<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Publishing DTD v1.2 20190208//EN" "http://jats.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/1.2/JATS-journalpublishing1.dtd">
<article article-type="research-article" dtd-version="1.2" xml:lang="ru" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="issn">2313-8912</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>Research Result. Theoretical and Applied Linguistics</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">2313-8912</issn></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">686</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>THEORY OF LANGUAGE</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>MORPHOLOGY: FROM MORPHEME TO MORPHOLOGICAL CONCEPT</article-title><trans-title-group xml:lang="en"><trans-title>MORPHOLOGY: FROM MORPHEME TO MORPHOLOGICAL CONCEPT</trans-title></trans-title-group></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author"><name-alternatives><name xml:lang="ru"><surname>Besedina</surname><given-names>Natalia A.</given-names></name><name xml:lang="en"><surname>Besedina</surname><given-names>Natalia A.</given-names></name></name-alternatives><email>NBesedina@bsu.edu.ru</email><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1" /></contrib></contrib-group><aff id="aff1"><institution>Belgorod State National Research University, Russia</institution></aff><pub-date pub-type="epub"><year>2015</year></pub-date><volume>1</volume><issue>1</issue><fpage>0</fpage><lpage>0</lpage><self-uri content-type="pdf" xlink:href="/media/linguistics/2015/1/selection.pdf" /><abstract xml:lang="ru"><p>The author analyses the views of scholars, belonging to different trends in linguistics, on the morphological level in the language. The development of ideas on the problem is being traced from comparative-historical linguistics to cognitive linguistics. In the theory of comparative-historical linguistics, the morphemic structure was considered to be a pure linguistic mechanism. The representatives of neogrammarians tried to fill the morphological meaning with syntactical terms. Generative morphology didn&amp;rsquo;t differentiate lexical, morphological and word-formation rules that resulted in identification of morphology and word-formation. The post-generative paradigm extended the research field of morphology, taking into consideration its functional aspect. The most successive line in investigating morphology is characteristic for Russian linguists. They treat morphology as a framework of the language system. Special attention is paid to the views of A.V. Bondarko, N.N. Boldyrev, E.S. Kubryakova, and Yu.S. Stepanov on morphology. The author concludes that it&amp;rsquo;s necessary to distinguish between such notions as &amp;ldquo;specific character of morphology&amp;rdquo; and &amp;ldquo;autonomy of morphology&amp;rdquo;. Finally, the author suggests her own approach to the investigation of morphology in a cognitive perspective.</p></abstract><trans-abstract xml:lang="en"><p>The author analyses the views of scholars, belonging to different trends in linguistics, on the morphological level in the language. The development of ideas on the problem is being traced from comparative-historical linguistics to cognitive linguistics. In the theory of comparative-historical linguistics, the morphemic structure was considered to be a pure linguistic mechanism. The representatives of neogrammarians tried to fill the morphological meaning with syntactical terms. Generative morphology didn&amp;rsquo;t differentiate lexical, morphological and word-formation rules that resulted in identification of morphology and word-formation. The post-generative paradigm extended the research field of morphology, taking into consideration its functional aspect. The most successive line in investigating morphology is characteristic for Russian linguists. They treat morphology as a framework of the language system. Special attention is paid to the views of A.V. Bondarko, N.N. Boldyrev, E.S. Kubryakova, and Yu.S. Stepanov on morphology. The author concludes that it&amp;rsquo;s necessary to distinguish between such notions as &amp;ldquo;specific character of morphology&amp;rdquo; and &amp;ldquo;autonomy of morphology&amp;rdquo;. Finally, the author suggests her own approach to the investigation of morphology in a cognitive perspective.</p></trans-abstract><kwd-group xml:lang="ru"><kwd>morphology</kwd><kwd>morpheme</kwd><kwd>morphological concept</kwd><kwd>morphology and syntax interaction</kwd><kwd>cognitive approach</kwd><kwd>conceptualization</kwd><kwd>knowledge</kwd></kwd-group><kwd-group xml:lang="en"><kwd>morphology</kwd><kwd>morpheme</kwd><kwd>morphological concept</kwd><kwd>morphology and syntax interaction</kwd><kwd>cognitive approach</kwd><kwd>conceptualization</kwd><kwd>knowledge</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><back><ref-list><title>Список литературы</title><ref id="B1"><mixed-citation>Alpatov V.M. History of Linguistic Studies: Textbook. Moscow, 1998.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B2"><mixed-citation>Antique theory of language and style (Anthology of texts). O.M. Freydenberg. SPb., 1996.