The main directions of structuralism (Prague, Danish, American, London)

Direction in linguistics, which aims at the disclosure of linguistic research mainly internal relations and dependencies of the components of the language, its structure, understood, however, differently by different structuralist schools. The main directions of structuralism are as follows: 1) the Prague Linguistic School, 2) American Structuralism, 3) the Copenhagen School, 4) the London Linguistic School. Starting from the previous neo-grammar trend in linguistics (see neo-grammar), structuralism put forward some provisions common to its various directions. In contrast to the neo-grammarists, who argued that only the languages ​​of individual individuals really exist, structuralism recognizes the existence of language as whole system. Structuralism opposes the “atomism” of the neo-grammarists, who studied only separate, isolated linguistic units, with a holistic approach to language, considered as complex structure, in which the role of each element is determined by its place in relation to all other elements, depends on the whole. If the neo-grammarists considered only the historical study of language to be the only scientific one, without attaching importance to the description of its current state, then structuralism pays predominant attention to synchrony. Common to various directions structuralism is also the desire for precise and objective methods research, the exclusion of subjective moments from it. As well as common features There are notable differences in certain areas of structuralism.

Representatives of the Prague School, or School of Functional Linguistics (W. Mathesius, B. Gavranek, B. Trnka, I. Vakhek, Vl. Skalichka and others, natives of Russia N. S. Trubetskoy, S. O. Kartsevsky, R. O . Jacobson), proceed from the idea of ​​language as a functional system, evaluate the linguistic phenomenon from the point of view of the function that it performs, do not ignore its semantic aspect (in contrast, for example, to many American structuralists). Giving priority to the synchronic study of the language, they do not refuse from its diachronic study, they take into account the evolution linguistic phenomena, which also differ from many other representatives of structuralism. Finally, unlike the latter, the Prague School of Functional Linguistics takes into account the role of Extralinguistic factors, considers language in connection with common history people and their culture. Representatives of the Prague School made a great contribution to the development of general phonetics and phonology, and the development of grammar (theory actual articulation sentences, the doctrine of grammatical oppositions), functional stylistics, the theory of language norms, etc. American structuralism is represented by a number of currents, such as descriptive linguistics (L. Bloomfield, G. Gleason), the school of generative grammar and, in particular, transformational analysis (N. Chomsky, R. Liz), and others. Their common feature is the utilitarian orientation of linguistic research, their connection with a variety of applied problems. Much attention is paid to the development of a methodology for linguistic research, the determination of the boundaries of the application of individual methods and techniques, the determination of the degree of reliability of the results expected in each case, etc. See descriptive linguistics, generating grammar, directly constituents.

The Copenhagen school put forward a special direction in structuralism - glossematics. Danish structuralists (W. Brendal, L. Hjelmslev) consider language as a system of “pure relations”, in abstraction from material substance, and study only the dependencies that exist between the elements of the language and form its system. They strive to create a rigorous formal linguistic theory, which, however, turns out to be suitable only for certain aspects of language learning. see glossematics.

The London School of Linguistics plays a less prominent role in Structuralism. The founder and largest representative of the school is J.R. Furs, other linguists attributed to the London linguistic school, - W. Allen, R. Robins, V. Haas, F. Palmer; within the framework of this school, the activity of one of the leading European functionalists of the last third of the 20th century began. M.A.K. Halliday.

Representatives of this direction Special attention pay attention to the analysis of the linguistic and situational context, as well as social aspects language, recognizing as functionally significant only that which has a formal expression.

(Central for linguistics, according to the provisions London School, is the study of value. The meaning of one or another linguistic form can be revealed only on the basis of an analysis of its use. In this regard, the concept of the context of the situation is introduced, which includes, along with the subject of speech, the signs of participants speech act and the consequences of this act. The meaning of a particular form is determined through its context, or contextualization. The London Linguistic School paid great attention to the problem of singling out language units. In the field of phonology, its representatives criticized other areas of structuralism for treating all phonological phenomena exclusively in terms of the phoneme, pointing out that such an approach is not applicable to many languages, in particular, to the languages ​​of East and Southeast Asia.

Structuré Russian languagé stick- linguistic discipline, the subject of which is the language studied in terms of its formal structure and its organization as a whole, as well as in terms of the formal structure of its constituent components, both in terms of expression and in terms of content.

The founder of structural linguistics is considered to be Ferdinand de Saussure.

The subject of structural linguistics. The formal structure of any component of the language and the language as a whole is called its structure. Thus, it is the linguistic structures (in terms of content and in terms of expression) that form the subject of structural linguistics. AT structural linguistics language is considered as a sign system. The specificity of structural linguistics takes into account, first of all, the relationship between the components of a particular linguistic object and their formation. The systemic and structural nature of the language was noted by linguists of the early 20th century (Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure). The tasks of the structure are to reveal the essence of the phenomenon with its internal. Regularities. General provisions of str-zma in linguistics: 1) language is a certain str-ra of interrelated and interdependent elements, free from extralinguistic reality; 2) the language should be studied primarily in a synchronous plane, because only then are we dealing with str-roy; 3) the language should be studied on the basis of their system of its relations. As you can see, Saussure's concept became the basis of str-zma. It exists in a number of directions. Basic theoretical provisions structural linguistics 1) Language definition. 2) Theory language and speeches. The doctrine of linguistic sign. 3) Theory of value. 4) The systemic nature of the language. 5) Detection language systems. 6) Relationships of language units. 7) The method of analysis of language units. 8) The doctrine of diachrony and synchrony. 9) External and internal linguistics. Prague Linguistic Circle one of the main centersstructural linguistics . Founded in 1926 by a Czech linguistWillem Mathesius , broke up in 1953. PLC direction also includes definitionsPrague structuralism, Prague School of Functional Linguistics. Representatives:Willem Mathesius - founder of the PLC, Nikolai Trubetskoy ,Roman Jacobson ,Sergey Kartsevsky ,Frantisek Travnicek ,Bohuslav Gavranek ,Jozsef Wahek ,Vladimir Skalichka ,Bogumil Trnka General theoretical, linguistic, philosophical foundations of the Prague school of structuralism: Phonological views of the PLC, Sounds of speech and sounds of language, Three aspects of phonology, Functions of signs of language sounds in the explicative plan, The doctrine of semantic distinction, Rules for distinguishing phonemes from variants, Rules for distinguishing phonemes from phonemic combinations, The doctrine of the system of oppositions, The system of oppositions as a whole, Morphological doctrine PLC, Syntactic theory of language. Theory and methodology of the school: 1) Proposing the principles of a structural description of a language. 2) Defining a language as a system of means of expression, as a functional system with a target orientation. 3) Formulating the principles of a functional description of a language. 4) Researching poetic language with its special events in the field of phonology, morphology, syntax and vocabulary. 5) Distinguishing between phonology and phonetics, advancing the concept of phonological oppositions, defining a phoneme as a “bundle” of distinctive features, developing a typology of phonological oppositions. 6) A system of grammatical oppositions. 7) Using methods structural analysis in the study of morphology and syntax.8) Issues of the typology of languages ​​and the problem of language unions. Advantages of the Prague direction The Prague linguistic school came to a fairly correct understanding of the functioning of the language system. Praguers were the first to understand language as a system of relations, more precisely oppositions . At the same time, the task of the study is to reveal the complex and intricate connection of these oppositions. Copenhagen linguistic circle ( dates Lingvistkredsen i Kobenhavn,fr. Cercle linguistique de Copenhague) is an association of Danish linguists, including several foreign members. The circle was founded in 1931 by a group of Copenhagen linguists headed by L. Elmslev and W. Bröndal . The school arose in 1928. Initially, the representatives of the school called their direction phonemics .. Then, in order to show their independence from Prague Linguistic Circle , called the direction glossematics. Key FiguresLouis Hjelmslev - Founder of the school Hans Jörgen, UlldallViggo Bröndal ,Knud Togeby

