sentence is in front of us, two-part or one-part.

He was afraid to be alone with Anna. (Two-part.)

He was afraid to be alone with Anna. (One-part.)

Babaitseva V. V. and Maksimov L. Yu. consider this construction as a transition between a two-part and one-part sentence.

Migirin V. N. and Bulanin L. L. call the words of the category of state as subjectless adjectives.

"Grammar - 80" and "Brief Grammar" by N. Yu. Shvedova refer the words of the state category to different parts of speech:

1. to adverbs (they are called predicative adverbs, or predicatives): sad, cheerful, ashamed, windy, stuffy;

2. to nouns: laziness, hunting, reluctance, shame, time, trouble, time.

Time for lunch. It's time to sleep. Too lazy to go.

1. 3 general characteristicswordsstatus categories

The category of state is a class of words that denote an independent feature, a state and do not have forms of inflection (declension and conjugation), but can express the meaning of time with the help of a linking verb. They usually answer the question what ism? and are used, as a rule, as the main member of one-part sentences (the predicative member of the compound nominal predicate).

The category of state includes immutable words denoting the state of living beings, nature and the environment and acting as a predicate in impersonal sentences: It was quiet in the fields, but quieter in the forest and seemed to be brighter (N. Nekrasov); Damp on a deserted street (A. Rosenbaum); Warm, sunny, quiet (A. Chekhov); I'm sad to look at you (S. Yesenin); It is frosty at night, and warm during the day (V. Chivilikhin).

In modern Russian, there are about 100 words of the category of state. All of them are heterogeneous in composition and origin. The main body of the state category includes:

a) words in -o, correlated with short forms of adjectives and qualitative adverbs (good, fun, quiet, crowded, dark, gloomy, noisy, sad, funny, shameful, bad, damp, smoky, chilly, hot, early, late ): it was gloomy outside, she felt chilly, it was damp in the room, it was smoky in the tent;

b) the words sin, shame, shame, shame, laziness, hunting, time, time, leisure, correlated with nouns; unlike the latter, they denote not objects, but certain states: it’s a sin to laugh, too lazy to play sports, I don’t have time to go shopping, I want to eat, it was a sin to think;

c) the words must, can, need, cannot, sorry, fearful, ashamed, ashamed, loving, unbearable, unbearable, which in modern Russian do not correlate with any parts of speech (adjectives, adverbs, nouns): it is scary here for him alone , you can keep the windows wide open, for this work you need three people, you can’t fall asleep from the heat;

d) words like cover, kaput, kayuk, cross, end in the meaning of death, death, end, correlated with interjections and differ from them not only in meaning and syntactic function, but also in the ability to control the dative case of nouns, combined with adverbial words: here you are and kayuk, kaput the old man, the end of dry winds, tomorrow they will be finished.

To designate this part of speech, other terms are also used that emphasize the syntactic function of words of this lexico-grammatical class: impersonal predicative words, predicatives. In the school course, these words are considered as special adverbs.

The words of the state category do not have specific morphological features. Like adverbs, words of the category of state are invariable, with the exception of words in -o, which have the form of a comparative degree, for example: It has become even colder outside. The morphological features of the words of the state category include the ability to express the meaning of time, transmitted by a bunch with which impersonal predicative words are combined (it was sad, it will be sad, it became fun, it will become fun). The absence of a link serves as an indicator of the present tense.

Impersonally predicative words can be extended by nouns and pronouns in the form of the dative case without a preposition, the genitive and prepositional cases with prepositions: I'm bored. The room is stuffy. It's sad without you. With words of the category of state, there can be adverbs of place, time, quantity, measure: The room is quiet.

The category of state, which does not have clearly defined morphological features, like, for example, a verb, has been attracting the attention of linguists for one hundred and fifty years. Difficulties encountered in the differentiation of words of the category of state are also due to the fact that we cannot enter the categories of thought of a modern person into the framework of established grammatical categories. It is quite possible that in the future the category of state or the words by which it is represented will be called differently, since the term "state" refers only to their semantics, and the term "predicatives" to the syntactic function, thus none of the names can completely express the essence of the category under study. More erroneous is the assignment of the category of state to the parts of speech of the Russian language, such as adverbs, adjectives or verbs.

