The comparative typology of English, Russian and Uzbek languages - Иностранные языки и языкознание курсовая работа

Главная

Иностранные языки и языкознание
The comparative typology of English, Russian and Uzbek languages

Investigating grammar of the English language in comparison with the Uzbek phonetics in comparison English with Uzbek. Analyzing the speech of the English and the Uzbek languages. Typological analysis of the phonological systems of English and Uzbek.


посмотреть текст работы


скачать работу можно здесь


полная информация о работе


весь список подобных работ


Нужна помощь с учёбой? Наши эксперты готовы помочь!
Нажимая на кнопку, вы соглашаетесь с
политикой обработки персональных данных

Студенты, аспиранты, молодые ученые, использующие базу знаний в своей учебе и работе, будут вам очень благодарны.
The ministry of Higher and Secondary Special Education of the republic of Uzbekistan
« The comparative typology of English, Russian and Uzbek languages »
A silence would be a lonely world. To listen, to answer, to share our thought and ideas through speech and hearing this is one of the most exciting ports of being human.
It is no doubt true that students grow toward maturity and independence of thought as they progress through the grades; but this growth is not as a rule a sharp and sudden one, nor does the psychology of the students undergo any great change during the various levels of the fundamental principles that underlie the work of the University remain the same from year to year. The need in every level is to bring about academic growth by providing near and broader experiences.
While working at school found out how difficult for the students of the secondary school, definite the national groups, to learn English, because there are no prepositions in Uzbek, but in English we have. If we talk about gender we have, of course some similarities. And when, I tried them to explain some examples in comparison they learned those words better than I thought.
Thus, the goal of the research is to investigate grammar of the English language in comparison with the Uzbek, to investigate phonetics, in comparison English with Uzbek.
The enabling objectives are as follows:
To review literature of comparative languages (English and Uzbek) in order to make theoretically we-motivated discussions on the choice of comparison.
To analyze the parts of speech of the English language and the Uzbek language.
The novelty is that this work contains the comparative analyses of the English grammar, phonetics and construction of the sentence. The student made her own investigation finding many examples of comparison not only in English, and in Uzbek.
Materials and literature which she used were «The comparative typology of English and Turkic languages», the lectures on «Comparative typology» and «Theory of phonetics» by A. Abduazizov.
The qualification work consists of several parts where she opened and analyzed the theme.
1.1 Comparative typology of English and Uzbek
The word typology consists of two Greek morphemes: a) typos means type and b) logos means science or word. Typology is a branch of science which is typical to all sciences without any exception. In this respect their typological method is not limited with the sphere of one science. It has a universal rise. So typology may be divided into:
Non-linguistic typology is the subject matter of the sciences except linguistics.
Linguistic typology is a new branch of general linguistic which studies the systems of languages comparatively, also finds common laws of languages and establishes differences and similarities between them.
Typological classification of languages.
In linguistics we may come across many terms as to the terminological nature of linguistic typology.
The are: 1. Comparative methods, 2. Comparative - historical method, 3. Comparative (or contrastive) linguistics, 4. Comparative typology, 5. Comparative grammar, 6. Connotation grammar, 7. Descriptive - comparative linguistics and on the terms used in Russian and Uzbek are not exact either. They are: сравнительная грамматика, сопоставительная грамматика, сравнительно-историческое языкознание, контрастивная лингвистика, сравнительная типология in Russian and ?иёсий типология, ?иёсий тарихий тилшунослик, ?иёсий грамматика, ?иёсий тилшунослик and so on in Uzbek.
Classification of linguistic typology.
According to the notion of comparison of linguistics phenomenon and the aim directed on we may classify linguistic typology into the following parts a) genetic of genealogical typology, b) structural typology, c) areal typology and d) comparative typology.
Genealogical typology is a branch of linguistic typology which studies the similarities and the relationship between the related languages. It is applicated to the systems of genetically related languages. Genealogical typology developed from the comparative - historical linguistics dominated during the 19 th century in Europe. It's origin was stimulated by the discovery of Sanskrit, the ancient classical language of India. The discovery of Sanskrit disclosed the possibility of a comparative study of languages. The concept of relative languages was confirmed by the existence in India of a sister of the familiar languages of Europe e.g. Sanskrit «mata» means «mother», in the accuse case «matarum»
Before the discovery of Sanskrit European linguistics possessed very vague similarities for the current grammars built on the Greek model. They didn't set clearly the features of each languages. It is worth to mention that at the same time Sanskrit discovery gave rise to confuse notions of linguistic relation which lived for a brief time that European languages were derived from Sanskrit. But this opinion gave way to a correct explanation, namely Sanskrit, Latin, Greek, and other were later forms of one prehistorically language.