Structural linguistics. General theoretical, linguistic, philosophical foundations of glossematics 1. Understanding language as a structure. The formation of glossematics as an extreme, strictly formalized in the spirit of the requirements of mathematics, logic, semiotics and the philosophy of neopositivism views on the language. 2. The empirical principle of the linguistic theory of glossematics. 3. The procedure of linguistic analysis. The implementation of the analysis from above, from the text and bringing it to the elements that are not divided further. 4. Quadruple division speech activity"scheme - norm - usage - act of speech". Separation in the language of the plane of expression and the plane of content with a further distinction between form and substance in them. 5. Language as a special case of semiotic systems. Theory and methodology of the school It relies on the following provisions of Saussure: 1. The difference between language and speech, 2. The structural organization of language, 3. Language is a form, not a substance, 4. Signifier and signified, 5. Special Role concepts of significance, 6. Synchrony and diachrony. Advantages of Danish structuralism: 1. The Copenhagen structuralists set out to build a simple and consistent theory applicable to any language, and succeeded in this. 2. Developed and deepened Saussure's theory. 3. Emphasized the importance of the deductive approach (before them, inductivism dominated). They showed that the most objective form is calculus.

Disadvantages of Danish structuralism: 1. Too general nature of the basic concepts, not taking into account the specifics of the language. 2. Theories were theories of semiotics rather than human language. 3. Theories are also valid for non-linguistic sign systems, therefore, these are general semiotic theories that do not allow describing natural languages.

Descriptive ́ gp - direction of American linguistics 1920 -1950 -s. The founder of descriptivism and its main theorist is considered L. Bloomfield . The central method of descriptive linguistics has become the study distribution (distribution) of language units; at the same time, the descriptivists strove not to refer to their meaning . Descriptivism was replaced in the 1960s as the "foundation of American linguistics" by transformational grammar (see also Chomsky, Avram Noam ).Key Figures : Franz Boas ,Leonard Bloomfield ,Zelik Harris ,Edward Sapir ,Benjamin Whorf ,Gleason, Henry Allan Jr. Theory and methodology of descriptivism: 1. Anthropological linguistics F. Boas. Inapplicability of traditional methods of linguistics to description Indian languages. 2. The typological concept of E. Sapir, the functions of language in E. Sapir, the ideas of the connection between language and culture. 3. The concept of L. Bloomfield, the justification of the asemantic approach in the behaviorist understanding of language as a kind of human behavior, determined by the formula "stimulus - reaction". 4. Distributive analysis as a system of diagnostic techniques for dividing an utterance into the minimum possible segments in a given language (backgrounds and morphs), limiting independent invariant units (phonemes and morphemes) from each other 5. The hypothesis of "linguistic relativity" B. L. Whorf

28. Main works, theoretical ideas and personality of L.V. Shcherby.

Lev Vladí Mirovich Sché rba(February 20th ( March, 3rd) 1880 , St. Petersburg - December 26 1944 , Moscow) - Russian and Soviet linguist, academician USSR Academy of Sciences who made a great contribution to the development psycholinguistics, lexicography and phonology. One of the creators of the theory phonemes. General Linguistics Specialist, Russian, Slavic and French languages.

Petersburg, but grew up in Kyiv where he graduated from high school with a gold medal. AT 1898 enrolled in the natural sciences Kyiv University. AT 1899 transferred to the Faculty of History and Philology Petersburg University. Student I. A. Baudouin de Courtenay. AT 1906 -1908 gg. lived in Europe, studied grammar, comparative historical linguistics and phonetics in Leipzig, paris, Prague, explored Tuscan and Lusatian(in particular, Muzhakovsky) dialects. In Paris, among other things, he worked in the laboratory of experimental phonetics J.-P. Russlo. He gave courses on introduction to linguistics, comparative grammar, phonetics, Russian and Old Church Slavonic, Latin,ancient Greek, taught French pronunciation, English, German languages.In 1909 created the laboratory of experimental phonetics at the St. Petersburg University, which now bears his name. He developed the concept of the phoneme, which he adopted from Baudouin, giving the term "phoneme" its modern meaning. Founder Leningrad (Petersburg) phonological school. Among his students - L. R. Zinder and M. I. Matusevich. Among his scientific interests, in addition to those already mentioned, were syntax, grammar, questions of interaction of languages, questions of teaching Russian and foreign languages, questions of the language norm, spelling and orthoepy. He emphasized the importance of distinguishing between the scientific and "naive" meanings of the word, created a scientific typology of dictionaries. He posed the problem of constructing an active grammar, going from meanings to the forms expressing them (as opposed to the traditional, passive grammar, going from forms to meanings). In the work “On the Triple Aspect of Linguistic Phenomena and on the Experiment in Linguistics”, he distinguished between linguistic material, language system and speech activity, thereby developing the idea F. de Saussure on the distinction between language and speech. In the field of phonology, Shcherba is known as one of the founders of the phoneme theory. He owns the first in the history of science special analysis of the concept of a phoneme as a word-distinctive and morphemic-distinctive unit, opposed to a hue (variant) as a unit that does not have such a distinctive function. Such an analysis was the subject of the introduction to Shcherba's master's thesis, published in 1912 under the title "Russian vowels in qualitative and quantitative terms." At that time, no one in the West had yet written about the phoneme, and Shcherba, although sometimes in a very concise form, considered all the most important problems of phonology, which are still of concern to researchers. Shcherba's teaching on the parts of speech received a wide response in our linguistics. He believed that it should constitute a special section of grammar, which he proposed to call "lexical categories". According to Shcherba, “not only such general categories as nouns, adjectives, verbs” should find a place in it, but also “categories such as impersonality. . . and the category of grammatical gender. 16 Such a peculiar approach to the doctrine of parts of speech is due to the fact that Shcherba saw in it not a classification of words, but their unification into very general categories, determined by various, but primarily semantic factors. L. V. Shcherba left almost no studies of a diachronic nature, but his statements on the relevant problems are of undoubted interest. He said that the language is "all the time in a state of only more or less stable, and very often and completely unstable balance", that "always and everywhere there are facts that gnaw at the norm." 17 Shcherba introduced concepts negative language material and linguistic experiment. When conducting an experiment, Shcherba believed, it is important not only to use supporting examples ( how can you speak), but also systematically consider negative material ( no matter how they say). In this regard, he wrote: “Negative results are especially instructive: they indicate either the incorrectness of the postulated rule, or the need for some of its restrictions, or the fact that the rule no longer exists, but there are only dictionary facts, etc. ."L. V. Shcherba - the author of the phrase " Glokaya kuzdra shteko boked bokra and curls bokrenka". At Leningrad University, he taught up to 1941. He spent the last years of his life in Moscow, where he died.

