LANGUAGE is:

• 1.System phonetic, lexical and grammatical means, which is a tool for expressing thoughts, feelings, expressions of will and serving as the most important means of communication between people. Being inextricably linked in its origin and development with a given human collective, language is a social phenomenon. Language forms an organic unity with thinking, since one does not exist without the other.
• 2. Variety speech, characterized by certain stylistic features. book language. Colloquial. Poetic language. newspaper language. See speech in the 2nd sense. On the question of the relationship between the concepts of "language" and "speech" were revealed in modern linguistics different points vision. For the first time, the relationship and interaction of both phenomena was noted by the Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure: "Without a doubt, both of these subjects are closely related and mutually presuppose each other: language is necessary for speech to be understood and to produce its action; speech, in turn, is necessary in order to to establish language; historically, the fact of speech always precedes language. Vvedenskaya L.A., Pavlova L.G., Kashaeva E.Yu. Russian language and culture of speech. Phoenix, 2002

Many researchers (V. D. Arakin, V. A. Artemov, O. S. Akhmanova, L. R. Zinder, T. P. Lomtev, A. I. Smirnitsky, etc.) distinguish between these concepts, finding sufficient general methodological and linguistic grounds. Language and speech are opposed to different grounds: a system of means of communication - the implementation of this system (the actual process of speaking), a system of linguistic units - their sequence in the act of communication, a static phenomenon - a dynamic phenomenon, a set of elements in a paradigmatic plan - their totality in a syntagmatic plan, essence - a phenomenon, general - a separate ( private), abstract - concrete, essential - non-essential, necessary - random, systemic - non-systemic, stable (invariant) - variable (variable), usual - occasional, normative - non-normative, social - individual, reproducible - produced in the act of communication, code - message exchange, means - goal, etc. Individual linguists consistently draw this distinction in relation to correlative units different levels language and speech: a phoneme is a specific sound, a morpheme is a syllable, a lexeme is a word, a phrase is a syntagma, a sentence is a phrase, a complex syntactic whole is a superphrasal unity. Other scientists (V. M. Zhirmunsky, G. V. Kolshansky, A. G. Spirkin, A. S. Chikobava) deny the difference between language and speech, identifying these concepts. Third researchers (E. M. Galkina--Fedoruk, V. N. Yartseva), without opposing or identifying language and speech, define them as two sides of one phenomenon, characterized by properties that are complementary and interrelated in nature.

Language and speech

First of all, what is the difference between the one and the other?
Language is a means of communication and therefore meets strict laws and rules of grammar, intonation and pronunciation. Using the language, we are in continuous normalizing reflection, fixing deviations from the rules.

AT everyday life we rarely use our native language and do not special attention how well we speak or write. Children also do not speak the language - they use speech, at first even inarticulate. Speech (from the word "river") is a stream of speaking, writing, reading, listening, understanding, in which communication and thinking are glued together, inseparable, inseparable: we think as we speak and speak as we think. Whimsical and fragmentary thoughts are fully reflected in the speech flow.

The language contains only explicit linguistic means, the speech is full of innuendo, omissions, interlinear content, implicit means, allusions and hidden quotes. Pleshchenko T.P., Fedotova N.V., Chechet R.G. Stylistics and culture of speech. TetraSystems, 2001

The language exists quite independently from its native speakers. A language that is not obvious to us forms its own laws and trends, and in this sense, all of them are doubtful for us, although, on the other hand, we ourselves are doubtful about the language, insofar as we do not own it (we own speech), we do not fully own it. and, of course, we do not control it.

The one who is well-spoken does not necessarily know the language perfectly. Knowledge mother tongue for most people, it’s more than superficial: even at school, plowing goes no more than half a shovel, but after school, many people forget the language, in fact, completely: normal life does not require this knowledge, and the vast majority of people hate reflection and thinking, which is why language skills are so rare, even among philologists and linguists - instead of knowledge, we try to get by with norms, and norms do not require reflection or reflection, they just need to be observed, according to capabilities. This is in best case. At worst, we replace knowledge of the language with dogmas: "zhi, shi write through and" is not knowledge, but dogma, if there is nothing behind this, for example, phonetic knowledge does not stand.

Philosophy can be understood and interpreted as a reflection of language, a reflection of what is said and thought. The peoples, whose language did not undergo serious influence over a significant historical period, managed to fall into the reflection of their own language and thereby give rise to their own, national, philosophy: the Chinese, Indians, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Englishmen, Germans. Those to whom history has not given such a respite and who live in the bustle of changes and influences exist without reflecting on their language, not having time to develop their own philosophy: Russians, Americans. And, therefore, all these rigorists and guardians of the "purity of the language", whether they want it or not, whether they understand it or not, but stand up and fight so that, finally, the calm of change comes and the time for reflection, the time for reflection above own language, the time of formation and creation of philosophy.

Absence or rudimentary philosophy- misfortune and grief are completely consoled - but in such languages, literature is usually very good and strong, since the language is constantly updated and replenished and it is played so easily and freely. There is no special philosophy among Russians, French, Latin Americans and Japanese - but what literature!

Speech, devoid of reflection, has something unique in our minds. - inner voice, who is in continuous dialogue with us and - that's where full freedom from grammatical and any other system! This inner voice is a stream of consciousness, in a way, schizophrenia - insofar as it is not a monologue, but a dialogue within and within one personality. We create a partner for ourselves and within ourselves, with whom we communicate, calling him either the inner “I”, or the voice of the soul, or the voice of conscience, or God.