Comparatives gave two kinds of classification of languages - genealogical and morphological.
Genealogical classification deals with the family relationship of languages which descend from one common ancestor. It distributes languages into different families.
Morphological classification deals with the classification of languages according to their structural features instead of a genealogical origin.
According to the morphological classification the languages are divided into:
Isolating (Chinese; Vietnamese; Japan; etc.)
Analytic (Russian; English; German; etc.)
Agglutinative (Turkish languages) and other.
Genetic Typology compares the systems of languages in two ways: diachronically and synchronically. But in the second case genetic relationship is not taken into consideration.
Structural linguistic typology can be understood as a systematization of linguistic phenomenon from different languages according to their specific structural features.
Structural typology research makes it possible to establish some traits are universal, unique, and special .
The notion of language universals is closely connected with the process of unification of linguistic facts with a process of establishing common features between the systems of different languages.
With the process of generalization of linguistic phenomenon the investigations or language universals began at the end of 1950s. The main event in this field is the international conference held in April, 1961 in New-York.
At this conference a report called «Memorandum» concerning the language universals was presented by the American linguists J. Greenburg, Ch. Ostgood and J. Genkings. In the former Soviet Union B.A. Uspensky published his monographic research «Структурная типология языка» (1965).
In 1966 there appeared J. Greenberg's book «Language universals with special references to feature hierarchies.»
These works were followed by a number of other research works published as articles and special volumes.
According to the «Memorandum» languages universals are by their nature summary statements about characteristics or tendencies shared by all human speakers. As such they constitute the most general laws of science of linguistics.
Language universals study the universal features in the systems of different languages of the world. They find similarities which are typical of the absolute or overwhelming majority of languages.
Types of universals are as follows: 1. Definitional universals, 2. Empirical universals.
Definitional universals are connected with the fact which the speaker possesses and uses his extrapolation. It means that linguistic phenomenon exists in the system of these languages which the scholar does not know.
E.g. Indo-European languages have the opposition of the vowels and consonants. This phenomenon may be considered to be systems of other languages of the world.
Empirical universals are connected with the mental or imaginary experience that is a definite linguistic feature may exist in all languages, secondly he or she does not know if this or that feature exist in all languages. E.g. composition may exist in all languages in spite of their morphological structure.
Unrestricted universals. According to this type of universals linguistic supposition of hypotheses is not restricted. E.g. all languages have vowels or for all languages the number of phonemes is not fewer that 10 or more that 70 or every language has at least 2 vowels.
Universal implication. These universals involve the relationship between two characteristics. If a language has a certain characteristics, it has also some particular characteristics but not vise-versa i.e. the presence of the second doesn't empty the presence of the firs.
E.g. If a language has a category of dual number it has also a category of plural but not vise-versa. Such implications are numerous particularly in the phonological aspect of languages.
Comparative typology is a branch of general linguistic typology. It deals with a comparison of languages.
Comparative typology compares the systems of two or more concrete languages and creates common typological laws. The comparison of the system of two languages are compared first of all.
E.g. the category of mood in English is considered to be a small system. Having completed the comparison of languages investigators takes the third language to compare and so on. Comparative typology is sometimes characterized by some scholars as characterology which deals with the comparison of the systems only.
1 .2 Comparative - typological analysis of the phonological systems of English and Uzbek
In the linguistic literature phoneme is defined as the smallest distinctive unit. Unlike the other bigger units of language as morpheme and word it doesn't have its meaning but helps us to distinct the meanings of words and morphemes. Comp. boy-toy, better-letter-latter-litter-later; бола-тола-хола-ола, нон-?он-сон-он, ун-ун(товуш)-ўн-ўнг(мо?), бўз(ўзлаштирилмаган) - бўз(материал), бўл-бўл(та?сима) etc. From the acoustic and articulatory points of view the phonemic system of any language may be divided into vowels and consonants.
From the acoustic point of the view vowels are speech sounds of pure musical tone. Their oscillagraphic melody tracing are characterized by periodically.
