CC BY
19друу 'ийь уърада.
Стула, ж.р. - стул, м.р.: Ваз'м'и ф хат'онку стулу.
Танга, ж.р. - танк, м.р.: ул'ижу, бал'шайь тануъ нъ м'ин'е пр 'от'.
Трутня, ж.р. - трутень, м.р.: Ас'ин'йу пчолъм трут'н'ь очьн' нужнъ.
Фронтона, ж.р. - фронтон, м.р.
Фруфта, фрухта, хрукта, ж.р. - фрукт, м.р.: Ш'ш 'ас фрухту свайу йа шастой уот н'и в'ижу.
Намного меньше зафиксировано примеров перехода слов женского рода в мужской:
Вишняк, м.р. - вишня, ж.р.: У нас ф саду такой в'ишн'ак.
Крыш, м.р. - крыша, ж.р.: Иш'ш'о был д'ьр 'ив'анный крыш, жыс 'т 'ой пакрът.
Кувалд, м.р. - кувалда, ж.р.: У м'ин'е бал'шой кувалд йес'т'.
Папах, м.р. - папаха, ж.р.: Над'ен' папах свой, шапку над'ен'!
В островном говоре отмечено также существительное берлог.
«Берлог, м.р. - берлога, ж.р.: Вът йиуо б'ирлох». [2, с. 75] Однако невозможно однозначно утверждать, что здесь произошел переход. Так, в «Этимологическом словаре русского языка» А. Преображенского отмечено, что в др.-рус. языке выступали формы «берлога, берлог, бьрлога, бьрьлог». [8, с. 24]. Если учесть мнение А.И. Соболевского и П.Я. Черных, то слово «восходит к о.-с. *bьrlogъ» [11, с. 86]. В словаре Макса Фасме-ра также указывается: «русск.-цслав. бьрлогъ». [10, с. 158] А соответственно, существительное изначально относилось к мужскому роду. В процессе развития русского литературного языка оно перешло из мужского рода в женский. В говоре же слово могло сохранить исконную форму.
Таким образом, «важное диалектное различие имен существительных касается категории грамматического рода». [4, с. 22] Исследование подтвердило характерную для южновеликорусских говоров черту - процесс утраты категории среднего рода.
Переход существительных среднего рода в категорию женского или мужского рода осуществляется в русском островном говоре Азербайджана и со стороны согласования, и со стороны падежных окончаний. Об этом свидетельствуют 43 вы-
явленных в ходе проведенного исследования примера.
Чаще всего утрата среднего рода проявляется в изменении форм согласования по женскому роду. Реже наблюдается процесс перехода в мужской род. Всего в работе было проанализировано 187 форм.
Литература
1. Гейдарова Э.А. Языковой портрет русского островного говора Азербайджана. - Москва: Университетская книга, 2017. - 304 с.
2. Гейдарова Э.А. Лексическая система русского островного говора Азербайджана. - Баку: AVROPA, 2015. - 178 с.
3. Гулиева Л.Г., Гейдарова Э.А. Лексикон русского островного говора Азербайджана. - Баку: Авропа, 2014. - 498 с.
4. Гулиева Л.Г., Мамедбейли Ф.АГ., Гейдарова Э.А., Керимова Г.О. Словарь русского островного говора Азербайджана. 2-е изд. - Баку: Tehsil, 2006. - 641 с.
5. Гулиева Л.Г. К исследованию современных диалектов. // Материалы Международной научной конференции «Русский язык в современном мире: константы и динамика». - Волгоград, 2009. - с. 192-195.
6. Микиртуни А.Я. Говоры русских поселенцев в Азербайджанской ССР. Автореф. дис... канд. фил. наук. - Москва, 1952. - 12 с.
7. Пожарицкая С.К. Русская диалектология. Учебник. - Москва: Академический проект: Парадигма, 2005. - 256 с.
8. Преображенский А. Этимологический словарь русского языка. Т. 1. - Москва: Типография Г. Лисснера и Д. Совко, 1910-1914. - 674 с.