Testament of Shcherba V 1944 , preparing for a difficult operation, outlined his views on many scientific problems in the article "The Next Problems of Linguistics". The scientist did not endure the operation, so this work became a kind of testament to Lev Vladimirovich. In his latest work, Shcherba touched on issues such as:- bilingualism pure (two languages ​​are acquired independently) and mixed (the second language is acquired through the first and "attached" to it); - the ambiguity of traditional typological classifications and the uncertainty of the concept of " word "(" The concept of "word in general" does not exist, - writes Shcherba); - opposition of language and grammar; - the difference between active and passive grammar and others.

21. Linguistic theory of F. De Saussure. Saussure's concept was directed against neogrammarists, who did not have a clear understanding of the specifics and systemic nature of the language. After the death of the teacher Ch. Balli and A. Seche in 1916, they published the book "Course of General Linguistics" based on the notes of lectures by F. de Saussure. This book caused a wide resonance in world science. A sharp controversy unfolded between the followers of F. de Saussure and the opponents of his concept, which served to crystallize the principles of structural linguistics. He focuses on the philosophical and sociological systems of Auguste Comte and Emile Durkheim and brought up for a wide discussion the problems of building synchronous linguistics, the solution of which was already outlined in the works of W.D. Whitney, I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay, N.V. Krushevsky, A. Marty. In constructing his linguistic theory, he uses the methodological principle of reductionism, according to which only essential moments are singled out in the object under study, contrasting with insignificant, secondary moments. In this work, the authors reveal F. de Saussure's understanding of the language as a whole as a system consisting of three parts: the language itself (langue), speech (parole), and speech activity (langage). - The concept of speech activity is original, and it is not given a clear definition. It includes any phenomena traditionally considered by linguistics: acoustic, conceptual, individual, social, etc. At the same time, this is also a system of expressive possibilities of a given people, which is very diverse and comes into contact with physics, physiology, and psychology.

Saussure wrote: ""Language is only a part - however, the most important part - of speech activity. It is a social product, a set of necessary conventions adopted by the team to ensure the implementation and functioning of the ability for speech activity that exists in every native speaker. Language is a whole in itself. Language is a grammatical system and vocabulary, i.e. inventory language tools without mastering which verbal communication is impossible. Language as a grammatical and linguistic system potentially exists in the minds of individuals belonging to the same linguistic community. As a social product and as a means of understanding between people, language does not depend on the individual who speaks it. Language learning is a purely psychological process. Thus, for the first time, an approach is realized to the language as a phenomenon external to the researcher and studied from an outside position. Language is opposed to speech. This is all that is available in speech activity minus language. The reasons for this opposition are as follows: the language is social, it is the common property of all those who speak it, while speech is individual; speech is associated with physical parameters, the entire acoustic side of speech activity refers to speech; the language is independent of the ways of physical implementation: oral, written, sign speech reflects the same language. The development of language is found in speech, living speech is a form of existence and development of language.

The final thought of the "Course" states that the only and true object of linguistics is language considered in and for itself. He sharply separates internal linguistics (the language system) from external linguistics (external conditions for the development and functioning of the language). However, Saussure notes the connection between the history of language and the history of civilization and society. - Saussure distinguished two aspects in language, two axes - synchrony (simultaneous existence of language, static aspect, language in its system) and diachrony (succession of language factors in time, historical or dynamic aspect). The scientist considered these two concepts fundamental for all sciences using the concept of significance. Therefore, it is necessary to distinguish two independent linguistics - synchronic and diachronic.

Saussure in every way emphasized the systemic nature of the language and substantiated its symbolic nature. In his opinion, linguistic facts as elements mutually determine each other. System Relations characterize only synthetic linguistics, since "" there cannot be a system covering several periods at the same time "". Thus, language is a system of signs. Each sign has two sides: the signifier (the plane of expression) and the signified (the plane of content).

20. The system of views of W. von Humboldt. The linguistic views of W. Humboldt are closely connected with his historical and philosophical concept and reflect the provisions of classical German philosophy.

With all his analysis of language, Humboldt shows that "language shares the nature of everything organic, where one is manifested through the other, the general in the particular, and the whole has an all-pervading power." Giving various, often contradictory definitions of language, he tries to establish the dialectical nature of language, to identify those contradictions (antinomies) that express its essence.

Humboldt's recognition of the dialectical nature of linguistic processes was also greatly influenced by the philosophy of I. Fichte, who, within the framework of subjective idealism, develops a dialectical perception of the process of activity.

The main thing in Humboldt's linguistic concept is the doctrine of the identity of the "spirit of the people" and its language (the language of the people "is its spirit, and its spirit is its language - it is difficult to imagine anything more identical"). In this position, the influence of the ideas of F. Schelling and G. Hegel affects. Schelling's philosophy of nature and his transcendental idealism were based on the identity of spirit and nature.

G.: “Speaking in relation to the cognizable subjective, language in relation to a person is objective. The subjective character of all mankind becomes something objective for him. For the objective remains what, in fact, must be comprehended, and when a person approaches this through the subjective path of linguistic originality, he must make a new effort in order to separate the subjective and completely isolate the object from it.

It is possible to understand the essence of language only if we consider language in close connection with the formation of the "spirit of the people", since "language in its interdependent relationships is the creation of a national linguistic consciousness." The "spirit of the people" and its language are so interconnected that if one exists, the other can be deduced from it. This connection found its expression in Humboldt's famous formula: "Language is, as it were, an external manifestation of the spirit of the people; its language is its spirit, and its spirit is its language - it is difficult to imagine anything more identical."