With all the voluntarism of speech, we, as a rule, are deprived of clear ideas about the language. We, for example, knowing about the gradual and consistent reduction of cases in the Russian language, are not free to determine which of them will fall into disuse next - it seems to us that they are all strictly necessary: ​​instrumental and prepositional, which are absent in European languages, are not only very common, but also aggressively crowd out other common European cases (nominative, accusative, dative and genitive) Pleshchenko T.P., Fedotova N.V., Chechet R.G. Stylistics and culture of speech. TetraSystems, 2001.

Finally, speech acts on consciousness and induces action; language is prone to understanding and thinking.

The famous phrase of I. Turgenev about the richness of the Russian language is understood by the majority literally, literally and at the most primitive, morphological level.

In terms of word volume, Russian is much inferior to English. and most other languages ​​as well. However, due to non-analyticity, flexibility, an abundance of prefixes, suffixes and endings, due to freedom in word order in a sentence (you just need to know how to use this freedom!), because of free punctuation (and you also need to know how to own this freedom!), Russian is certainly much richer than any other European language. We must also add to this: the undoubted wealth of the Russian language is the fact that it is a linguistic cocktail: Greek, Tatar, Mongolian, German, French, English, in lesser degree- Italian (pasta-spaghetti) and Spanish (canal-cavalry) - and not only a cocktail of words, but also a grammatical cocktail.

Even richer - Russian speech: intonations, idiomatically, allusions, alliterations, some incredible and sophisticated esopism, but the main wealth of Russian speech is in silence. The people are silent - but how expressive! A country where freedom of speech has been a dangerous exotic for more than a thousand years, knows how to keep silent so that the pluggers and tormentors of this freedom cannot stand it and shout at us in hysterics: "Don't be silent, say at least a word!".

In Soviet linguistics, the position is accepted, according to which the language develops according to its own internal laws. But if we admit that language and speech are different objects that the units of language and speech are studied in different sciences, it is necessary to conclude that speech must have its own special internal laws development. If such a conclusion cannot be supported by observable facts, then it must be regarded as evidence of the falsity of the original premise. Since there is no empirical basis for recognizing the special laws of development in language and speech, we are forced to consider language and speech not as different phenomena, which are objects of different sciences, and how different sides one phenomenon, representing one subject of one science.

Overcoming the view of language and speech as different phenomena is achieved by putting forward the category of essence and its manifestation as the basis for opposing language and speech. Such an understanding of the basis for distinguishing between language and speech excludes the possibility of attributing some facts to language, and others to speech. From this point of view, there cannot be such units in speech that would not have a place in language, and there are no such units in language that would not have a place in speech. Language and speech differ not in the difference of phenomena, but in the difference of essence and its manifestation.

From this point of view, the units of the language are not only words and their forms, but also free phrases, as well as sentences. In phrases and sentences there is not only what is produced anew each time, but also what is reproduced in every act of communication - these are sentence models.

Language is such an entity , the mode of existence and manifestation of which is speech. Language as an entity finds its manifestation in speech. Language is learned through analysis, speech through perception and understanding. In the expression "he reads books" the fact of using the word book refers to the manifestation of something that may find its manifestation in another word, for example, "he reads magazines". There is a certain identity that is preserved in both the first and second sentences and which manifests itself in different ways in them. These sentences, from the side of their difference, refer to speech, and from the side of their identity, to language.

Let us consider the grounds for opposing language and speech as different sides of one phenomenon. one . Both language and speech have a social, social nature.. But in the act of communication, the social nature of language takes the form of individual speech. Language in the act of communication does not exist otherwise than in the form of individual speaking. For Saussure, language and speech are different phenomena. language like social phenomenon as opposed to speech individual phenomenon. In his opinion, there is nothing collective in speech, and nothing individual in language. Such an understanding of the relationship between language and speech is possible only if we assume that language and speech are different phenomena representing the subjects of different sciences. And this understanding is completely excluded if the relation of language in speech is regarded as the relation of essence to its manifestation. Language is social in nature; individual shape manifestations social nature language testifies that the individual form is also social in its essence. The individual is not opposed to the social, it is only a form of social being.

Some of de Saussure's commentators interpret the relationship between the social and the individual as the relationship between the objective and the subjective: but in their opinion, language is objective and speech is subjective. The possibility of such an interpretation of the social and the individual follows from the premise that the individual and the social are opposite in essence and represent different phenomena. But if the individual is considered as a form of existence of the social, then it is necessary to conclude that the first is not the opposite of the second, that if an objective character is attributed to language, then it must also be attributed to speech.

The opposition of language and speech on this basis implies the need to consider the same units both as units of language and as units of speech. There can be no units which, being related to language, would not be related to speech, and vice versa.

2. Language and speech are opposed on the basis of the general and the singular, constant and variable. But again, the general and the individual, the constant and the variable, cannot be regarded as separate phenomena existing separately.

The general and the constant exists in the form of the singular and the variable , and in every individual and variable there is a general and constant. Let's explain this with examples. In the sentence "He looked at the picture" we can replace the word picture with the word photograph. As a result of this operation, we will get a new sentence: "He looked at the photo." But in that which is in a relationship of mutual substitution, there is a common, constant. This general, constant manifests itself in individual words having the form of the accusative case. Language is speech taken from the side of the general and permanent. Speech is language taken from the standpoint of the individual and the variable. Any linguistic unit has one side turned to the language, and the other - to speech. Each linguistic unit must be considered both from the side of language and from the side of speech. The opposition of language and speech on the basis under consideration excludes the possibility of referring some units to language, and others to speech. 3. Language and speech differ on the basis of a certain establishment and process. There is language as a means of communication and there is speech as a process of communication through language. Speech has the property of being loud or soft, fast or slow, long or short; this characteristic is not applicable to the language. Speech can be monologue, if the interlocutor only listens, and dialogical, if the interlocutor also participates in communication. Language can be neither monologic nor dialogical. In order for the speech to have its own units, different from the units of the language, they must be distinguished by those properties that the process has and which the tool with which it is performed does not have Graudina L.K., Shiryaev E.N. Culture of Russian speech. Norma, 2005.