From the point of view of articulation vowels are speech sound in the production of which there are no noise producing obstructions. The obstructions by means of which vowels are formed may be of two kinds:
1) The fourth obstruction without which neither vowels nor voiced consonants are formed.
2) The third obstruction characteristic of both: English and Uzbek vowels.
The channels formed in the mouth cavity for vowel production by moving a certain part of the tongue and keeping the lips in a certain position cannot be regarded as obstructions. They change the shape and volume of the resonance chamber, and in this way, help to achieve the timbre (or quality) of voice, characteristic of the vowel in question.
In modern English we distinguish 21 vowel phonemes:
10. monophthongs [e, i, u, ? ?:, c, c:, ?,]?, ?:]
9. Diphthongs [ei, ai, au, ? i, ?i,]
In modern Uzbek we find 6 vowel letters and corresponding vowel phonemes [a, o, y, (e, э) i(и)]
The main principles of classifying the vowel phonemes are as-follows: a) according to the part (place of - articulation or horizontal movement) of the tongue; b) according to the height (vertical movement) of the long; c) according to the position of lips; d) according to quality (length) of vowels.
1. according to the part (horizontal movement) of the tongue vowel may be divided into;
central [?: ?], front [i:, i, e, ?,] and back [a, u, ?, u, ?:, ?:] vowels.
2. according to the height of the tongue into: close (high) [i:], [u:] medial [e, ?: ?, ] and open [?, ?:, ?:, ?] vowels
In the languages, in which hot only the quality but also quantity of vowels is of certain phonemic or positional value, one more subdivision appears.
3. according to vowel length th vowels may be divided into short; [i, ?, u, ?, ,] and long [i: ?: u: ?: ?:] vowels. (In this case it belongs only to the English vowels as far as in Uzbek the length of the vowel is of no importance).
4. according to the position of lips vowels may be; rounded (or labilialized)
[u:, u: ?, c c,] and unrrounded (non-labialized) [e, ?: ?, ?] vowels.
5. we may also subdivide vowels according to their tensely or laxity into: lax
[i, c, e, ?, ?, ?, ?] and tense [i: u: ?: ?: ?:] vowels.
Vowel quality, vowel length and the position of the lips are denoted in the classification by transcription symbols of the phoneme itself. For instance [?:] is a long diphthongized vowel phoneme, pronounced with lips unrounded and [?:] is a rounded long diphthongized vowel, while [?] and [e] are an unrounded monophthongs. The first and the second principles constitute the basis of any vowel classification. They were firs suggested by H. Sweet (1898).
The first comparative vowel tables appeared in the 19th-century. Their aim was to prove the common origin of some two modern languages belonging to the same family. In the 1920s of the XX century Prof. D. Jones suggested a classification based on the principle of the so called «cardinal vowels». But these cardinal vowels are abstract notion and have nothing to do with the comparison of two language from the typological viewpoint.
The aim of our comparison is pedagogical. Every phoneme of the English language should be compared with the' Uzbek vowels as comparison of an unknown language phoneme with that of one's mother tongue is of great use. The aim of our comparison (does not need any universal principle) and is to underline the specific features of vowel formation in the two languages in question. The tables of English vowels (accepted in our country) are based on the principles of acad. L.V. Sherba's vowel classification, later on prof. G.P. Torsueva's and prof. V.AVasiljev's classification.
1. According to the position of the tongue in the horizontal plane English vowels are divided into 3 groups: close, medial, and open. Each of them is subdivided into: narrow and broad.
2. According to the part of the tongue: front, - front - retracted, mixed, back advanced and back.
In comparing the English and Uzbek vowel systems one more principle should be accepted - central vowels must be divided into: l) central proper and central retracted.
1. the Uzbek [a] should be classified as broad open central retracted vowel
2. the neutral vowel [?] in English was pronounced by - the English speakers examined as a broad medial, central retracted vowel.
3. the English [?] was pronounced as an open narrow, central retracted vowel (evidently thanks to the new tendency to make it less back).
As there is ho subdivision of Uzbek vowels according to their
quantity into long and short ones there is no perceptible,
difference in their tensely or laxity. So the Uzbek Vo - .veil
phonemes are differentiated by their qualitative features.
The main philological relevant features of the Uzbek vowels phonemes are: front-central-back, according to which they may form phonological opposition: close-mid-open (сил-сел-сал - кўр-кир, кўл - кел, тор - тер etc.)