Humboldt refers language to the number of those phenomena that reflect the character of the people. At the same time, the spiritual characteristics of peoples determine the national identity of languages. Humboldt's idealistic approach lies in the fact that he considers the national features of the language not as the result of the historical process of formation given language in close connection with general conditions existence and development of the people speaking this language, but as a manifestation of a certain spiritual principle, inaccessible to our understanding of the absolute idea.

Humboldt was one of the first in the history of world linguistics to substantiate the systemic nature of language. In his work "On the comparative study of languages ​​in relation to different epochs of their development", he defined the main task of linguistics as the study of each known language in its internal connections, in its relations, because the originality of the nature of the whole is always revealed through the relation of its components. Humboldt comes to the conclusion that "there is nothing singular in language, each individual element of it manifests itself only as part of the whole." Language in its most varied applications can be understood only when its relations are considered, for in the relations of the concepts that make up language, all its genius is manifested. Under the organism, Humboldt understands language as an integrity, as a system: “Language can be compared with a wide fabric in which each thread is more or less noticeably intertwined with all others. Using language in any respect, a person always touches only one part of this great tissue, but always acts as if at that very moment he had before his eyes everything with which this part is in inevitable connection and in inner harmony.

Humboldt also created a sign theory of language. In his work "On the Comparative Study of Languages..." he noted that language is both a reflection and a sign. The word is a sign of a separate concept, but it is impossible to imagine that the creation of a language began with the designation of objects of the external world by words. In order for a word to become a word, it must not only be clothed in a sound shell, but must represent a dual unity - the unity of sound and concept.

Humboldt attached extremely great importance the study of the form of the language, since it allows you to establish in what way the worldview of the people is expressed, and to distinguish one language from another.

Humboldt distinguishes between language and speech. Humboldt, considering living languages, comes to the conclusion that all people speak, as it were, one language and at the same time each person has his own language, and puts forward the thesis about the need to study living languages. colloquial speech and speech of an individual.

To define language as a form, Humboldt establishes the concept of matter (substance). Matter has a relative meaning in language: it can only be defined in relation to something. Language is based on substances that Humboldt calls "actual matter". On the one hand, this is sound in general, and on the other hand, it is a combination of sensory impressions and involuntary movements of the spirit, which in this case means thought. Matter, according to Humboldt, opposes form.

"Language is an organ that forms thought. Mental activity - completely spiritual, deeply internal and passing without a trace - through the sound in speech becomes external and accessible to feelings. The activity of thinking and language are therefore an inseparable unity. Thinking is always associated with the sound of language; otherwise thinking cannot can achieve clarity and representation cannot become a concept. The inseparable connection of thinking, the organs of speech and hearing with language is primordial and cannot be explained by the structure of human nature. " The connection between language and thinking is so unconditional that "language is an indispensable prerequisite for thinking even in conditions of complete isolation."

Humboldt was also inconsistent in addressing the question of the relationship between the social and the individual in language. He notes two opposing qualities in the language: 1) each language is capable, as it were, of being divided into an infinite number of languages ​​of individual representatives of the same people, and 2) the whole set of languages ​​is one whole. This property of the language is reflected in the functioning of the language in society: "... the language has an independent existence, and although it receives real life only in use between people, but at the same time, in its essence, it does not depend on individuals."

Having considered the structure of languages, Humboldt divides them depending on the form into "perfect" and "imperfect".

Humboldt divides all languages ​​of the world into four types (or forms): inflectional, isolating (amorphous), agglutinating and incorporating.

W. Humboldt tried to formulate the contradictory properties of the language in the form of antinomies, in the existence of which he saw the dialectics of the language.

Form Objective-spiritual

Aesthetic is the result of the spiritualization of the world by God or an absolute idea. Beautiful-

the light of God on specific things and phenomena (Thomas Aquinas) or the embodiment of an absolute idea (Plato, Hegel). It is easy to explain the beautiful, the sublime and other positive aesthetic properties with divine spiritualization, but it is difficult to explain the ugly, base, terrible

Form Subjective-spiritual

Aesthetic - the projection of the spiritual wealth of the individual on an aesthetically neutral reality. Reality is aesthetically neutral, the source of its beauty is in the soul of the individual; beauty is the result of directed perception of the object by the subject.

Form Subjective-objective

The aesthetic arises due to the unity of the properties of reality and the human spirit. This model is fully consistent with the model of the beautiful, according to which the beautiful is the result of correlating the properties of life with a person as a measure of beauty (Aristotle), or his practical needs (Socrates), or with our ideas about wonderful life(N. Chernyshevsky).

Form "Natural" or "Materialistic"

Aesthetic - a natural property of objects, the same as weight, color, symmetry, shape (D, Diderot and other French materialists)

Weak sides:

1. If the aesthetic is the same property of nature as its physical. and chem. properties, it is not clear why the natural sciences do not study it

2. A tool that can be used to measure the aesthetic properties of an object - taste - is fundamentally different from scales and other instruments that measure physical properties items.

3. "Natural" understanding of the aesthetic deprives the aesthetics of monism (Monism is the view that the diversity of objects ultimately comes down to a single principle or substance) it turns out to be impossible to explain the main categories of aesthetics (beautiful and sublime appear as natural properties, and tragic and comic as the result of social contradictions)

Form "Public" concept

Aesthetic - an objective property of phenomena, due to their correlation with the life of mankind. (Universally significant in phenomena). Aesthetic manifestation due to the activities of people, drawing everything in the world into the sphere of human interests, putting all certain relations to humanity.

#18 Semiotics and Structuralism

Structuralism- a broad and heterogeneous direction that developed between the two world wars of the XX century. Biggest Influence and became widespread in the 1960s. in France. By the end of the 60s. semiotics emerged from semantics. In the 70s. S. is transformed into post S., which has become the mainstream of postmodernism.

The main representatives of S. in aesthetics are K. Levi-Strauss, R. Barthes, M. Foucault, W. Eco, etc.

Origins and beginning - in the "Russian formal school» (R. Jacobson, V. Shklovsky and others)

S. was brought to life by progress scientific knowledge, the desire to raise the humanities to the level of modern natural science, to make them just as rigorous and precise with the help of formalization and mathematization.

S. covered almost all spheres of social and humanitarian knowledge, the most fertile for him turned out to be quite certain objects - language, myths, blood-related relations of "archaic" peoples, religion, folklore.

Classic work pre-war period, made in line with structural analysis, is the book of the Russian folklorist V. Propp "Morphology of a fairy tale" (1928). The study of myths brought K. Levi-Strauss world recognition and etc.

Main features of structuralism

In S. language is not only a subject of study. It plays a decisive methodological role, through which all other phenomena are considered.