Unlike language as a means of communication in speech we can highlight the moments that characterize the process of communication. In speech, the frequency of repetition of certain elements of the language in certain conditions of the communication process differs.

Mathematical statistics studies frequencies in the form of calculus different kind average values. Frequency characterizes not a unit of structure, but its repetition in the process of communication. Strength characterizes not the phoneme as a unit of language, but the pronunciation of sound in the process of communication. You can use units to measure the strength of sound. Interference characterizes not the units of the language, but the implementation of the communication process. You can use units to measure the degree of interference. Such units cannot be not only words or their forms, phrases or sentences, but even paragraphs.

We will not discuss here whether complex integers, as well as paragraphs, are units of a language or not. language structure. However, it is clear that they are not units of actions, processes; they are units of some structures, rather non-linguistic than linguistic.

The selection of complex wholes or paragraphs as units of speech, and not language, also does not rely on the basis of the opposition of language and speech, as well as the allocation of free phrases or sentences as units of speech.

It seems to us that those linguists who, recognizing not only words and word forms, but also phrases and sentences as units of language, are wrong, nevertheless consider that speech should have its own special units, what they consider a paragraph, a complex integer, a phrase, etc.

So, language, speech and communication are not different phenomena, but different sides of one phenomenon. All linguistic units are units of language and speech: on one side they are turned to language, the other - to speech Graudina L.K., Shiryaev E.N. Culture of Russian speech. Norma, 2005 .

- one of the greatest mysteries human existence. Why are only people, unlike all other species of living beings living on Earth, able to communicate through language? How did the language come about? Scientists have been trying to answer these questions for many years, but so far have not found acceptable answers, although they have put forward countless theories; some of these theories will be discussed in this article.

Human language: arose whether he evolutionary way from simple sounds emitted by animals, or was given to humans

God? Everyone agrees that language is the main feature that distinguishes humans from other biological species. Our children are learning oral speech barely reaching the age of four; if a child at the age of four cannot speak, then this is a consequence of a congenital or acquired pathology. In general, the gift of speech is inherent in all people - and none of the other living beings that inhabit the Earth. Why is it that only humanity has the ability to speech communication and how did we acquire this ability?

First experiments and scientific hypotheses.

Even in ancient Egypt, people thought about which language is the most ancient, that is, they posed the problem language origin.
Basics modern theories The origin of the language was laid by the ancient Greek philosophers.
By looking at they split into two scientific schools- supporters of the "fuses" and adherents of the "tesei".
Theory "fusei"(fusei - Greek. " by nature") defended the natural, "natural" nature of the language and, consequently, the natural, biological conditionality of its occurrence and structure. Supporters of the natural origin of the names of objects, in particular, Heraclitus of Ephesus(535-475 BC), believed that the names were given by nature, since the first sounds reflected the things that the names correspond to. Names are shadows or reflections of things. He who names things must discover what nature has created correct name if it fails, it only produces noise.

Supporters t theories of "Tesey"(thesei - Greek. " by establishment") among which were Democritus of Abder(470/460 - the first half of the 4th century BC) and Aristotle from Stagira (384-322 BC), argued the conditional nature of the language, not related to the essence of things, and, therefore, artificiality, in extreme terms - the conscious nature of its occurrence in society. Names come from the establishment, according to custom, of an agreement between people. They pointed to many inconsistencies between a thing and its name: words have several meanings, the same concepts are denoted by several words. If the names were given by nature, it would be impossible to rename people, but, for example, Aristocles with the nickname Plato (“broad-shouldered”) went down in history.

Scientists have put forward dozens of hypotheses about how people overcame obstacles to appearance of language; most of these hypotheses are very speculative and differ significantly from each other.

The theory of the emergence of language from sounds.

Many biologists and linguists who support the idea of ​​evolution from protozoa to humans believe that language gradually developed from the sounds and noises made by animals. As the human intelligence people managed to pronounce everything more sounds; Gradually, these sounds turned into words, which were assigned meanings.
One way or another, sounds designed to express emotions are very different from those used to convey concepts. Therefore, the probability origin human language from the sounds made by animals is extremely small.

The theory of creating language by the power of the human mind

Some scholars have suggested that humans somehow created language through their minds. According to their theory, as human evolution intellectual ability people grew continuously and eventually allowed people to start communicating with each other. This assumption also seems very logical, but most scientists and linguists deny this possibility. In particular, Dwight Bolinger, a scientist and linguist who has studied language abilities chimpanzee says:

“It's worth asking why all the life forms that inhabit the Earth had to wait millions of years before Homo did it [created language]. Is it really because a certain level of intelligence had to appear first? But how could this happen if intelligence is entirely dependent on language? Language could not possibly be a precondition for emergence of language».

The level of intelligence cannot be measured without the help of language. So the hypothesis about the appearance of language as a result of the development of the human mind is unfounded and unprovable.
Among other things, scientists cannot prove that language requires developed intellect. Thus, we can conclude that we owe our ability to communicate in language not to our highly developed intellect.

