The comparative method was first described by W. von Humboldt along with the emergence of a new discipline in comparative studies - linguistic typology. The comparative method is also called comparative-comparative, or typological. Initially, it was intended to study the grammatical structure of unrelated languages. It was developed by Friedrich and August Schlegel, Wilhelm von Humboldt, August Schleicher, Charles Balli, Evgeny Dmitrievich Polivanov. The comparative method is a system of methods for studying both related and heterostructured languages ​​in order to identify common and distinctive properties and features in them.

As a result of the discovery of common features in the compared languages, the so-called language unions were discovered. By definition, N.S. Trubetskoy, who first proposed this concept to science, a language union is a group of languages ​​that show significant similarities in syntax, morphology, sometimes external similarities in phonetics and have a common fund of cultural words, but are not connected (as in a language family) with a system of sound correspondences and primordial elementary vocabulary, for example, Balkan, Volga (Volga-Kama), Central Asian (Himalayan).

So, for the languages ​​included in the Balkan language union, the presence of a postpositive article, the coincidence of the dative and genitive cases, the formation of the future tense with the help of the auxiliary verb “to want”, the loss of the syntactic form of infinitives are common. This is despite the fact that each language individually has special properties and features inherent only to it.

The main research methods of the comparative method are:

a) Establishing the basis of comparison is the definition of the object of comparison. There are two ways to solve this problem: 1) by linguistic comparison and 2) by feature comparison. One of the studied languages ​​is chosen (usually the motive for the choice is either the research task or the level of knowledge of languages, such as Latin for many European languages ​​or English for many Indian languages ​​of Latin America). If the establishment of the basis of comparison follows the second path, then, as a rule, the search focuses on one of the aspects of the two-sided essence of a linguistic unit - on its plane of expression and plane of content. In terms of expression, any formal phenomenon can serve as such a basis: a morpheme, form formation, syntactic or word-formation model. In terms of content - facts and phenomena of the ideal side of linguistic units. In the course of language comparison, a general panorama of common and distinctive properties of the studied languages ​​is created. Significant comparison allows you to more deeply present the originality of the compared phenomena. However, the most effective is an integrated approach, when the feature comparison complements the linguistic one, being its logical continuation.

b) Comparative interpretation relies on the methodology of parallel study, when facts and phenomena (the subject of comparison) are first studied in each individual language, and then the results of such descriptive study are compared. Parallel research mainly reveals common and distinctive properties and features of the studied languages, while their content difference is concretized with the help of meaningful (structural and stylistic) interpretation. This kind of interpretation is especially important in the typological study of closely related languages, where comparison according to the linguistic criterion focuses mainly on their similarity. Meanwhile, with all the genetic proximity of related languages, typological differences between them can be quite significant. So, with all the outward similarity of the vowel systems in the Slavic languages, there are differences between them that are invisible at first glance, requiring meaningful interpretation. An example of this is the qualitative originality of fluent vowels.

The main line of differences between the Slavic languages ​​(a qualitative characteristic of fluent vowels) runs along the variants of one of these vowels, reflected in the East Slavic languages ​​as [o] (Russian, Ukrainian, blr. sleep - sleep, sleep, skating rink - skating rink), in West Slavic as [e] (n., h., cl. sensnu) and as [o] (own. sun-snu, nl. son- sni, sl. bocka), in Slovak also [a] (dаzd", mach ), Bulgarian - like [b] (sn - sunnischa, the vowel does not drop out; zl - angry), in Macedonian - like [o] (sleep - dream), in Serbian - like [ä] (with ä n - sn ä) and in Slovene - as long [ā] or short [ĕ] (māh "moss", sĕn - sna).

