The functioning and development of language represent two aspects of language learning, descriptive and historical, which modern linguistics often defines as independent friend from another area of ​​study. Is there any reason for this? Isn't such a distinction due to the nature of the object of study itself?

Descriptive and historical study of language has long been used in the practice of linguistic research and just as long ago found an appropriate theoretical justification. But the problem of these different approaches to the study of language came to the fore from the time F. de Saussure formulated his famous antinomy of diachronic and synchronic linguistics. This antinomy is logically derived from the main Saussurean opposition - language and speech - and is consistently combined with other distinctions made by Saussure: synchronic linguistics is at the same time internal, static (i.e., freed from the time factor) and systemic, while diachronic linguistics is external , evolutionary (dynamic), and devoid of consistency.

In the further development of linguistics, the opposition between diachronic and synchronic linguistics turned not only into one of the most acute and controversial problems that gave rise to a huge literature, but began to be used as an essential feature that separates entire linguistic schools and directions (cf., for example, diachronic phonology and glossematic phonemics or descriptive linguistics).

It is extremely important to note that in the course of the ever-deepening study of the problem of the relationship between diachronic and synchronic linguistics (or the proof of the absence of any relationship), an identification gradually occurred that Saussure himself could not have imagined: diachronic and synchronic study of language as different operations or working methods used for certain purposes and by no means mutually exclusive, began to be correlated with the very object of study - language, derived from its very nature. In the words of E. Coseriou, it turned out not to be taken into account that the difference between synchrony and diachrony refers not to the theory of language, but to the theory of linguistics.

The language itself does not know such distinctions, since it is always in development (which, by the way, Saussure also recognized), which is not carried out as a mechanical change of layers or synchronous layers that replace each other like guards (the expression of I. A. Baudouin de Courtenay) , but as a sequential, causal and uninterrupted process. This means that everything that is considered in the language outside of diachrony is not the real state of the language, but only its synchronic description. Thus the problem of synchrony and diachrony is really a problem of working methods, not of the nature and essence of language.

In accordance with what has been said, if a language is studied from two angles of view, such a study should be aimed at revealing how, in the process of language activity, the emergence of phenomena that relate to the development of language occurs.

The need, and also to a certain extent, the direction of such a study are suggested by the well-known paradox of S. Bally: “First of all, languages ​​are constantly changing, but they can only function without changing. At any moment of their existence, they are the product of temporary equilibrium. Therefore, this balance is the resultant of two opposite forces: on the one hand, tradition, which delays a change that is incompatible with the normal use of language, and on the other hand, active tendencies pushing this language in a certain direction.

The “temporal balance” of a language is, of course, a conditional concept, although it acts as an indispensable prerequisite for the implementation of the communication process. A lot of lines pass through the point of this equilibrium, which on one side go into the past, into the history of the language, and on the other side rush forward, into the further development of the language. “The mechanism of language,” I. L. Baudouin de Courtenay formulates extremely accurately, “and in general its structure and composition in given time represent the result of all history preceding it, of all development preceding it, and vice versa, the further development of language is determined by this mechanism at a certain time.

Consequently, when we want to penetrate the secrets of the development of a language, we cannot decompose it into planes independent of each other; such a decomposition, justified by the particular goals of the study and also admissible from the point of view of the object of study, i.e. e. language, will not give the results to which we are this case strive. But we will certainly achieve them if we set as the goal of our research the interaction of the processes of functioning and development of language. It is in this context that the following discussion will be carried out.

In the process of language development, its structure and quality change, which is why it seems possible to assert that the laws of language development are the laws of gradual qualitative changes occurring in it. On the other hand, the functioning of language is its activity according to certain rules. This activity is carried out on the basis of those structural features that are characteristic of a given language system. Since, consequently, in the functioning of the language we are talking about certain norms, about certain rules for using the language system, it is impossible to identify the rules of its functioning with the laws of language development.

But at the same time, the formation of new structural elements of the language occurs in the activity of the latter. The functioning of the language, which serves as a means of communication for members this society, establishes new needs that society imposes on the language, and thereby pushes it to further and continuous development and improvement. And as the language develops, as its structure changes, new rules for the functioning of the language are established, the norms are revised, in accordance with which the activity of the language is carried out.

Thus, the functioning and development of the language, although separate, are at the same time interdependent and interdependent phenomena. In the process of the functioning of the language as a tool of communication, a change in the language occurs. The change in the structure of the language in the process of its development establishes new rules for the functioning of the language. The interconnectedness of the historical and normative aspects of language is also reflected in the interpretation of the relationship of the laws of development to these aspects. If the historical development of the language is carried out on the basis of the rules of functioning, then the corresponding state of the language, representing a certain stage in this natural historical development, reflects the living, active laws of the development of the language in the rules and norms of its functioning.

V.A. Zvegintsev. Essays on General Linguistics - Moscow, 1962

Language as a whole, and language with two opposite parts - language and its opposite speech. Language is the property of the entire linguistic community, it is a social phenomenon. A social language is in the sense that all forms of language belong to the whole community. But language exists only in speech. On the one hand, speech is individual, because it is generated by a specific individual in specific situation. On the other hand, it is social because it is determined by the rules of a particular language. Each person has his own indialect (individual style of speech), but there can be no exclusively individual, since we draw all individualities in the language. When we hear a certain style of speech, we can imagine who we are talking to, we can make up individual characteristic this man. Speech is also social because, from the speech of people, we can imagine the social context in which this speech takes place.

Language is code. Human speech is understandable when we know this code (units of this code). Speech is a message on this code.

Language is abstract, it is not perceived by the senses. Speech is always concrete and material.

Language Features- this is the purpose, the role of language in human society. The language is multifunctional. The basic, most important functions of the language are communicative(to be a means of communication) and cognitive(serve as a means of forming and expressing thoughts, activities of consciousness). The third important function of language is emotional(to be a means of expressing feelings, emotions). Basic functions are primary. In addition to basic functions, derivatives, private functions of the language are also distinguished.

Communicative function consists in the use of linguistic expressions for the purpose of transmitting and receiving messages in interpersonal and mass communication, with the aim of exchanging information between people as participants in acts of linguistic communication.

cognitive function is to use language expressions to process and store knowledge in the memory of the individual and society, to form a picture of the world. The generalizing, classifying and nominative functions of language units are connected with the cognitive function.

Interpretive function is to reveal the deep meaning of perceived linguistic statements.

To the number derivative functions of the communicative function of language include the following functions: phatic(contact-setting), appellative(appeals), voluntarily(impact), etc. Among private communication functions can also be identified regulatory(social, interactive) function, which consists in the use of linguistic means in the linguistic interaction of communicants in order to exchange communicative roles, assert their communicative leadership, influence each other, organize a successful exchange of information due to the observance of communicative postulates and principles.

The language also has magical(incantation) function, which consists in the use of linguistic means in a religious ritual, in the practice of shamans, psychics, etc.

Emotionally expressive function language is the use of linguistic expressions to express emotions, feelings, moods, mental attitudes, attitudes towards communication partners and the subject of communication.

Allocate also aesthetic(poetic) function, which is realized mainly in artistic creativity when creating works of art.

Ethnocultural function of language- this is the use of a language with the aim of uniting into a single whole the representatives of a given ethnic group as native speakers of the same language.

Metalanguage function consists in the transmission of messages about the facts of the language itself and about speech acts in it.

14 Question. Language as a system of signs. System organization of the language. The concept of language levels.

With the development of systemic learning of the language and the desire to understand the internal properties of linguistic phenomena, there is a tendency to a meaningful distinction between the concepts of "elements" and "units" of the language as part and whole. as constituent parts units language (their plan of expression or plan of content), the elements of the language are not independent, since they express only some properties language system. Units of the language have all the properties of the language system and, as integral formations, are characterized by relative independence (ontological and functional). Language units form the first system-forming factor.

The concept of "system" in linguistics is closely related to the concept of "structure". The system is understood as the language as a whole, since it is characterized by an ordered totality its units, while the structure is structure systems. In other words, consistency is a property language, and structure is a property systems language .

Language units differ and quantitatively, And qualitatively, And functionally. Aggregates homogeneous language units form subsystems, called tiers or levels.

Structure language - this is a set of regular connections and relationships between linguistic units, depending on their nature and determining the qualitative originality of the language system as a whole and the nature of its functioning. The originality of the linguistic structure is determined by the nature of the connections and relationships between linguistic units.

Attitude - is the result of a comparison of two or more units of a language according to some common ground or sign. This is mediated addiction language units, in which a change in one of them does not lead to a change in the others. The following fundamental relations for the linguistic structure are distinguished: hierarchical, established between heterogeneous units (phonemes and morphemes; morphemes and lexemes, etc.); oppositional, according to which either language units or their features are opposed to each other.

Connections language units are defined as private the case of their relationship, suggesting a direct dependence of language units. At the same time, a change in one unit leads to a change in others. The structure of the language appears as law connections of these elements and units within a certain system or subsystem of the language, which implies the presence, along with dynamism And variability, and such an important structure property as sustainability. Thus, stability And variability- two dialectically related and “opposing tendencies of the linguistic structure. In the process of functioning and development of the language system, its structure manifests itself as a form of expression sustainability, A function as a form of expression variability. The structure of the language, due to its stability and variability, acts as the second most important system-forming factor.

The third factor in the formation of a system (subsystem) of a language is properties language unit, namely: the manifestation of its nature, internal content through relation to other units. The properties of linguistic units are sometimes considered as functions of the subsystem (level) formed by them.

What is the structure of the language system? To answer this question, it is necessary to reveal the essence of those connections and relationships due to which linguistic units form a system. These connections and relationships are located along two system-forming axes of the language structure: horizontal(reflecting the property of language units to be combined with each other, thereby performing the communicative function of the language); vertical(reflecting the connection of language units with the neurophysiological mechanism of the brain as the source of its existence). The vertical axis of the language structure is paradigmatic relations, and horizontal - relations syntagmatic, designed to activate two fundamental mechanisms of speech activity: nomination And predication. Syntagmatic all kinds of relations between linguistic units in the speech chain are called. They implement the communicative function of the language. Paradigmatic are called associative-semantic relations of homogeneous units, as a result of which language units are combined into classes, groups, categories, that is, into paradigms. This includes variants of the same language unit, synonymic series, antonymic pairs, lexico-semantic groups, and semantic fields and so on. Syntagmatics and paradigmatics characterize the internal structure of the language as the most important system-forming factors that presuppose and mutually condition each other. By the nature of syntagmatics and paradigmatics, language units are combined into superparadigms, which include homogeneous units of the same degree of complexity. They form levels (tiers) in the language: the level of phonemes, the level of morphemes, the level of lexemes, etc. Such a multi-level structure of the language corresponds to the structure of the brain, which “controls” the mental mechanisms of verbal communication.

Units of language and speech

Speech communication is carried out through language as a system of phonetic, lexical and grammatical means of communication.

Language, therefore, is defined as a system of elements (language units) and a system of rules for the functioning of these units, common to all speakers of a given language. In turn, speech is a concrete speaking, flowing in time and clothed in sound (including internal pronunciation) or written form. Speech is understood as the process of speaking itself (speech activity) and its result (speech works fixed by memory or writing).

The language is systemic, that is, the organization of its units. Language units (words, morphemes, sentences) constitute the language inventory. The system of units is called the language inventory; the system of rules for the functioning of units - the grammar of this language. In addition to units, the language has rules, patterns of functioning of these units. Both the units and the rules of functioning are common to all speakers of a given language.

The basis for the distinction between language and speech was the general objectively existing in the language and specific cases of using this general in speech acts. The means of communication taken outside a specific utterance (for example, a dictionary, grammar) are called language, and the same means in the utterance are called speech. External differences between language and speech are manifested in the linear nature of speech, which is a sequence of units built according to the rules of the language.

In language and speech, minimal meaningful units are distinguished, clearly characterized by the very sign of minimality, indecomposability into smaller meaningful parts. Such a unit is in speech, in the text the so-called morph, and in the language system, respectively, the morpheme. A word in a text and a morph are two-sided units of speech, while a lexeme and a morpheme are two-sided units of a language.

Both in speech and in language, in addition to bilateral units, there are one-sided units. These are the sound units that are singled out in terms of expression and are only indirectly related to the content. Phonemes correspond to the backgrounds distinguished in the flow of speech in the language system. Phonemes are concrete instances of phonemes. So, in the word mom pronounced by someone, there are four backgrounds, but only two phonemes (m and a), each represented in two copies.

The individual in speech is manifested in the selection of units from which the statement is built. For example, any word can be selected from the synonymic series to walk, step, pace, step, act, march, shuffle, stomp when constructing an utterance.

When functioning in speech, language units may acquire some features that are not characteristic of the entire language as a whole. This can manifest itself in the creation of new words, built according to the rules of the language, but not fixed by the practice of using it in the dictionary.

Language and speech differ in the same way that the rules of grammar and the phrases in which this rule is used, or the word in the dictionary and the countless uses of this word in different texts. Speech is a form of the existence of language. Language functions and is "immediately given" in speech. But abstracted from speech, from speech acts and texts, every language is an abstract entity.

Units of speech: syntax, gram, lex, morph, background, phonomorph, derivative, phrase

Language units: syntaxeme, gramme, lexeme, morpheme, phoneme, phonomorpheme, derivative, phraseme

Language is a complex mechanism, not just a mechanical one. set of languages elements.: phonemes, morphemes, words, prepositions. Language can be compared to clockwork, where all the wheels are interconnected to produce acc. action: show time. Therefore, the terms "system" and "structure" are used. system called an owl. connections and rel. between the composition its elements, i.e. its units. To language. It is customary to represent language as a unity of system and structure. Development and use language for communication involves fasting. interaction structure and system, their self-regulation. structure language called-Xia cumulative. its inherent units, categories, tiers, cat. real-Xia into a single whole on the basis of lang. rel. and dependencies. The system is an object as a whole, comp. from department relationship parts, cat. constitute unity and integrity, and structure is an analytical concept, it is an attribute or element of the system.

The following language levels are distinguished as the main ones:

phonemic;

morphemic;

lexical (verbal);

syntactic (sentence level).