The theory of the sudden emergence of language

Some scientists believe that the language appeared in people suddenly, without visible prerequisites for its origin. They believe that the language was originally laid down in a person, and people at a certain stage of evolution simply discovered this feature in themselves and began to use words and gestures to communicate and transmit information, gradually expanding their vocabulary. Theory adherents sudden appearance language argue that humans acquired the gift of speech as a result of a random rearrangement of DNA sections in the process of evolution.

According to this theory, language and everything necessary for communication existed before man discovered them. But this means that the language as such arose quite by accident and was not conceived as complete system. Meanwhile, the language is a complex logical system, the highest level of organization of which simply does not allow one to believe in its random occurrence. And even if this theory can be considered as a model for the emergence of language, it cannot by any means be accepted as an acceptable explanation for the origin of such, since such complex structure, as a language, could not arise on its own, without a creator.

Sign language theory

This theory was put forward Etienne Condillac, Jean Jacques Rousseau and German psychologist and philosopher Wilhelm Wundt(1832-1920), who believed that language is formed arbitrarily and unconsciously.
According to this theory, as humans have evolved, they have gradually developed sign systems because they have discovered that the use of signs can be beneficial. At first, they did not seek to convey any ideas to others; the person simply performed some action, the other saw it and then repeated this action. For example, one person tries to move some object, but he himself is unable to do it; the other sees these efforts and comes to his aid. As a result, the person realized to himself: in order for him to be helped to move something, a gesture depicting a push is enough.

The most serious shortcoming of this theory is that, despite countless attempts, none of its adherents has ever been able to offer an acceptable scenario for adding sounds to gestures.
Gestures like aid communication continues to be used by modern man. Non-verbal (non-verbal) means of communication, including gestures, studies paralinguistics as a separate discipline of linguistics.

Theory of onomatopoeia

This hypothesis was put forward in 1880 Max Miiller(Miiller), but even he himself considered it not very plausible. According to one hypothesis, initially the words had a sound similarity with the concepts they expressed (onomatopoeia). For example, the concept of "dog" was initially expressed by the interjection "bow-wow" or "yaw-yaw", and sounds resembling bird chirping or croaking were associated with the birds that made them. Actions were indicated by the sounds that people made when performing these actions; for example, eating was conveyed by champing, and lifting a heavy stone by strained hooting.

Miiller's theory would seem quite logical, but in all the languages ​​of our time, the sound of words has nothing to do with the "sound image" of the concepts they express; and in the ancient languages ​​studied by modern linguists, there was nothing of the kind.

Obstacles to the emergence of language in an evolutionary way

To many, it seems reasonable to argue that people could come up with signs and words to denote simple items and actions, but how did people invent the syntax? There is no way a man can say, "Give me food," if all the words he has are "food" and "I." Syntax-so a complex system that people wouldn't be able to "open" it by accident. For the emergence of syntax, an intelligent creator was required, but a person could not be this creator, since he would not be able to convey his discovery to others. We do not think our speech without a metalanguage-set service words who do not have lexical meaning, but define the meanings of other words. There is no way people could, by sheer chance, begin to use and understand these words.

A person cannot communicate his thoughts to another without resorting to syntactic constructions; speech without syntax is reduced to exclamations and orders.
In addition, evolutionists fail to explain the patterns of changes that have occurred in languages ​​since the advent of writing, which preserved these changes for modern linguists. The most ancient languages ​​- Latin, Ancient Greek, Hebrew, Sanskrit, Phoenician, Ancient Syriac - are much more difficult than any of modern languages. Everyone who comes across these languages ​​these days will admit without hesitation that they are definitely more complicated and harder to learn than the current ones. Languages ​​never got more complicated than they were; on the contrary, over time they only became simpler. However, this is in no way consistent with the theory biological evolution, according to which everything that exists has become more complicated over time.

Language Creation Theory

Legends similar to those of tower of babel, were noted among the most isolated peoples of all continents. They can be divided into three types: the first speaks of big construction without mentioning the division of languages ​​(peoples of Africa, India, Mexico, Spain, Burma); oral chronicles of the second type set out their versions of the origin of languages, without mentioning the construction (peoples Ancient Greece, Africa, India, Australia, USA, Central America), and stories of the third kind, like the Bible, combine these two events.

It is clear from the biblical account of Creation that language existed even before God began to create this world. Language was one of the ways of communication of the Most Holy Trinity - the hypostases of the Triune God.
The history of mankind allows Christians to claim that language exists as long as God exists, and according to the Bible, God exists forever.

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. The earth was formless and empty, and the Spirit of God hovered over the waters. And God said: let there be light. And there was light” (Genesis 1:1-3).

But why, of all the living beings He created, did God endow only humans with language? We find the answer to this question in the very first chapter of Holy Scripture:

“And God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:27).

God created people in his own image, and since God is inherent in language and communication, people also got this gift. Thus, language is one of the facets of the Personality of Godhead that He has given to people. This is a perfectly sound conclusion, since language gives us a partial idea of ​​the nature of God. Like God, language is unthinkably complex. It can take a lifetime to study it; but at the same time, children, having barely learned to walk, begin to understand and use the language.

Religious theories

According to the Bible, God punished the descendants of Adam for their attempt to build a tower to heaven with a variety of languages:
The whole earth had one language and one dialect... And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower that the sons of men were building. And the Lord said, Behold, there is one people, and all have one language; and this is what they began to do, and they will not lag behind what they have planned to do. Let us go down and confuse their language there, so that one does not understand the speech of the other. And the Lord scattered them from there over all the earth; and they stopped building the city. Therefore a name was given to her: Babylon; for there the Lord confounded the language of all the earth, and from there the Lord scattered them over all the earth (Genesis 11:5-9).