It seems that the decisive moment in determining the status of the words of the state category is a complete rethinking of the view on the combination "link + word of the state category". In addition, the “link + state category word” model is the main way to convey the state value, primarily by expanding the functionality of the words of this group. In cases where it is required to emphasize the shades of the flow of a state or its relevance, preference is given to the verbal model, due to the categorical semantics of the verb - action. However, the etymological proximity to each other of nominal and verbal constructions makes it difficult to distinguish between them, which is why when choosing a particular model, one must be guided by logical and grammatical factors.

The set of language tools for conveying the semantics of the state in Russian is much wider and more diverse than in other languages. In addition to grammatical classes that nominate this meaning in full (these are the words of the category of state, short adjectives, short participles in the predicative function, constructions with the prepositional case), in Russian the state can be partially transmitted by verbs, adverbs, adverbs and case forms of nouns.

The semantic field of the state reflects the world of a person’s inner experiences, his perception of the world around him, therefore, the language means expressing the state are in constant development and are characterized by the departure from the old language and the emergence of new ways of conveying this meaning.

The whole variety of means of expressing the state in the language is the source of its replenishment. The category of state has a pronounced property to desemantize other parts of speech and “draw” them into its system, as a result of which they partially or completely lose their former features. All this indicates that the category of state is viable, developing, and its influence in the language will continue to grow.

Chapter 2Analysis of the category of state as an independent part of speech in modern Russian

1. Do not change (do not decline or conjugate). True, individual impersonal-predicative words in -o have forms of comparative degree:

The room became quieter; He became more cheerful; It was coldest in the corner room; It was very hard, harder than in the semifinals. Some words of this group, like adjectives and adverbs, can take the form of a subjective assessment: I felt creepy; It's stuffy in the corridor.

2. They are used in the form of one of three tenses (the meaning of time is provided by linking verbs): the present - a zero link (it’s cold today, it’s deserted and deserted in the forest, it’s getting colder), the past - it was a bunch (it was stuffy and dark outside, yesterday friends had a lot of fun), the future will be a bunch (tomorrow it will be warm, students will have fun).

3. They have analytical mood forms, which are expressed by the forms of the verb acting as a linking verb: indicative (it was fun, it will be good) and subjunctive (it would be warm, it would be quiet).

4. They can have forms of the species, which are determined not by the words of the category of state, but by auxiliary verbs become (become), do (become), etc.: I felt sad - I feel sad; it became nauseating - it became nauseating.

5. They are characterized (like verbs) by the ability to control the case forms of nouns and pronouns (most often in the dative, genitive and prepositional cases): it’s deserted outside, it’s cold at night, I’m scared for people, without you I’m sad, sorry for this kitten, it’s warm from your gaze.

6. Can be combined with infinitives: you can do it, you need to go, you need to talk, it's hard to answer.

7. Perform the function of a predicate in an impersonal sentence: It was already dark and deserted (V. Aksenov); I am warm in a cold dugout from your unquenchable love (A. Surkov); She becomes ashamed (L. Ulitskaya).

By value, several categories of words of the state category can be distinguished:

1. Words denoting the state of the environment (cold, damp, frosty, sunny, hot, light, dark, hot, warm, windy, deserted): It is October outside, but sunny and quiet as in summer (A. Chekhov); It was very windy. Seagulls screamed like a kindergarten on a walk (V. Aksenov); It was hot in a cramped room from a red-hot iron stove (V. Azhaev).

2. Words expressing the physical and mental state of a person or animal (joyful, fun, funny, easy, painful, sickening, hard, disgusting, sad, bitter, ashamed, anxious, chilly, creepy, insulting, lazy, sorry): I am very Badly. Everything is gray and yellow before the eyes (A. Mitkov); It didn’t even hurt me (E. Yevtushenko); It became difficult to walk in the snow (V. Arseniev); - I'm ashamed, - he said, - why would I be like a beggar ... (S. Dovlatov); These threats made Abarchuk sick (V. Grossman); I do not feel sorry for the trampled royal crown, but I feel sorry for the destroyed white churches (N. Rubtsov). The same group includes words with the meaning of visual and auditory sensations, perceptions: nothing is visible; no music was heard; Seryozha is always heard and seen in the house.

3. Words expressing an assessment (positive or negative) of any state or action (good, true, right, charming, bad, shameful, shame, shame, shame, sin, sinful): “They won’t really understand, but they will raise a fuss. That would be shame!” Ї thought Alexey Alexandrovich (R. Solntsev); Ї That's right, that's right! Ї shouted Koroviev (M. Bulgakov); In the end, it would be sad if he was not naughty, but was quiet (G. Gazdanov); We don’t have a rubber boat, it’s bad for anglers without a boat (I. Petrusenko).