The variety of variants of this fluent vowel in individual Slavic languages ​​[e, o, a, b] is due to two reasons. Firstly, its origin from the Proto-Slavic reduced vowel [ъ], which was distinguished by a very indefinite qualitative character, in which it could be equally close to any open short vowel. And, secondly, the duration of the process of vocalization of strong reduced ones, which began at the end of the Proto-Slavic period, and ended already in the conditions of the independent existence of individual Slavic languages. Another fluent vowel in almost all Slavic languages, with the exception of Serbian and partly Slovenian, has the same qualitative character [e] (Russian day - day, end - end, Ukrainian day - day, end - end, blr. zen - day, kanets - kanza, n. dzien - dnia, Koniec - kossa, h. den - dne, konec - konce, slts den - dnia, koniec - konca, ow. dzies - dnja, nl zen - dna, Bulgarian, m den - days, end - ends). This is explained by the origin of this fluent vowel from the Proto-Slavic reduced [b], which was, apparently, the closest to the short closed [e]. In Serbian, this fluent vowel, like the first one, has a sound character [a] (dan, konats), in Slovenian - partly [a], partly [e] (dan, kones). The differences are explained by the fact that in the Serbian and Slovenian languages ​​the reduced [ь], to which the second fluent vowel ascends, coincided in the process of vocalization with the reduced [ъ], together with which it gave the same general reflexes.

Boris Andreevich Uspensky (b.1937)

c) Typological study of languages usually carried out according to one of two models - questionnaire or reference. The questionnaire model is based on a list of features inherent in a particular language. According to the characteristics indicated in the list, a comparison of languages ​​is carried out. The questionnaire model is designed for inductive analysis. The reference model was developed by Boris Andreevich Uspensky. In this case, the standard is the language in which there is a studied linguistic phenomenon.

So, for describing the system of a foreign language, the native language serves as a standard. A classic example of this can be considered Latin grammars, created according to the Greek model. In addition to the native one, a specially created metalanguage can serve as a standard, which is understood as a system of rules for constructing a typological description of languages. A reference language is usually created for the typological study of a certain level of the language system: phonological, word-formation, lexical, syntactic. The reference language can already be focused: on a specific area (subsystem) of the corresponding level (for the study of parts of speech, sentence members, terminology, intonation).

The considered techniques of the comparative method and models of typological research are purposefully used to determine the common structural features that are common to all or most languages. Such interlingual communities are called linguistic universals. These are signs, properties, laws, tendencies that are inherent in all languages ​​or the language as a whole. The doctrine of linguistic universals was developed by Charles Francis Hockett.

There are different types of linguistic universals in terms of their logical nature and in terms of their logical structure.

Absolute (complete) linguistic universals- statements that characterize the language in general (feature, property, everything that is inherent in all languages), such as “all languages ​​have onyms and appellatives”, “nominative function is characteristic of all languages”, etc. Such universals carry little information because they are commonly known.

Statistical (incomplete) linguistic universals characteristic of large groups, types, unions of languages. They allow individual "exceptions to the general rules", which, however, do not destroy the universal laws, that is, they are entirely structured on a high statistical probability.

Statistical (incomplete) linguistic universals are divided into simple and complex. The former only indicate the presence/absence of the phenomenon under study in the language, while the latter also reveal the dependence existing between languages ​​in this regard. A simple statistical universal can include, for example, the statement: the presence of a system of inflection in a language necessarily implies a system of word formation in it. A complex statistical universal is usually called an inverse relationship between a small number of phonemes in a particular language and the frequency of occurrence of each of them in the composition of morphemes.

Absolute universals are derived deductively (in the form of hypotheses), and statistical universals are derived inductively (empirically, as a result of practical experience, observations). Hypothetical statements must be verified (confirmed or refuted) by empirical information. Statistical universals as a result of the accumulation of knowledge about the language can become absolute, that is, the material accumulated empirically can become the basis for new generalizations.