9. Русская диалектология: Учебн. изд. 3-е изд., испр. и доп. / С.В. Бромлей, Л.Н. Булатова, О.Г. Гецова и др.; под ред. Л.Л. Касаткина. -Москва: АСТ-ПРЕСС КНИГА, 2013. - 304 с.
10. Фасмер М. Этимологический словарь русского языка. Т. 1 (А-Д): пер. с нем. и доп. О.Н. Трубачева. / Под ред. проф. Б.А. Ларина. 2-е изд., стер. - Москва: Прогресс, 1986. - 576 с.
11. Черных П.Я. Историко-этимологический словарь современного русского языка. 3-е изд., стереотип. - Москва: Русский язык, 1999. Т. 1. -624 с.
THE VIEWS ABOUT THE COORDINATING RELATION EXISTING IN LANGUAGE
Kerimova D.
Azerbaijan Higher Millitary Academy named after H. Aliyev
Baku, Azerbaijan
ABSTRACT
There are many types of grammatical connections in linguistics. The key is the relationship between disobedience and submission. The relationship of subordination and disobedience exists between words, word combinations, sentences, sentence members. Subordinate clauses are a combination of words that have the same function, are equal and independent of each other. Subordinate clauses do not have their own special form. Although disjunctive phrases are similar to homologous sentences, there are some differences between them.
The article discusses the content and form features of the relationship of disobedience in language. Various scientific sources were used in writing the article.
Keywords: connection, disobedience, subordination, language, syntax.
Though there are different syntactic relations in language, the most spread of them is the coordinating and subordinating relation. Different relational types among the words, word combinations, sentences, members of the sentence exist in the language. We meet with the relations among the words in two conditions: 1) the relation among the words in the word combinations; 2) the relation among the words in the sentence.
The coordinating and subordinating relations have been reflected largely in the language of the ancient Turkish monuments, too. A.Radjabli notes the existing of the units having the coordinating relation inside the sentence in the language of the ancient Turkish written monuments. The scientist notes the facts realizing of the coordinating relation in the following positions in the ancient Turkish languages: among the homogeneous subjects, among the homogeneous predicates, among the homogeneous attributes, among the homogeneous adverbial modifiers, among the components of the double words, among the components of the compound sentence [1, 98].
Before not to express any opinion about the syntactic relations in the modern Azerbaijani language, it is needed to have a look to the syntactic relations in the ancient Turkish languages. Generally, the history of studying of the syntactic relations is very old in the Turkic languages. The existing of the coordinating and subordinating relations in the language of the Uyghur monuments has been identified. The coordinating and subordinating relation attracts the attention with own specific features in the language of the Uyghur written monuments, too. Mainly, the subordinating relation expresses itself in the language of the "Khuastuanift" monument. The subordinating relation exists both in the nominative and verbal word combinations, and among the members of the sentence in the language of the monument."
Many types of the grammatical relation are spoken in linguistics. The main of these is the coordinating and subordinating relation. These types of the relation, almost, have been accepted by all of the world linguists. About it is written in the Russian linguistics: "The words express the relations appearing on the basis of the real attitudes of the things, processes, qualities and features by combining in the word combinations" [2, 15]. The predicative or the social predicative being the third type of the attitudes was included by enlarging the line which the subordination and coordination including by some Russian linguists in the last periods.
The changing of the words, expressing different forms, the classification forms is the object of the morphology, the connection of the words to each other, the rules of the relation is the research object of syntax in grammar. G.Kazimov compares the relation among the members of the sentence with the relations among the members of society. The scientist writes: "As being the simple judicial equality among the
members of the society during history, the coordination, and the judicial equality exist among some words arranging the sentence. Starting from the period of slavery, as the attitudes of agha-slave, the formation of the leader and the group of the workers belonging to him in nowadays, the relations among the words are also based to the relation of the main and dependent parts" [3, 15].