S. has many points of contact with Marxism, phenomenology, and hermeneutics.

In S. an attempt was made to remove the opposition between the sensual and the rational, to reconcile the rigor and consistency of the scientist with the paradox and metaphysics of the artist.

Important feature S. consists in a radical revision of the entire range of problems of man, understood as the subject of knowledge of creativity and other activities.

Supporters of S. oppose the traditional concepts of “author” and “work” (depriving the author of “property rights” to the product of his activity, the work is given modern concept"text".) The real author of the work is not so much the artist, but the structures and laws universal in relation to him and his creation

Based on the structural-system approach, the representatives of S. develop a "relational" theory of meaning, calling it the "Copernican revolution" in solving the problem of meaning and meaning.

Basic principles of structuralism

First principle C.-principle of immanence, according to which, when studying an object, all attention is directed to its internal structure, abstracting from its evolution and external functions.

The second principle- approach to the object under study from the point of view of structure and system.

The purpose of immanent, internal research is to establish systemic connections and relationships in the object and build its structure, thanks to which it appears as a holistic, systemic entity.

In general, S. did not justify the hopes placed on him. The results of structuralist studies often turned out to be so general and abstract that they lost any specific addressee and could be attributed to any phenomenon of art. Most of the grandiose plans in S. remained unfulfilled. He failed to solve one of the main problems of aesthetics - the problem of approaching the work as an aesthetic and artistic value.

Semiotics- One of the directions of aesthetics of the second. floor. 20th century origins modern semiotics found in the writings of the American philosopher Ch. Pierce(semiot has a philosophical and logical character) and a Swiss linguist F. de Saussure (general science about signs, part of which is linguistics)

A significant contribution to the development of semiotics was made by R. Jacobson, R. Barth, W. Eco, Yu. Lotman, and others.

70s - 80s rapid upsurge, wide distribution, science. The predominant part of semiotic research is devoted to art and aesthetics.

Semiotics in Literature:

Can be distinguished two tendencies of literary semiotics.

First connected with R. Jacobson. The analysis of C. Baudelaire's sonnet "Cats" carried out by him together with K. Levi-Strauss became an example of the linguistic interpretation of a poetic work.

A. Greimas- distances semiotics from linguistics, goes beyond the grammar of the phrase, making the subject compound statement, and text.

Second trend comes from R. Bartha, who believed that semiotics is a part of linguistics, since language is a universal phenomenon and a person masters all objects through language.

Semiotics in painting:

The first attempts to apply semiotics to painting were made by W. Kandinsky and P. Klee.

V. Kandinsky put forward the concept that the entire diversity of the pictorial world can be reduced to three primary elements: a point, a line and a plan

P. Klee, having experienced a strong impression of Chinese poetry, he developed an original pictorial alphabet, drawing something like letters in small painted squares and grouping them into certain lines of writing.

J.-M. flosha, explores not only painting, but also photography, comics, a residential building, advertising, etc. Flosh believes that visible qualities play a primary role in painting - colors, saturation, structural construction, spatial position of the elements of the picture, etc.

Semiotics in cinema:

Ancestor - S. M. Eisenstein in the 1920s he worked on the creation of a film language. Widespread in France (K. Metz, M. Colin) and in Italy (W. Eco, P. Pasolini,). Available two trends in film semiotics:

-first- supporters do not see significant differences between the film and the language, bringing them as close as possible. (P. Pasolini.)

–second- tendencies recognize not only similarities, but also important differences between cinema and language. To her belongs K. Metz, founder and main figure modern semiotics of cinema.

Point of view: cinema is a language; cinema is infinitely different from language. The non-coincidence with language and, at the same time, involvement in it indicate that cinema is rather “speech without language”.

M. Colin in his concept more clearly holds the idea that cinema is a speech, not a language. In his opinion, the term "language" can be applied to cinema only conditionally, denoting "a set of techniques used in the film to build cinematic speech."

Semiotics in music:

Musical semiotics appeared later than others. One of the first P. Boulez(work on the study of the rhythm of "The Rite of Spring" by I. Stravinsky). famous representatives musical semiotics are K. Levi-Strauss, N. Ryuve, J.-J. Nattiez and others.

Levi-Strauss finds a deep affinity between music and language, believing that "music is language minus meaning." He applies his concept to the analysis of "Bolero" by M. Ravel.

N. Ruwe believes that not all categories and concepts of linguistics are applicable to music. The core of the concept is the paradigmatic principle of repetition, which he believes underlies the structure and syntax of all music.

JJ Nattiez.(modern. musical seme) three-dimensional concept, covering all the main components of music: the creation of a work, its performance and perception, and scientific analysis.

Nattiez introduces all participants into the research field musical process: composer, performer, listener and musicologist.

Lit .: Avtonomova N. S. Philosopher of the problem of structural analysis in the humanist. sciences. M., 1977;

Silichev D.A. Semiot. art concept. // Aesthete. research: methods and criteria. M., 1996;

№1 Subject and tasks of aesthetics

Aesthetics is a young part of philosophy. The subject appeared in the 18th century. associated with the name of A. Baumgarten (German)

Introduced the term "aesthetics" denoting philosophical science about sensory perception.

"Beauty" is the perfection of sensory perception. "Isk-in" - the highest perfection of sensory perception.

The slogan of the 18th century - "be brave and understand"

Aesthetics is a philosophical discipline: 1) philosophy, 2) logic, 3) ethics

Questions of beauty appeared long before the advent of aesthetics:

Homer- divine and material

Pythagoras- in list

Heraclitus-continuum (connectivity), balance of contradictions

Socrates -"beautiful is useful"

Democritus-"mimesis" - imitation of nature

Plato- Kalakagatiya (love=beauty). Four steps of beauty: 1) love for the body, 2) love for bodies, 3) love for knowledge, thoughts, 4) the principle of beauty

Aristotle- catharsis (purification) - air. so much so that a person is cleansed

The object of aesthetics is not only the beauty and art (elegant, graceful, sublime, heroic), but also not beauty(comic, ugly, base)

Delight. beauty: Bregel, Durer, Goya, Savitsky, Goncharovsky "House of Fools", Greenaway "Cook, Thief, His Wife and Her Lover"

Corgan said that the Estonian science of values ​​is about the significance that a person finds in the world, activity and art.

Krivtsun called est. express the theory. forms that evoke special reflexes. Three unities: form, behavior, thought.

* (Supplement see plan)

№19 Aesthetic concepts in Russian. aesthetics of the 19th-20th centuries

The aesthetic thought of Dr. Rus was not formalized into abstract theoretical systems. Interest in the problems of aesthetics was of an unexpressed direct nature and did not belong entirely to the worldview sphere.