In relation to the object of comparative analysis, there are linguistic universals of language and linguistic universals of speech(text). Thus, the statement that a phoneme is a bundle of semantic features can be considered a language universal, and the establishment of restrictions on the number of combinations of phonemes in a text can be considered a speech universal. But for all the differences, the universals of language and the universals of speech are linguistic. Along with them, sometimes extralinguistic (extralinguistic) universals are also distinguished - the subject of study of semiotic typology. Extralinguistic universals show the place and specifics of the language as a linguo-semiotic system in comparison with other sign systems (artificial languages, "languages" of animals, Morse code, flag signaling among sailors, etc.).

And, finally, depending on the level affiliation, the units of comparison are distinguished phonological, grammatical, lexical, semantic universals. Outside the level relatedness there is a special type - symbolic universals.

Most notable contribution to research phonological universals made by Nikolai Sergeevich Trubetskoy ("Fundamentals of Phonology", M., 1960), Boris Andreevich Uspensky ("Structural Typology of Languages", M., 1965) and the American researcher Charles Ferguson.

A complete list of absolute phonological universals (more than 100) was compiled by Boris Andreevich Uspensky. An example of this type of universals is the following postulate: if the compared languages ​​have a simple nasal consonant, then they certainly also have a noisy consonant.

Researchers grammatical universals(Charles Hockett, Edward Sapir, Joseph Greenberg) note that in each language grammatical universals are divided into morphological and syntactic ones. In the field of morphology, nouns in all languages ​​denote objects and abstract concepts, numerals - numbers, adjectives - signs of objects, and verbs - action or state. The exception is the Chinese language, in which the idea of ​​quality is expressed not by an adjective, but by a verb (E. Sapir). Majority

morphological universals (45) was defined by Joseph Greenberg. Yet the list of phonological and grammatical universals is not exhaustive.

Sufficiently detailed classification semantic universals belongs to the English linguist Stefan Ullman. Most of such universals belong to the category of statistical ones. They can be either synchronic or diachronic.

As a result of typological research, starting with the work of the brothers August and Friedrich Schlegel, Wilhelm von Humboldt and August Schleicher, typological classifications of world languages.

Of the well-known typological classifications, the most recognized is the Humboldt-Schleicher classification, which is based on the nature of the correlation between the lexical and grammatical meanings of a word. From this point of view, all languages ​​of the world form four types: inflectional, agglutinating, isolating and incorporating. In inflectional languages, lexical grammatical meanings are expressed by the same word form (by a joint change in the root and affixes: “I write - wrote”, “friend - friendship”). Separate expression of lexical and grammatical meanings, when a change in affixes expressing grammatical meaning does not cause a change in the stem of a word that can act as a separate word: Tatar. urman "forest" - urmanlar "forest". The words of the isolating language do not contain elements expressing grammatical meanings. Such languages ​​do not have inflection mechanisms (it is no coincidence that A. Schlegel called them amorphous); Later, W. Humboldt abandoned this term, rightly believing that there are no formless languages, and proposed calling them root, or isolating (most of the languages ​​of Southeast Asia, Chinese). Amorphous words in Russian can be called adverbs (yesterday, forward, quickly), unchangeable lexical borrowings (kangaroo, bureau). Grammatical meanings in isolating languages ​​are expressed by word order and intonation. In incorporating languages, grammatical meanings are expressed by the inclusion (incorporation) of other members of the sentence into the verb-predicate (the Chukchi-Kamchatka languages, the languages ​​of the Indians of North America). In this case, the verb-predicate can agree simultaneously with several members of the sentence. It is no coincidence that isolating languages ​​are also called polysynthetic.

Grouping languages ​​according to the types of grammatical structure, one should, however, remember that there are no absolutely typologically sterile languages. In some languages, typological features are manifested to a greater extent, in others - to a lesser extent. Thus, synthesis and inflection predominate in Russian, analyticism and isolation in English and French, intro-reflection in Semitic, agglutination in Turkic, polysynthesis in the languages ​​of Southeast Asia, and so on.