The fact that accepting already by everybody in the unambiguous form is the existing of the type of two main syntactic relations in the Azerbaijani language: the coordinating and subordinating relation. Though the subordinating relation creates, forms the sentence mainly, the coordinating relation also has an important role in the sentence. These two relations differ from each other, of course. The basic difference among them is from one of the expression styles of these two relations. We concluded such result during realizing the research that, the subordinating relation has been researched more than the coordinating relation in the language, some issues have been specified, but some fields wait for their solutions, yet. The subordinating relation is used more the coordinating relation in the language and in the most of the syntactic units using during the process of the speech.
The coordinating relation is used more in our written monuments, too. N.Khuduyev writes about it: "each two types of the syntactic relation have been used intensively in the ancient Turkish written texts and have been divided into two types as being in our language: the coordinating relation and subordinating relation. 1. The coordinating relation - has existed among the homogeneous members of the sentence and the components of the compound sentence. The using of the coordinating relation with both the conjunction and without conjunction has been observed in the ancient Turkish written monuments. In the sample given above, the conjunction hasn't been used; the homogeneous members have only been related with the intonation as asyndetically. N.Khuduyev notes the existing of the coordinating relation only among the homogeneous members and the parts of the compound sentence in the ancient Turkish language. The author doesn't speak about the coordinating relation among the parts of the word combinations in the ancient Turkish language.
Gazi Burhanaddin (Kadi Ahmad Burhan al-Din) being the middle centuries Azerbaijani poet writes about the coordinating relation and its place where it is used: "The main method is the prosodic methods, in the relation of the homogeneous members and the components of the compound sentence, the styles of the enumerating, oppositing, distinguishing, separating of the fact and events and the rhythmic-melodic flow of the speech is active in this process." [4, 21].
The usage of the coordinating relation isn't met in the language of Kadi Burhan al-Din.
For example,
Gah mehrab ola qa§larun b3m,
Gah zulfun beluma zunnar ola.;(Qazi Burhanaddin.s. 262)
There is no the special formal morphological sign of the coordinating relation as being during a period of history in the modern language. This grammatical relation appears by indicating intonation or by the coordinating conjunctions. The coordinating relation expresses itself among the homogeneous members of the simple sentence firstly in the divan; for example.
Nasimdir canumu salan bu zovqa,
Na zardur canumun qasdi, na simdur.(Qazi .Burhanaddin. s. 151).
As the coordinating relation exists among the homogeneous members and among the parts of the compound sentence, it also exists among the parts of the coordinating relational word combinations in the Azerbaijani language, generally, in linguistics. This fact, as well the coordinating relational word combinations are not accepted by all of the linguists unambiguously. "...the coordinating relation exists among the homogeneous members and the parts of the compound sentence" [5, 43]. As we saw, the coordinating word combinations aren't spoken here. The existing of such relational word combination isn't signed. If we can group the thoughts being about it in linguistics, we meet with the following view. Some groups accept these combinations, but some of them approach carelessly to such combinations, and the other group isn't spoken from the coordinating relational combinations.
M.B.Balakhayev writes: "The word combination being in the coordinating relation can't be the object of the syntax" [6, 16].
V.N.Yartseva doesn't accept the existence of the coordinating relational combinations. "The word combination must have the meaning center and grammatical center, by the other word, one the words in the word combinations must be submissive from the grammatical feature"[7, 125]. But it is not possible to agree with the thought of the author, absolutely. We can meet the word combinations which their parts aren't obey to each other both in the Azerbaijani language being the agglutinative language and in the inflected languages. The coordinating relation happens among the same homogeneous words and sentences being related with each other from the meaning and grammatical feature, but not depending on from each other, not clarifying one another, in the attitude to each other: oglanlar va qizlar, daglar va daralar, hava qaraldi va yagi§ yagmaga ba§ladi.
The thought of the creation of the word combinations on the basis of the coordinating relation in some of the linguistic works is also given. V.M.Nasilov writes during spoken the ancient Uyghur monuments that, the word combinations showing on the texts of the monuments are the coordinating and subordinating relational combinations [8, 95].
Generally, the attitude of the authors is different to the coordinating relational word combinations, too. We meet with an interesting view during looking through the scientific-theoretical literatures belonging to linguistics.