4. Words expressing a state or position in space and time (far, close, high, low, deep, shallow, wide, narrow, late, long, early, time): Too late. The day is getting evening (F. Tyutchev); It was crowded on the square (V. Khodasevich); It is still high to the top of the snowy mountains (E. Selezneva); But... It's deep in here! (A. Lazarchuk).

5. Words with a modal assessment, containing the meaning of possibility, impossibility, necessity, obligation (necessary, necessary, perhaps, possible, must, necessary, impossible, impossible): Where another needs an hour, she does not need even five minutes (I. Goncharov); I myself worked in a newspaper, I know - if necessary, then necessary (S. Ustinov); It is necessary that specialists leaving the walls of the university meet the requirements of today (B. Govorin); It is impossible to see the end in death. It is impossible for their life to pass without a trace. (Ch. Aitmatov); It is impossible, it is impossible for human inert nature to “move” differently! (A. Remizov).

6. Words with a modal meaning expressing the need to stop the action (enough, enough, enough, it's time, full, will be): Enough, laughed - it's time, my friends, to get to work (O. Pavlov); When he was little, his mother and Anna Pavlovna waved him from the audience: “Zhenya, that’s enough!” (S. Spivakova); Yes, it’s full, it will roar, not a cow! (P. Nilin).

Some words of the state category are polysemantic and therefore are included in several lexical-thematic groups (easy, hard, bad, good, difficult, hot, warm, dark, stuffy, cramped). Wed: it became stuffy in the house - he was stuffy, dizzy; it was crowded in the bus - the heart was tight, anxious in the chest; on the river it is good and free - he felt so good!

Different opinions have been expressed in the scientific literature about the status and composition of the condition category. For the first time, such words were singled out into a separate part of speech by L.V. Shcherba in the article "On parts of speech in the Russian language" (1928). He also coined the term “category of state” itself. When highlighting the category of state L.V. Shcherba took into account not only the semantics of words (the general meaning of a non-dynamic state), but also the function they perform (the predicate). He included a rather motley group of words into the category of state: a) the words cannot, can, must, it's time, sorry, necessary; b) words in -o such as fun, light, cold; c) short adjectives sick, cheerful, cheerful, glad, sad, must, intend, angry, etc.; d) adverbs married, alert, alert, used with a bunch of be.

A great contribution to the approval of the opinion about the category of state as an independent part of speech was made by V.V. Vinogradov in the book "Russian language (Grammatical doctrine of the word)" (1947). He somewhat narrowed the boundaries of the category of state and included in its composition indeclinable-nominal and adverbial words that have forms of time and mood and are used exclusively in the function of a predicate. Following V.V. Vinogradov, the category of state was recognized as an independent part of speech by the authors of textbooks on the Russian language A.N. Gvozdev, E.M. Galkina Fedoruk, V.A. Beloshapkova, N.M. Shansky, A.N. Tikhonov, P.A. Lekant, D.E. Rosenthal and more. others

However, the specificity of this group of words, the fuzziness of morphological and other kinds of features did not allow some scientists to recognize the category of state as a part of speech. Thus, the authors of the "Russian Grammar" (1980) consider the words of the state category as predicative adverbs (predicatives). Some researchers classify words like sorry, possible, necessary, impossible as a group of so-called "homeless" words, which, in their opinion, cannot be attributed to any of the existing parts of speech. There is no uniformity in the interpretation of the words of the category of state and in school manuals. In most school textbooks, the words of the state category are considered as predicative adverbs (adverbs-predicates), and in the educational complex edited by V.V. The Babaits category of state is considered an independent part of speech. In the present study, the category of state is considered a special significant part of speech.

2.2 The difference between the category of state and short adjectives of the middle gender, adverbs in- O,namesnouns

The difference between these forms is determined in the context. Everyone was sad (the function of the nominal part of the predicate in a one-part impersonal sentence). He looked sadly at his friend (a function of the modus operandi).

His face is sad, sad (the function of the nominal part of the predicate in a two-part sentence).

The same differences are characteristic of the forms of the simple comparative degree of the indicated parts of speech. The comparative degree of an adjective in a sentence is usually the nominal part of the predicate and explains the sign of the subject, for example: He was small, but became taller. The comparative degree of the word of the state category is the nominal part of the predicate in the impersonal sentence: Everyone has become more cheerful. The comparative degree of the adverb serves as a circumstance and refers to the verb-predicate, for example: He did a lot, but no more than the rest.