4. Descriptive method.

The descriptive method is the oldest and at the same time modern method of linguistics. The earliest Chinese, Indian, and Greek grammars were predominantly descriptive; modern linguistic schools turn primarily to the principles and methods of scientific study and description of modern languages.

The descriptive method is a system of research techniques used to characterize the phenomena of a language at a given stage of its development; it is a method of synchronous analysis. The descriptive method is of exceptional importance for the practice of language teaching. It consists in the selection and description of language units with their subsequent classification.

At the first stage descriptive analysis, words and sentences are distinguished from the text, that is, nominative and communicative units of the language. In practice, the selection of words and sentences from a modern written text is not difficult, since they are graphically highlighted by the author or publisher. Applies graphical segmentation technique. Segments of text (segments) from gap to gap are recognized as words; and sentences - segments of text from point to point (there may be other punctuation marks - question and exclamation marks, ellipsis, red line).

However, the possibilities of the graphic segmentation technique are limited. The author can punctuate parts of a sentence (especially a complex one) and, on the contrary, use punctuation marks separating the main function to update parts of a simple and complex sentence; it is also known that the continuous and separate spelling of words can be hesitant and variant. In addition, nominative and communicative units are not identical to one-word and two-word (multi-word) segments of the text, since there are two-word "nominative" units (phraseological units and analytical forms of the word) and one-word sentences. Therefore, graphical segmentation should be supplemented method of identification of language units, which is based on the comparison of "different texts and the use of previous experience. Therefore, the selection of units of the language from the text requires not only observation, but also extensive knowledge.

Second phase descriptive analysis consists in dividing the units selected from the text, that is, finding structural units, using structural segmentation techniques. Since the primary segmentation gave two types of units, the secondary (or structural) segmentation proceeds in two ways: a morpheme and a word form, a phrase and a member of a sentence are singled out. The technique of secondary segmentation is very diverse and depends largely on the understanding of the structural unit.

In doing so, attention should be paid to two points. Firstly, structural units have formal-structural and functional-structural sides, and they differ for different structural units. Therefore, the method of structural segmentation should be fundamentally diverse, taking into account the structural features of the analyzed units. Secondly, structural segmentation is not identical to text segmentation, since variants, including individual ones, of language units are often revealed in the text, while structural segmentation highlights not the units themselves, but their components.

–Third stage descriptive analysis is associated with structural interpretation of the identified nominative-communicative and structural units. Structural interpretation is most often carried out using the techniques of categorical and discrete analysis.

Categorical analysis consists in the fact that the selected units are combined into groups, the structure of these groups is analyzed, and each unit is considered as part of a particular category. The methodology of categorical analysis has different methods, among which the most famous are methods of classification, paradigms and transformations.

Discrete analysis technique(lat. discretus - "separate, intermittent") consists in the fact that in the structural unit the smallest, further indivisible, limiting features are distinguished, which are analyzed as such, their structure, distribution and significance are studied, so that the language unit is considered as the intersection of these features-figures.

Based on the comparison of language units and units of analysis, two different methods of language description are distinguished.

Units of language and units of linguistic analysis may coincide if the units of analysis are real units of language. For example, a morpheme can be a unit of word analysis, a word form can be a sentence. Units of language and units of linguistic analysis may not coincide if the units of analysis are functions and relations of linguistic units.

In cases where the units of analysis are real units, their relation to the units of language, in turn, is twofold: a) the unit of analysis is less than the unit of language and speech; b) the unit of analysis is greater than the unit of language and speech.

Depending on this, the methods of component and context analysis differ.

Component Analysis proceeds from the fact that the units of analysis are parts (elements) of a linguistic unit - nominative-communicative and structural. The methodology for such an analysis was developed by the Kazan and Moscow linguistic schools. Examples of component analysis are parsing a word by its morphemic composition, parsing a sentence by composition.