Most of the linguists approach to the coordinating relational word combination unambiguously; they call
such word combinations such as weak group. During saying the independent combinations, the authors think that the words calling as word combinations in these expressions are independent according to lexical feature, they show that, one member exists as its right being the same, not depending from the other.
The authors being the partner to this thought accept such combinations, though they are formal. These thoughts are caused to get such result that, the authors accept not only the homogeneous members, but also the coordinating relational word combinations.
Though they don't consider the coordinating relational combinations as the complete entitled word combinations, they accept as the weak group. The other representatives of the linguists accept the coor-donating relational combinations. The authors as A.M.Peshkovski, A.N.Gvozdev, V.P.Suxotin, Y.M.Galkina-Fedorchuk note the formation of the word combinations in the sentence and the formation of the word combination not only by the coordinating, but also the subordinating method repeatedly.
Accepting the coordinating relational word combinations, Y.I.Ubryatova writes that, the homogeneous members create many word combinations in the Yakut language. But in the other Turkish languages, the author doesn't indicate the strong affirmative thought about it [9, 71].
During saying the coordinating relational word combination, some of them consider the additional and homogeneous member. A.M.Peshkovski has treated about it clearly in his own book named as "Русский синтаксис в научном освещении" [10, 51]. Thus these linguists approach the same object differently. Some of them accept the coordinating relational word combination, and the others show the existing of the homogeneous member and addition only inside the sentence as the word combination, they don't accept such combinations apart from the sentence, too. These authors haven't overlooked the existing of such combinations in the subordinating relation with the other members of the sentence. The representatives of this movement have appreciated the importance of the study of coordinating relational combinations with the sentence equally in syntax and otherwise, as deviation from the content or carelessness to the content.
Many facts give the base to accept the coordinating word combinations as an independent type in the language. Essentially, it gives the base to identify as an independent type from the similar, but grammatical feature. The coordinating word combinations expressing the combination of the independent events or vice versa from the similar or grammatical feature essentially reflect the type of certain relation of the real trustworthiness, the special character of the attitudes among the words. For example, kitab va daftar, saat va divar, ata va ana, baba va nana va s.
But some of the authors don't accept the coordinating relational word combinations as a special typed combination. These linguists supporting the same idea, combining in the same group consider the word combination as a special syntactic unit. They accept the usage apart from the sentence and the existing of
such syntactic units. Such syntactic units must have the nuclear word; the others must be connected with that word from the meaning and grammatical feature combining on the basis of subordinating relation with that nuclear. The result noted by he authors is that, the word combinations must form on the basis of the inner coordination, one of the words must comply with the other. The combinations creating only in such structure can be called the special combination. One of the parts is considered the basic-submissive, and the other is considered the dependent member. The submissive part is called "the nuclear" word. Sometimes this word is called "centralizing member".
The relation among the words gives the opportunity to specify the meaning of the basic components of combinations, to contraction, to understand the approaching of the concept expressing by the word from which position concretely.
Y.Seyidov writes that, there is no the centralizing word in the coordinating relational word combinations [11, 38]. Exactly, non-existing of the centralizing word is caused to the separation of certain thought in the accepting of the combination. But non-existence of the centralizing unit, the absence of the formal sign doesn't deny the semantic-grammatical unity of them. There is the secret meaning relation combining the other components in one center other from the coordinating intonation creating by the coordinating relation and conjunction in such units. But the meaning, content requires the form. This meaning relation gives the stimulus to the opposite relation, combination of the parts. If the meaning can be expressed in such form, there is no need additional method. Because the form having no the meaning, content relation cannot be the basic. The power of such combinations is in the meaning relation.
There is the meaning relation and inner subordination in the coordinating relational combinations. The inner subordination is being directed from the elder to the smaller, from the importance to the unimportance. And it exists in the homogenous members.