The words of the state category should also be distinguished from homonymous nouns, for example: Well, I have to go. - There was that vague time when young Russia was maturing with the genius of Peter ... (A. Pushkin). In the first sentence, the word of the state category is used (the indicator is a function of the predicate in an impersonal sentence), in the second - a noun (the indicator is the function of the subject in a two-part sentence).

1) general grammatical meaning (state);

2) morphemic features: most of the words of the state category have a suffix - o;

3) syntactic function: predicate in an impersonal sentence.

According to their morphological features, the words of the state category are close to adverbs, for example: I feel bad (the word of the state category). - He does not read well (adverb). He is sad (a word of the state category), - The old man smiled sadly (adverb).

Words of the state category on - o, formed from qualitative adjectives, can form forms of degrees of comparison, for example: Sadder, sadder became in the soul (A. Kuprin).

Boring, scary, everything around freezes, (F. Sologub)

Personally predicative words differ from short adjectives of the middle gender in that they do not indicate the sign of the subject and do not have agreement forms, since do not change by gender and number. Wed: room light, house bright, building set rooms bright (short adjectives) - in the room (V buildings) light (state category). Short adjectives always denote a temporal sign of the subject, and homonyms for them impersonal predicative words are used only in impersonal sentences.

Impersonal predicative words differ from adverbs in the following ways:

a) the adverb denotes a sign of action, and the category of state does not designate a sign at all, it expresses the state of living beings, environment, objects;

b) the adverb is adjacent to the main words;

While impersonal-predicative words, on the contrary, subordinate the verb, the infinitive adjoins them;

c) the adverb usually does not control the dative of the subject, and the category of state is characterized by the control of the dative case, denoting a person (or object) that is in one state or another. For example: It's too late to leave.(state category).

Much less often than adverbs and short adjectives, nouns pass into the category of state. At the same time, nouns lose the meaning of objectivity and begin to express a state. Wed: Laziness (n.) spoils a person And I'm lazy (state category) get up early. In the second example, the word laziness denotes the state of the subject expressed by the pronoun to me.

The meaning of the qualitative assessment of the state usually develops in abstract nouns, for example: shame, disgrace, disgrace, torment, hard labor, pity, hunting, reluctance, bondage, annoyance, grief, trouble, time, time, leisure, leisure, laziness, horror and etc.

The transition of nouns into the category of state is accompanied not only by a change in their lexical meaning, but also by the loss of their grammatical meanings inherent in nouns - the meanings of gender, number and case. Therefore, speaking in a new function for them - in the function of a predicate impersonal sentence, they do not agree with any words. Wed: It was spring time (n.) and It's time (state cat.) was to rest. Unlike nouns, they have tense and mood forms. (it was time to leave, it's time for him to return etc.) can be defined by qualitative adverbs (very sorry, terribly reluctant, so lazy) have a dative person and a subordinate infinitive (he is too lazy to move).

B personal-predicative words denoting the state of the environment (weather, atmospheric phenomena), conditions, etc. For example: foggy, dark, hot, empty, damp, wet, stuffy, noisy, windy, deserted, cozy, quiet, motley, cold, good, fun, bad, sunny, snowy, etc. For example: « - No, my soul, for me there are no such balls where it's fun, - said Anna ”(L. Tolstoy).

The impersonal-predicative words of this group are usually combined only with circumstantial words, rarely with an object in the genitive case, but with them there can be no dative case denoting the subject. For example: It was colorful and noisy from the people (A. Tolstoy).

In the presence of a dative subject, these words denote the state not of the environment, but of the subject, even if they contain adverbial words in the sentence. For example: I feel stuffy here; He's good there; They have fun there.

2.3 The problem of separating words of the category of state into an independent part of speech

Much attention in domestic and foreign linguistics is paid to the theory of parts of speech. The basis for the classification of parts of speech by domestic linguists in general and in materials devoted to the modern language, in particular, are the works of famous scientists L.V. Shcherba and V.V. Vinogradov, created in accordance with the traditions of Russian science. Repeated comprehensive discussion of the theory of parts of speech and established traditions have made a great contribution to modern linguistic literature, although until now there are no solutions to all controversial and complex problems, and some sometimes acquire the status of eternal.