An example of a component analysis is also the interpretation of words, for example, in a normative dictionary. Thus, the lexical meaning of the word " soldier» - "ordinary soldier of the army." The definition indicates three signs of lexical meaning: private, soldier, army. These components of the lexical meaning generalize all uses of a given lexeme, so such a generalization is sufficient to explain all cases of the use of the specified lexical meaning, its implementation, actualization and expression of contextual meanings. But in different spheres of communication and among individuals, the lexical meaning is concretized, pointing to an ordinary infantryman, an ordinary sailor, a soldier of the tsarist army, a Soviet soldier, a warrior in general, and a man of duty (cf. soldier of the revolution). In all cases, the meaning is expressed not only by the lexeme, but also specified by the context.

Context analysis proceeds from the fact that the units of analysis are speech or, more rarely, linguistic units, wider than the unit being studied; it is the analysis of the part through the whole. In linguistics, however, such a technique of contextual analysis is more often used, in which a language unit is analyzed as part of a speech formation - context. In this case, the context is considered to be a part of the text, isolated from it and united by a linguistic unit, which realizes and actualizes its meaning in it. Contextual analysis is therefore most often used in the semantic analysis of words.

The most well-known methods of contextual technique: receiving a semantic-syntactic context Alexander Afanasyevich Potebnya, stratification technique Furs Schools - Holiday and reception of operational context proposed by Gennady Vladimirovich Kolshansky.

The main types of techniques of the descriptive method are.

It is difficult to find two significant regions or two social groups that would not differ in the composition of onomastic units functioning in them. Usually, one does not have to talk about the existence and subsequent disintegration of an “onomastic proto-language” and, consequently, engage in its reconstruction (as is done when processing a neo-onomastic array of genetically related languages). For example, the toponymy of our north and south, west and east does not coincide, although, of course, it has a lot in common. Therefore, onomatologists (toponymists, anthroponyms, etc.) compare both related (twin related, distantly related) and unrelated onomastic systems. The method of their work is comparison (in the presence of genetically common features) and comparison (in the presence of typologically similar, although unrelated phenomena). It is possible to compare both the entire onomastic space and its individual zones - anthroponymy, cosmonymy, toponymy, as well as their smaller “sections”, for example: hydronymy, oikonymy, microtoponymy. Various phenomena of the content plan (pre-onomastic and onomastic semantics, in particular, types of nomination of onomastic objects, semantic models of onyms, motifs for naming people, the circle of stems, roots, words used as personal names) and the expression plan (the structure of onyms, their word-formation) are subject to comparison. structure, grammatical, phonetic, accentological indicators). The comparison results can be expressed in qualitative and quantitative (statistical) characteristics.

As an example of a comparison of the same type and closely related onomastic systems, one can take the Russian, Belarusian and Ukrainian personal names (the composition of personal names and the patterns of their functioning).

Having a primordially single pan-Slavic, then East Slavic, and with the adoption of Christianity (988) Byzantine fund of personal names, Russians, Belarusians and Ukrainians, despite common anthroponymic traditions and tendencies, developed their own characteristics that allow us to talk about Russian, Belarusian and Ukrainian names as independent systems.

Each of the historical periods in the life of the East Slavic peoples is characterized by its own set of similar and distinctive features, largely coinciding with the previous period, but also noticeably different from it, since onomastic vocabulary as a whole is extremely sensitive to socio-political, social and cultural transformations, setting up its system and its individual components for the optimal fulfillment of the social order.

East Slavic anthroponymic systems can be studied in synchronic-comparative and comparative diachronic aspects. Each of them has its own specifics, as well as scientific and practical value. It seems that we should start with a synchronous description of personal names, that is, with a consideration of the composition of personal names and the nature of their functioning in a specific historical period, and then move on to tracing their dynamics.

In order to work out the methodology for the comparative analysis of genetically identical name names, it is advisable to focus on the comparison of Russian, Belarusian and Ukrainian name names of our time, in particular on the composition and usage of modern official personal names, leaving aside their abbreviated and other derivative forms.

