There are no school and university grammars on Indo-European (I-E) and Turkic languages, as well as no studies on the theory of parts of speech, in which the problem of pronouns is regarded from various perspectives. This class of words does not have a general semantic feature that is characteristic of all its categories, as is the case in other auto semantic parts of speech – nouns and verbs. It is not possible to specify syntactic functions that are common to all pronouns. Their morphological and paradigmatic characteristics are also heterogeneous. For example, personal pronouns have a declension paradigm that is not represented in other parts of speech. Their distinctive feature is suppletion within the case paradigm. The analysis of grammatical studies shows that there are significant differences in the definition of the quantitative composition and nomenclature of pronouns both within the same language of different authors, and in different languages in typological terms. Significant quantitative differences are revealed between different categories of this part of speech in all the languages under analysis – from 1 to 77. There are no clear boundaries between pronouns proper and the so-called pronominal words. The article presents a typological description of the types of morphological structure of all categories of pronouns in different languages. The classifications of the categories of pronouns are contradictory. Thus, the status of the so-called reflexives is defined differently: some linguists consider them as amplifying forms of personal pronouns, while others grant them the status of an independent category. In typological terms the indefinite pronoun they in English, man in German, on in French and their grammatical equivalent in Russian – the form of the 3rd person plural are of great interest. The paper also reveals the inverse relationship between the morphological structure and the one or multi-meaning of pronouns, namely: the simpler the morphological structure of a unit, the more multifunctional it is, and, vice versa, the more complex the morphological structure is, the poorer this unit is in functional and semantic terms.
Published in | International Journal of Language and Linguistics (Volume 9, Issue 4) |
DOI | 10.11648/j.ijll.20210904.12 |
Page(s) | 145-154 |
Creative Commons |
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited. |
Copyright |
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Science Publishing Group |
Level Structure, Morphological Structure, Pronoun Categories
[1] | Muryasov R Z., Savelyeva L. A. (2019) The periphery zone of the system of parts of speech (contrastive-typological research), Ufa. |
[2] | Muryasov R. Z. (2019) On the periphery of the parts of speech system // Xlinguae. European Scientific Language Journal. October 2019. Volume 12. Issue 4. P. 51-64. |
[3] | Longman. Grammar of Spoken and Written English (2000). London. |
[4] | Helbig G., Buscha J. (1996) German Grammar. Langenscheidt Verlag Enzyklopädie. Leipzig. Berlin. München. Wien. Zürich. New York. |
[5] | Duden. (2005) Bd. 4. The Grammar. Dudenverlag. Mannheim. Leipzig. Wien. Zürich. |
[6] | The Dictionary of Lnguistics (1973) Librairie Larousse. Paris. |
[7] | The Tatar Grammar (1997) T. II. Morphologia. Kazan. |
[8] | Glinz H. The Grammars in Comparison. German-French. English-Latin. Forms-Meaning-Understanding (1994) Max Niemeyer Verlag. Tübingen. |
[9] | Shvedova N. Yu. (2005) The Russian Language. Selected Works. Moscow. |
[10] | Bulgakow M. A. (1992) Master i Margarita. in Russian. Мoscow. |
[11] | Bulgakov M. (1996) The Master and Margarita. The Harvill Press. London. |
[12] | Bulgakow M. (1983) Der Meister und Margarita. Aufbau-Verlag. Berlin and Weimar. |
[13] | Boulgakov M. (2005) Le Maître et Marguerite. Paris. |
[14] | The Russian Grammar (1980) Moscow. |
[15] | Vinogradov V. V. (2001) The Russian Language (Grammatical Study of the Word). Moscow. |
[16] | Nikolayeva T. M. (2008) Non-paradigmatic Linguistics (The History of Wandering Particles). Moscow. |
[17] | The New Comprehensive English-Russian Dictionary (2000) V 3. Moscow. |
[18] | Sobolevskiy S. I. (1998) The Grammar of the Latin Language. Theoretical Part. Morphology and Syntax. Saint-Petersburg. |
[19] | The Foundation of the German Grammar (1981) Akademie-Verlag. Berlin. |
[20] | Linguistic Encyclopedic Dictionary - LED (2002) Moscow. |
[21] | Alexander L. G. (1999) Longman English Grammar. London and New York. |
[22] | Eisenberg P. (1994) The Basic Features of the German Grammar. Stuttgart. Weimer. |
[23] | Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (2006) Pearson Education Limited Edenborough Gate. England. |
[24] | Wahrig G. (2006) German Dictionary. Guetersloh. München. |
[25] | The New Petit Robert (1994) Paris. |
[26] | The Comprehensive Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language (2000). Saint-Petersburg. |
[27] | Riegel Martin, Pellat Jean Christoph, Rioul Rene (2014) Methodical Grammar of French. Paris. |
[28] | Jespersen O. (1924) The Philosophy of Grammar. New York. |
[29] | Smirnitskiy A. I. (1959) The English Language Morphology. Moscow. |
[30] | Barkhudarov L. S., Shteling D. A (1973) The Grammar of the English Language. Moscow. |
[31] | Ivanova I. P., Burlakova V. V. Pocheptsov G. G. (1981) Theoretical Grammar of the Modern English Language. Moscow. |
[32] | Kachalova K. N., Izrailevich E. E. (1994) Practical Grammar of the English Language. Moscow. |
[33] | Kamyanova T. G. (2015) English Grammar. Moscow. |
[34] | Ilyish B. (1965) The Structure of Modern English. Moscow. |
[35] | Paul H. German Grammar (1958) Bd. 3. VEB. Halle (Saale). |
[36] | Lamprecht A. (1972) The Grammar of the English Language. Berlin. |
[37] | Le Petit Larousse. (2010) Paris. |
[38] | Oxford German Dictionary. German-English. English-German (2008) Oxford University Press. |