The Gospel of John begins with the following words, where the Logos (word, thought, mind) is equated with the Divine:

“In the beginning was the Word [Logos], and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. It was in the beginning with God."

The Acts of the Apostles (part of the New Testament) describes an event that happened to the apostles, from which the connection of language with the Divine follows:

“When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together with one accord. And suddenly there was a noise from the sky, as if from a rushing strong wind and filled the whole house where they were. And divided tongues appeared to them, as if of fire, and rested one on each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. In Jerusalem there were Jews, devout people, from every nation under heaven. When this noise was made, the people gathered and were confused, for everyone heard them speaking in his own language. And they were all amazed and wondering, saying among themselves, Are not these who speak all Galileans? How do we hear each of his own dialect in which he was born. Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and inhabitants of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and parts of Libya adjacent to Cyrene, and those who came from Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians, we hear them in our languages talking about the great things of God? And they were all amazed and, perplexed, said to each other: what does this mean? And others, mocking, said: they drank sweet wine. But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice and cried out to them: Men of the Jews, and all who dwell in Jerusalem! let this be known to you, and give heed to my words…” (Acts of the Apostles, 2:1-14).

The Day of Pentecost, or Trinity Day, deserves to be apart from its religious significance become the Day of the Linguist or Translator.

The existence of a proto-language

Researchers most often judge the origin of peoples by their languages. Linguists subdivide many Asian and African languages into Semitic - by the name of Shema or Shem - and into Hamitic - by the name of Ham, the sons of Noah. To the Semitic group of languages; link to language families; include Hebrew, Old Babylonian, Assyrian, Aramaic, various Arabic dialects, Amharic in Ethiopia and some others. Hamitic are ancient Egyptian, Coptic, Berber, and many other African languages ​​and dialects.

At present, however, there is a tendency in science to combine the Hamitic and Semitic languages ​​into one Semitic-Hamitic group. The peoples descended from Japhet speak, as a rule, Indo-European languages. This group includes the vast majority European languages, as well as many of the languages ​​\u200b\u200bof the peoples of Asia: Iranian, Indian, Turkic.

What was it « common language» which was spoken by all the people of the world?
Many linguists meant Hebrew by the universal language, in view of the fact that many proper names primitive world, preserved in the languages ​​of all the peoples of the exile, are built from the roots of the Hebrew language.

According to the tradition of Judaism, the "Single language", which people spoke before the division into nations, was the "Sacred Language". sacred language– “loshn koidesh” is the language in which the Creator spoke with Adam, and people spoke it up to Babylonian pandemonium. Later, the prophets spoke this language, and the Holy Scriptures were written in it.

The fact of the use, according to the Torah, of the Hebrew language by the first people is also indicated by Scripture, where a play on words is found that cannot be translated into other languages. So, the wife is called in Hebrew isha from ish (husband), which indicates the unity and holiness of the marriage union. The name Adam (man) is from Adam (earth), Chava (in Russian Eve) is from Hai (living), “for she was the mother of all living things”, Cain is from Kaniti (I acquired) and so on. This language was called Hebrew by the name of Ever, a descendant of Shem, for Ever preserved this language by passing it on to Abraham. Abraham used the sacred language only for holy purposes.

The everyday language of Abraham was Aramaic, very close to the sacred language, but - as a result of general use - it lost the purity, rigor and grammatical harmony of Hebrew.
The same can be said about the other Semitic- Arabic. Arabic as a living language surpasses Hebrew written monuments an abundance of synonyms and the presence of precise designations of objects and expressions. These virtues, of course, had Hebrew in the era of the prophets. Therefore, when reading poetic passages of Scripture, we encounter completely different vocabulary, often with words that occur only once in Scripture. As a result long stay Jews in exile initial wealth sacred language was lost, and the language of the Bible that has come down to us is only a surviving remnant of ancient Hebrew. This is the tradition and point of view of Judaism, set forth in the book of Kuzari by Rabbi Yehuda a-Levi.

Scientists have long known intuitively origin of languages the world from a single source. So, German philosopher 17th century Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, who spoke numerous languages ​​​​of various families, dealt quite a lot with issues family relations languages ​​and the general theory of language. Leibniz, although he rejected the "Jewish theory" of the origin of languages, that is biblical theory the origin of all of them from the Holy language - Hebrew, was inclined to recognize a single original language. He preferred to call him "Adamic", that is, descending from Adam.

Linguists have come to the conclusion that if not all languages ​​of the world, then at least the vast majority have a related - common - origin.

We speak Russian is; in Latin est; in English is, in German ist. These are all Indo-European languages. Let us, however, turn to the Semitic languages: in Hebrew esh, in Aramaic it or is. Six in Hebrew is shesh, in Aramaic is shit or shis, in Ukrainian is shist, in English is six, in German is sechs. The word seven in English is seven, in German sieben, in Hebrew sheva. Numeral " three» in a number Indo-European languages: persian: tree, Greek: treis, Latin: tres, Gothic: threis.
Or take a more complex example. The word idea, borrowed from ancient Greek, has a parallel root in Hebrew. De'a in Hebrew means "vision", "opinion". In Hebrew, as well as in other Semitic languages, the root of this word, consisting of three letters yod, dalet and 'ayin, has a fairly wide use: Yode'a - "he knows", yada - "knew", yivada' - will known. Let us note that in the Russian language there is a verb to know, that is, “to know”, and in ancient Indian Vedas also means “knowledge”. In German, wissen means “to know”, and in English language this root appears in the words wise - “wise”, wisdom - “wisdom”.