A frontal comparison of the names of the names of the East Slavic peoples should include a comparison of: 1) the entire composition of the names that exist in a given period among the studied peoples, showing similarities and differences in the set of names and their “material” design; 2) specific repertoires of names: a) all residents of a particular locality or region, b) newborns of a selected chronological slice (annual, five-year, ten-year, etc.), c) certain social groups and strata of society; 3) the statistical structure of names, i.e. the proportion and degree of use of various groups of names.

To compare the Russian, Belarusian and Ukrainian personal names, you can use the methodology tested on Russian material.

Comparison of personal names of residents of Russian villages in the Penza region (the village of Lermontovo and the village of Veselovka, 100 km apart from each other) shows that in them men's names are similar by 74%, and women's by 71% (and, accordingly, differ by 26% and 29%).

Two district centers (the village of Ternovka and the village of Poim of the same region), located 50 km from each other, differ by 23% in the composition and frequency of names.

However, it should be emphasized that the "distance" between names is not entirely due to the degree of remoteness of the respective settlements. It happens that the names of neighboring villages are “further” from each other than the names of remote regions. For example, "distance" in the names of the female population c. Ears and s. Bolshoi Izhmora Zemetchinsky district of the Penza region is equal to 32%. Names are frequent in Ushinka: Evdokia, Lyubov, Martha, Raisa, in Bolshaya Izhmora - Alexandra, Antonina, Valentina, Ekaterina, Maria, etc.

No less revealing is the comparison of newborn names (as a rule, we take five-year slices - for 1971-1975). Thus, the city of Serdobsk, Penza Region, and the city of Rzhev, Kalinin Region, differ in the men's name list by 18%, and in the women's one, by 21%. Approximately the same "distance" in the names of newborns in the cities of Serdobsk and the city of Polevsky, Sverdlovsk region (18% in males and 20% in females).

Comparison of the names of Russian children in 1971-1975. births in the city of Serdobsk and the Belarusian city of Smorgon in the Grodno region of the BSSR reveals a higher level of discrepancies - 35% for boys and 27% for girls. In Serdobsk, the following names are more popular than in Smorgon: Alexey (by 5.7%), Valentin (by 5%), Evgeny (by 2.7%), Roman (by 5%), Yuri (by 3.8% ); Irina (by 4.3%), Lyubov (by 5.8%), Marina (by 2.2%), Tatyana (by 3.6%); in Smorgon, on the contrary, the popularity of names is higher: Alexander (by 8.8%), Viktor (by 4.8%), Ivan (by 2%), Nikolai (by 1.3%), Sergey (by 3.5% ); Alla (by 3.6%), Zhanna (by 2.5%), Inna (by 2.4%), Natalya (by 3.6%), Olga (by 2.3%), etc. In Serdobsk in the named years are used for naming names (some of them quite widely): Artem, German, Grigory, Denis, Konstantin, Marat, Milan, Felix, Yuri, Yakov, Yaroslav; Alena, Albina, Anastasia, Veronika, Diana, Lada, Margarita, Olesya, Snezhana, Elmira, Yulia, but there are no such people in Smorgon. But here we see names that Serdobsky parents did not use: Arnold, Gennady, Georgy, Ivan, Joseph, Kirill, Leonid, Renat, Stanislav; Alexandra, Alla, Victoria, Zina, Inessa, Inna, Leopolda, Maya, Eleanor, Yanina.

The indicators close to the Belarusian-Russian ones are given by a comparison of the Russian and Ukrainian personal names (the cities of Chernigov, Sevastopol and Artemov in the Donetsk region).