[39] | Muryasov R. Z. (2016) Verb Typology in Languages of Different Structures. Ufa. |
APA Style
Rakhim Zakievich Muryasov. (2021). Pronouns in the System of Parts of Speech. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 9(4), 145-154. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.20210904.12
ACS Style
Rakhim Zakievich Muryasov. Pronouns in the System of Parts of Speech. Int. J. Lang. Linguist. 2021, 9(4), 145-154. doi: 10.11648/j.ijll.20210904.12
AMA Style
Rakhim Zakievich Muryasov. Pronouns in the System of Parts of Speech. Int J Lang Linguist. 2021;9(4):145-154. doi: 10.11648/j.ijll.20210904.12
@article{10.11648/j.ijll.20210904.12, author = {Rakhim Zakievich Muryasov}, title = {Pronouns in the System of Parts of Speech}, journal = {International Journal of Language and Linguistics}, volume = {9}, number = {4}, pages = {145-154}, doi = {10.11648/j.ijll.20210904.12}, url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.20210904.12}, eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijll.20210904.12}, abstract = {There are no school and university grammars on Indo-European (I-E) and Turkic languages, as well as no studies on the theory of parts of speech, in which the problem of pronouns is regarded from various perspectives. This class of words does not have a general semantic feature that is characteristic of all its categories, as is the case in other auto semantic parts of speech – nouns and verbs. It is not possible to specify syntactic functions that are common to all pronouns. Their morphological and paradigmatic characteristics are also heterogeneous. For example, personal pronouns have a declension paradigm that is not represented in other parts of speech. Their distinctive feature is suppletion within the case paradigm. The analysis of grammatical studies shows that there are significant differences in the definition of the quantitative composition and nomenclature of pronouns both within the same language of different authors, and in different languages in typological terms. Significant quantitative differences are revealed between different categories of this part of speech in all the languages under analysis – from 1 to 77. There are no clear boundaries between pronouns proper and the so-called pronominal words. The article presents a typological description of the types of morphological structure of all categories of pronouns in different languages. The classifications of the categories of pronouns are contradictory. Thus, the status of the so-called reflexives is defined differently: some linguists consider them as amplifying forms of personal pronouns, while others grant them the status of an independent category. In typological terms the indefinite pronoun they in English, man in German, on in French and their grammatical equivalent in Russian – the form of the 3rd person plural are of great interest. The paper also reveals the inverse relationship between the morphological structure and the one or multi-meaning of pronouns, namely: the simpler the morphological structure of a unit, the more multifunctional it is, and, vice versa, the more complex the morphological structure is, the poorer this unit is in functional and semantic terms.}, year = {2021} }
TY - JOUR T1 - Pronouns in the System of Parts of Speech AU - Rakhim Zakievich Muryasov Y1 - 2021/06/21 PY - 2021 N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.20210904.12 DO - 10.11648/j.ijll.20210904.12 T2 - International Journal of Language and Linguistics JF - International Journal of Language and Linguistics JO - International Journal of Language and Linguistics SP - 145 EP - 154 PB - Science Publishing Group SN - 2330-0221 UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.20210904.12 AB - There are no school and university grammars on Indo-European (I-E) and Turkic languages, as well as no studies on the theory of parts of speech, in which the problem of pronouns is regarded from various perspectives. This class of words does not have a general semantic feature that is characteristic of all its categories, as is the case in other auto semantic parts of speech – nouns and verbs. It is not possible to specify syntactic functions that are common to all pronouns. Their morphological and paradigmatic characteristics are also heterogeneous. For example, personal pronouns have a declension paradigm that is not represented in other parts of speech. Their distinctive feature is suppletion within the case paradigm. The analysis of grammatical studies shows that there are significant differences in the definition of the quantitative composition and nomenclature of pronouns both within the same language of different authors, and in different languages in typological terms. Significant quantitative differences are revealed between different categories of this part of speech in all the languages under analysis – from 1 to 77. There are no clear boundaries between pronouns proper and the so-called pronominal words. The article presents a typological description of the types of morphological structure of all categories of pronouns in different languages. The classifications of the categories of pronouns are contradictory. Thus, the status of the so-called reflexives is defined differently: some linguists consider them as amplifying forms of personal pronouns, while others grant them the status of an independent category. In typological terms the indefinite pronoun they in English, man in German, on in French and their grammatical equivalent in Russian – the form of the 3rd person plural are of great interest. The paper also reveals the inverse relationship between the morphological structure and the one or multi-meaning of pronouns, namely: the simpler the morphological structure of a unit, the more multifunctional it is, and, vice versa, the more complex the morphological structure is, the poorer this unit is in functional and semantic terms. VL - 9 IS - 4 ER -