The definition of the main parts of speech is also imperfect, which is explained by objective difficulties - the complexity of this system in languages, which also leads to a complex scheme for classifying parts of speech.

Unlike foreign authors, domestic linguists, based on the works of domestic Russian linguists, distinguish the so-called non-traditional parts of speech: particles, modal words and words of the state category. However, the smaller the similar groups of words, the more objections arise to recognize this group of words as an independent part of speech. Not all Germanists and Anglists consider it legitimate to give the words of this category the status of an independent part of speech. Therefore, in this case, the issue cannot be resolved unambiguously.

Currently, a special place in the section of parts of speech is given to words of the category of state or, as they are also called in modern linguistic literature, words - predicates or statives that exist in many European languages.

This grammatical phenomenon has been considered by many linguists, but there is still no consensus on this category of words. On some issues related to the section of parts of speech, there are no common, agreed points of view. One of these issues is the presence of words of this category in modern English as an independent part of speech. This is confirmed by the fact that some linguists study the category in question on a very large scale.

B.A. Ilyish studies this category of words not so widely, he includes in it words both with a morphological indicator (element a-), and words that express a state, but belong to different parts of speech.

The third group of linguists studies this category even more: they lend this group only to words in -a.

The question of classifying a group of words as a category of state as a separate part of speech is not at all raised in foreign linguistics.

Foreign linguists who study English, both structural and traditional, study a group of words of this category either as part of an adjective or as part of an adverb.

When considering the words of the state category in the adverb system, some foreign linguists of the traditional direction emphasize their predicative function, another group of foreign linguists does not highlight the functional features of the words of the state category.

There is no systematic and consistent explanation of the words of the category under consideration in modern English dictionaries, where they are treated either as adjectives, or as adverbs, or as predicative adjectives, and even as adverbial clauses. E. Crazing, O. Kerm, O. Jespersen and G. Poutsma, for example, noted the morphological, semantic and functional features of this group of words and considered these words in the adjective system, concluding that they do not have the function of a prepositive definition. The opinion of researchers - linguists of the structural direction is almost similar to the opinion of researchers - linguists of the traditional direction, the essence of which is that they refer the words of the state category to different classes of words without conducting a thorough morphological, functional and semantic study.

In English, the words of the state category were separated into a separate part of speech by Russian grammarians. At the same time, it should be noted that Russian Anglists began to consider this group of words as a separate class in accordance with the Russian grammatical tradition, where L.V. Shcherba, V.V. Vinogradov, B.A. Ilyish, P.I. Schleivis for the first time identified the category of words under consideration as a separate and independent part of speech.

However, it should be noted that the question of the category of state as a separate part of speech has not been finally resolved.

The existing points of view of domestic anglists on the words of the state category are as follows:

1. Words of the state category must be attributed to a separate part of speech. Such words have their own characteristics (semantic, syntactic and morphological), which distinguish them from other parts of speech.

2. Other researchers believe that there is no significant difference between the words of the category of state and the adjective.

3. The third point of view on the words of the state category was put forward by V.G. Vilyuman, who believes that these words do not form an independent part of speech, but form a lexical category, because the state is expressed by various parts of speech (nouns, adjectives, participle II, as well as a turn, which is characterized by an idiomatic character).

It should be noted that the words of the category of state are also present in other Indo-European languages. Thus, for example, the question is raised of isolating the words of the category of state into an independent part of speech in the Lithuanian language.

In German, the words of the category of state are not isolated into a separate part of speech, although here there are a number of words that express the state, and in the function of definition their use is limited or not used at all. So, N.G. Kozinskaya distinguishes the following types of adjectives: those that differ in their semantics in attributive and predicative functions (15 words), those that do not have the function of a prepositive definition (56 words), with limited attributive use (10 words). N.G. Kozinskaya believes that in German, as in other languages, the expression of a state in time acts as a general lexical and grammatical meaning of the category of state. Many words denoting the state of a person appear in a sentence as a subject.

In Russian, such phenomena are considered and called by different linguists in different ways. For example, the term "predicative adverbs" was introduced by A.A. Chess. This linguist believes that such words are not used with a verb.