When comparing unrelated languages ​​that have a materially non-coinciding set of names, the subject of comparison is the general structure of the name list (its volume, statistical organization, usage patterns, etc.). Comparison of the names of the Russian and Tatar population showed that in Russian villages (the region of the Middle Volga region was surveyed), the repertoire of used names and the statistical organization of names remain largely similar. On the contrary, the repertoire of Tatar names gives a much wider range of fluctuations from village to village. As for the statistical structure of the Tatar name list, then, like the Russians, it is basically the same in all surveyed Tatar villages.

Comparison of the statistical organization of the Tatar name list with the Russian name list revealed, firstly, the similarity in the share of the group of frequent names (for Tatars it averages 75%, for Russians - 80%), and secondly, significant differences in the share of the first five, as well as the first ten common names: among Russians, the first five most frequent male names cover about 50%, among Tatars - 25% (two times less), among Russians, the first ten male names cover up to 70-75% of all speakers, among Tatars - only 40% (almost half as much); among Russians, the most popular five female names account for an average of 35% of women, for Tatars - for 20%, and the first ten frequent names for Russian women cover 55%, for Tatars - only 35%. Consequently, in the Tatar name book, the load on frequent names is distributed more evenly than in the Russian name book.

Comparative study of names of different peoples makes visual and "measurable" the specifics of each of the national anthroponymic systems.

Comparative studies of anthroponymy prepare the basis for typological classifications on a wide scale. One of these attempts is the allocation (for example, by I. V. Bestuzhev-Lada) on our planet of nine anthroponymic zones. The Russian anthroponymic system (with a three-term designation of a person - by last name, first name, patronymic) is assigned to the third (“northern”) zone. Here is its description “according to the most general categories”: “3) Northern zone (Russia, Ukraine, Belarus). The influence of the Orthodox Church was undermined in 1917. The choice of names is formally unlimited, but in practice customs, traditions and fashion have extremely narrowed it. In contrast to the first two zones (“northwestern”, covering North America, northwestern German-speaking Europe, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, and “southwestern”, including Latin America and southwestern Romance-speaking Europe.— In B.), only one personal name is given. But the patronymic is preserved.

Comparative works in the synchronic and diachronic aspects, both in the proper linguistic and in the linguo-sociological, psychological and other aspects, will have to confirm or refute the universal nature of the phenomena presumably attributed to onomastic universals.

Bondaletov V. L. Russian onomastics - M., 1983

Introduction

The creative heritage of outstanding writers has always attracted the attention of many researchers, both linguists and literary critics. The study of the linguistic means of these writers is of great importance for revealing many aspects of the national literary language as a whole, such as its history, expressive possibilities, patterns and trends in the development of the language in a certain era. All this is possible only thanks to the deep penetration of researchers into the creative laboratory of writers.

There are many ways to achieve expressiveness in artistic speech. One of these ways, of course, is comparison.

In the scientific literature, the comparison has not found a generally accepted definition. So, for example, Z.I. Khovanskaya believes that comparison, “which singles out and characterizes certain properties of an image object by comparing it with another object or phenomenon, has a number of linguistic features that reveal varying degrees of stability, invariance” (Khovanskaya, 300).

Among the stylistic phenomena observed in acts of communication, it is customary to distinguish two most significant categories: tropes and stylistic devices. Tropes are associated with the implementation of only a stylistic function and are part of living communication in all areas of communication (M.P. Brandes, Z.I. Khovanskaya, K.A. Dolinin). Stylistic devices, on the contrary, are necessarily involved in the implementation of the aesthetic function and characterize, as a rule, only literary and artistic communication. It is obvious that they can be created only on the basis of tropes, then we are dealing with stylistic devices of a tropeic nature (Khovanskaya, 288). However, we must remember that there are also stylistic devices of a non-tropical nature.

The author of The Stylistics of the French Language believes that there is no consensus in literary criticism and linguistics (in stylistics, in particular) whether to consider comparison a trope or a stylistic device of a “non-tropeic type” (Khovanskaya, 288).

We will devote this study to clarifying this issue. In our research, we adhere to the point of view according to which stylistic devices of the non-tropeic type show significant heterogeneity in structural and semantic respects.