Method comparative analysis languages ​​also makes it possible to penetrate deeply into the essence of the processes under study, to reveal a system of certain correspondences where superficial observation does not notice anything similar.

Nostratic language
The intuitive desire of scientists to at least partially reproduce the “single language” of mankind, which, according to the Torah, existed on earth before the division of mankind into nations, is, in our opinion, quite remarkable. Followers of the so-called "Nostratic school".
even compiled a small dictionary of the "Nostratic" language. "Nostratic" these scientists call a certain primitive proto-language, from which the Semitic-Hamitic, Indo-European, Ural-Altaic and other languages ​​\u200b\u200bare descended.

Of course, science has the right to deal with working theories and hypotheses, which, sooner or later, can be proved or refuted.

5. Conclusion

Evolutionists have put forward a great many theories of the origin and development of human language. However, all these concepts are broken down by own shortcomings. Proponents of the theory of evolution have not yet found an acceptable answer to the question of the appearance language communication. But none of these theories provides an acceptable explanation for the extraordinary diversity and complexity of languages. So there is nothing left but faith in God the Creator, who not only created man, but also endowed him with the gift of speech. The Bible tells about the Creation of all things by God; its text is devoid of contradictions and contains answers to all questions. Unlike the theory of evolution, which lacks credibility in explaining the origin of language, the creation theory set forth in the Bible (the theory of the divine creation of language) is able to withstand any objections. This theory and to this day retains its position, despite the fact that all this time its opponents are busy in a desperate search for counterarguments against it.

The implementation of the language of the most complex social significant functions- thought-forming and communicative - it is provided exclusively high organization, dynamism and interdependence of all its elements, each of which, although it has its own special purpose (making a difference meanings, differentiate forms, designate objects, processes, signs of the surrounding reality, to express thought, inform her), is subordinated to a single general language task - to be a means of communication and mutual understanding. In accordance with this, the understanding of language as an open (constantly developing) system-structural entity has already become indisputable. The main categories are "system" and "structure". The first correlates with such concepts as "totality", "whole", "integration", "synthesis" (association), and the second with the concepts of "organization", "structure", "orderliness", "analysis" (dismemberment). There are different interpretations of the nature of the relationship between these categories. However, the most recognized are the following.

The language system is a holistic unity language units that are interconnected and related to each other. The very same set of regular connections and relationships between linguistic units, depending on their nature and determining the originality language system in general, forms structure of the language system. Structure is the main property of a language system. It involves the dismemberment of the language as a holistic education into components, their interconnection, interdependence and internal organization. The terms used to name the components of a language system are usually elements, language units, linguistic signs, parts (groups), subsystems.

An element is the most general term for the components of any system, including a language one. In linguistic works, the elements of a language system are more often called language units, or language units. (phoneme, morpheme, word, sentence), and elements are those components from which language units are formed (for example, the ideal elements of a language unit are semes- the smallest components of its meaning; the material elements of a linguistic unit are: for a morpheme - phonemes, or a scale, a sound complex, a sound shell, and for a word - morphemes (root, prefix, suffix, ending). Consequently, not all objects of the language can be called units of the language.

Values ​​can receive the status of a language unit if they possess the following properties: 1) express some meaning or participate in its expression or distinction; 2) are selectable as some objects; 3) reproducible in ready-made; 4) enter into regular relationships with each other, forming a certain subsystem; 5) enter the language system through their subsystem; 6) are in a hierarchical relationship to units of other subsystems of the language (such relationships can be characterized in terms of "consists of ..." or "included in ..."); 7) each more complex unit has a new quality compared to its constituent elements, since the units higher levels are not a simple sum of units of lower levels.

Distinguish denominative units of language(phonemes, morphemes), nominative (words, phrases, phraseological units) and communicative(sentences, superphrasal units, periods, texts).

Units of language are closely related to units of speech. The latter realize (objectify) the former (phonemes are realized by sounds, or backgrounds; morphemes - by morphs, allomorphs; words (lexemes) - by word forms (lexes, alloleks); block diagrams of sentences - by statements). Speech units are any units that are freely formed in the process of speech from language units. Their main features are: productivity - free education in the process of speech; combinatoriality— complex structure as a result of free combination of language units; the ability to enter into larger formations (words as part of phrases and sentences; simple sentences as part of complex; sentences form a text).

Units of language and speech are basically sign formations, since they reveal all signs of a sign: they have a material plane of expression; are carriers of some mental content (meaning); are in a conditional relationship with what they point to, i.e. designate the object of thought not by virtue of their "natural" properties, but as something socially prescribed.

From a number of sign units of a language, only the phoneme is usually excluded, since it is devoid of meaning. True, the scientists of the Prague linguistic school the phoneme was attributed to the number of linguistic signs, since it participates in the distinction of semantic content, signals about one or another significant unit language. The morpheme (root, prefix, suffix) also has a semi-sign character, since it does not independently convey information, and therefore is not an independent sign (and is recognized only as part of a word). The remaining units of the language are symbolic.

Elements, units of language and linguistic signs should be distinguished from parts and subsystems of a single language system.

As part of the system, any grouping of linguistic units can be considered, between which internal links are established that differ from the links between the groupings themselves. Within the system, subsystems are formed in this way (in vocabulary— lexico-semantic groups, semantic fields; in morphology - subsystems of conjugation of verbs or declension of names, etc.).

The language units that form the language system can be homogeneous and heterogeneous. Hierarchical relations are excluded between homogeneous units of the language; they are inherent only in heterogeneous units (phoneme > morpheme > lexeme (words) > phrase > sentence).Homogeneous units of language find the ability to enter into: a) linear structures, chains and combinations ( linear connections language units are called syntagmatic), and b) certain groups, classes and categories, thereby realizing their paradigmatic properties.