The first period of studying the words of the category of state in the Russian language begins with the works of the linguist A.Kh. Vostokov, where such words as "stuffy", "hot", "sorry" are considered as a "foreign body" in the system of accepted parts of speech. A.Kh. Vostokov considers this group of words as words of the category of the verb, where he also refers all the short forms of the adjective, which he calls "conjugated words". However, the works of A.Kh. Vostokov were subjected to fierce criticism by Russian grammarians of the first half of the 19th century, except for N.P. Nekrasov, who followed the concept of A.Kh. Vostokova. The second period of studying the words of the category of state is marked by the study of L.V. Shcherba "On parts of speech in the Russian language", in which the same words are singled out as an independent part of speech - the category of state, although at first L.V. Shcherba attributed such words as “sorry”, “impossible”, etc. to adverbs. V.V. Vinogradov defined this category on a par with other parts of speech that have the form of time. A group of some Russian linguists classified words like "stuffy" as a separate part of speech expressing a state. The work of these scholars led to studies in which words like words like "cold" were seen as impersonal predicative words expressing a state.

There is a special characteristic of the words of the category of state A.V. Isachenko, characterized by her inconsistency. In his classification of predicative words, this author included the following: presence predicates (is, not), state predicates (good, stuffy), modal predicative words (possible, intends, etc.), noun predicates (it's time, sorry, and etc.), pronominal predicatives (no time, nothing, etc.). A.V. Isachenko singles out a group of pronominal predicatives based on their use as impersonal predicative words, and a group of modal predicatives based on the analytical way of expressing the category of mood and tense. But it should be noted that this author does not take into account that these predicatives can also have other syntactic functions, such as adverbial functions (I have nowhere to hurry), complement functions (I have nothing to do) and others. The remaining groups of predicatives have differences in lexical terms (predicates of presence, state, sensory perception) or morphological features (predicatives - nouns).

In modern Russian linguistic literature, most linguists consider the words of the state category to be an independent part of speech, which has its own syntactic, morphological and semantic features.

Nevertheless, the presence of the problem of words of the category of state in linguistic science indicates the particular complexity and importance of the issue both in modern domestic and foreign literature, as well as in Russian and English.

The complexity of defining the words of the state category into an independent part of speech is associated with homonymous forms that appear only in the context.

It should be noted that those linguists who recognize the existence of words in the category of state as a separate part of speech interpret it differently.

Let us consider the words of the category of state in the English language, namely their syntactic and word-formation characteristics in comparison with the adjective. The parts of speech under consideration differ at the word-formation level, not to mention their difference in the field of semantics and morphology.

The adjective name and the words of the state category differ syntactically. Although both the adjective and the words of the state category may be in the same syntactic positions, they differ in their major and minor syntactic functions. The main syntactic function of the words of the state category is the function of the predicative member. On the contrary, the main syntactic function of the adjectival name is the function of the prepositive definition.

When comparing the words of the state category in English and Russian, it is easy to notice their discrepancy, lack of correspondence to each other, it is also difficult to single out any specific semantic type of “states” in them, expressed by the words of this category. In both languages, they are obvious, non-matching word types. For example, an English statement with an adjective - I feel warm; English sentences like - I am fond of.

In Russian, there is a use of a short form of adjectives in impersonal constructions (I'm warm, it's cold here, etc.), in this case there is no reason to consider words with the ending -o as a short form of an adjective, since in sentences of this type there is no subject with which the adjective would agree in case, gender and number. These words cannot be attributed to the class of adverbs due to the absence of a significant verb in the sentences, in relation to which the adverb would clarify the mode of action.

The words of the state category in Russian do not have an exact morphological characteristic, but it can be noted that some words have the ending “-o”, which allows one or another word to be attributed to the words of the state category along with the expression of the state. This group of words denotes a state (in a rather broad sense), has an invariable ending -o and the function of the nominal part of the predicate.

In conclusion, we can say what B.A. Ilyish, that in such cases we have before us not adjectives, but words of the category of state. Further B.A. Ilyish rightly noted that these “adjectives” are not capable of being a definition, that in modern English the definition has no morphological design, and almost any word can be understood as a definition for this noun if it is located between the noun and the article. In this situation, it is surprising that there are adjectives that do not have such a function.

Following many linguists, having studied the problem of words of the category of state in modern linguistic literature, it should be assumed that the meaning of the state is a special categorical meaning, and not a special case of a feature. In this regard, it is necessary to consider that the words of the state category are not a kind of adjectives or adverbs, but represent a special part of speech with their characteristic syntactic (they have the role of a predicative member in the sentence), morphological (the words of the state category are decorated with the element -a in English and ending -o in some cases in Russian) and semantic (express the state of the subject) features.

Status category. The question of the category of state as an independent part of speech

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Similar Documents