Two central problems in Russian. esthete thought of the early 19th century:

Relationship of claims to reality

The relation of the claim to public life

The main result of the development of aesthetics in Ros. at the end of the 18th - first half of the 19th centuries it was:

the formation of aesthetic knowledge as a science;

questions were considered general theory fine arts,

The science of taste

the science of sensory cognition,

the science of beauty in nature and art

the science of beauty, etc.

Rus. esthete of the early 19th century as part of domestic self-knowledge within the framework of Russian. literary romanticism.

By the 40s of the 19th century, the creative practice and theoretical views of realism had developed (A.S. Pushkin)

Two lines of Russian thinkers:

1. Revolutionary Democrats(critical realism) ( A. Herzen, N. Dobrolyubov, V. Belinsky, N. Chernyshevsky)

Main principles: nationality, ideology, realism

Positive aspect: they helped to broaden the horizons of the aristocrat. educated people;

The truth will help raise people from their knees after the revolution, the war.

2. Thinkers and artists about the essence and purpose of the claim ( F, Dostoevsky, V. Solovyov,)

They were opposed to trinity. Lit. law is beauty

L.N. Tolstoy treatise "What is art?" Two main trends in the development of art.: democratization and isolation. According to Tolstoy, the criterion claim. is the "religious consciousness of its time" Not a claim. Rich with his joys of life, and examples of "true Christian lawsuit." Aesthetics for Tolstoy is an expression of ethics.

*(Other personalities are in plan)

At the end of the 19th century declared itself a new national philosophical and aesthetic thinking, in which Russian philosophical nat. Traditions were associated with forms of theological, theological thinking. Russian theological style formed

Structuralism is a methodology of social and humanitarian knowledge associated with the discovery and description of structures in various areas of culture, social life. The term "structure" in a structuralist context is defined as a real existing form thinking, a scheme of the movement of thought, rooted in the subconscious layers of the human psyche. Such structures are qualified as the generative basis of social, cultural, anthropological phenomena and processes. Accordingly, the methodological standard of structuralism is based on the principle of structuralist reductionism - the reduction of sociocultural and anthropological reality to structural reality. The heuristic possibilities of structuralism are highly valued by its adherents - it is qualified as a way of explaining incomprehensible phenomena of culture. Structuralism is not limited to the discovery of mental structures that underlie various kinds of anthropological, social, cultural phenomena, within its framework, an original concept of society and culture was formulated.

Let us consider the basic principles and research procedures of the structuralist approach.

The initial theoretical and methodological position of structuralism is the idea that a person has universal invariant, unconscious mental structures that organize and streamline the life of a person and society and act as the main mechanisms of a person's reaction to a complex of influences of the natural and cultural environment. physical world, in the structuralist picture of the world, there is raw material that is processed by the universal psychophysical mechanisms of man into artifacts. The unconscious, acting as a complex of mental structures, is considered by structuralists as the basis of the order that people set in things and situations, as domestic law. Unconscious mental structures act as mechanisms that regulate human activities.

The most important postulate of structuralism - unconscious structures are objectified into symbolic forms. A symbol is an object, a stereotype of behavior, a word that indicates some area of ​​reality that is significant for a person - natural or created by people. The processes of character generation are referred to as encoding. Each area of ​​socio-cultural life has its own symbolization. The ability to form symbols is an inalienable quality of a person, and the rules for the formation of symbolic objects are universal for a person. Man is a marker, he marks the same phenomena with the same signs. Thus, culture is a set of sign-symbolic systems. It is formed as a result of filling empty unconscious structures, which are cultural a priori, with sign-symbolic content. cultural creativity considered as symbolism, and culture itself as a set of texts. Language, mythology, religion, art, traditions are qualified as sign-symbolic systems, as texts built on the basis of universal structural laws. The first place in the system of epistemological landmarks of structuralism is occupied by language as a sign-symbolic system. Structuralism directs efforts, first of all, to comprehend organized objects through the study of their structures. conceptual apparatus- language. Language serves not only as a model, but also as the basis of meaning. One of the fundamental ideas of structuralism is that the word establishes reality. Accordingly, the most important structuralist principle is the principle of linguistic reductionism.

Key Principle of Structuralism - the principle of highlighting universal ways of internal organization of culture, society, man. From the standpoint of structuralism, structures are considered as forms of thinking that are the same for all types of culture and society. Starting from this idea, structuralists put forward the thesis: cultures cannot be classified from the standpoint of a single scale of development, since they are variations due to the imposition of various configurations of “empty structures” on heterogeneous “natural material”. Cultural dynamics is qualified by structuralists as a consequence of a person's constant verification of ideas about the world around him and changes as a result of this verification of the principles of combinatorics within subconscious structures, but not the structures themselves.

Structuralism is distinguished by the desire to make social and humanitarian knowledge rigorously scientific. Structuralists abandon irrational approaches to the study of the unconscious mental activity. The latter, in their view, has a structural order. Accordingly, the efforts of the researcher should be directed to the study of the general schemes and laws of activity human intelligence. The structuralist study of culture presupposes a strict scientific basis, the use of exact methods of natural sciences, mathematical modeling, formalization, computerization. The main ideologist of structuralism, K. Levi-Strauss, argued that: “There are no exact and natural sciences, on the one hand, social and humanitarian sciences, on the other. There are two approaches, of which only one has scientific character- the approach of the exact and natural sciences that study a person as part of the world. Another approach ( social sciences) is significant insofar as it only uses techniques exact sciences, but the relations that bind them are external, not internal. Compared with the exact natural sciences, the social sciences are in the position of clients, while the humanities are trying to become students. But as soon as the students grow up, it becomes clear that "they can become sciences only if they cease to be humanitarian" (1).

Within the framework of structuralism, a special direction of research thought was formed, in line with which not a person, but impersonal structures were in the center of attention. Structuralism is thus dehumanization of science. Man was seen as a point of intersection of the structures that guide his activity. The goal of structuralist research is to discover behind the conscious images through which a person understands historical formation an inventory of unconscious, always limited in the number of possibilities structures. Levi-Strauss believed that the ultimate goal of the humanities is not to create man, but to dissolve him.

The Purpose of Structuralist Methodology- identification and scientific knowledge of unconscious mental structures through a comparative structural analysis of sign systems, understood as cultural texts. This goal is realized by solving the following problems: disclosure of combinatorial mechanisms that transform external influences - environmental stimuli - into internal individual representations - concepts; explication of the mechanisms that regulate the transformation of concepts into signs and symbols with which a person responds to the impact of the environment; selection of necessary concepts; their correlation with the communicative situation; selection and use of symbolic means to form a symbol. Structuralism orients the researcher towards the search for general principles of cultural ordering of human experience, understood as the construction of sign and symbolic systems; revealing the logic of generation, structure and functioning of complex objects of human spiritual culture. It is closely related to semiotics - the science of signs and semantics - the science of meanings.