The levels at which two-sided (having a plan of expression and a plan of content) units are distinguished are called the highest levels of the language. Some scientists tend to distinguish only two levels: differential (language is considered as a system of distinctive signs: sounds or written signs that replace them - distinguishing units of the semantic level) and semantic, on which two-sided units are distinguished.

In some cases, units of several levels coincide in one sound form. So, in Russian and the phoneme, morpheme and word coincide, in lat. i "go" - phoneme, morpheme, word and sentence.

Units of the same level can exist in abstract, or "emic" (for example, phonemes, morphemes), and concrete, or "ethical" (backgrounds, morphs), forms, which is not the basis for highlighting additional levels of the language: rather, it makes sense to talk about different levels of analysis. Qualitative features of the tiers of the language show that, in addition to the general sign of decomposability and synthesis characterizing the units of each tier, there are phenomena of the language that cannot be attributed to a specific tier. In addition, there are phenomena in the language that cannot be covered by the concept of a tier. These are phenomena such as the tact-syllabic organization of oral speech, the tonal organization of speech, the graphic-spelling and artistic organization of written speech, the phenomena of phraseology, the lexicalization of phrases, the phenomena of standard formulas-sentences (such as formulas of greeting, scolding, etc.), forms word formation, etc. Such phenomena are classified as extra-tiered and are invariantized and classified separately.

An original understanding of linguistic law is presented at the Prague School of Linguistics. “The laws governing utterances in a given language,” write B. Trnka et al., “like the laws of the natural sciences, should be considered abstract laws, but acting and controllable. By their nature, they - in contrast to the laws of natural science, acting mechanically - are normative (normothetic) and, therefore, are valid only for a certain system and at a certain time. If these laws are fixed, for example, in grammar, they have the opposite normalizing effect on individuals, strengthening the obligation and unity of the linguistic norm. The normalizing nature of language laws does not exclude the possibility that some of them are valid for a number of languages ​​or even for all languages ​​in historically accessible epochs (cf., for example, the law of minimum contrast of adjacent phonemes in a word). All languages ​​of the world have, in addition to their features, and basic similarities; these similarities should be subjected to scientific analysis and reduced to scientific laws. As it is clear from the above quotation, in this case the very concept of law undergoes a significant rethinking and is actually reduced to the concept of a norm. Since the norm can be derived from the purposeful activity of a person, with such an understanding of the linguistic law, it loses the quality of objectivity.

Thus, the concept of law in linguistics is not unambiguous; various processes and phenomena are brought under it, which in their manifestation often have nothing regular. It is precisely because of this circumstance that the very use of the term "law" in linguistics is usually accompanied by reservations, the essence of which is that linguistic laws are laws of a special order, that they cannot be compared with any other laws, that the very application of this term to linguistic processes is conditional, etc.

So, for example, about the phonetic laws of Yoz. Schreinen writes: “...linguistic regularities or parallel series in language changes occurring within certain boundaries of place and time are called sound laws. But they have nothing to do with physical or chemical laws; they are not actually "laws" in the usual sense of the word, but rather sound rules based on certain trends or historical processes. G. Hirt gives the same characteristic of phonetic laws: “Sound laws in the sense of natural laws, in fact, are out of the question.” Nevertheless, any kind of regular processes or correspondences traditionally continue to be called laws in linguistics.

The concept of a linguistic law did not receive a sufficiently clear definition in the Soviet science of language either. Theory acad. N. Ya. Marra, who for some time occupied a dominant position in Soviet linguistics, distracted our linguists from studying the specifics of the laws of language development. In accordance with the general vulgarizing nature of his theory, N. Ya. Marr replaced linguistic laws with sociological ones. He sought, as he himself wrote about it, "to weaken the significance of the internal laws of the development of language, as such, transferring the center of gravity not only in semantics, but also in morphology to the conditionality of linguistic phenomena by socio-economic factors" .

It was precisely as a contrast to this attitude of N. Ya. Marr that after the discussion in 1950 in Soviet linguistics the concept of the internal law of language development became widely used, and Soviet linguists were given the task of studying the internal laws of development of specific languages. Such an orientation of linguistic research should be characterized in a positive way.

Unfortunately, at first, Soviet linguists, when defining the essence of the concept of an internal law of language development, i.e., in essence, a linguistic law in the proper sense, proceeded not from observation of the processes of language development, but from a dogmatic interpretation of Stalin's works, although at the same time in a number of works this question was also considered in the proper linguistic plane.

The modern understanding of the tasks of Soviet linguistics does not at all remove the problem of the internal laws of language from the agenda, if by them we understand the formulas of regular processes specific to the language. With such an understanding of this issue, the definition of linguistic laws as “internal” seems to be quite justified, but this definition should not give rise to the allocation of linguistic laws to a special group, to put them outside the mandatory characteristics of the law in general.

When defining the internal law of the development of language as a linguistic one, one should proceed from the general understanding of the law that is given in the philosophy of dialectical materialism.

The main characteristics that must also be presented in linguistic laws are, therefore, the following.

The laws of nature and society are objective. Consequently, the patterns of language development should also be studied not in the individual psychological aspect, as, for example, neogrammarists did when explaining the emergence of new phenomena in the language, and not as dependent on human will, which was claimed by N. Ya. Marr, who advocated artificial interference in the development of languages. Since language is a social phenomenon of a special order, which has its own specifics, the special, internal patterns of development inherent in it should be studied as objective laws, in which the specifics of this phenomenon are revealed.

The law takes what is most essential in the internal relations of phenomena. Since the formula of the law presents in a generalized form the regularity inherent in phenomena, the regularity itself turns out to be wider than the law, it is not completely covered by its formula. But, on the other hand, the law deepens the knowledge of patterns, generalizing particular phenomena and revealing elements of the general in them. Therefore, the linguistic law is always wider than a separate particular phenomenon. This can be illustrated by the following example. IN Old Russian starting from the 11th century. it is possible to detect the phenomenon of the disappearance of a weak deaf b in the initial pre-shock position (for example , prince> prince). This phonetic process was carried out with complete regularity, and, therefore, it is quite possible to classify it among the classical phonetic laws, as they were understood by the neogrammarists. But in reality, this is only a particular phenomenon that fits into the general pattern of development of the phonetic side of the Russian language. This pattern consists in the general clarification of voiceless vowels b And b in a strong position (cf., for example , sn - sleep, day - day) and their fall in a weak position, and this fall took place not only in the initial pre-stressed position, but also in other positions, including the open final syllable. This general regularity appears in the history of the Russian language in a variety of particular changes, the inner essence of which, however, remains the same. The general formula of this law does not cover all the features of specific cases of its manifestation. For example, known deviations reveal the phonetic development of the word Greek.“In the old days,” says Prof. P. Ya. Chernykh, - before the fall of the deaf, the word Greek pronounced with b after r: grk, adjective Greek(For example , people). This adjective should have sounded in literary speech gr "etsk" ii(from gr "ech" sk "iy), and indeed we say: walnuts etc. Influenced, however, by the short form of this adjective gr "ech" esk(from grchsk) in the era of the fall of the deaf appeared "uh in suffix -esk- and in the word gr "echesk" ii, and such a pronunciation of this word (with the suffix - "esk-) became normal in the literary language.

On the other hand, the formulation of the law deepens and expands the knowledge of particular and specific phenomena, since it establishes a common nature in them, determines those general trends along which the development of the phonetic system of the Russian language took place. Knowing these laws, we have the opportunity to represent the development of language not as a mechanical sum of separate and in no way bound friend with other phenomena, but as a natural process that reflects the internal interconnection of the facts of language development. So, in the analyzed example, all individual cases of clearing and falling of the deaf are presented not as isolated cases of phonetic changes, but as a diverse manifestation of a pattern that is unified in its essence, which generalizes all these particular phenomena. Thus, the law reflects the most essential in the processes of language development.

Another characteristic of the law is that it determines the recurrence of phenomena in the presence of relatively constant conditions. This feature of the law should not be taken too narrowly, and at the same time the concept of linguistic law cannot be built on it alone.

So, for example, if we take one particular process of narrowing a long vowel about: and: which occurred in the English language between the fifteenth and seventeenth centuries, it occurred with great regularity and occurred wherever the same conditions were present. For example, in the word tool-"tool" (to: l>tu: l), in a word moon-"moon" (then: n>ty: n), in a word food-"food" (fo: d>fu: d), in a word do-"do" (do:>du:) etc. However, in itself this process, despite the fact that it reveals the repetition of phenomena in the presence of constant conditions, is not yet a linguistic law in the proper sense of the word. If it were possible to confine ourselves to only one sign of the regular recurrence of a phenomenon, then it would be possible to fully accept the old understanding of the law, as it was formulated by the neogrammarists. This, although regular, but particular phenomenon lacks other signs of the law, which were indicated above. A phenomenon of one order must be connected and correlated with other phenomena, which will make it possible to identify in them elements of a common pattern for a given language. And the very repetition of phenomena must be considered in terms of this general pattern, which is built on the basis of particular and specific phenomena. The study of the history of the English language made it possible to establish that the considered case of the transition about:>and: is a particular manifestation of a general pattern, according to which all the long vowels of the English language narrowed during the specified period, and the narrowest ( i: And And:) diphthongized. Regular repetition should be correlated with this general process, which turned out to be the leading one for the phonetic side of the English language at a certain stage of its development and took various specific forms. The regular repetition of each such case separately (for example, the specified transition o:>and:) there is only a special case of the manifestation of regularity. The regularities of this order are the most illustrative, since they are uniform, but, considered separately, without connection with other regular phenomena, they do not make it possible to penetrate into the essence of the regularities of the phonetic development of the language.

Another thing is the repetition of phenomena associated with the law. It can take many forms, but the essence of these forms will be the same and exactly the one that is determined by this law. So, if we turn to the example above from the history of the English language, then this means that the transitions : >e:>i:(cf. word beat-"beat"; b: tq>be: t>bi: t), e:>i:(cf. word meet-"meet": me: t>mi: t), o:> and:(cf. word moon-"moon": mo: n>mu: n) etc., although they are diverse in their specific form, they are phenomena that are united in their principle, the repetition of which reproduces the same regularity: the narrowing of long vowels.

From the relationship of the law and specific cases of its manifestation, one should distinguish the possibility of mutual subordination of various patterns of language development. Along with the regularities of this nature in the development of languages, it is possible to reveal regularities of a relatively narrow scope, which serve as the basis for regularities of a more general order. In this case, changes of a more general order are carried out on the basis of a number of changes of a more limited scope, sometimes being a consequence of them. For example, such an important law, which played a large role in the development of the grammatical system, as the law of open syllables, which was established in the common Slavic language-base and continued to operate in the early periods of the development of individual Slavic languages, was formed on the basis of a number of phonetic changes at different times. These include the processes of monophthongization of diphthongs (earlier than all, diphthongs were monophthongized on And, then a diphthong oi and further diphthongs with smooth sonants), simplification of various groups of consonants, etc. In this case, we are already dealing with the relationship of individual patterns that coordinate processes in different parts of the language.

This characterization of the laws of language development may give rise to the observation that all the regular phenomena of change in the language system defined above are something more complex than laws: they are rather general trends in the development of the language than individual laws. This objection, based on the traditional understanding of linguistic laws, must be reckoned with. The attitude to such an objection can only be of two kinds. Or one should recognize any, even a single and isolated phenomenon in the processes of language development as natural - and it is to such an understanding that A. Meillet's statement that the law does not cease to be law, even if it is evidenced only by a single example, pushes to such an understanding. In this case, one should abandon all attempts to discover in the processes of language development those common features that characterize any natural process, and recognize that linguistic laws are laws of a “special order”, the nature of which is determined by one single provision: there can be no effect without a cause. . Or should we strive to identify in the process of language development the indicated common features of any regular process. In this second case, it will be necessary to make a certain differentiation of the facts of the development of language and even to rethink them. But on the other hand, linguistics will then be able to operate with categories common to all sciences and will cease to consider, for example, an apple that has fallen from a tree as a “special” and separate law. Preferably, obviously, go this second way. In any case, the further exposition of this question will be oriented towards it.

General and private laws of language

Among other phenomena of the social order, language has a number of qualities that distinguish it from them. These qualities of the language include its structural nature, the presence of a certain physical aspect that allows the study of the language by physical methods, the inclusion of elements of signs, special forms of relationship with the mental activity of a person and the real world of reality, etc. The whole set of qualities that characterizes the language is special among other social phenomena, the specificity inherent only in language determines the forms or patterns of its development. But human language receives an extremely diverse manifestation. The structural difference between languages ​​leads to the fact that the path and forms of development of each language separately are characterized by individual characteristics.

Accordingly, the laws of language correlate with language in general as a social phenomenon of a special order, or with a separate and specific language, it seems possible to speak of general or particular laws of language.

General laws ensure the regular uniformity of the processes of language development, which is determined by the nature common to all languages, the essence of the specificity of the language as social phenomenon of a special order, its social function and the qualitative features of its structural components. In relation to other social phenomena, they act as characteristic of the language, and it is precisely this circumstance that gives reason to call them its internal laws; however, within the language they are universal. It is impossible to imagine the development of language without the participation of these laws. But although the formulas of such laws are the same for all languages, they cannot proceed in the same way in different specific conditions. In their specific form, they receive a diverse expression depending on its structural features. However, no matter how different the general laws of language development may be, they remain laws common to all languages, since they are determined not by the structural features of specific languages, but by the specific essence of human language in general as a social phenomenon of a special order, designed to serve people's need for communication.

