Towards A Unified Structural Theory of Parts of Speech in Modern Linguistics

Аннотация

This paper presents a unified structural theory of parts of speech, integrating comparative evidence from English, Uzbek, and Russian. It addresses the longstanding debate on word-class categorization by combining distributional, syntactic, morphological, and semantic criteria into a comprehensive framework. Utilizing descriptive grammars and typological studies, we identify universally communicative "primary" parts of speech common across these languages, alongside "secondary" categories specific to individual linguistic structures. Our analysis emphasizes the importance of clearly distinguishing semantic and formal criteria to avoid theoretical ambiguity. The unified model effectively accounts for cross-linguistic variations, such as differing usage of articles, pronoun case systems, and morphological distinctions, ensuring theoretical coherence. Keywords: Parts of speech, structural linguistics, linguistic universals, unique characteristics, systemic-structural analysis, language theory. [11.123]. Introduction: The classification of words into parts of speech remains a contentious issue in linguistics, Universally, languages distinguish core categories— unresolved despite extensive historical examination. primarily nouns (reference to entities) and verbs Traditionally, grammarians identified parts of speech (predication of actions or states)—but other categories primarily through semantic (meaning-based), syntactic like adjectives and adverbs vary widely. While English (sentence-function-based), and morphological (form- clearly marks adjectives as a separate class, many based) criteria. This multiplicity—exemplified by the languages merge their function with nouns or verbs Western classical tradition, which inconsistently [2.53]. recognized categories like articles and adjectives— This article proposes a unified structural theory by illustrates the challenge in universally defining parts of systematically comparing parts-of-speech systems in speech. English, Russian, and Uzbek. These languages illustrate Modern structural linguistics defines parts of speech by diverse structural realizations of universal functions, their distribution and syntactic behavior within providing a comprehensive framework for grammatical systems. Charles C. Fries (1952) notably understanding both universal elements and language- categorized English words based on their distributional specific distinctions. Our comparative approach aims to positions, marking a significant shift away from enhance theoretical coherence within linguistic semantic criteria [4.118-119]. However, purely formal typology and the broader theory of language. classifications often fail to capture cross-linguistic METHODS nuances. Christian Lehmann highlights the essential This study uses descriptive grammars and linguistic independence and intersection of semantic and resources for English, Russian, and Uzbek. For English, structural aspects, shaped significantly by historical and sources include structuralist descriptions by B. A. Ilyish cultural factors, resulting in language-specific systems [8.5] and comprehensive grammars by Quirk et al. American Journal Of Philological Sciences 25 https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps American Journal Of Philological Sciences (ISSN – 2771-2273) (1985) [12.67]. For Russian, cognitive-semantic tense/aspect, while Russian and Uzbek utilize extensive analyses by E. S. Kubryakova [10.33] and standard inflectional paradigms [11.197-204]. Russian grammars [18.37-40] were used. Uzbek Adjectives and adverbs, considered "secondary" materials include Uzbek Grammar, Vol. I: Morphology categories, display greater divergence. English (1995) [13.25] and comparative typology lectures by G. adjectives are invariant and typically precede nouns; M. Hoshimov [7.5]. Additionally, typological studies Russian adjectives agree morphologically with nouns; highlighting isomorphic (shared) and allomorphic Uzbek adjectives remain invariant and often function (language-specific) features (Jalalova, 2023 [9.49-52]) predicatively without copulas. A unified definition and seminal works by Fries (1952) [4.118], Hockett categorizes adjectives as properties modifying nouns or (1958), Croft (1991), and Baker (2003) were integrated predicates, reflecting cognitive linguistics’ view of into the theoretical framework. adjectives as intermediate between nouns and verbs The research employs comparative structural analysis, [2.53; 7.31-34]. considering three criteria: semantic (meaning), Functional categories like pronouns, numerals, morphological (inflectional and derivational conjunctions, and particles differ considerably across properties), and syntactic (sentence function) [12.136- languages but fulfill universal grammatical roles. 137]. Each language’s part-of-speech system was Pronouns function deictically or anaphorically, while analyzed to identify common and distinctive features, numerals exhibit dual lexical-functional behavior. focusing on is