Basic Procedures of Structuralist Methodology:

a) Analysis of various cultural texts, aimed at revealing the structural unity of texts behind the sign and semantic diversity, generated by the rules for the formation of symbolic objects that are universal for a person.

b) Singling out from the entire corpus of cultural texts and sign systems those in which one can see certain similarities, suggesting the presence of an internal structure.

c) Identification of the minimum elements of the structure - a pair of oppositional concepts related stable relationship. Concept - meaning, representation.

G) Comparative analysis selected elements - segments or oppositions, aimed at the explication of stable transformation rules within and between oppositions, in order to further model the application of these rules on all options oppositions of this complex of texts.

e) Verification of the combinatorial mechanisms obtained by such an analysis on more a wide range sign systems and cultural texts in order to eventually form a structured set of rules that are invariant for any sign system (text), and, therefore, as close as possible to the desired deep mental structures.

Structuralism advances the thesis : history is the result of the objectification of unconscious structures. The structuralist understanding of history is based on the idea that history has no meaning because it is ruled not by people, but by unconscious structures.

Structuralism. A direction in linguistics that aims at linguistic research to reveal mainly the internal relationships and dependencies of the components of the language, its structure, understood, however, differently by different structuralist schools. The main directions of structuralism are as follows: 1) the Prague Linguistic School, 2) American Structuralism, 3) the Copenhagen School, 4) the London Linguistic School. Starting from the previous neo-grammar trend in linguistics (see neo-grammar), structuralism put forward some provisions common to its various directions. In contrast to the neogrammarists, who argued that only the languages ​​of individual individuals really exist, structuralism recognizes the existence of language as an integral system. Structuralism opposes to the “atomism” of the neogrammarists, who studied only separate, isolated linguistic units, a holistic approach to language, considered as a complex structure in which the role of each element is determined by its place in relation to all other elements, depends on the whole. If the neo-grammarists considered only the historical study of language to be the only scientific one, without attaching importance to the description of its current state, then structuralism pays predominant attention to synchrony. Common to various areas of structuralism is also the desire for accurate and objective methods of research, the exclusion of subjective moments from it. Along with common features, certain areas of structuralism have noticeable differences.

Representatives of the Prague School, or School of Functional Linguistics (W. Mathesius, B. Gavranek, B. Trnka, I. Vakhek, Vl. Skalichka and others, natives of Russia N. S. Trubetskoy, S. O. Kartsevsky, R. O . Jacobson), proceed from the idea of ​​language as a functional system, evaluate the linguistic phenomenon in terms of the function that it performs, do not ignore its semantic aspect (in contrast, for example, to many American structuralists). Giving priority to the synchronic study of language, they do not refuse its diachronic study, they take into account the evolution of linguistic phenomena, which also differs from many other representatives of structuralism. Finally, unlike the latter, the Prague School of Functional Linguistics takes into account the role of Extralinguistic factors, considers language in connection with the general history of the people and its culture. Representatives of the Prague School made a great contribution to the development of general phonetics and phonology, and the development of grammar (the theory of actual sentence division, the study of grammatical oppositions), functional stylistics, the theory of language norms, etc. American structuralism is represented by a number of currents, such as descriptive linguistics (L. Bloomfield, G. Gleason), the school of generative grammar and, in particular, transformational analysis (N. Chomsky, R. Leese), etc. Their common feature is the utilitarian orientation of linguistic research, their connection with a variety of applied tasks. Much attention is paid to the development of a methodology for linguistic research, the determination of the boundaries of the application of individual methods and techniques, the determination of the degree of reliability of the results expected in each case, etc. See descriptive linguistics, generating grammar, directly constituents.

The Copenhagen school put forward a special direction in structuralism - glossematics. Danish structuralists (W. Brendal, L. Hjelmslev) consider language as a system of “pure relations”, in abstraction from material substance, and study only the dependencies that exist between the elements of the language and form its system. They strive to create a rigorous formal linguistic theory, which, however, turns out to be suitable only for certain aspects of language learning. See glossematics.

The London School of Linguistics plays a less prominent role in Structuralism. Representatives of this trend pay special attention to the analysis of the linguistic and situational context, as well as the social aspects of the language, recognizing only that which has a formal expression as functionally significant.

Moscow Linguistic School, one of the main directions in Russian pre-revolutionary linguistics, created in the 80-90s. 19th century F. F. Fortunatov. Moscow Linguistic School - new stage in the development of the theory of grammar and comparative historical Indo-European linguistics, the so-called formal direction in the study of the structure of the language. It distinguished between the real meanings that refer to the signified and the formal meanings that refer to the language itself. A new understanding of the form of a word was put forward as its ability to break down into basic and formal accessories. A strict formal method comparative historical analysis, a number of major discoveries have been made in the field of comparative morphology Indo-European languages developed comparative semasiology. Fortunatov formulated the idea of ​​external and internal history language, the unity of the history of language and the history of society, which determines the tasks and methodology of the science of language, since the comparative historical method follows from the objective fact of the forms of existence of the language itself. G. K. Ulyanov, M. M. Pokrovsky, V. K. Porzhezinsky, A. I. Thomson, Ya. M. Endzelin, D. N. Ushakov, and others belong to the Moscow Linguistic School.

Copenhagen Linguistic Circle. The founder of the school is the Danish linguist Louis Hjelmslev (1899-1965). The school arose in 1928. Initially, the representatives of the school called their direction phonemics. In 1935, at the II International Phonetic Congress, they made presentations on phonology. Then, in order to show their independence from the Prague Linguistic Circle, they called the direction glossematics (Greek γλωσσα - language).

PRAGUE LINGUISTIC CIRCLE(often abbreviated as PLC), one of the leading centers of linguistic structuralism. The PLC began to take shape in Czechoslovakia from the mid-1920s, its organizational formalization took place in 1929. The authoritative Czech linguist V. Mathesius played a leading role in the formation of the PLC; in initial period The existence of the circle for its formation was done by an emigrant from Russia S.O. Kartsevsky (1884–1955), who later moved to Geneva. The PLC included Czech scientists, mostly students of W. Mathesius: B. Trnka (1895–1984), B. Havranek (1893–1978), J. Korzhinek (1899–1945), J. Mukarzhovsky (1891–1975) and others ., as well as R. Yakobson, who came from Russia. In the 1930s, scientists of a younger generation joined the PLC: V. Skalichka (1909–1991), J. Vahek (b. 1909) and others. From the very beginning of the existence of the PLC, N. Trubetskoy, who lived in Vienna, played an outstanding role in it . Some Russian linguists were close to the PLC in their views, especially G.O. Vinokur; E.D. Polivanov and others were published in his editions. The ideas of the PLC influenced the Moscow Phonological School and other areas of Russian linguistics.