Although in the history of linguistics the problem of determining the general laws of language has not received a purposeful formulation, in fact it has always been in the center of attention of linguists, linking up with the problem of the nature and essence of language. After all, for example, the desire of F. Bopp to reveal the physical and mechanical laws in the development of language, the attempt of A. Schleicher to subordinate the development of language to the evolutionary theory of Charles Darwin, and today F. de Saussure's inclusion of language into "the science that studies the life of signs within the life of society ”(semiology), as well as the interpretation of language by the methods of mathematical logic, - all this is essentially nothing more than diversified studies seeking to determine the general laws of language. As a rule, these searches were carried out in a comparative way, or, better, using the criteria of other sciences - physics (by F. Bopp), natural science (by A. Schleicher), sociology (by F. de Saussure), mathematical logic (by Chomsky) and so on. Nevertheless, it is important to determine the general laws of language without regard (unfortunately, very little has been done in this direction) with a trace of how they are refracted in the structure and development of specific languages. From this point of view, the general laws of the language should include, for example, the obligatory presence in it of two plans - relatively speaking, the plan of "expression" and the plan of "content", the threefold formula of the main elements of the structure of the language: phoneme - word - sentence, the establishment of development as forms of the existence of a language (meaning, of course, "living" languages), etc. These general laws, which also make it easier to trace their refraction in specific languages, include the law of uneven rates of development of different structural elements of a language.

In accordance with this law, the vocabulary of a language and its grammatical structure have varying degrees of stability, and if, for example, the vocabulary quickly and directly reflects all the changes taking place in society, and thus is the most mobile part of the language, then the grammatical structure changes extremely slowly. and therefore is the most stable part of the language. But if we look at how this general law is implemented in specific languages, then particular moments will immediately arise that will relate not only to the forms of implementation of this law, but even to the very pace of development. For example, if we compare the grammatical structure of German and English (closely related Germanic languages) at the oldest stage of their development accessible to us and in their current state, the following picture will appear. In the ancient periods of their development, both of these languages ​​show a significant similarity in their grammatical structure, which is very in general terms can be described as synthetic. Modern English already differs significantly in its grammatical structure from modern German: it is a language of analytic structure, while German continues to be largely synthetic language. This circumstance also characterizes the other side of the phenomenon under consideration. The grammatical structure of the German language is closer to the state that is attested in its most ancient monuments than the grammatical structure of the English language. Much more change has taken place in the latter, and this suggests that the grammatical structure of the English language changed more rapidly over the same time than the grammatical structure of the German language.

The changes that have taken place in the grammatical structure of English and German are clearly visible already from a simple comparison of the declension paradigm of words with the same root in different periods of development of these languages. Even if you ignore different types declension of nouns (weak - consonant and strong - vowel) and take into account only the differences in the forms of declension associated with generic differentiation, then in this case the structural proximity of Old English and modern German and a significant departure from both of these languages ​​​​of modern English will be clearly visible. English noun now does not distinguish not only different types (strong and weak) or generic forms, but also has no declension forms at all (the so-called Saxon genitive is extremely limited in use). On the contrary, modern German not only retained the ancient distinction in terms of declension types (with some modifications now) and gender, but also has much in common with Old English in the very forms of the declension paradigm, which is clear from the following examples:

Modern English		day (day)	water (water)	tongue (language)
Old English	Unit number	Male gender	Avg. genus	Women's genus
	name.	jg	wind	tunge
	Vinit.	jg	wind	tungan
	Dative	dege	weather	tungan
	Give birth.	deges	windes	tungan
	Mn. number
	name.	dages	wind	tungan
	Vinit.	dages	wind	tungan
	Give birth.	daga	wetera	tungena
	Dative	dagum	weatherum	tungum
Modern German	Unit number
	name.	Tag	wasser	Zunge
	Vinit.	Tag	wasser	Zunge
	Dative	Tag(e)	wasser	Zunge
	Will give birth	Tags	Wassers	Zunge
	Mn. number
	name.	Tage	wasser	Zungen
	Vinit.	Tage	wasser	Zungen
	Give birth.	Tage	wasser	Zungen
	Dative	Tagn	wassern	Zungen

At the same time, changes in both languages ​​also had personal forms, which is already determined by the particular laws of language development. However, before proceeding to a characterization of this second category of laws of language development, it seems necessary to note the following circumstance. The greater or lesser rates of development of various languages ​​do not give grounds to speak of a greater or lesser development of languages ​​in a comparative sense. Thus, in particular, the fact that English has changed grammatically more than German within the same chronological period does not mean that English is now more developed than German. It would be illogical and unjustified to judge the greater or lesser development of languages ​​by relatively limited periods of their development, and for a comparative assessment in relation to their “final” state at the present stage of development, the science of language does not have any criteria. Such criteria, apparently, are impossible, since different languages ​​develop in accordance with their particular laws. in special ways, the processes of their development take various forms and therefore, in essence, in this case, incomparable phenomena appear.

From the general laws of language development, as a specific social phenomenon, one should distinguish the laws of development of each specific language separately, which are characteristic of a given language and distinguish it from other languages. This category of laws, since they are determined by the structural features of individual languages, can also be given the name of particular internal laws of development.

As the example already cited shows, the general and particular laws of development are not delimited from each other by an impenetrable wall, but, on the contrary, the particular laws merge with the general ones. This is due to the fact that each specific language embodies all the features of the language as a social phenomenon of a special order and therefore can only develop on the basis of the general laws of language development. But, on the other hand, since each specific language has a different structural structure, special grammatical structure and phonetic system, different vocabulary, is characterized by an unequal natural combination of these structural components in the language system, then the forms of manifestation of the activity of the general laws of development in individual languages ​​inevitably change. And the special forms of development of specific languages, as already mentioned, are associated with particular laws of their development.

This circumstance can be traced in a comparative study of the development of identical phenomena in different languages. For example, consider the category of time. English and German languages ​​in the ancient periods of their development had approximately the same system of tenses, moreover, very simple: they had only the forms of the present tense and the simple past tense. As for the future tense, it was expressed descriptively or in the forms of the present tense. The further development of both languages ​​went along the line of improving their tense system and creating a special form for expressing the future tense. This process, as already mentioned above, fits into the general laws of language development, according to which the grammatical structure of the language, although slowly, is nevertheless rebuilt, significantly lagging behind other aspects of the language in the pace of its development. At the same time, restructuring does not have the character of an explosion, but is carried out slowly and gradually, which correlates with another general law, namely with the law of a gradual change in the quality of the language through the accumulation of elements of a new quality and the withering away of elements of the old quality. We have already seen the features of the implementation of these general laws in the English and German languages ​​in the fact that the process of restructuring their grammatical structure, including the tense system, took place with varying degrees of vigor. But it took place in different forms, despite the fact that in this case we are dealing with closely related languages ​​that have a significant number of identical elements in their structure. These different ways of development (in this case, the forms of the future tense) are due to the fact that different particular laws of language development acted in German and English. The initial structural similarity of these languages, due to the fact that They are closely related, led to the fact that the development of the forms of the future tense, although it took place in English and German in different ways, has some common points in its course. What is the proximity and divergence of the processes of formation of the forms of the future tense in these languages? The answer to this question is given by concrete facts of the history of these languages.

The common thing is that the forms of the future tense are formed according to a single structural scheme, consisting of an auxiliary verb and the infinitive of the main verb, and also that the same modal verbs are used as auxiliary verbs, the semantics of which change in the process of their transformation into auxiliary also has some common points. For the rest, the development of the forms of the future tense has differences, which in their current state are also characterized by the fact that they function in the context of different time systems. Specifically, these differences are manifested in the following facts.

In Old English, the future tense was usually expressed in the present tense forms. Along with this, descriptive phrases were used with modal verbs shall and will. This analytic form gains considerable currency in the Middle English period. In the process of their grammaticalization, both verbs have somewhat modified their semantics, but at the same time up to. present time have retained many of their old meanings. In particular, since both verbs are modal, they retained their modal meanings also in the function of auxiliary verbs in the formation of future tenses. Up to the time when the rules for their use were fixed, the choice of a particular verb was determined by their specific modal meaning: when the action was made dependent on the individual will of the subject, the verb will was used, when it was necessary to express a more or less objective necessity or obligation of the action. , the verb shall was used. In biblical style, shall was more commonly used. Will was preferably used in dramatic dialogues, it was also used more often in colloquial speech, as far as literary monuments allow us to judge this. For the first time, the norms for the use of the verbs shall and will in an auxiliary function were formulated by George Mason in 1622 (in his Grarnaire Angloise), which were based on the same specific modal meanings connecting shall with the first person, and will with other persons. Grammarists have found the use of shall more suitable for expressing the future tense in the first person due to the specific modal semantics of this verb, which has a tinge of coercion or personal confidence in its meaning, which is not consistent with the objective statement of the future tense in most cases of correlating the action with the second or third person. Here, the verb will is more appropriate in its semantics. In the colloquial style of modern English, an abbreviated form of the auxiliary verb will and namely 'll has developed, which displaces the separate use of both verbs. In Scottish, Irish, and American English, will is the only common auxiliary verb used to form the future tense.

So, the formation of the forms of the future tense in the English language proceeded mainly along the line of rethinking modal meanings using analytical constructions with the gradual elimination of differentiation by persons in them. This way of development is fully consistent with the desire of the English verb to unload as much as possible from the expression of personal meanings.

In German, the forms of the future tense developed in parallel on the basis of modal and aspectual meanings; although the aspectual future eventually won out, the modal future has not been completely ousted from the German language up to the present. The descriptive phrase with the modal verbs sollen and wollen is already found in the first monuments of the Old High German period, reaching wide use between the 11th and 14th centuries. Moreover, unlike the English language, the verb sollen was predominantly used in all persons. But in the future, this construction begins to be replaced by another (species future). In Luther's Bible it is rarely used, and in modern German, in the few cases where it is used, it has a significant modal connotation.

The origin of the specific future should also be attributed to the ancient periods of the development of the German language. Its rudiments, obviously, must be seen in the predominant use of the present tense forms of perfect verbs to express the future tense. But as the aspect as a grammatical category is becoming obsolete in German, the sequence of using the present tense of perfective verbs as the future tense is broken, and already in Old High German, clarifying circumstances are used in these cases. From the 11th century there is a formation of an analytical construction, consisting of the verb werden and the participle of the present tense, which originally had the specific meaning of initiation, but in the XII and XIII centuries. already widely used to express the future tense. In the future (starting from the 12th century), this construction is somewhat modified (werden + infinitive, not present participle) and displaces the modal future. In the XVI and XVII centuries. it already appears in all grammars as the only form of the future tense (along with the forms of the present, which are widely used in the meaning of the future tense in colloquial speech and in modern German). Unlike English, German, using a similar analytical construction to form the future tense, retains in it the synthetic elements characteristic of the entire grammatical structure of the German language. In particular, the verb werden, used in German as an auxiliary verb to form the future tense, retains personal forms (ichwerdefahren, duwirstfahren, erwirdfahren, etc.).

These are the specific ways of developing an identical grammatical phenomenon in closely related languages, which, however, takes on various forms in accordance with the particular laws of development that operate in English and German.

It is characteristic that similar differences permeate the vocabulary of the English and German languages, which have different structural types and are correlated in different ways with conceptual complexes. Palmer drew attention to this circumstance (interpreting it somewhat peculiarly). “I believe,” he writes, “that these differences should be attributed to the peculiarities of the English and German languages ​​as tools of abstract thinking. German is far superior to English in the simplicity and transparency of its symbolism, as can be shown by the simplest example. An Englishman who wishes to speak of the unmarried state in general must use celibacy, a new and difficult word quite different from wed, marriage, and bachelor. This is opposed by the simplicity of the German language: die Ehe means matrimony; from this word the adjective ehe-los is formed - "unmarried" or "unmarried" (unmarried). From this adjective, by adding the usual suffix of abstract nouns, arises Ehe-los-igkeit - "celibacy" - a term so clear that even a street boy can understand. And the abstract thinking of the Englishman stumbles over the difficulty of verbal symbolism. Another example. If we are talking about eternal life, we must turn to the help of the Latin word immortality - "immortality", which is completely different from ordinary words die - "to die" and death - "death". The German again has an advantage, since the components of Un-sterb-lich-keit - "immortality" are clear and can be formed and understood by any member of the language community who knows the base word sterben - "to die".

On the basis of the features of English and German vocabulary noted by Palmer, even the theory arose that, in contrast to the grammatical structure, German vocabulary is more analytical in its structure than English.

Thus, the particular laws of development show in what ways and ways the development of a particular language takes place. Since these methods are not the same for different languages, we can talk about particular laws of development of only specific languages. Thus, the laws of development of a particular language determine the national-individual identity of the history of a given language, its qualitative identity.

Private laws of language development cover all its areas - phonetics, grammar, vocabulary. Each sphere of language can have its own laws, which makes it possible to talk about the laws of development of phonetics, morphology, syntax and vocabulary. So, for example, the fall of the Russian language reduced in the history should be attributed to the laws of development of the phonetics of this language. The formation of a frame structure can be defined as the law of the development of the syntax of the German language. The unification of the foundations in the history of the Russian language can be called the law of the development of its morphology. The same law of development of the morphology of the Russian language, which runs like a red thread through its entire centuries-old history, is a progressive strengthening in the expression of the perfect and imperfect aspects. The German language is characterized by the enrichment of the vocabulary of the language by creating new lexical units based on word composition. This way of developing the vocabulary of the German language, uncharacteristic of other languages, such as modern French, can be considered as one of the laws of German word formation.

However, this does not mean that the laws of development of specific languages ​​are mechanically composed of the laws of development of individual areas of the language, representing their arithmetic sum. Language is not a simple combination of a number of linguistic elements - phonetic, lexical and grammatical. It represents an education in which all its details are interconnected by a system of regular relations, which is why they talk about the structure of the language. And this means that each element of the structural parts of the language, as well as the structural parts themselves, proportions the forms of its development with the features of the entire structure of the language as a whole. Consequently, in the presence of separate and special forms of development for the phonetic system of the language, for its vocabulary side and grammatical structure, the laws of development of its individual sides interact with each other and reflect the qualitative features of the entire structure of the language as a whole ... An example of such interaction can be cited processes of reduction of endings in the history of the English language. These processes were associated with the emergence of power stress in the Germanic languages ​​and fixing it on the root vowel. Finite elements that fell into an unstressed position were reduced and gradually completely disappeared. This circumstance was reflected both in word formation in the English language and in its morphology (wide development of analytical structures) and syntax (fixing a certain word order and endowing it with grammatical meaning).