It should be kept in mind that there is a difference between the phonetic and phonological classification of phonemes. In the phonetic classification articulation arid acoustic features ane, taken into consideration. Every point of its cliJference is of-pedagogical use.
But philological classification is based on the abstract differential features of phonemes. They serve the purpose of their differentiating, and are called philolbgically relevant attributes of phonemes. They may be defined with the help of, philological opposition in some pairs of words.
Comparative analysis of the English and Uzbek vowels systems
As has been mentioned above the system of English vowel phonemes consists of monophtongs, diphthongized vowels and diphthongs. There are 21 vowel phonemes in English. They are: [i:, I, e, ?, ?, c, c, u, u, ?, ?, ?, ei, ou, au, ci, i?, ei, u?,] There are 6 vowel phonemes in Uzbek. They are: [i, u, ?ie, a, o, y, y]
The main point of difference: similarly between the English monophtongs, diphthongizes vowel and Uzbek may be summed up as follows:
1. The English and Uzbek Vowel phonemes are characterized by the oral formation. There are no nasal nasalized vowels in the languages compared.
2. According to the part of the tongue in the formation of vowel phonemes there are no front-retracted, central proper for mixed) vowels in Uzbek. Resembles may be found in the pronunciation of the back vowels in English and Uzbek. The Uzbek [y] and the English [o] are back-advanced vowels. The Uzbek [o] and the English [c], also (c) are back retracted vowels. Therefore, it is comparatively easy to teach the Uzbeks pronunciation of back English vowels.
3. According to the height of the tongue in English there are vowels of ail the 6 levels. Uzbek vowels belong to the narrow varieties of the 3 levels. In Uzbek there are no vowel phonemes like the English ?, ?i, ?, [?, ?:, ?]
These vowels are difficult for the student to master; especially the neutral vowel. But never the less the neutral [?] can be compared with Uzbek unstressed in the words like. Кетди, келди, китоб etc.
4. According to the position of the lips in the formation of vowels English vowels are rounded without protractions. Uzbek vowels [a], [?] [a] I are more closely rounded and protruded, where as the English [?, ?, ?, ?, ?], are. slightly rounded and. [a], [u:] are closely rounded without protrusion.
All the front and central vowels in English and Uzbek are ungrounded. In articulating the English vowels [i:, i, e] and the Uzbek vowels [u, e (?)], [ y ], the lips are neutral. In articulating the Uzbek [?, (e)] the lips may be either neutral or spread. In teaching the Uzbeks to pronounce the rounded English vowels care should be taken not to protrude the lips.
5. Besides considerable qualitative difference there is a quantitative difference between vowel phonemes of English and Uzbek. Traditionally all English vowels are divided into slier-and long. Short - [?, c, ?, ?, i], long [i:, ?, c: u: ?].
But at present the quantitative features of the English vowel) phonemes have become their main property and quality musty be regarded as additional. The Uzbek vowel phonemes. may only - be differentiated their quality. Philologically there. Is quantities difference in the Uzbek vowel phonemes. They typical «middle sounds», neither long nor shorter Some-Hines English vowels, [u:] may sound like the Uzbek [o] «and when they are pronounced short. This acoustic resemblance makes it possible to compare the vowels in question v
6. The English Vowels are usually neutralized and may be substituted by [] in unstressed position. The Uzbek vowels may be used either in stressed or unstressed position. Thus there is little difference between stressed and unstressed vowels in Uzbek. It is better to pronounce the correct pronunciation of the English without trying to find any parallels in the native tongue.
The Vowels Criteria for Classification
The chapter before has examined the consonant phonemes of English from an articulator perspective. After trying to establish a general borderline between the two major classes of sounds - consonants and vowels respectively - by postulating some major articulator distinctions between them, an attempt was made to analyze English consonants in detail, discussing the distinctions among them as well as contrasting them with the corresponding sounds of Romanian.
We will remember then that if consonants are distinguished from vowels precisely on the basis of an articulator feature that all of them arguably share - a place along the speech tract where the air stream meets a major obstacle or constriction - it would be very difficult to describe vowels in the same terms as it will no longer be possible to identify a «place of articulation». Articulator criteria can be, indeed, used to classify vowels but they will be less relevant or, in any case, of a different type than in the case of consonants.