Syntagmatic connections- these are the relations of language units by adjacency, their juxtaposition (according to the scheme and... i) and compatibility according to the laws defined for a particular language. According to certain syntagmatic laws, morphemes, word forms, sentence members, parts complex sentence. Syntagmatic restrictions are due to the fact that each unit of the language occupies linear series well-defined position relative to other units. In this regard, the concept of the position of a linguistic unit was introduced. Units occupying the same position in the syntagmatic series form a paradigm (class, category, block, group).

Paradigmatic connections- these are relations by internal similarity, by association, or relations of choice (according to the scheme or or). All varieties of linguistic units have paradigmatic properties (there are paradigms of consonant and vowel phonemes, morphemes, words, etc.). The most striking example of this kind of relationship is lexical paradigms, synonyms, antonyms, lexico-semantic groups and fields; in morphology, the paradigms of declension and conjugation.

A set of homogeneous units of a language capable of entering into syntagmatic and paradigmatic relationships with each other, but excluding hierarchical relationships, is called a level or tier of language structure. Hierarchical relations are established between the levels of the linguistic structure, but paradigmatic and syntagmatic connections are excluded. As a rule, the language level corresponds linguistic discipline(section of linguistics), studying it (for example, the section "Lexicology"). Language levels divided into basic and intermediate. Each level corresponds to the basic unit of the language. The main levels include: phonological / phonetic (basic unit - phoneme), morphemic (morpheme), token/lexical (lexeme, or word), morphological (gramme- class of word forms) and syntactic (syntax, or syntax). Intermediate levels are usually considered: phonomorphemic, or morphonological (phonomorph, or morphoneme), derivatological, or derivational (derivateme), phraseological (phrase, or phraseological unit, phraseological unit).

Language is a means of expressing people's thoughts and desires. People also use language to express their feelings. The exchange of such information between people is called communication.

Language is “spontaneously arising in human society and developing system discrete (articulate) sound signs intended for the purposes of communication and capable of expressing the totality of a person's knowledge and ideas about the world.

Simply put, language is a special system of signs that serves as a means of communication between people.

Central to this definition is the combination "special system of signs", which needs a detailed explanation. What is a sign? We encounter the concept of a sign not only in language, but also in everyday life. For example, when we see smoke coming from the chimney of a house, we conclude that a stove is being heated in the house. When we hear the sound of a gunshot in the forest, we conclude that someone is hunting. Smoke is a visual sign, a sign of fire; the sound of a shot is an auditory sign, a sign of a shot. Even these two simplest examples show that a sign has a visible or audible form and some content behind this form (“they heat the stove”, “shoot”).

A linguistic sign is also two-sided: it has a form (or signifier) ​​and a content (or signified). For example, the word table has a written or sound form, consisting of four letters (sounds), and the meaning is “a type of furniture: a slab of wood or other material, fixed on legs”.

The linguistic sign is conventional: in this society people, this or that object has such and such a name (for example, table), and in other national groups it may be called differently ( der Tisch- in German, la table- in French a table- in English).

The words of the language really replace other objects in the process of communication. Similar “substitutes” for other objects are usually called signs, but what is indicated with the help of verbal signs is by no means always objects of reality. The words of a language can act as signs not only of objects of reality, but also of actions, signs, as well as various kinds of mental images that arise in the human mind.

Beyond words important component language are the ways of forming words and constructing sentences from these words. All language units do not exist in isolation and disorderly. They are interconnected and form a single whole - the language system.

A system is a combination of elements that are in relationships and connections that form integrity, unity. Therefore, each system has some features:

- consists of many elements;

- its elements are connected with each other;

- these elements form a unity, one whole.

Why is language defined as a special system of signs? There are several reasons for such a definition. First, language is many times more complex than any other sign system. Secondly, the signs of the language system themselves of varying complexity, some are simple, others are composed of a number of simple ones: for example, window- a simple sign, and the word formed from it windowsill– complex sign, containing the prefix under- and suffix -Nick, which are also simple signs. Thirdly, although the relationship between the signifier and the signified in a linguistic sign is unmotivated, conditional, in each specific case the connection between these two parties linguistic sign stable, fixed by tradition and speech practice and cannot change at will individual person: we can not table name home or window- each of these words serves as a designation of "its" subject.

And finally main reason The reason why language is called a special sign system is that language serves as a means of communication between people. We can express any content, any thought with the help of language, and this is its universality. No other sign systems capable of serving as means of communication possess such a property.

Thus, language is a special system of signs and ways of connecting them, which serves as a tool for expressing thoughts, feelings and wills of people and is the most important means of human communication.

Language Features

In linguistics, the word "function" is usually used in the sense of "work performed", "appointment", "role". The primary function of language is communicative, because its purpose is to serve as an instrument of communication, that is, primarily the exchange of thoughts. But language is not only a means of conveying a “ready thought”. It is also a means of the very formation of thought. As the outstanding Soviet psychologist L. S. Vygotsky (1896-1934) said, thought is not only expressed in the word, but is also accomplished in the word. The communicative function of the language is inextricably linked with its second central function - thought-forming. With this function in mind, the largest linguist-thinker of the first half of the 19th century. Wilhelm Humboldt (1767-1835) called language "the forming organ of thought".

As for the communicative function of language, in science its separate aspects are distinguished, in other words, a number of more particular functions: informational, propaganda and emotive.

Thus, when expressing a message, language appears primarily in informational functions.