In Russian, on the other hand, the stubborn desire for unfixed stress (how it differs from such Slavic languages ​​as Polish or Czech) should be attributed to the fact that it is used as a semantic means, that is, it appears in interaction with other parties. language (semantics).

Finally, one should point out the possible closeness of the particular laws of development of different languages. This takes place when such languages ​​are related, having identical elements in their structure. It is obvious that the closer such languages ​​are to each other, the more reason for them to have the same particular laws of development.

To all that has been said, the following should be added. Linguistic laws are not the force that drives the development of language. These forces are factors external to the language and are extremely diverse in nature - from native speakers and their social needs to different kind contacts of languages ​​and substrate phenomena. It is this circumstance that makes it impossible to consider the development of a language in isolation from its historical conditions. But, having perceived an external stimulus, linguistic laws give the development of the language certain directions or forms (in accordance with its structural features). In a number of cases and in certain areas of the language (primarily in vocabulary and semantics), the specific nature of external stimuli for the development of the language can cause corresponding specific changes in the language system. This issue is considered in more detail below, in the section “History of the people and the laws of language development”; meanwhile, keep in mind the general dependency, existing between the laws of language development and external factors.

What is language development

The concept of the law of language is associated with the development of language. This concept, therefore, can be revealed in its concrete form only in the history of language, in the processes of its development. But what is language development? The answer to this seemingly simple question is by no means unambiguous, and its formulation has big story reflecting the change of linguistic concepts.

In linguistics, at the first stages of the development of comparative linguistics, the view was established that the languages ​​known to science survived their heyday in ancient times, and now they are available for study only in the state of their destruction, gradual and ever-increasing degradation. This view, first expressed in linguistics by F. Bopp, was further developed by A. Schleicher, who wrote: “Within history, we see that languages ​​are only decrepit according to certain vital laws, in sound and formal terms. The languages ​​we now speak are, like all the languages ​​of historically important peoples, senile linguistic products. All the languages ​​of civilized peoples, as far as we know them at all, are more or less in a state of regression. In another work, he says: "In the prehistoric period, languages ​​were formed, and in the historical period they die." This point of view, based on the representation of language as a living organism and declaring the historical period of its existence a period of senile decrepitude and dying, was then replaced by a number of theories that partly modified the views of Bopp and Schleicher, and partly put forward new, but equally ahistorical and metaphysical views.

Curtius wrote that “convenience is and remains the main motivating cause of sound change under all circumstances,” and since the desire for convenience, economy of speech, and at the same time the negligence of speakers is increasing, the “decreasing sound change” (i.e., the unification of grammatical forms), caused by the indicated reasons, leads the language to decomposition.

The young grammarians Brugman and Ostgof link the development of the language with the formation of the organs of speech, which depends on the climatic and cultural conditions of the life of the people. “Like the formation of all the physical organs of a person,” Ostgof writes, “so the formation of his speech organs depends on the climatic and cultural conditions in which he lives.”

The sociological trend in linguistics made an attempt to link the development of language with the life of society, but vulgarized the social essence of the language and saw only a senseless change in the forms of the language in the processes of its development. “... One and the same language,” writes, for example, a representative of this trend, J. Vandries, “looks different in different periods of its history; its elements are changed, restored, moved. But in general, losses and gains compensate for each other ... Various aspects of morphological development resemble a kaleidoscope shaken infinite number once. Each time we get new combinations of its elements, but nothing new except these combinations.

As this one shows short review points of view, in the processes of language development, although it may seem paradoxical, no genuine development was found. Moreover, the development of the language was even thought of as its disintegration.

But even in those cases where the development of a language was associated with progress, the science of language often distorted the true nature of this process. This is evidenced by the so-called "theory of progress" of the Danish linguist O. Jespersen.

Jespersen used English as a measure of progressiveness. This language throughout its history has gradually rebuilt its grammatical structure in the direction from the synthetic to the analytical structure. Other Germanic languages, as well as some Romance languages, developed in this direction. But analytical tendencies in other languages ​​(Russian or other Slavic languages) did not lead to the destruction of their synthetic elements, such as case inflection. B. Kollinder, in his article criticizing the theory of O. Jespersen, on the material of the history of the Hungarian language convincingly shows that the development of the language can also take place in the direction of synthesis. In these languages, development proceeded along the lines of improving the grammatical elements present in them. In other words, different languages ​​develop in different directions in accordance with their qualitative features and their own laws. But Jespersen, declaring the analytical system the most perfect and absolutely disregarding the possibilities of other directions of development, saw progress in the development of only those languages ​​that, in their historical path, moved towards analysis. Thus, other languages ​​were deprived of the originality of the forms of their development and fit into the Procrustean bed of the analytical yardstick taken from the English language.

None of the above definitions can serve as a theoretical basis for clarifying the question of what should be understood by the development of language.

In the preceding sections, it has been repeatedly pointed out that the very form of the existence of a language is its development. This development of language is due to the fact that society, with which language is inextricably linked, is in constant motion. Proceeding from this quality of the language, the question of the development of the language should be decided. It is obvious that the language is losing its vitality, ceases to develop and becomes "dead" when the society itself perishes or when communication with it is broken.

History knows many examples confirming these provisions. Along with the death of the Assyrian and Babylonian culture and statehood, the Akkadian languages ​​disappeared. With the disappearance of the powerful state of the Hittites, the dialects spoken by the population of this state died: Nesit, Luwian, Palai and Hittite. Language classifications contain many now dead languages ​​that disappeared along with the peoples: Gothic, Phoenician, Oscan, Umbrian, Etruscan, etc.

It happens that a language survives the society it served. But in isolation from society, it loses the ability to develop and acquires an artificial character. This was the case, for example, with Latin, which became the language of the Catholic religion, and in the Middle Ages served as the international language of science. Classical Arabic plays a similar role in the countries of the Middle East.

The transition of the language to limited positions, to the primary service of individual social groups within a single society is also the path of gradual degradation, ossification, and sometimes degeneration of the language. Thus, the national French language, transferred to England (together with its conquest by the Normans) and limited in its use only by the dominant social group, gradually degenerated, and then generally disappeared from use in England (but continued to live and develop in France).

Another example of the gradual restriction of the scope of the use of the language and the deviation from the popular position can be Sanskrit, which was no doubt once the spoken language of general use, but then closed in caste boundaries and turned into a language as dead as medieval Latin was. The path of development of Indian languages ​​went past Sanskrit, through the popular Indian dialects - the so-called Prakrits.

These conditions stop the development of the language or lead to its dying. In all other cases, the language develops. In other words, as long as the language serves the needs existing society as a means of communication of its members and at the same time serves the whole of society, without taking a position of preference for any one class or social group - the language is in the process of development. If these conditions are observed, which ensure the very existence of a language, a language can only be in a state of development, from which it follows that the very form of existence (of a living, not dead) language is its development.

When it comes to the development of a language, everything cannot be reduced only to an increase or decrease in its inflections and other formants. For example, the fact that throughout the history of the German language there has been a decrease in case endings and their partial reduction does not at all support the opinion that in this case we are dealing with the decomposition of the grammatical structure of this language, its regression. It should not be forgotten that language is closely connected with thinking, that in the process of its development it consolidates the results of the work of thinking and, consequently, the development of language involves not only its formal improvement. The development of the language in this understanding finds its expression not only in the enrichment with new rules and new formants, but also in the fact that it improves, improves and clarifies the existing rules. And this can happen through the redistribution of functions between existing formants, the elimination of doublet forms and the clarification of relations between individual elements within the given structure of the language. The forms of the processes of improving the language can, therefore, be different depending on the structure of the language and the laws of its development operating in it.

For all that, one essential reservation is needed here, which will allow us to make the necessary differentiation between the phenomena of language development and the phenomena of its change. To the actual phenomena of the development of language, we can justly include only those that fit into one or another of its laws (in the sense defined above). And since not all phenomena of a language satisfy this requirement (see below the section on the development and functioning of language), the indicated differentiation of all phenomena arising in language is thereby carried out.

Thus, whatever forms the development of a language takes, it remains a development if it satisfies the conditions mentioned above. This position is easily supported by facts. After the Norman Conquest, the English language was in crisis. Deprived of state support and outside the normalizing influence of writing, it is divided into many local dialects, departing from the Wessex norm, which advanced to the leading position by the end of the Old English period. But can it be said that the Middle English period is a period of decline and regression for the English language, that during this period its development stopped or even went back? This cannot be said. It was during this period that complex and deep processes took place in the English language, which prepared, and in many respects laid the foundation for those structural features that characterize modern English. After the Norman conquest, French words began to penetrate into the English language in huge numbers. But even this did not stop the processes of word formation in the English language, did not weaken it, but, on the contrary, benefited it, enriched and strengthened it.

Another example. As a result of a number of historical circumstances since the XIV century. In Denmark, the German language is becoming widespread, displacing Danish not only from official use, but also from colloquial speech. The Swedish linguist E. Wessen describes this process as follows: “In Schleswig, as early as the Middle Ages, as a result of the immigration of German officials, merchants and artisans, Low German spread as a written and spoken language of the urban population. In the XIV century. Count Gert introduced German as the administrative language here. The Reformation contributed to the spread of the German language at the expense of Danish; Low German, and later High German, was introduced as the language of the church and in those areas south of the Flensburg-Tenner line, where the population spoke Danish. In the future, the German language here also becomes the language of the school ... The German language was used at the Danish court, especially in the second half of the 17th century. It was also widely spoken as a spoken language in noble and burgher circles. And yet, despite such a spread of the German language in Denmark, the Danish language, which included a significant number of German elements and enriched at their expense, pushed to the north of the country, continued its development and improvement according to its own laws. By this time, the creation of such outstanding monuments of the history of the Danish language as the so-called "Bible of Christian III" (1550), the translation of which was carried out with the participation of prominent writers of that time (Kr. Pedersen, Petrus Paladius, etc.), and " Code of Christian V" (1683). The significance of these monuments from the point of view of the development of the Danish language is characterized by the fact that, for example, the beginning of the Neo-Datian period is associated with the "Bible of Christian III".

Therefore, language develops along with society. Just as society does not know the state of absolute immobility, so language does not stand still. In a language serving a developing society, there are constant changes that mark the development of the language. It is in the forms of these changes, which depend on the quality of the language, that the laws of language development find their expression.

Another thing is that the pace of language development in different periods of the history of the language can be different. But this is also due to the development of society. It has long been noted that turbulent historical epochs in the life of society are accompanied by significant changes in the language and, conversely, historical epochs that are not marked by significant social events are characterized by periods of relative stabilization of the language. But a greater or lesser rate of language development is another aspect of its consideration, the place of which is in the section "Language and History".

Functioning and development of the language

The functioning and development of language represent two aspects of language learning - descriptive and historical - which modern linguistics often defines as independent areas of study. Is there any reason for this? Isn't such a distinction due to the nature of the object of study itself?

Descriptive and historical study of language has long been used in the practice of linguistic research and just as long ago found an appropriate theoretical justification. But the problem of these different approaches to the study of language came to the fore from the time F. de Saussure formulated his famous antinomy of diachronic and synchronic linguistics. This antinomy is logically derived from the main Saussurean opposition - language and speech - and is consistently combined with other distinctions made by Saussure: synchronic linguistics is at the same time internal, static (i.e., freed from the temporal factor) and systemic, and diachronic linguistics - external , evolutionary (dynamic), and devoid of consistency. In the further development of linguistics, the opposition between diachronic and synchronic linguistics turned not only into one of the most acute and controversial problems that gave rise to a huge literature, but began to be used as an essential feature that separates entire linguistic schools and trends (cf., for example, diachronic phonology and glossematic phonetics or descriptive linguistics).

It is extremely important to note that in the course of the ever-deepening study of the problem of the relationship between diachronic and synchronic linguistics (or the proof of the absence of any relationship), an identification gradually occurred that Saussure himself could not have imagined: diachronic and synchronic study of language as different operations or working methods used for certain purposes and by no means mutually exclusive, began to be correlated with the very object of study - language, derived from its very nature. In the words of E. Coseriou, it turned out not to be taken into account that the difference between synchrony and diachrony refers not to the theory of language, but to the theory of linguistics. The language itself does not know such distinctions, since it is always in development (which, by the way, was also recognized by Saussure), which is not carried out as a mechanical change of layers or synchronous layers replacing each other like guards (an expression by I. A. Baudouin de Courtenay) , but as a sequential, causal and uninterrupted process. This means that everything that is considered in the language outside of diachrony is not real. state language, but only its synchronous description. Thus the problem of synchrony and diachrony is really a problem of working methods, not of the nature and essence of language.

In accordance with what has been said, if a language is studied from two angles of view, such a study should be aimed at revealing how, in the process of language activity, the emergence of phenomena that relate to the development of language occurs. The need, and also to a certain extent, the direction of such a study are suggested by the well-known paradox of S. Bally: “First of all, languages ​​are constantly changing, but they can only function without changing. At any moment of their existence, they are the product of temporary equilibrium. Therefore, this balance is the resultant of two opposite forces: on the one hand, tradition, which delays a change that is incompatible with the normal use of the language, and on the other, active tendencies that push this language in a certain direction. The “temporal balance” of a language is, of course, a conditional concept, although it acts as an indispensable prerequisite for the implementation of the communication process. A lot of lines pass through the point of this equilibrium, which on one side go into the past, into the history of the language, and on the other side rush forward, into the further development of the language. “The mechanism of a language,” I. L. Baudouin de Courtenay formulates extremely accurately, “and in general its structure and composition at a given time represent the result of all the history that preceded it, all the development that preceded it, and vice versa, this mechanism at a certain time determines the further development of the language » . Consequently, when we want to penetrate the secrets of the development of a language, we cannot decompose it into planes independent of each other; such a decomposition, justified by the particular goals of the study and also admissible from the point of view of the object of study, i.e. e. language, will not give the results we are striving for in this case. But we will certainly achieve them if we set as the goal of our research the interaction of the processes of functioning and development of language. It is in this context that the following discussion will be carried out.