"The existing of certain legality ruling the sequence system of elements, and also the morphological component of them in the coordinating word combinations gives the opportunity to consider being the structure of these combinations arranged from grammatical feature. Considering them, we can say complete resolutely that, the theory of formation of the coordinating word combinations must be one part of the word combination teaching, because to know certain legality of the same legal elements is necessary according to syntactic feature in the creation of these combinations [12, 10]. We agree with the thought of author about the coordinating relational word combinations, but we must note that, it is not true to consider all of the homogenous members or coordinating relational members as the word combination, unconditionally. Some members connecting with the coordinating relation have the situational character and they cannot use apart from the sentence. Naturally, such expressions shouldn't be called the coordinating word combinations.
The first information belonging to the coordinating relation was given by the German linguist at the end of XIX, in the beginning of XX century. According to the opinion of the German linguist I.Risin, the teaching about the word groups is belonged to the material field of the syntax and it is divided into three basic types: 1) the weak groups; 2) the elliptical groups; 3) the dense groups [13, 16-17]. These combinations are belonged to the weak groups that, they are created on the basis of the coordinating relation; they don't depend on from each other. For example, gozsl va girkin, yax§i va pis, qiz va oglan va s.
Though the first information about the coordinating relation is belonged to the German linguists, this relation has been researched by the Russian linguists, mainly. A.M.Peshkovski considers the combinations accepting as "additional" and the combinations consisting from the homogenous members of the joint sentence under the name of the coordinating word combinations; and he considers the other combinations as the subordinating combinations [10, 59].
C.Muradov explains that, one of first researchers about the coordinating relation among the word combinations has been N.S.Trubetzkoy. He was divided the syntagmas into the three parts: the syntagmas making by the modifier with the antecedent, the predicative syntagmas and the coordinating syntagmas appearing in the result of combination of subject and predicate [12, 36].
N.N.Prokopovich shows the three types of word combination in his researches [13, 30-31]. In terms of coordinating relational word combinations, N.N.Prokopovich considered the combinations as "not depending on one member from the other member or the others". According to his opinion, the word groups combining around the word according to formal and meaning feature can be considered the word combination. Not all of the authors accept the existence of the coordinating relation among the word combinations in general linguistics. Sh.Balli insists the absence of the coordinating syntagmas. In the same time, he excluded the existence of the coordinating combinations in the syntagmatic attitudes. But the Russian linguist A.A.Reformatsky didn't accept the existence of the coordinating word combinations and didn't include to the syntagma [14, 253].
While there are two components as the method of grammatical relation among the members of the coordinating word combinations, from the conjunctions "va", "da/da", "va ya" being the coordinating conjunction are used more, if there are components more than two, besides the conjunction, the enumerated intonation is used. Thus, the combination of the same legal and independent words in the attitude to each other, performing the same duty in the sentence is called the coordinating word combinations. The coordinating word combinations don't have their own special form.
The word combinations are divided into two types in the book of "The Grammar of the Russian language": 1) the subordinating word combinations -forming by the relations of agreement, management and adjoining; 2) the coordinating word combinations,
in other word, forming by the ranks, not closing combinations - the coordinating conjunctions, intonation [15, 36-37].
Some scientists are belonged the coordinating relation only to the sentence theory. N.S.Valgina writes that, "...the opposite attitudes of the words combined on the basis of the subject and predicate, and also the coordinating relation are belonged to the sentence theory completely and they don't concern to the problem of word combination. The group of the homogenous members can't consider the word combination, because they are the ranks of the words that cannot close" [16, 29].
The coordinating relation has two parts as the special type of the syntactic relation. The content and form. The content part of the coordinating relation is the coordinating attitudes considering the special type of the syntactic attitudes. The semantics of the syntactic attitudes is arranged by their information and syntactic content. The information content serves to the expression of the attitudes among the thing and events of the objective reality. As we know, the coordinating relation has no special formal sign. The coordinating relation creates by the enumerating intonation and the coordinating conjunctions. The main condition for the establishment of the coordinating relation is that, the words must be included to the same category. In the same time, the words must carry the same grammatical form. If we consider all of these features, we can say with certainty that, it is not possible to be in the coordinating relation of the nominative case of noun with the other cases, the predicate with the subject, the object with the attribute, the predicate with the adverbial modifier.