Acoustic and even auditory features on the other hand will play a much more important role in accurately describing vowels as vowels are sonorous sounds, displaying the highest levels of resonance of all speech sounds.
Vowels, like consonants, will differ in terms of quality ~ the acoustic features will differ from one vowel to another depending on the position of the articulators, but in a way which is distinct from what we have seen in the case of consonants where there is another type of interaction between the various speech organs - and in terms of quantity or duration - again in a way distinct from consonants as vowels are all sonorous, continuant sounds.
The quality of a vowel is given by the way in which the tongue - the main articulator, as in the case of consonants - is positioned in the mouth and by the activity of the lips. This position of the tongue modifies the shape of the resonating cavities above the larynx and decisively influences the quality of the resulting sound. The great mobility of the tongue and the absence of any definite place of obstruction - as in the case of consonants - accounts for the great variety of vowels that can be found in any language and for the fact that vowels rather than consonants are more intimately linked to the peculiar nature of each and every language. It will be therefore much more difficult for a student of a foreign language to acquire the correct features of the vowel system than those of the consonant system of the respective language.
Three will be then the criteria that can be used to distinguish among vowels on an Articulator's basis: imposition of the tongue in the mouth - high or low on the vertical axis and fronted or retracted on the horizontal axis - and fast position of the lips. Many languages will also recognize a functional distinction between vowels produced by letting the air out either through the nasal cavity or through the oral one.
Tongue height. If we consider the position of the tongue in the mouth we can identify two extreme situations: one in which the body of the tongue is raised, almost touching the roof of the oral cavity and in this case we will be dealing with high or close vowels - the name clearly refers to the position of the tongue high in the mouth or close to the palate - and the opposite position when the body of the tongue is very low in the mouth leaving the cavity wide open as in the case when the doctor wants to examine our tonsils and asks us to say «ah». The vowels thus produced will be called open or low vowels since the tongue is lowered in the mouth and the oral cavity is open. If the tongue is placed in an intermediate position, raised only halfway against the palate, we shall call the vowels mid vowels. A further, more refined distinction will differentiate between two groups of mid vowels: close-mid/mid close or half-close or high-mid/mid high vowels and open-mid/ mid open or half-open or low-mid/mid low vowels.
If we consider the position of the tongue along the horizontal axis we can identify three classes of vowels: front vowels - uttered with the front part of the tongue highest, central vowels - if it is' rather the central part of the tongue that is highest, modifying the shape of the articulator and back vowels - the rear part of the tongue is involved in articulation.
The position of the lips. As I have mentioned earlier, the position of the lips is another major criterion that is used o distinguish among vowels. When we pronounce a vowel, our lips can be rounded, and then the resulting sound will be rounded, or they can be spread and then we shall say that the vowel that we have articulated is ungrounded . As we are going to see later, roundness may be more or less relevant, depending on the particular language we are talking about. The cavity through which the air is released - oral or nasal establishes an important distinction between oral and nasal vowels. There are nasal or nasalized vowels in all languages, but again this distinction will be more important in languages like, say, '* French, where it has a functional, contrastive, phonemic value, than in English or in Romanian where the feature is just contextual. More will be said about that later. As mentioned above, quantity is an important feature that we have to take into account when we discuss not only consonantal sounds, but vocalic ones as well. In fact, this is a feature that is much more important for vowels, because when we talk about duration in consonants we can contrast, for instance, non-durative sounds of the plosive type to continuant sounds of the kind fricatives are or simple to geminate consonants, while in the case of vowels much more refined distinctions can be established among various sounds. The fact that vowels vary in length is something we can intuitively become aware of if we contrast the vowel of peel [pi:l] for instance, to that of pill [pyl]. As we are going to see later, however, the contrast between the two vowels is not limited simply to duration and, moreover, vowel length is very much a contextual feature. Thus, what we consider to be members of one and the same phoneme, the long vowel [i:] will vary considerably in length in words like sea, seed and seat. It is obvious even for a phonetically less trained ear that the vowel is longer in case it occurs in syllable-final position and it becomes shorter and shorter depending on the voiced or the voice lessens of the following consonant. The picture becomes even more complex if we compare the preceding contexts to seal, seen or seem. On the other hand all the occurrences of [i:] mentioned above will be kept apart from the variants of the short vowel [y] in words like Sid, sit, sill or sin which differ in their turn in length depending on the nature of the following consonant. We shall then say that vowel length is not always a reliable distinctive feature when we try to contrast vowels - since it is so much influenced by the context. Other features will be added to obtain a more refined and closer to reality representation. The next features we are going to examine will then be the degree of muscular tension involved in articulation and deposition of the root of the tongue.