In the process of language development, its structure and quality change, which is why it seems possible to assert that the laws of language development are the laws of gradual qualitative changes occurring in it. On the other hand, the functioning of language is its activity according to certain rules. This activity is carried out on the basis of those structural features that are characteristic of a given language system. Since, consequently, in the functioning of the language we are talking about certain norms, about certain rules for using the language system, it is impossible to identify the rules of its functioning with the laws of language development.

But at the same time, the formation of new structural elements of the language occurs in the activity of the latter. The functioning of the language, which serves as a means of communication for members of a given society, establishes new needs that society imposes on the language, and thereby pushes it to further and continuous development and improvement. And as the language develops, as its structure changes, new rules for the functioning of the language are established, the norms are revised, in accordance with which the activity of the language is carried out.

Thus, the functioning and development of the language, although separate, are at the same time interdependent and interdependent phenomena. In the process of the functioning of the language as a tool of communication, a change in the language occurs. The change in the structure of the language in the process of its development establishes new rules for the functioning of the language. The interconnectedness of the historical and normative aspects of language is also reflected in the interpretation of the relationship of the laws of development to these aspects. If the historical development of the language is carried out on the basis of the rules of functioning, then the corresponding state of the language, representing a certain stage in this natural historical development, reflects the living, active laws of the development of the language in the rules and norms of its functioning.

What specific forms does the interaction between the processes of functioning and development of language take?

As mentioned above, for a language to exist means to be in continuous activity. This proposition, however, should not lead to the false conclusion that every phenomenon that has arisen in the process of language activity should be attributed to its development. When "ready-made" words, satisfying people's need for communication, neatly fit into the existing rules of a given language, then it is hardly possible to see any process of language development in this and to determine the laws of its development from these phenomena. Since the development of a language is about enriching it with new lexical or grammatical elements, about improving, improving and clarifying the grammatical structure of the language, since, in other words, we are talking about changes taking place in the structure of the language, differentiation of various phenomena is necessary here. Depending on the specifics of the various components of the language, new phenomena and facts that arise in the process of the functioning of the language can take various forms, but all of them are associated with its development only if they are included in the language system as new phenomena of a regular order and thereby contribute to gradual and continuous improvement of its structure.

The functioning and development of the language are not only interconnected with each other, but also have great similarities. The forms of these and other phenomena are ultimately determined by the same structural features of the language. Both of these phenomena can be used to characterize the features that distinguish one language from another. Since the development of a language is carried out in the process of functioning, the question, apparently, comes down to revealing the ways in which phenomena of functioning develop into phenomena of language development, or to establishing a criterion by which it will be possible to demarcate these phenomena. Establishing that the structure of the language is such a formation, the details of which are connected with each other by regular relations, as a criterion for including a new linguistic fact in the structure of the language, one can choose its obligatory “two-planeness”. Each element of the structure of the language must represent a regular connection of at least two elements of the latter, one of which, in relation to the other, will represent its peculiar "linguistic" meaning. Otherwise, this element will be outside the structure of the language. By "linguistic" meaning, one must understand, therefore, a fixed and naturally manifested in the activity of language connection of one element of its structure with another. "Linguistic" meaning is the second plane of the element of the structure of language. The forms of connection of the elements of the structure are modified in accordance with the specific features of those structural components of the language in which they are included; but they are necessarily present in all elements of the structure of the language, and lexical meaning should also be included among the structural elements of the language. Based on this position, it can be argued that a sound or a complex of sounds, without a “linguistic” meaning, as well as a meaning that is in one way or another naturally not connected with sound elements language, is outside its structure, turns out to be a non-linguistic phenomenon. "Language" meanings have grammatical forms, words and morphemes as members of a single language system.

If, consequently, a fact that has arisen in the process of the functioning of a language remains one-dimensional, if it is devoid of a “linguistic” meaning, then it is not possible to say that it, being included in the structure of the language, can change it, i.e., define it as fact of language development. For example, the concept of temporal relations or the concept of the nature of an action (kind), which it turns out to be possible to express in one way or another (descriptively) in the language, but which, however, do not receive a fixed and naturally manifested in the activity of the language way of expression in the form of an appropriate grammatical form, construction or a grammatical rule, cannot be regarded as facts of the structure of the language and connected with its development. If, in this connection, we consider a number of English sentences

it becomes clear that in their logical content they all express an action that can be attributed to the future tense, and on this basis they could be put on a par with I shall go or You will go, which, by the way, does in its book by the American linguist Kantor, thus counting 12 forms of the future tense in English. However, although in such an expression as I must go, etc., the concept of time is expressed by linguistic means, it does not have a fixed form, like the construction I shall go; it is, as is usually said, not grammaticalized and therefore can be considered as a fact of the structure of the language only from the point of view of the general rules for constructing a sentence.

From this point of view, speech sound, taken in an isolated form, also turns out to be devoid of "linguistic" meaning. What can have meaning in a certain complex, i.e., in a phonetic system, is not reserved for elements outside this complex. The changes that such a speech sound undergoes, if they take place in addition to connections with the phonetic system of the language and, therefore, are devoid of a “linguistic” meaning, also turn out to be outside the linguistic structure, as if sliding over its surface and therefore cannot be associated with the development of this language. .

The question of the emergence in the process of the functioning of the language of both single phenomena and the facts of the development of the language itself is closely intertwined with the question of the structural conditionality of all phenomena occurring in the first. In view of the fact that everything happens within a certain structure of the language, there is a natural desire to connect all the phenomena that have arisen in it with its development. In fact, insofar as the norms or rules of a language that are in force at any given moment are determined by its present structure, the emergence in language of all new phenomena—at least with regard to their forms—is also determined by the present structure. In other words, since the functioning of a language is determined by its existing structure, and the facts of development arise in the process of its functioning, one can speak of the structural conditionality of all forms of language development. But even this proposition does not yet give grounds for concluding that all structurally conditioned phenomena of language are related to the facts of its development. It is impossible to replace its development by the structural conditionality of all phenomena of the activity of the language. Here, a differentiated approach is still needed, which can be illustrated by an example.

Thus, in phonetics, more clearly than in any other area of ​​language, one can trace the position that not every structurally determined phenomenon (or, as they say, a systemically determined phenomenon) can be attributed to the facts of language development.

Throughout almost the entire period of its existence, scientific linguistics made the basis of the historical study of languages, as you know, phonetics, which most clearly showed the historical changes in the language. As a result of a careful study of this side of the language, the history books of the most studied Indo-European languages ​​\u200b\u200bare largely a consistent presentation of phonetic changes, presented in the form of "laws" of different orders in relation to the breadth of coverage of phenomena. Thus, comparative historical phonetics turned out to be the leading aspect of the study of a language, with the help of which the originality of languages ​​and the ways of their development were characterized. historical development. When getting acquainted with phonetic processes, their great independence and independence from intralinguistic, social or other needs are always striking. The freedom to choose the direction of phonetic change, limited only by the peculiarities of the phonetic system of the language, in some cases seems almost absolute here. Thus, a comparison of Gothic himins (sky) and Old Norse himinn with the forms of this word in Old High German himil and Old English heofon shows that different phonetic processes are observed in all these languages. In some cases there is a process of dissimilation (in Old High German and Old English), and in other cases it is absent (Gothic and Old Norse). If the process of dissimilation was carried out, then in Old English heofon it went in one direction (m>f, regressive dissimilation), and in Old High German himil in the other direction (n>1, progressive dissimilation). It is unlikely that such particular phenomena can be attributed to the number of facts of the development of language. The clearly manifested "indifference" of languages ​​to such phonetic processes is due to their one-dimensionality. If such processes do not respond in any way to the structure of the language, if they do not at all affect the system of internal regular relations of its structural parts, if they apparently do not serve the purpose of satisfying any needs that have matured in the language system, then languages ​​do not show interest in either implementation of these processes, nor in their direction. But the language, however, can in the future associate such “indifferent” phenomena for it with a certain meaning, and this will manifest itself in the choice of the direction in which, within the limits of existing possibilities, the development of the language has gone.

In this kind of phonetic processes, certain patterns can also be established, which are most often determined by the specifics of the sound side of the language. Since all languages ​​are sound, this kind of phonetic patterns are represented in a variety of languages, taking the form of universal laws. Thus, assimilation is extremely widespread, manifesting itself in languages ​​in various forms and finding different uses. It is possible to single out: cases of assimilation connected by positional position (as in the Russian word shshsh<сшить); ассимиляции, возникающие на стыках слов и нередко представляемые в виде регулярных правил «сандхи» (например, закон Ноткера в древневерхненемецком или правило употребления сильных и слабых форм в современном английском языке: she в сочетании it is she и в сочетании she says ); ассимиляции, получающие закономерное выражение во всех соответствующих формах языка и нередко замыкающие свое действие определенными хронологическими рамками, а иногда оказывающиеся специфичными для целых групп или семейств языков. Таково, например, преломление в древнеанглийском, различные виды умлаутов в древнегерманских языках, явление сингармонизма финно-угорских и тюркских языков (ср. венгерское ember-nek - «человеку», но mеdar-nеk - «птице», турецкое tash-lar-dar - «в камнях», но el-ler-der - «в руках») и т. д. Несмотря на многообразие подобных процессов ассимиляции, общим для их универсального «закономерного» проявления является то обстоятельство, что все они в своих источниках - следствие механического уподобления одного звука другому, обусловливаемого особенностями деятельности артикуляционного аппарата человека. Другое дело, что часть этих процессов получила «языковое» значение, а часть нет.

In the "autonomous" phonetic phenomena, it is difficult to see the processes of improving the existing "phonetic quality" of the language. The theory of convenience as applied to phonetic processes, as is known, has suffered a complete fiasco. The actual development of the phonetic systems of specific languages ​​broke all the theoretical calculations of linguists. The German language, for example, developed a group of affricates from the second movement of consonants, the pronunciation of which, theoretically speaking, does not at all seem easier and more convenient than the pronunciation of the simple consonants from which they developed. There are cases when the phonetic process in a certain period of language development goes in a vicious circle, for example, in the history of the English language bzhc>bak>back(w>a>g). Comparative consideration also gives nothing in this respect. Some languages ​​are full of consonants (Bulgarian, Polish), others are striking in their abundance of vowels (Finnish). The general direction of the change in the phonetic system of the language also often contradicts the theoretical prerequisites for the convenience of pronunciation. Thus, the Old High German language, due to its greater saturation with vowels, was undoubtedly a more “convenient” and phonetically “perfect” language than modern German.

Obviously, the "difficulty" and "ease" of pronunciation are determined by pronunciation habits, which change. Thus, these concepts, as well as the concept of improvement coordinated with them, turn out, if considered in one phonetic plan, to be extremely conditional and correlate only with the pronunciation skills of people in certain periods of the development of each language separately. It follows from this that it is not possible to speak of any improvement in relation to phonetic processes considered in isolation.

All that has been said by no means deprives phonetic phenomena of the right to appropriately characterize language. The examples already listed show that they can be characteristic of strictly defined languages, sometimes defining a group of related languages ​​or even their whole family. So, for example, vowel vowel harmony is represented in many Turkic languages, having a functional meaning in some adverbs, but not in others. In the same way, such a phenomenon as the first movement of consonants (genetically, however, not comparable with the types of assimilation analyzed) is the most characteristic feature of the Germanic languages. Moreover, it is even possible to establish known boundaries of the phonetic processes of a given language - they will be determined by the phonetic composition of the language. But to characterize the language only outward sign out of any connection with the structure of the language does not mean to determine the inner essence of the language.

Thus, in phonetic phenomena, which manifest themselves in the process of the functioning of a language, it is necessary to make a differentiation, which should be based on the connection of a given phonetic phenomenon with the structure of the language. In the history of the development of specific languages, there are numerous cases when language development is associated with phonetic changes. But at the same time, it is possible in the history of the same languages ​​to point out phonetic changes that are in no way united with other phenomena of the language in the general movement of its development. These prerequisites make it possible to approach the solution of the question of the relationship between the processes of the functioning of the language and the internal laws of its development.

The problem of the laws of language development is most directly and closely related to studies aimed at revealing the connections between individual phenomena of the language that arise in the process of its functioning and the language system as a whole. It is clear from the very beginning that the processes taking place in one language must differ from the processes and phenomena taking place in other languages, since they are carried out under the conditions of different linguistic structures. In this regard, all the phenomena of each specific language, as already mentioned above, turn out to be structurally conditioned, or systemic, and precisely in the sense that they can appear in the process of functioning of only a given language system. But their attitude to the structure of the language is different, and linguistic research should be directed to revealing these differences. Be content with just one external facts and all the differences that distinguish one language from another would be frivolous to a priori attribute to the laws of development of a given language. Until the internal connection of any of the facts of a language with its system is revealed, it is impossible to talk about the development of the language, especially about its laws, no matter how tempting and "for granted" it may seem. It should not be forgotten that language is a phenomenon of a very complex nature. Language as a means of communication uses a system of sound signals or, in other words, exists in the form of sound speech. Thus he receives a physical and physiological aspect. Both in grammatical rules and in individual lexical units, elements of the cognitive work of the human mind find their expression and consolidation, only with the help of language is the process of thinking possible. This circumstance inextricably links language with thinking. Through the medium of language find their expression and mental states a person who leave a certain imprint on the language system and thus also include some additional elements in it. But the sound, and the organs of speech, and logical concepts, and mental phenomena exist not only as elements of language. They are used by the language or are reflected in it, but, in addition, they also have an independent existence. That is why the sound of human speech has independent physical and physiological patterns. Thinking has its own laws of development and functioning. Therefore, there is always a danger of replacing the laws of development and functioning of the language, for example, by the laws of development and functioning of thinking. It is necessary to reckon with this danger and, in order to avoid it, consider all the facts of language only through the prism of their connection into a structure that turns them into language.

Although each fact of the development of a language is associated with its structure and is determined in the forms of its development by the existing structure, it cannot be associated with the laws of the development of a given language until it is considered in the entire system of facts of the development of a language, since in an isolated consideration of the facts of this development it is impossible to determine the regularity of their manifestation, which is one of the essential features of the law. Only a consideration of the facts of language development in their totality will make it possible to single out those processes that determine the main lines in the historical movement of languages. Only such an approach will make it possible to reveal the laws of their development in individual facts of the development of a language. This provision requires a more detailed explanation, for which it seems necessary to refer to a specific example.