&amp;nbsp;</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B3"><mixed-citation>Besedina N.A. Morphologically transmitted concepts. M.; Tambov: Izd-vo TGU; Belgorod: Izd-vo BelGU, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B4"><mixed-citation>Boldyrev, N.N. Functional categorization of the English verb: Dis. &amp;hellip; d-ra filol. nauk. SPb., 1995.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B5"><mixed-citation>Bondarko A.V. Teoriya morfologicheskikh kategoriy. L., 1976.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B6"><mixed-citation>Budagov R.A. Language and speech in the human perspective. Moscow: Dobrosvet, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B7"><mixed-citation>Iriskhanova O.K On the theory of conceptual integration. Traditional problems of linguistics in the light of new paradigms of knowledge. Moscow, 2000. Pp. 62-68.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B8"><mixed-citation>Kartsevskiy S.I. From the linguistic heritage. Moscow: Yazyki russkoy kul&amp;#39;tury, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B9"><mixed-citation>Kasevich V.B. Semantics. Syntax. Morphology. Moscow: Nauka, 1988.&amp;nbsp;</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B10"><mixed-citation>Kubryakova E.S. The morphology of the modern theoretical and typological studies. Moscow, 1987.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B11"><mixed-citation>Kubryakova E.S. Cognitive aspects of morphology. Language: Theory, History, Typology. Moscow, 2000. Pp. 22-27.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B12"><mixed-citation>Ol&amp;#39;khovikov B.A. Theory of language and the type of grammatical description in the history of linguistics. Moscow, 1985.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B13"><mixed-citation>Reformatskiy A.A. Essays on phonology, morphonology, morphology. Moscow: Nauka, 1979.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B14"><mixed-citation>Serebrennikov B.A. The role of the human factor in language: Language and thought. Moscow: Nauka, 1988.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B15"><mixed-citation>Skalichka V. The relationship between morphology and syntax. Moscow: Progress, 1978. Pp. 69-79.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B16"><mixed-citation>Slyusareva N.A. Problems of functional morphology of Modern English. Moscow: Nauka, 1986.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B17"><mixed-citation>Stepanov Yu.S. Names. Predicates. Sentences (semiological grammar). 2nd edition. Moscow: Editorial URSS, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B18"><mixed-citation>Linguistics in Czechoslovakia. Moscow: Progress, 1978.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B19"><mixed-citation>Anderson, St. Inflectional morphology. Language typology and syntactic description. Cambridge, Mass., 1985. Vol. III. Pp.&amp;nbsp;150-201.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B20"><mixed-citation>Anderson, St. Morphological theory. Linguistics: The Cambridge survey. Cambridge, 1988. Vol. I: Linguistics theory: Foundations. Ed. By Newneyer F.J. Pp.&amp;nbsp;146-191.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B21"><mixed-citation>Aronoff &amp;nbsp;M. Word formation in generative Grammar. Cambridge, 1976. 134&amp;nbsp;p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B22"><mixed-citation>&amp;nbsp;Beard R. Lexeme - Morpheme Base Morphology: a general theory of inflection and word formation. State University of N.Y., 1995. 433&amp;nbsp;p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B23"><mixed-citation>Bybee J.L. Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam, 1985. 234&amp;nbsp;p.&amp;nbsp;</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B24"><mixed-citation>&amp;nbsp;Bybee J.L. Morphology as Lexical Organization. Theoretical Morphology. Approaches in Modern Linguistics. N.Y.: Academic Press, 1988. Pp.&amp;nbsp;119-141.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B25"><mixed-citation>Jackendoff R. Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1984.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B26"><mixed-citation>Langacker R.W. Grammar and Conceptualization. Berlin, N.Y.: Mouton de Gruyter, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B27"><mixed-citation>Plank F. Morphologische (Ir=) Regularitaten: Aspecte der Wortstrukturtheorie. Tubingen: Narr, 1981. 298 S.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B28"><mixed-citation>Scalise S. Generative morphology. Dordrecht, 1986. 237&amp;nbsp;p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B29"><mixed-citation>Selkirk &amp;nbsp;E. The Syntax of word . Cambridge (MA): MIT, 1982. 136&amp;nbsp;p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B30"><mixed-citation>Talmy L. Toward a Cognitive Semantics. 2-nd edition. Concept Structuring System: The MIT Press. Cambridge, Massachussetts, London, England, 2001. vol. 1. 565&amp;nbsp;p.</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>