The forms appeared by the combining with the coordinating relation of the words are divided into three parts in the Azerbaijani language: 1) the double words; 2) the homogenous members; 3) the word combinations. It is the axiom accepted by all of the scientists yet. And we can add the parallel components here.
The coordinating relational word combinations remind us both the homogenous members, and the double words, and the parallel components. Besides this, the coordinating relational word combinations differ from all of them. Because the coordinating relational word combinations are the independent syntactic units. If we generalize the sayings above, we can see the variety of the attitudes. We can group these attitudes, as well the attitudes belonging to the coordinating relational word combinations:
1) The authors who don't accept the coordinating relatioal combinations. V.V.Vinogradov, M.B.Balakhayev, Y.V.Korotkevich, V.N.Yartseva don't accept the coordinating word combinations. V.V.Vinogradov writes: "...the subordinating word combinations forming only by submissive of one word to the other word include to the word combinations" [18, 120]. But taking basic the following features, V.H.Yartseva doesn't accept the existence of the coordinating relational combinations: "The word combination must have to the meaning center and to the grammatical centre, in other word; one of the words in
the word combinations must be submissive from grammatical feature." [7, 250].
2) The authors accepting the coordinating relational combination. A.M.Peshkovski, M.I.Peterson,
A.N.Gvozdev, V.P.Suxotin, Y.M.Galkina-Fedorchuk,
B.P.Ardentov, V.M.Nasilov, Y.Seyidov, C.Muradov, R.Khalilov and the others note the existence of the coordinating relational word combinations beside with the subordinating relational word combinations. The common thoughts of the authors are this that, the combinations of the same legal and independent words in the attitude to each other, performing the same duty in the sentence are called the coordinating word combinations.
3) The scientists accepting this combination partially. Though these authors accept the existence of the coordinating relational word combinations, they don't give the large information about the relation among these typed combinations. We can add here R.Khalilov and G.Kazimov. Though R.Khalilov and G.Kazimov have disputed about the coordinating relation in their works, they haven't argued from the coordinating relation among the word combinations. The authors including to this group support the idea of existence of the coordinating relation only among the homogenous members and the parts of the coordinating compound sentence.
The most of the linguists accept the coordinating relational word combinations as the homogenous member. V.V.Vinogradov, Y.I.Ubryatova, M.Ergin don't accept the coordinating relational word combinations independently. The components of the coordinating word combinations cohere with the third member of the sentence in the coordinating word combinations and express the meaning of totality. The coordinating word combinations are being liked to the homogenous membered sentences by some of the scientists. From these scientists, we can indicate the names as V.V.Vinogradov, Y.I.Ubryatova, M.Ergin and etc. M.Ergin includes all of combinations connecting with the coordinating relation to the homogenous members [17]. The author calls these typed combinations as "parcel group" (baglama qrupu). As having the different features of them, they have the similarities. The similarities consist of that, the coordinating relation is realized by the help of the coordinating conjunctions in each two syntactic units; the enumerating intonation exists in each of two and the connective intervals exist in each two.
The coordinating constructions are inclined to reflect the rank of the described events as coinciding to the degree of importance. We see during applying the facts of the Azerbaijani language that, certain subordination is seen in the words inside the coordinating relational word combinations in our language. For example, nazir vs müavinlsri, direktor vs i§gifori, müsllim vs §agirdfori, ana vs övladlari a.a. Many times the coordinating relational word combinations are confused with the homogenous members. Even the scientists who don't accept the existence of the coordinating relational word combinations, they call the elements of these typed word combinations as the homogenous members. But though the coordinating rela-
tional word combinations are looked like to the homogenous membered sentences, the different features exist among them. The general signs of the homogenous members of sentence with the word combinations; are the existence of the coordinating relation among each two of them, the enumerating intonation; the connective intervals. The content and the form have also the undeniable role in the coordinating relation. First of all the content must be identified, and then the form created from that content must appeared in the coordinating relational word combinations.