Among a significant number of various phonetic changes that have arisen in the process of the functioning of the language, one particular case stands out, which is included in the system and leads to its change. Such a fate befell, for example, the umlaut forms of a number of cases of the monosyllabic consonant stems of the Old Germanic languages. In its origins, this is the usual process of assimilation, the mechanical assimilation of the root vowel to the element - i (j), contained in the ending. In different Germanic languages, this process was reflected in different ways. In Old Norse and Old Norse, the umlaut forms in the singular had the dative case, and in the plural they had the nominative and accusative. In other cases, there were non-umlaut forms (cf., on the one hand, fшte, fшtr, and on the other, fotr, fotar, fota, fotum). In Old English, the picture is approximately the same: the dative singular and the nominative - accusative plural have umlaut forms (fet, fet), and the remaining cases of both numbers are non-umlaut (fot, fotes, fota, fotum). In Old High German, the corresponding word fuoZ, which previously belonged to the remnants of nouns with stems in -u, did not retain its old declension forms. It has passed into the declension of nouns with stems in -i, which, with the exception of the residual forms of the instrumental case (gestiu), has already unified forms: with one vowel for the singular (gast, gastes, gaste) and with another vowel for the plural (gesti , gestio, gestim, gesti). Thus, already in the ancient period, processes are outlined, as if preparing the use of the results of the action of the i-umlaut for grammatical fixation of the category of number, precisely in the sense that the presence of an umlaut determines the form of a word as a plural form, and its absence indicates a singular number.

It is noteworthy that at the very beginning of the Middle English period, conditions developed that were completely identical to those of the German language, since as a result of the analogy, all cases of the singular were aligned with the non-umlaut form. If we take into account the rapid movement in this era towards the complete reduction of case endings, then theoretically it should be recognized in the English language that there are all conditions in order to use the opposition of umlaut and non-umlaut forms of the fot / fet type as a means of distinguishing between singular and plural nouns. But in English this process is late. By this time, other forms of development had already arisen in the English language, so the formation of the plural through the modification of the root vowel closed in the English language within several residual forms, which, from the point of view of the modern language, are perceived almost as suppletive. In other Germanic languages, things were different. In Scandinavian languages, such as modern Danish, this is a fairly significant group of nouns (in particular, nouns that form plural using the suffix - (e) r). But this phenomenon was most developed in the German language. Here it found strong footholds in the structure of the language. For the German language, this is no longer a mechanical adaptation of articulations, but one of the grammatical means. Actually, the umlaut itself, as a really manifested assimilation phenomenon, has long disappeared from the German language, as well as the i element that caused it. Only the vowel alternation associated with this phenomenon has survived. And precisely because this alternation turned out to be connected by regular connections with other elements of the system and thus included in it as a productive method of formation, it was carried through subsequent eras of the existence of the German language, preserving the type of alternation; it was also used in cases where there was in fact no historical umlaut. So, already in Middle High German there are nouns that have umlaut forms of plural formation, although they never had the element i in the endings: dste, fühse, ndgel (Old High German asta, fuhsa, nagala). In this case, it is already legitimate to talk about grammar to the same extent as about phonetics.

Comparing the grammaticalization of the i-umlaut phenomenon in the Germanic languages, in particular in German and English, we find a significant difference in the course of this process, although in its initial stages it has much in common in both languages. It originated in general structural conditions, gave identical types of vowel alternation, and even its grammaticalization proceeded along parallel lines. But in the English language, this is nothing more than one of the phenomena that did not receive wide development, one of the “unfinished ideas of the language”, which left a mark on a very limited circle of elements of the English language system. This is undoubtedly a fact of the evolution of the language, since, having arisen in the process of functioning, it entered the system of the English language and thereby made some changes in its structure. But in itself it is not a law of the development of the English language, at least for a significant part of the period of its history known to us. In order to become a law, this phenomenon lacks regularity. It is possible to speak of a linguistic law when there is not one of the many paths of language development offered by the existing structure, but a language-specific feature rooted in the very foundation of the structure, which has entered its flesh and blood, and which establishes the forms of its development. The main lines of development of the English language ran in a different direction, remaining, however, within the available structural possibilities, which in all ancient Germanic languages ​​have many similar features. The English language, which turned out to be alien to the type of formation through the alternation of the root vowel, pushed this type aside, limiting it to the sphere of peripheral phenomena.

The German language is different. Here this phenomenon is not a private episode in the eventful life of the language. Here it is a diverse use of a regular phenomenon, which owes its appearance to structural conditions, which in this case already form the basis of the qualitative characteristics of the language. In German, this phenomenon is extremely widely used both in word formation and in inflection. It is used in the formation of diminutives for - el, - lein or - chen: Knoch - Knöchel, Haus - Hduslein, Blatt - Blättchen; names of actors (nomina- agentis) on - er: Garten - Gdrtner, jagen - Jäger, Kufe - Küfer; animate feminine nouns on - in: Fuchs - Füchsin, Hund - Hündin; abstract nouns formed from adjectives: lang - Länge, kalt - Kälte; causatives from strong verbs: trinken - tränken, saugen - sdugen; abstract nouns on - nis: Bund - Bündnis, Grab - Gräbnis, Kummer - Kümmernis; in the formation of plural forms for a number of masculine nouns: Vater - Väter, Tast - Täste; feminine: Stadt - Städte, Macht - Mächte; neuter: Haus- Häuser; in the formation of past tense forms, the conjunctiva: kam - käme, dachte - dächte; degrees of comparison of adjectives: lang - länger - längest, hoch - höher - höchst, etc. In a word, in German there is an extremely branched system of formation, built on the alternation of vowels of this particular character. Here, the alternation of vowels according to the i-umlaut, being systematized and shaped as a certain model of inflection and word formation, even goes beyond its limits and in its general type of formation merges with refraction and ablaut. different lines developments in the German language, mutually supporting each other in their formation, merge into a type of formation that is common in nature, including elements that arose at different times. This type of formation, based on the alternation of vowels, which arose in the process of the functioning of the language, initially in the form of a mechanical phenomenon of assimilation, which later received a “linguistic” meaning and was included in the language system, is one of the most characteristic laws of the development of the German language. This type was determined by the phonetic structure of the language, it united with other homogeneous phenomena and became one of the essential components of its quality, as indicated by the regularity of its manifestation in various areas of the language. He acted, maintaining his active force throughout a significant period of the history of this language. Having entered the structure of the language, it served the purpose of deploying its present quality.

It is also characteristic of this type that it is the basis on which numerous and often different in origin and meaning linguistic facts are located. This is, as it were, the pivotal line of language development. It is associated with heterogeneous facts that appeared at different times in the history of the language and are united by this type of formation.

In this review, the development of only one phenomenon was traced - from its inception to inclusion in the basis of the qualitative characteristics of the language, which made it possible to establish phenomena and processes of different orders, each of which, however, has its own distinctive feature. All of them are structurally conditioned or systemic in the sense that they manifest themselves in the process of functioning of a given language system, but at the same time their relation to the structure of the language is different. Some of them pass, as it were, along the surface of the structure, although they are generated by it, others enter the language as episodic facts of its evolution; they do not find in his system regular expression, although due, due to the general causality of phenomena, the structural features of the language. Still others determine the main forms of language development and the regularity of their discovery indicates that they are associated with the inner core of the language, with the main components of it. structural basis, creating a certain constancy of conditions to ensure the indicated regularity of their manifestation in the historical path of the development of the language. These are the laws of language development, since they entirely depend on its structure. They are not eternal for the language, but disappear along with the structural features that gave rise to them.

All these categories of phenomena and processes interact with each other all the time. Due to the constant movement of the language forward, phenomena of one order can pass into phenomena of another, higher order, which implies the existence of transitional types. In addition, our knowledge of the facts of the history of a language is not always sufficient to grasp and determine with certainty the presence of a feature that allows us to attribute a given fact to one or another category of the named phenomena. This circumstance, of course, cannot but complicate the problem of the relationship between the processes of the functioning of the language and the laws of its development.

Notes:

V. Pisani. Allgemeine und Vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft. Indogermanistic. Bern, 1953, SS. 13–14.

Nm. A. Nehring. The Problem of the Linguistic Sign. Acta linguist., 1950, vol. VI, f. I

M.Sandmann. Subject and Predicate. Edinburgh. 1954, pp. 47–57.

See article: N. Ege. Le signe linguistique est arbitraire. "Travaux du Cercle linguistique de Copenhague", 1949, no. 5, pp. II-29. L. Elmslev, however, complicates the definition of language as a system of signs. In his reasoning on this subject, he initially states: "The fact that language is a system of signs seems a priori obvious and the starting point that linguistic theory must accept at its earliest stage." Then, based on the fact that a sign always denotes or indicates something, and some elements of the language (phonemes and syllables) do not matter, although they are part of the proper signs (morphemes and words), Hjelmslev puts forward the concept of a figure and writes in this connections: “Languages ​​cannot thus be described as purely sign systems. According to the purpose usually attributed to them, they are, of course, primarily sign systems, but in their internal structure they are something else, namely systems of figures that can be used to construct signs” (L. Нjelmslev. Omkring Sprogteoriens Grundl?ggelse. Kшbenhavn, 1943, p. 43).24 In a purely philosophical aspect, this issue is also dealt with in Art.; L. O. Reznikov. Against agnosticism in linguistics. "Izv. Academy of Sciences of the USSR, dep. lit. i yaz… 1948, no. 5. See also his work "The Concept and the Word". Publishing house of Leningrad State University. 1958.

F. de Saussure. Course in General Linguistics, p. 77.

B. Delbrück. Introduction to language learning. SPb., 1904, p. 13.

A. Meie. An Introduction to the Comparative Study of Indo-European Languages. Sotsekgiz, M.-L., 1938, p. 64.

R. Jacobson. Beitrag zur allgemeinen Kasuslehre. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague, 1936, VI, also: P. O. Jacobson. Morphological observations on the Slavic declension. "S-Cravenhage, 1958 (Preprint).

R. Jacobson. Kindersprache, Aphasie und Lautgesetze. uppsala. 1941.

V.Trnka. General Laws of Phonetic Combinations. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague, 1936, VI, p. 57.

Wed Finnish, lyijy "pigs.", Polish, jezdziec "rider", haida suus "says" and numerous examples from Prakrit: aaga "reverence", iisa "such", paava "tree", paasa "milk", saa "always" etc. (N. S. Trubetzkou. Grundzuge der Phonologie. Gottingen, 1958, S. 221).

N. S. Trubetzkow. Grundzuge der Phonologie, SS. 220–224. Concerning universal laws, see also: A. Haudricourt. Quelgues principes de phonologic historique. "Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague", 1939, VIII; G. Zipf. Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort. Cambridge Mass., 1949.

A. Martinet. Economic changements phonetiques. Berne, 1955, § 4, 74. However, it should be noted that the very principle of economy in phonetic changes, which A. Martinet defends in his book, is also essentially a universal law. Although the author at the same time sought to free himself from apriorism and rely on the material of specific languages, he still insists on the comprehensiveness of his principle and, thus, in this respect is not much different from N. Trubetskoy and R. Yakobson, whom he criticizes.

B. Trnka et al. Towards a discussion on structuralism. First published in the journal Questions of Linguistics, 1957, No. 3. Cit. according to the book: V. A. Zvegintsev. History of linguistics of the 19th and 20th centuries in essays and extracts, part II. Uchpedgiz, M., 1960, p. 100.

Jos. Schrijnen. Einfuhrung in das Studium der indogermanischen Sprachwissenschaft. Heidelberg, 1921, S. 82.

H. Hirt, - H. Arntz. Die Hauptprobleme der indogermanischen Sprachwissenschaft. Halle (Saale), 1939, S. 17. The whole book is devoted to the question of sound laws and their essence: K. Rogger. Vom Wesen des Lautwandels. Leipzig, 1933, as well as works by E. Hermann. Lautgesetz and Analogie, 1931; Wechsler. Giebt es Lautgesetze? Festgabe fur H. Suchier, 1900.

The interpretation of this issue from the theoretical positions of N. Ya. Marr is contained in the article: V. I. Abaev. About the phonetic law. "Language and Thinking", 1933, no. 1.

N. Ya. Mapr. Selected works, vol. 2. Sotsekgiz, M., 1934, p. 117.

In its general origins, this concept goes back to W. Humboldt, who argued that the language reaches its completion when "the connection of the sound form with the internal laws of the language." "A Reader on the History of Linguistics of the 19th-20th Centuries". compiled by V. A. Zvegintsev. Uchnedgiz, M., 1956, p. 86. Further given: "Reader".

It deserves to be noted that it has been positively evaluated by the foreign science of language. See, for example, Art.: R. L "Hermitte. Les problemes des lois internes de developpement du langage et la linguistique sovietique Sat. "Linguistics Today". N. Y., 1954.

Such, for example, is the work of: VV Vinogradov. The concept of internal laws of language development in the general system of Marxist linguistics. "Problems of Linguistics", 1952, No. 2; V. A. Zvegintsev. On the concept of internal laws of language development. "Izv. Academy of Sciences of the USSR, dep. lit. i yaz., 1951, No. 4.

Such, for example, is the work: V. M. Zhirmunsky. On the internal laws of the development of the German language. "Report. and message Institute of Linguistics of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, vol. V, 1953.

P. Ya. Chernykh. Historical grammar of the Russian language. Uchpedgiz, M., 1954, p. 107.

It should be noted that it is this quality of the general laws of language that distinguishes them from the universal laws (see the section "Linguistic Laws"), which some linguists seek to establish (W. Bröndal, L. Hjelmslev).

F. de Saussure. Course of general linguistics. OGIZ, M., 1933, p. 40.

See, for example: N. Chomsky. Syntactic structures. "S-Gravenhague, 1957.

It should be noted that the theories of K. Buhler, A. Marty and L. Hjelmslev, which are directly related to this problem, are negatively characterized by a priori and could not find application to specific languages.