The main theoretical propositions of the Praguers were first formulated in the collective "Theses of the Prague Linguistic Circle", prepared in 1929 for the First International Congress of Slavists. From 1929, the Proceedings of the Prague Linguistic Circle (Travaux du Cercle linguistique de Prague) were published, until 1939 9 issues were published. After German occupation Czech Republic in 1939 the activities of the PLC ceased. After the end of World War II, the members of the circle (Trnka, Gavranek, Skalichka, Vahek, etc.) who remained in Czechoslovakia revived the activities of the PLC and continued to develop its ideas together with younger linguists - F. Danesh (b. 1919), J. Firbas (b. . 1921), P. Sgall (b. 1926) and others. PLC traditions continue to be preserved in the Czech Republic and Slovakia to the present day.

The views of the members of the PLC were formed under the influence of the ideas of F. de Saussure, I. A. Baudouin de Courtenay and the Moscow formal (Fortunatov) school. All its members accepted the distinction between language and speech (sometimes, like N. Trubetskoy, in its more complex modification proposed by K. Buhler, also very close to PLC), but, like many other schools of structuralism, did not consider it necessary to limit linguistic studies to an exclusively formal structure. language, actively dealing with the issues of its functioning, including the public one. Some members of the PLC (J. Korzynek) understood language as the same speech, but considered at a more abstract level.

Having accepted the distinction between synchrony and diachrony introduced by F. de Saussure and turning to synchronous studies modern languages, PLC linguists (as well as Russian linguists close to them) did not accept Saussure's theses about the absolute opposite of synchrony and diachrony and about the non-systematic nature of the latter. According to the PLC concept, each state of a language is related to its previous and subsequent states and must be studied from a historical perspective. Studying the history of languages, Praguers, especially R. Jacobson, sought to consider language changes in the system, to identify how a change in one fragment of the system led to its restructuring as a whole.

PLC linguists singled out the concepts of structure and function as key to their concept. The first united them with other areas of structuralism, the second - opposed these areas, and therefore the totality of the views of the Praguers is often defined as "Prague functionalism" (cm. FUNCTIONALISM IN LINGUISTICS). The function was understood in the PLC not in the mathematical sense, as was the case in glossematics, but as the purpose for which language units are used, which anticipated the basic provisions of the future linguistic pragmatics. Thus, the language was seen not as an "algebra" studied without any connection with reality, but as a system connected with reality and used to achieve certain goals. Among the functions of language, in the first place, the function of people's communication stood out, divided into intellectual and affective; along with it, a poetic function stood out, directed not at the outside world, but at the sign itself. In connection with such an understanding of the role of verbal art in the PLC, structural poetics developed, primarily by R. Jacobson, who later, already in the American period of his work, formulated the classical theory language functions derived from the model of a communicative act.

functional approach PLC is fully manifested in phonology, which has become one of the main areas of research. Many members of the circle were engaged in phonology, but this concept found the most complete expression in the book by N. Trubetskoy Fundamentals of phonology (Grundzuge der Phonologie), published posthumously in 1939 (Russian translation 1960). Praguers rejected as psychological approach to phonology, characteristic of I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay and E.D. Polivanov, and the abstract understanding of phonology as the study of pure relations in abstraction from the sound character and proper properties of phonological units, characteristic of glossematics. For PLC, phonemes are sound units that have a set of features (deafness/voicing, hardness/softness, etc.). These features serve primarily the purposes of semantic differentiation: for example, in Russian the words house and volume have different meaning, differing in phonemes d and t, in which the signs of sonority and deafness, respectively, serve the purposes of semantic distinction. Trubetskoy, in addition to the function of semantic distinction performed by phonological units, also singled out two less significant ones: the function of indicating the boundaries of words and the function of highlighting the top of a word. The main place in the phonological analysis of the PLC is occupied by the analysis of oppositions that serve the purposes of semantic distinction (the opposition t/d in the above example is just such an opposition). The system of oppositions is phonological system language.

Trubetskoy proposed a detailed classification of oppositions. It turned out to be especially important to single out oppositions that are preserved in some positions and disappear in others (the so-called positions of neutralization); for example, in Russian, voiced/deafness oppositions are neutralized at the end of a word. In this case, it happens that one of the members of the opposition (called unmarked) in the position of neutralization replaces the opposition member opposed to it (marked); Thus, in Russian, voiced phonemes are marked, but deaf ones are not. The concepts of opposition, neutralization, marked and unmarked member of oppositions, etc., in their meaning go beyond the limits of phonology and are widely used in different areas linguistics. PLC phonology was further developed in the concept of differential (sense-distinctive) features of phonemes that are universal for the languages ​​of the world, developed by R. Jacobson already in the 1950s, after he moved to the USA.

In the field of grammar, the members of the PLC also sought to develop the concept of meaningful oppositions and differential signs, which, unlike phonological ones, are directly related to meaning; this is exactly how R. Jacobson tried to describe the system of Russian cases. In the field of syntax, the concept of the actual division of a sentence, developed by W. Mathesius, was of great importance. Trubetskoy formulated the tasks of morphonology as a special discipline.

Some PLC linguists, especially V. Skalichka, were engaged in typology. The task of structural comparison of languages ​​was set. Skalichka abandoned the rigid division of languages ​​into types, which was characteristic of linguistics in the 19th century. (cm. TYPOLOGY LINGUISTIC), and proposed to consider inflection, agglutination, etc. not as properties of specific languages, but as a certain standard, to which in different ways and in varying degrees some languages ​​are approaching. Trubetskoy and Yakobson also raised the question of complementing genetic and typological classifications areal languages; they put forward the idea of ​​linguistic unions - associations of languages ​​​​of peoples who closely communicated with each other and to one degree or another culturally related to each other; as a result of such interaction, languages ​​can acquire common structural similarities. This idea, like some others, was associated with Trubetskoy with the general historiosophical concept of Eurasianism.

PLC linguists were actively involved in the problems of the social functioning of the language and the language norm, becoming the founders of sociolinguistics. The concept developed in the PLC was closely related to these problems. functional styles language.

comparative historical method. Linguistic method (system scientific methods) restoring unrecorded past linguistic facts through them. comparisons with the corresponding later facts known from written monuments or living use in the compared languages. The use of the comparative historical method contributes to the study of the question of the patterns of language development in a distant era, the identification of the original words of the language and borrowings, as well as the ways of penetration of the latter, allows you to establish the genetic identity of language units, mainly in the field of phonetics and morphology, provides material for solving individual problems engaged in the comparative historical study of languages ​​(the origin related languages, their relationship during historical development, commonalities and differences in this development, etc.).