References
1. Racabli Э. Qadim turk yazili abidalarinin dili. 4 cildda, II c. Baki: Nurlan, 2009, 463 s.
2. Современный русский язык, синтаксис. Москва: Изд. Московского Университета, 1957, 516 с.
3. Kazimov Q.§. Muasir Azarbaycan dili. Baki: Apsoliqraf. I, LTD MMC, 2004, 390 s.
4. Quliyev i. Qazi Burhanaddin "Divan"mm dilinin sintaktik quruluçu.Baki: Elm va tahsil, 2010, 183 s.
5. Muasir Azarbaycan dili. 3 cildda, III c. Baki: Elm, 1981, 442 s.
6. Балакаев М.Б.Основные типы словосочетаний в казахском языке. Алма-Ата: Академия Наук Казахски ССРИ, 1959, 227 с.
7. Ярцева В. Н. Предложение и словосочетание. - В кн. : Вопросы грамматического строя. Москва: Изд-во АН СССР, 1955
8. Насылов В.М. Древне уйгурский язык. Москва: 1963, с.
9. Убрятова У.И.Иследование по синтаксиси якутского языка. Москва: .ч.1. 1950. с.
10. Пешковский А. М. Русский синтаксис в научном освещении. Москва: Учредгиз, 1956, 511 с.
11. Seyidov Y. Azarbaycan adabi dilinds söz birla§malari. Baki: Maarif, 1966, 340 s.
12. Muradov.C.X. Tabesizlik alaqali söz bir1a§ma1ari. F.ü.f.d...avtoreferati. Baki: 2001, 23 s.
13. Прокопович Н. Н. Словосочетание в современном русском литературном языке. Москва: Просвещение, 1966, 400 с.
14. Реформатский А.А. Введение в языкознание. Москва: Учредгиз, 1955, 400 с.
15. Грамматика русского языка: В 2 т. ч.1 и 2. Москва: 1954, 250 с.
16. Валгина Н.С.Синтаксис современного русского языка. Москва: Высшая школа,1973, 423 с.
17. Ergin M. Ergin M. Türk dili. istanbul, 1997.
18. Виноградов В.В. Основные вопросы синтаксиса предложения. Москва : Изд. АН. СССР, 1955, 288с.
ДИНАМИКА ФУНКЦИОНАЛЬНОГО РАЗВИТИЯ ЯЗЫКА КОМИ В РОССИЙСКОЙ
ФЕДЕРАЦИИ
Кондрашкина Е.А.
кандидат филологических наук, старший научный сотрудник Научно-исследовательского центра по национально-языковым отношениям Института языкознания РАН, Москва
DYNAMICS OF THE FUNCTIONAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE KOMI LANGUAGE IN THE
RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Kondrashkina E.
Candidate of Philological Sciences, Senior Researcher National Language Research Center Institute of
Linguistics, RAS, Moscow
АННОТАЦИЯ
Статья посвящена истории коми языка, проделавшего большой путь от языка семейно-бытового общения до государственного языка Республики Коми. Прошлое языка коми интересно тем, что для него создание письменности Стефаном Пермским значительно опередило формирование письменностей для других финно-угорских народов России, и хотя она не получила широкого распространения и не сохранилась, ее появление положило начало древнему коми литературному языку. Особое внимание уделяется демографической и языковой ситуации в Коми в минувшем веке, поскольку в 30-е годы XX века регион являлся одним из мест сосредоточения спецпереселенцев и лагерей для заключенных, что в значительной степени изменило соотношение коренного и пришлого населения региона. Анализируется положение коми языка в конце 80-х - начале 90-х годов прошлого века и языковое законодательство, которое повысило статус коми языка, объявив его государственным языком республики наряду с русским. Поднимается вопрос о действенности закона о языках и его влиянии на современную языковую ситуацию. Приводятся статистические данные переписей и других источников о численности коми в разные исторические периоды. Актуальность исследования обусловлена тем, что в последнее время положение национальных языков Российской Федерации становится все чаще объектом внимания не только ученых, но и правительственных структур.