L. R. Palmer. An introduction to modern linguistics. Tokyo, 1943, pp. 178–179. See also a comparative description of the differences between French and German in the second part of the book: S. Bally. General linguistics and questions of the French language. IL, M., 1955.

A. Schleicher. Uber die Bedeutung der Sprache fur die Naturgeschichte des Menschen. Weimar, 1865, S. 27.

A. Schleicher. Sprachvergleichende Untersuchungen. Preface. Bonn, 1848.

A new and original understanding of the principle of economy governing the development of a language is presented in the work of A. Martinet, who considers this issue from the standpoint of functional linguistics (see the Russian translation of his book The Principle of Economy in Phonetic Changes. IL, M., 1960).

E. Soseriu. Sincronia, diacronia e historia: el problema del cambio linguistico. Montevidio, 1958, I, 33. 2. This work provides a thorough and sober analysis of the entire set of issues related to the problem of the relationship between diachrony and synchrony, and, perhaps, is the most thorough. It also contains an extensive literature on this issue. For an exposition of the main provisions of the work of E. Coseriu, see N. C. W. Spence. Towards a New Synthesis in Linguistics: The Work of Eugenio Coseriu. Archivum Linguisticum, 1960, no. 1.

He writes about this: “The absolute “state” is determined by the absence of changes, but since the language is always, no matter how. small, yet it is transformed, insofar as studying a language statically in practice means neglecting unimportant changes ”(“ Course of General Linguistics ”, p. 104). What remains unclear is which changes in the language should be considered important and which unimportant.

S. Bally. General linguistics and questions of the French language. IL, M., 1955, p. 29.

I. A. Baudouin de Courtenay. Some general remarks about linguistics and language. Cit. according to the book: V. A. Zvegintsev. History of linguistics of the 19th and 20th centuries in essays and extracts, part I. Uchpedgiz, M., 1960, p. 241.

Often, the relationship between functioning and development is considered as the relationship between speech and language. A prerequisite for such consideration is, to a certain extent, the position on development as a form of the existence of a language. “At every given moment,” F. de Saussure once said, “ speech activity presupposes both an established system and evolution; at any moment, language is both a living activity and a product of the past” (“Course in General Linguistics”, p. 34). A little lower we find in him the following considerations about the dependence of language and speech: “Without a doubt, both of these subjects are closely interconnected and mutually presuppose each other: language is necessary for speech to be understandable and produce all its action; speech, in turn, is necessary for the establishment of language; historically, the fact of speech always precedes language... The evolution of language is determined by the phenomena of speech: our language skills are modified by the impressions received when listening to others. Thus, the interdependence between language and speech is established: language is both an instrument and a product of speech. But all this does not prevent the fact that these are two completely different things” (ibid., p. 42).

A peculiar refraction of this principle takes place in the so-called commutation, which is one of the provisions of L. Hjelmslev's glossematics (see L. Hjelmslev. Omkring spragteoriens grundl?ggelse. Kшbenhavn, 1943). For an exposition of the essence of commutation, see the article: S. K. Shaumyan. On the essence of structural linguistics. "Problems of Linguistics", 1956, No. 5. However, switching performs other functions and acts in a different theoretical context than this principle of the two-dimensionality of the language element.

J. R. Cant. An Objective Psychology of Grammar. Indiana Univ. Bloomington, 1936.

Ticket number 1

The main functions of the language.

Psychological and social problems of bilingualism. language interference.

Bilingualism - the coexistence of two or more languages ​​in a certain area; concurrent knowledge of two or more languages.

Socio-psychological problem - the problem of language choice by an individual.

The psychological problem is that it is impossible to master several languages ​​autonomously at the same time. Levels: Receptive, reproductive bilingualism, productive

Diglossia - the coexistence of two or more forms of the same language in society; simultaneous knowledge of the forms of one language in terms of functional distribution.

In a situation with diglossia, one of the forms is the most prestigious.

Interference is the imposition of language systems on top of each other, which leads to distortion. Occurs at different levels of the language. Grammatical interference is a distortion of grammatical norms. Interference at the lexico-sematic level - "false friends of the translator" If the mutual influence of the language is considered in a positive way, then it is called transposition (it helps to learn the second and subsequent languages). Types: Sound (phonetic, phonological and sound-reproductive) interference. spelling interference. Grammatical (morphological, syntactic and punctuation) interference. Lexical interference. semantic interference. stylistic interference. Intralingual interference

Phonetics and phonology as branches of linguistics.

Subject of research: sound. He studies all the sounds of the language: physiological and acoustic properties. Phonetics is a branch of linguistics that studies the sound structure of a language, i.e. speech sounds, syllables, stress, intonation. There are 3 sides of speech sounds, and they correspond to three sections of phonetics: 1. Acoustics of speech (studies the physical features of speech), 2. Anthropophonics or physiology of speech (studies the biological features of speech, i.e. the work done by a person when pronouncing (articulation) or perception of speech sounds), 3. Phonology (studies the sounds of speech as a means of communication, i.e. the function or role of the sounds used in the language). Phonology is the science of phonemes. Phonology studies the social, functional side of speech sounds. A phoneme is a sound type, a generalized, ideal representation of sound. The features by which a phoneme differs from others are called differential (different) features.

Ticket number 2

1. Philosophical problems of linguistics. Communication of linguistics with other sciences.

Philosophical problems concern the most general fundamental properties of language. Philosophical problems of linguistics are connected with the fundamental problem of philosophy: primacy.

1) What came first thinking or language? Is thinking possible without language?

2) Language and speech. Speech is the physical expression of language through sounds.

3) Language and society. Is it possible for society to exist without language?

4) Language and culture. Culture is a combination of spiritual and material virtues of a person.

The symbolic nature of the language. Is language a system of conventional signs? Sign characteristic - words are not connected by physical connection.

System and structure in language. All levels of the language form a system.

Communication of linguistics with other sciences.

Linguistics is connected with a number of humanitarian, natural and exact sciences, because language covers all spheres of life.

Humanitarian sciences:

1. Ethnography. Ethnolinguistics is a science that studies tribes, names of rivers, countries, etc.

2. Anthropology - studies a person as a biological, unique phenomenon.

3. Sociology is a science that studies society. Sociolinguistics - studies the influence of society on language. On the other hand, he studies the role of language in society.

4. Semiotics is the science of signs. The traffic sign system, the chess game system...

5. Literary criticism. Tasks: linguistic analysis artistic text. Linguistics + literature = philology.

6. History. Historical linguistics studies the history of linguistic phenomena, related languages, etc.

7. Psychology. It studies the process of human thinking. Psycholinguistics studies the connection between the processes of thinking, perception and language.

Natural Sciences:

1. Biology. Language Ability person.

2. Medicine. Neurolinguistics is a science that studies the connection of language with the lobes of the brain. Psychoanalysis (error analysis), paralinguistics (conspiracies).

3. Physiology - the work of various organs of the speech apparatus.

4. Physics. Acoustics - lowering intonation.

Exact sciences:

Mathematics or information sciences. Mathematical linguistics - formulas that describe linguistic processes.

1. The computer helps to create dictionaries, dictionaries of foreign languages.

3. Calculate the prospects for the development of a particular language.

4. With the help of linguistics, artificial languages ​​(including machine languages) are created.

Ticket number 3.

1. The main sections of linguistics and language levels.

Any language can have at least 10 and no more than 80 phonemes.

The level is part of the overall language system. You can select the levels that make up the hierarchy. Level:

Phonemes (basic non-significant unit of language, abstract unit)

Morphemes (the minimum sign; such a unit, for certain phonetic forms of which there is a certain content. They can also be materially expressed as zero).

Parts of a word

Words (the main structural and semantic unit of the language, which serves to name objects and their properties, phenomena, relationships, having a set of semantic, phonetic and grammatical sounds. Words can be divided into 2 types of units: word form (words in a certain grammatical form) and a lexeme (an abstract two-sided unit of a language, a unit of vocabulary, a set of its specific grammatical forms).

Sentences (any (from a detailed construction to a single word) statement that is a message about something: message intonation, syntactic moods, tense syntax, modality).

The main sections of linguistics:

Phonetics (phonology). Subject of research: sound. He studies all the sounds of the language: physiological and acoustic properties. Phonology is the science of phonemes. Grammar- studies the formal structure of the language. Studying 2 plans (meanings): expressions, content. It is divided into a number of subsections: morphemic (word composition), word formation (derivatology), morphology (studies inflection, parts of speech, categories of meaning), syntax. Lexicology- learns words and their lexical meanings. Semantics: sema - a sign. Etymology- origin of the word. Stylistics– studies the use of words or functional styles. Written speech is divided into book style and household. Dialectology: territorial dialects (where the language is used). South Russian dialect ("a") and North Russian ("o"). In Moscow, the Central Russian dialect: moderate A, G - explosive. Phraseology- studies stable units of the language - idioms. The principle of dividing the language into levels. The units of each level are subject to special rules: 1. Levels can form only certain units, units different levels did not enter into any type of relationship with each other, except for hierarchical ones. Relationships of units of the same level: 1. Paradigmatic - all variants of the same unit have two properties: they have a common part, they must differ in some way. 2. Syntagmatic - the rule of compatibility.

Ticket number 4

Ticket number 5.

Types of language universals.

UNIVERSAL LANGUAGE, properties inherent in the human language as a whole (and not in individual languages ​​or languages ​​of individual families, regions, etc.). The ability to identify the universal properties of the language is one of the most important conclusions that linguistic science in recent decades, and at the same time an essential prerequisite for most modern theories language.

Classification of universals is made on several grounds.

§ Contrasted absolute universals (characteristic of all known languages, for example: any natural language has vowels and consonants) And statistical universals ( trends). An example of a statistical universal: almost all languages ​​have nasal consonants(However, in some West African languages, nasal consonants are not separate phonemes, but are allophones of oral stops in the context of nasal consonants). Statistical universals are related to the so-called frequentalia- phenomena occurring in the languages ​​of the world quite often (with a probability exceeding random).

§ Absolute universals are also opposed to implicative (complex), that is, those that assert a connection between two classes of phenomena. Eg, if a language has a dual, it also has a plural. A special case of implicative universals are hierarchies, which can be represented as a set of "two-term" implicative universals. Such, for example, is the Keenan-Comrie hierarchy (the accessibility hierarchy of noun phrases, which regulates, among other things, the availability of arguments for relativization:

Subject > Direct Object > Indirect Object > Indirect Object > Possessed > Object of Comparison

According to Keenan and Comrie, the set of elements available for relativization in some way covers continuous segment this hierarchy.

Other examples of hierarchy are the Silverstein hierarchy (the animacy hierarchy), the hierarchy of argument types available for reflection

Implicative universals can be either one-sided (X > Y) or two-sided (X<=>Y). For example, SOV word order is usually associated with the presence of postpositions in the language, and vice versa, most postpositional languages ​​have SOV word order.

§ Also opposed deductive(required for all languages) and inductive(common to all known languages) universals.

Ticket number 6.

Types of word meanings.

1. Conceptual meaning words - the relationship between the sign and the object denoted by this sign

2. The lexical meaning of a word is the correlation of a sound complex with one or another phenomenon of reality fixed in the minds of speakers. Most words name objects, their attributes, quantity, actions, processes and act as full-fledged, independent words.

3. Derivational (or derivational) meaning, on the one hand, is involved in the formation of lexical meaning, and on the other hand, it carries information about the part-of-speech belonging of the word. For example, in the word TUTOR the derivational meaning of a person is expressed by the suffix -tel, which also indicates that this word is a noun.

4. Relational meanings are expressed either by inflection (ending) or in other ways. For example, in the word TEACHER, the grammatical meanings of gender, number, and case are expressed with a zero ending. (doll - dolls, red - red - red, etc.)

Ticket number 7.

Ticket number 8.

1. F. de Saussure on the properties of a linguistic sign.

1) Sign arbitrary: the relationship between the signifier and the signified is usually not dictated by the properties of the signified object. However, the sign may be "relatively motivated» in the event that its syntagmatic analysis is possible (decomposition into sign units of a lower order, for example, the division of a word into morphemes) or it is used in a figurative sense. Motivation limits the arbitrariness of the sign. In different languages ​​and in different periods of the existence of one language, the ratio of arbitrary and partially motivated units is not the same. So, in French, the proportion of unmotivated units, apparently, has increased markedly in comparison with Latin.

2) The sign has importance(value) - a set of relational (relative) properties. Significance can only be revealed in the system by comparing a linguistic sign with other linguistic signs.

3) Sign asymmetrical: one signifier can have several signifiers (in cases of polysemy and homonymy), one signifier can have several signifiers (in case of homosemy). The idea of ​​asymmetric dualism of the linguistic sign was expressed by S. O. Kartsevsky. In his opinion, both sides of a linguistic unit (signifier and signified) are not fixed, that is, the relationship between them is inevitably violated. This means that both the sound appearance of the language unit and its meaning are gradually changing, which leads to a violation of the original correspondence.

4) The signifier wears linear character: in speech, there is a consistent deployment of units located relative to each other according to certain laws.

5) The sign is characterized variability.

6) The sign is characterized changeability. This property can manifest itself in various ways:

The signifier changes, but the signified remains unchanged. For example, before a month February called February, over time, this name has been transformed into the familiar to us February; cf. Also forehead - forehead;

The signifier remains the same, but the signified changes. Yes, the word wench in the XVIII-XIX centuries. did not have a negative connotation, but today we use it in expressions like walking girl. Also bastard previously named the one who was brought to the police station. Word boy possessed in the XVIII-XIX centuries. negative derogatory connotation; in the 20th century the word youth falls into disuse and neutralization of the word is observed boy. The value can expand or shrink over time. For example, the word beer previously meant everything that you can drink, and the word powder called any loose substance.

1. Analytical methods expressions of grammatical meaning.

1) The method of service words is the expression of meanings outside the word. WRITE - WILL WRITE, BEAUTIFUL - MORE BEAUTIFUL.

2) Method of intonation - intonation refers not to a word, but to a phrase, and thus is grammatically related to the sentence and its structure. Example: did he come? He came; he came... he... came? I could not walk for a long time, I could not walk for a long time.

