oppositional and contrastive elements. The category of case in the Slavic languages
represents the systems of this kind. An attempt is made to shed light on the meaning of the case category in the Russian language. We argue that neither its semantic
nor syntactic explanation are taken as being the only criterion of truth.
The formal analysis of this category reveals that there is no relationship of noun case
forms and that the structuring of pronoun and noun paradigms is different.
Case government through prepositions, widely spread in many languages, also fails
to explain case distinctions either from only semantic or syntactic perspective.
The distribution of words into parts of speech in various languages still remains the
only undoubted and common function for all inflectional case paradigms.
We view ‘closed’ derivational and inflectional morphological systems as a fundamental
condition in this respect; the character of there structure is of little importance;
however, formal and unambiguous description can only be applied to the rigidly structured
systems.
The article deals with the analysis of ‘closed’ morphological systems, containing
oppositional and contrastive elements. The category of case in the Slavic languages
represents the systems of this kind. An attempt is made to shed light on the meaning of the case category in the Russian language. We argue that neither its semantic
nor syntactic explanation are taken as being the only criterion of truth.
The formal analysis of this category reveals that there is no relationship of noun case
forms and that the structuring of pronoun and noun paradigms is different.
Case government through prepositions, widely spread in many languages, also fails
to explain case distinctions either from only semantic or syntactic perspective.
The distribution of words into parts of speech in various languages still remains the
only undoubted and common function for all inflectional case paradigms.
We view ‘closed’ derivational and inflectional morphological systems as a fundamental
condition in this respect; the character of there structure is of little importance;
however, formal and unambiguous description can only be applied to the rigidly structured
systems.
Список литературы
Barkhudarov L. S. Yazyk i perevod. Moscow, 1975. (in Russ.)
Bedvardsson A. Kratkij ocherk grammatiki islandskogo yazyka. In: Berkov V. P.
Islandsko-russkij slovar'. Moscow, 1962. (in Russ.)
Benvenist E. Obshchaya lingvistika. Moscow, 2009. (in Russ.)
Blumfild L. Yazyk. Moscow, 1968. (in Russ.)
Vezhbicka A. Semanticheskie universalii i bazisnye kontsepty. Moscow, 2011.
(in Russ.)
Vetrov A. A. Metodologicheskie problemy sovremennoj lingvistiki: ucheb. posobie.
Moscow, 1973. (in Russ.)
Zaliznyak A. A. Russkoe imennoe slovoizmenenie. Moscow, 2002. (in Russ.)
Kasevich V. B. Elementy obshhej lingvistiki. Moscow, 1977. (in Russ.)
Kuznetsov N. S. Teoreticheskaya grammatika datskogo yazyka: Morfologiya. Moscow,
1989. (in Russ.)
Lajonz Dzh. Vvedenie v teoreticheskuju lingvistiku. Moscow, 1978. (in Russ.)
Plotkin V. Ya. Grammaticheskie sistemy v anglijskom yazyke. Kishinyov, 1975.
(in Russ.)
Plotkin V. Ya. Stroj anglijskogo yazyka: ucheb. posobie. Moscow, 1989. (in Russ.)
Slyusareva N. A. Problemy funktsional'noj morfologii sovremennogo anglijskogo
yazyka. Moscow, 1986. (in Russ.)
Fillmor Ch. Delo o padezhe. In: Novoe v zarubezhnoj lingvistike. Moscow, 1981,
iss. 10: Lingvisticheskaya semantika, p. 369–495.
Blake B. J. Case. Cambridge University Press, 1997.
Quirk R., Greenbaum S., Leech G., Svartvik J. A university grammar of English.
Moscow, Vysshaya shkola Publ., 1982.
About Closed Morphological Structures С. 319–326. DOI 10.25205/2307-1737-2019-2-319-326