In a sentence " Summer has come" contains a specific message: the speaker informs the listener (or reader) about the onset of summer. Here the information function of the language is realized. In a sentence " Come visit us in the summer!" also contains certain information - that the speaker invites the listener to come to him in the summer. However, unlike, say, the sentence " He invited us to come to him in the summer.", statement "Come visit us in the summer!" has the form of an inducement, an appeal, is itself an invitation. This statement implements another function of the language - propaganda.

In a sentence “Oh, how nice it is in your summer!” another function of the language is implemented - emotive. This is such a use of language that serves to directly express feelings, emotions (cf. with the sentence "He said that you have a good summer", where there is no such immediacy of expression of feeling).

Informational, propaganda and emotive are the main functions of the language. In addition to them, there are also metalinguistic a function that means the use of language for the purposes of explanation or for the identification of a subject (it is realized in statements like Gyurza is a type of venomous snake or Such a device is called a corkscrew.); phatic function - the use of languages ​​as a means of establishing contact between participants in communication (for example, in statements like Well how are you? What's new?, which are rarely understood in their literally, just this phatic function of the language is realized).

Various Functions language rarely appear in our speech in its pure form. Much more common is a combination of different functions (with a predominance of one or the other) within the same type of speech. For example, in scientific report or the informational function predominates in a newspaper article; but there may also be elements of agitational, metalinguistic functions. In various genres of oral informal speech, the emotive function can be combined with informational, agitational, phatic.

Language also acts as a means of cognition - it performs the function epistemological(cognitive, cognitive). This function of the language connects it with the mental activity of a person, in the units of the language the structure and dynamics of thought are materialized; derivatives of this function: axiological function (i.e. evaluation function); nominative function (i.e. naming function); closely related to this function is the generalization function, which allows us to express with the help of language the most complex concepts. Generalizing and highlighting the individual, unique, the word has the ability to "replace" objects and phenomena outside world. Cognizing reality, a person constructs it in different ways, which finds its expression in the language (for example, in the language of the Eskimos there are more than twenty names for ice, in which the most diverse features of the object are actualized). Also stands out predicative function (i.e., the function of correlating information with reality).

The definition of language as a system of systems, most fully developed by the Prague School of Functional Linguistics, is undoubtedly justified, but it should not be given the absolute character that we observe in this case. Separate “circles or tiers of the linguistic structure” appear in A. A. Reformatsky as systems that are closed in themselves, which, if they interact with each other (forming a system of systems or a system of language), then only as separate and integral unities. It turns out something like a coalition of allied nations, whose troops are united by the common task of military operations against a common enemy, but stand under the separate command of their national military leaders.

In the life of a language, the situation is, of course, different, and the individual “tiers or systems” of language interact with each other not only frontally, but to a large extent, so to speak, by their individual representatives “one on one”. So, for example, as a result of the fact that the series English words during the period of the Scandinavian conquest, it had Scandinavian parallels, there was a splitting of the sound form of some words common in origin. This is how doublet forms were created, separated natural processes in phonetic system Old English that ended before the Scandinavian conquest. These doublet forms also provided the basis for differentiating their meanings.

So, there was a difference skirt - "skirt" and shirt (<др.-англ. scirt) — «рубашка», а также такие дублетные пары, как egg — «яйцо» и edge (

Similarly, the German Rappe - "black horse" and Rabe - "raven" (both from the Middle High German form of garre), Knappe - "squire" and Knabe - "boy" and others bifurcated; Russian dust - gunpowder, harm - vered, having a genetically common basis. An even more striking example of the regular interaction of elements of different “tiers” is the phonetic process of reduction of finite elements, well known from the history of the Germanic languages ​​(which in turn is associated with the nature and position of the Germanic stress in the word), which caused extremely important changes in their grammatical system.

It is known that the stimulation of analytic tendencies in the English language and the deviation of this language from the synthetic structure is directly related to the fact that the reduced endings were unable to express the grammatical relations of words with the necessary clarity. Thus, a purely concrete and purely phonetic process brought to life not only new morphological, but also syntactic phenomena.

This kind of mutual influence of elements included in different "tiers" or "homogeneous systems" can be multidirectional and go both along an ascending (i.e., from phonemes to elements of morphology and vocabulary) line, and downward. So, according to J. Vahek, the different fate of paired voiced final consonants in Czech (as well as Slovak, Russian, etc.), on the one hand, and in English, on the other hand, is due to the needs of the higher planes of the respective languages. In the Slavic languages, due to neutralization, they were stunned, and in English the opposition p - b, v - f, etc. was preserved, although the opposition in sonority was replaced by opposition in tension.

In the Slavic languages ​​(Czech, etc.), the emergence of new homonymous pairs of words, due to the stunning of the final voiced consonants, did not introduce any significant difficulties in understanding, since in the sentence they received a clear grammatical characteristic and the sentence model in these languages ​​was not functionally overloaded. . And in English, precisely because of the functional overload of the sentence model, the destruction of the opposition of final consonants and the emergence of a large number of homonyms as a result of this would lead to significant difficulties in the communication process.

In all such cases, we are dealing with the establishment of links on an individual basis between elements of different "tiers" - phonetic and lexical.

Regular relations are established, therefore, not only between homogeneous members of the language system, but also between heterogeneous ones. This means that systemic connections of linguistic elements are formed not only within the same "tier" (for example, only between phonemes), but also separately between representatives of different "tiers" (for example, phonetic and lexical units). In other words, the regular connections of the elements of the language system can be multidirectional, which does not exclude, of course, special forms of systemic relations of the elements of the language within the same "tier".

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