3) The linearity of speech allows it to be considered as a goal with sequentially located in the temporal sequence, and the order of the links in this chain can be significant. Example: father love son; son loves father.

4) Grammatical context - a type of linguistic context, the direct syntactic position of a word in a phrase or sentence: he has a white jacket on; he with - jacket with - white.

1. Hypotheses about the origin of the language.

The origin of the language. Natural ways of language development:

1) There is a theory that the first sounds are an expression of emotions;

2) Onomatopoeia by animals;

3) Labor cries;

4) Agreed.

Divine path of development:

1) The language was given (by God, an alien…)

Ticket number 9

1. Types of word marks.

Onomatopoeia (onomatopoeia). Words that imitate the sounds of living and inanimate nature. There is an imaginary connection between the signified and the signifier. Signified sounds seem close to the signifier. Photosemantics - an attempt to associate sound with meaning. Interjection- undivided transmission of emotions. Signs that are perceived as close to the signified. Example: Oh! means disorder. proper names- words that mean a unique item (animal name, name, city, etc.)

A proper name is expressed only by a denotation. In the event that a proper name turns into a common noun, it is also expressed by the syndicate. Example: Napoleonic plans - properties of Napoleon. The main lexical background is the original vocabulary, words that are the basis of the language (100-200 words). Basis - words that surround a person since ancient times (body parts, relatives, poems, etc.). The words of the basis of the vocabulary are unmotivated - they do not have a specific base. Motivated vocabulary (words of secondary nomination) - words that have a producing base, arose on the basis of certain words. Deictic words (pronouns) are indications. Pronouns do not correspond to either the denotation or the significate. Functional vocabulary (functional words) - linking verbs, particles, conjunctions, prepositions.

Ticket number 10.

Ticket number 11

Ticket number 12.

1. Logical direction in linguistics.

The logical direction in linguistics is a set of currents and individual concepts that study the language in its relation to thinking and knowledge and are oriented to certain schools in logic and philosophy.

Character traits:

1) Discussion of the problems of epistemology

2) Tendency to reveal universal properties language to the detriment of its national characteristics

3) Development of uniform principles for the analysis of the language, independent of real language forms (common for all languages, the representation of the structure of the sentence, the system of parts of speech, etc.)

4) Preference of synchronic analysis to diachronic and, accordingly, descriptive grammars to historical and comparative historical

5) Benefits, development of syntax (sentence theory) and semantics

6) The predominance of the function, approach to the implementation, definition and systematization of language categories

7) Definition of grammatical categories in their relation to the universal categories of logic: words - to the concept (concept), part of speech - to the logical function it performs, sentences - to judgment, complex sentence - to inference.

8) The assumption of hidden components of the proposal, extrapolated from its logical model

Periodization:

1) Ancient period

In the 5th century BC. in ancient Greece, the science of rhetoric (about eloquence) was born. In the 3rd century BC. logic has developed. The ancient Greeks did not divide speech and language.

2) Medieval, Western European scholastic science.

3) Linguistics of the New Age

Western Europe is a territory where Romance and Germanic languages ​​were spoken.

2 directions: 1. Creation of philosophical grammars - all people think the same way, all categories are the same. 2. Creation of philosophical languages ​​(expresses the category of reason). Major thinkers of modern times: Locke, Leibniz and others.

In 1660, in France, in a monastery, 2 monks wrote a general and rational grammar.

4) The newest period.

By the end of the 20th century The logical approach has become inconvenient, because national sociology, national features, etc. were not taken into account.

Based on the logical approach, the theory of language universals was created.

At the end of the 20th century A typology of languages ​​appeared - the study of the grammatical type of a language, regardless of its origin. Advantages of the logical direction: the basis for the grammar of any language is created

Ticket number 13

Ticket number 14.

Ticket number 15

Affixation. affix types.

Affix is ​​a service morpheme, the minimum building element of a language, attached to the root of a word in the processes of morphological derivation and serving to transform the root for grammatical or word-formation purposes; the most important means of expressing grammatical and derivational meanings; part of a word opposed to the root and focusing its grammatical and/or derivational meanings.

Affix types:

1) Prefix - a morpheme that precedes the root and changes its lexical or grammatical meaning (prefix).

2) Postfix (in the broad sense) - the part of the word that comes after the ending or formative suffix (the reflexive suffix of the verb).

3) Suffix - a morpheme, a modified part of a word, usually located after the root.

4) Inflection - endings that usually mark not only the end of a word and therefore serve as its boundary signal, but also characterize the form itself as ready for use as part of a syntactic construction and therefore “self-sufficient” for autonomous use between two spaces and organizing a separate statement.

5) Postfix (in the narrow sense) - a morpheme after the end, which is called a reflexive morpheme (say, laughed, someone, something)

6) Confix - combinations of a prefix with a postfix, which always act together, surrounding the root (DROP)

7) Infix - affixes inserted into the middle of the root; serve to express a new grammatical meaning; found in many Austronesian languages.

8) Transfix - affixes that, breaking the root, consisting of only consonants, break themselves and serve as a “layer” of vowels among consonants, determining the grammatical meaning of the word.

9) Interfix - service morphemes that do not have their own meaning, but serve to connect roots in compound words.

Ticket number 16.

ESSENCE OF THE HYPOTHESIS: “The nature of cognition of reality depends on the language in which a person thinks. People dismember the picture of the world, organize it into concepts and distribute meanings in this way, and not otherwise, because. are parties to some agreement that is valid only for this language. Knowledge is not objective universal character. Similar physical phenomena make it possible to create a similar picture of the universe only if the language systems are similar, or at least correlative.”

In Russian, blue and blue, and even more so blue and green, are different from each other. The reason for this is the Russian language itself. There is a separate word for each of these colors.

But in other languages, things are different. In German, English is the same word. In Breton, Korean, Vietnamese, the same word means both “green” and “blue”.

In the Hopi Indian language there is a word that applies to any flying object, except for birds: to an airplane, and to a fly, and to a pilot, and to a bat.

In Swahili, the same word refers to a locomotive, a train, a car, a wagon, a cart, a pram, a bicycle.

One of the Melanesian languages ​​has 100 special names for 100 varieties of banana.

The Sami language has 20 words for ice, 11 for cold, 26 for frost and melt.

In addition, there are differences in the design of proposals:

English: He invites some guests for supper= 6 words

The language of the Nootka Indians: boiled-eating-to-them-goes (incorporating language)

Conclusion: we dissect nature in the direction that our native language tells us. We distinguish categories not because these categories are self-evident. The world is a kaleidoscopic stream of impressions that must be organized by our consciousness, and, therefore, by the language system.

Rebuttal: according to many scientists, cause and effect are confused here. 100 varieties of bananas, so 100 names.

For a villager in East Africa, it makes no difference how a steam locomotive differs from a bicycle.

The division of the world is determined not by the language, but by the social practice of a given people.

Ticket number 17.

Ticket number 18

1. Functions of language from the point of view of the theory of the communicative act R. Jacobson.

1. referential

2. regulatory

3. emotive (expressive)

4. contact-setting

5. metalinguistic

6. aesthetic

1. Referential function associated with creation and transfer information, i.e. essentially combines the cognitive and communicative functions of language.
2. Regulatory function of language

If communication is focused on the addressee, then the regulation of his behavior comes to the fore. Behavior can be regulated by stimulating action, answering a question, by prohibiting action.

In science, this function is called differently:

conative (conation - the ability to volitional movement)

appellative

voluntarily (voluntas - will, desire)

inviting and motivating.

Associated with this function is the intention, the intention of the speaker; that for which he addresses the listener. There are such speech acts as a question, a prohibition, a request, an inducement, an order, a warning, an advice...

For the most general speech acts, special syntactic structures have been developed: narrative, interrogative, incentive.

Sometimes the grammatical structure is used in a figurative sense: the question: “Do you have any matches?” expresses a request rather than a question.

3. Emotionally expressive function (emotive).

Sometimes the utterance directly expresses the subjective psychological attitude person to what he is talking about. Then the emotive function is realized.

The main means of expressing emotions in speech is intonation. In the studio experiments of K. Stanislavsky, it was possible to distinguish up to 40 emotional situations when saying one phrase "tonight".

Emotions are also expressed using interjections or words with expressive connotation (coloration): sweetheart, stunned, hard worker, my friend. These words in the dictionary are labeled - “disparaging, ironic, etc.”

The emotional side of speech is connected with the work of the right hemisphere of the brain. If a person has a disorder of the right hemisphere, then his speech becomes intonationally monotonous. Speech perception is also impaired. He understands the meaning of what is being communicated, but he cannot understand whether it is meant seriously or jokingly.

If the left hemisphere is damaged and the right hemisphere is intact, the patient may not understand the meaning of what is being said, but reacts to the emotional tone with which it was uttered.

4. Contact setting function.

Sometimes communication seems pointless. Speakers do not care about the information that they communicate to each other, they do not seek to express their emotions or influence each other.

Language here acts as a contact-establishing function.

These are greetings, congratulations, on-duty questions “How are you?” and talk about the weather, traffic jams, the global financial crisis and other well-known things. Communication is for the sake of communication, it is aimed primarily at establishing or maintaining contact.

The form and content of contact-establishing communication are different for people of different ages, genders, social status, the relationship of speakers. But in general, such proposals are standard and minimally informative. Wed clichéd congratulations, initial and final phrases in letters. The redundancy of references by name in a conversation between two people, the high predictability of texts that perform this function.

These conversations help overcome disunity, lack of communication.

Children's speech initially performs exactly this function: 3x summer child, starting to say something, does not yet know what he is going to say. He needs to make contact.

6. Metalanguage function= explanatory comment of speech.

This function is implemented when there are any difficulties in speech communication.

(when talking with a child, a foreigner, another person who does not speak this professional language, style, jargon).

For example, hearing the unfamiliar word "laptop", your grandmother may ask: "What is it?". And you say: “Well, a laptop is such a thing ... etc.” By explaining, you are implementing a metalanguage function.

Sometimes in a conversation with a foreigner or a child or grandmother, it is worth asking if they understand everything. All comments, explanations are implementations of a metalanguage function.

Sometimes languages ​​are judged by their degree of circularity, i.e. the degree to which words are defined by each other.

The metalinguistic function is realized in all statements and explanations.

6. Aesthetic function of speech (poetic).

It has to do with attention to the message for the sake of the message itself.

How is the aesthetic attitude to language manifested? Speakers begin to notice the text itself, its sound and verbal texture.

You may or may not like a single word, turn, phrase. It is speech, and not its content, that is perceived as beautiful or ugly, annoying.

The aesthetic function is associated with the renewal of the usual word usage, with a violation of clichés, everyday speech: unexpected comparisons, sound organization of speech - alliteration, sound writing.

The language shell itself, the word becomes part of its content.

Ticket number 1

Linguistics as a science. The main functions of the language.

Linguistics is the science of natural human language in general and of all languages ​​of the world as its individual representatives. By language they mean natural human language (as opposed to artificial languages and the language of animals), the emergence and existence of which is associated with the emergence and existence of man. The term "language" has at least 2 interrelated meanings: language in general, as a certain class of sign systems; specific language, i.e. ethnic language is a really existing meaningful system that is used in a certain society, at a certain time, in a certain space. A concrete language is a set of implementations of the properties of the language in general.

The main functions of the language. Language is a multifunctional system. Among the important functions of the language are those that are associated with the meaning of a person about reality: the creation, storage and transmission of information. The first function is associated with the nominative (naming) function. In words, we encode information about reality. The second function is associated with a cognitive function or cognitive function (the ability to fold and unfold knowledge). The third function is related to the communicative function or communication.

Language is a coherent system of signs in which sound, spelling and semantic content are correlated.

The science that deals with the study of language itself is called linguistics or linguistics. Features of signs are studied by semiotics. Psycholinguistics establishes how it influences thinking.

The language of any community is a very heterogeneous, extremely complex, multifunctional phenomenon. Everyone has heard about the communicative function of the language, but besides it there is a long range of other purposes. Let's try to consider them.

• The communicative function implies that language is necessary for communication, the transfer of information.
• Thought-forming (mental, cognitive) function is closely related to communication. It is the communicative purpose that underlies the mental function of the language, determines it. B.Norman gives a very precise example of the cognitive role of language in his work. He quotes a little girl who says she doesn't know what she's thinking until she says it out loud.
• The accumulative or cognitive function helps to accumulate knowledge and then pass it on to other people and generations. Many people have never been to the moon, but thanks to the knowledge of people who have been there, we are well aware of both the lunar landscapes and the features of movement in this place.

In addition, cognitive function forms inner world person, helps to create and assimilate concepts that are formed as a result of his practical activities.

• The nominative function can also be called "man's belief in names". This means that when we hear the word "table", we imagine different objects. However, all of them will have significant features that will allow the item to be classified as a “table”, not a “cabinet” or any other. This ability to isolate the general and name objects is closely related to
• The emotionally expressive purpose of the language allows you to convey your emotions with the help of words. This ability is called the "emotive function of language." Its purpose is the implementation of emotional communication of people. Compare the colors of words that mean "big": huge, healthy, gigantic. This function uses special semantics, separate interjections that can convey momentary emotions.
• The phatic function of language is very important. It is inextricably linked with its focus on the creation, development and regulation of relations in micro-collectives. With the help of the phatic function, the interlocutor establishes contact, draws attention to himself, and then, using regulatory function, continues contact. Next to them is the conative function, with the help of which the language focuses on the addressee.
• With the help of the voluntative function of language, one person can influence another.
• The ideological function helps, with the help of language as a system, to influence ideology. For example, it is used not for communication, but to maintain its statehood, acting as a symbol.
• With the help of the metalinguistic function, language as a system and phenomenon is analyzed by means of the language itself.
• Using the representational function, people convey information.
• The sphere of creativity allows you to realize the aesthetic orientation of the language.
• means that with the help of language a person is able to create value judgments, to separate the concepts of “bad” and “good”.
• The referential function of language means that it is a means of accumulating human experience.
• The omadative function helps to create and control reality.

All functions of the language are connected and intertwined with each other, interdependent and inseparable.