Muscular tension can vary considerably when we produce different vocalic sounds and this is something we can easily become aware of when we contrast the long vowel [i:] in seat and the short one [y] in sit, the examples analyzed above. Long vowels - conventionally marked in the ERA alphabet by a colon - are always associated with a higher degree of muscular tension in the speech organs involved in then* articulation. We will say that these vowels are tense, since the articulators are so when we utter them. Conversely, when we examine the way the vowel of sit is produced, the articulator organs are less strained, laxer than in the previous case. We will consequently describe these vowels as being lax. As we shall see later, unlike in Romanian, vowel duration, associated with tenseness, has a phonemic, contrastive value in English. The position of the tongue root . The more advanced or retracted position of the root of the tongue differentiates between vowels having different degrees of openness. The vowels pronounced with the root of the tongue pushed forward of its normal position will be specified as advanced tongue root (ATK) vowels. Conversely, non-advanced tongue root vowels will be articulated with the root of the tongue in its common, resting position. The first group of vowels will be comparatively tenser and higher than the vowels in the second group. Vowel quantity - duration, length - combines with stability of articulation to make the distinction between simple or «pure» vowels or monophthongs on the one hand and diphthongs on the other. Monophthongs are comparatively shorter vowels that preserve the same quality throughout the entire duration of their articulation. A diphthong combines two different vocalic elements joined together in a unique articulator effort and consequently being part of the same syllabic unit. In any diphthong one of the vocalic elements will be stronger than the other, from which or towards which the pronunciation glides. If the weaker element comes first and we have a glide towards the dominant vocalic element, the diphthong is a rising one: it is the kind of diphthong we have in Romanian words like iatac, iubire, iepure, iobag, meandre, boal a etc. This is a type of diphthong that does not exist in English, a language that only has falling diphthongs, that is diphthongs in which the glide is from the dominant vocalic element to the weaker one. (e.g. boy, buy in English or boi, bai in Romanian - N.B. these examples do not suggest that the diphthongs in the two languages are identical!). It is often difficult to decide when we deal with a genuine diphthong (that is a sequence of two vowels pronounced together) and when we deal with a sequence of a vowel and a glide for instance. In other words, shall we describe the vocalic element in buy as the diphthong ay or shall we rather interpret it as the vowel a followed by the glide j? Many linguists opt for the second variant and some will go as far as interpreting long vowels like i: in beat for instance as a succession of. The duration of the glide can constitute the basis for a differentiation, since glides will arguably take shorter to pronounce than the second vocalic element in a falling diphthong. If the vowel is very short, however, it is often difficult do distinguish it from the glide. The scope of this study will not allow us to
The comparative typology of English, Russian and Uzbek languages курсовая работа. Иностранные языки и языкознание.
Реферат: Процесс сварки опоры трубопроводов
Реферат: Государственный банк СССР. Скачать бесплатно и без регистрации
Личность И Политика Павла I Реферат
Смерть Базарова Сочинение
Сочинение Осенний День В Лесу
Реферат: Функции Современного менеджмента
Реферат: Магнитная индукция. Скачать бесплатно и без регистрации
Магистерская Диссертация Экология Загрязнения Атмосферы Сельскохозяйственной Техникой
Влияние Сахара На Организм Человека Реферат
Реферат: Морфофункциональная характеристика детского организма в разные периоды жизни
Контрольная Работа Номер 2 Биология
Реферат На Тему Резцы, Инструмент, Режущий Элемент, Безопасность Труда, Токарный Станок, Резец, Слесарное Дело, Токарное Дело
Курсовая Работа Кредитная Система Рб
Написать Реферат На Тему Урок Физической Культуры
Реферат: Россия ресурсная кладовая мира
Реферат На Тему Лучевая Диагностика
Неоконсервативная Революция На Западе Реферат
Реферат: A Comparison Of The Status Of Women
Реферат: Общие сведения о вычислительных сетях
Реферат На Тему Международные Кредитные Отношения
Функции трудового права - Государство и право курсовая работа
Отряд грызуны - Биология и естествознание презентация
Гражданско-правовое регулирование отношений общей собственности в Российской Федерации - Государство и право дипломная работа