“They can be created,” Z.I. Khovanskaya, - on the basis of lexical, lexical-syntactic and literary-compositional means and do not form such a single group as stylistic devices - tropes" (Khovanskaya, 300).

The object of study in the course work is comparison as a stylistic device. The relevance of the topic is determined by the fact that comparison is a figurative language tool, and its function in the text makes it possible to judge the writer's skill, his individual artistic style. It seemed to us interesting to study the role and functions of comparisons in works written in different languages: English and Russian, especially since comparison is such a stylistic tool that still does not have an unambiguous definition in linguistics and literary criticism. It can even be assumed that comparison is a currently insufficiently studied way of achieving expressiveness in a text.

It is known that one of the famous, original English writers of the 20th century was and remains Theodore Dreiser, whose work is well known to the Russian reader. The novel "Sister Kerry" also occupies a special place in his work.

No less original Russian writer is A.I. Kuprin is an original artist of critical realism of the 20th century. His work reflected the main features of Russian classical literature with its democracy, humanism, and deep interest in the life of the people. The main part of this course work is devoted to the study of ways and means of expressing comparison as a stylistic device in the Russian literary text of the early 20th century in comparison with the literary text of the English novel.

Thus, the subject of this course work is the analysis of ways of expressing comparison in the Russian literary language in comparison with the English language.

The purpose of the study is to identify the features of the expression of comparison in Russian and English literary texts.

To achieve the goal of the study, the following tasks were set:

§ study the theoretical literature on the research topic;

§ give different points of view on the stylistic characteristics of comparisons;

§ analyze figurative comparison in terms of:

a) linguistics; b) literary criticism;

§ using the method of continuous sampling from English and Russian literary texts to form a corpus of linguistic material for analysis;

§ consider the ways of expression and the role of comparisons in T. Dreiser's novel "Sister Kerry";

§ to consider ways of expressing comparisons in the stories of A.I. Kuprin;

§ compare ways of expressing comparison in Russian and English;

§ formulate the conclusions of the study.

The material for analysis was selected from the collection of stories by A.I. Kuprin (total 464 pages of text) and from the novel "Sister Kerry" by T. Dreiser. The selected examples are considered, firstly, from the point of view of the structural-formal comparison expression; secondly, from the point of view of the significance of the structural constituent units of comparison; thirdly, from the point of view of the functions and artistic significance of comparisons in the text.

When analyzing texts and working on factual material, the following were used:

1. The method of theoretical substantiation of the essence of such a stylistic device as a comparison;

2. The method of continuous sampling of actual language material;

3. Comparative method;

4. Method of statistical calculations of the obtained results.

The purpose and objectives of the study determined the structure of the work: introduction, four chapters, conclusion and list of references.

The introduction defines the object, purpose, tasks and methods of research, its relevance and the importance of the practical application of the results.

Chapter 1 provides an overview of the issues related to the stylistic device - comparison in linguistic literature, in particular, the definition of the essence of comparison, the types and types of comparisons are considered, their structure is analyzed.

Chapter 2 is devoted to identifying comparisons in the novel "Sister Kerry" and determining their role and functions in the novel.

Chapter 3 contains an analysis of the role and functions of comparison in the stories of A.I. Kuprin in comparison with the use of the analyzed stylistic device in the novel "Sister Kerry".

The 4th Chapter is devoted to comparing the specifics of comparison, as a stylistic device, in the stories of A.I. Kuprin using the analyzed stylistic device in the novel "Sister Kerry".

In conclusion, the results of the study are summarized. The list of used literature includes 22 titles.

The results of the study can be used in teaching the style of the language and in the analysis of texts of fiction, both in Russian and in English, and this determines the practical value of the work.

Information about the work "Comparative analysis of stylistic expressiveness and means of its actualization in English and Russian languages"

One multi-valued phraseological unit, depending on phraseosemes, can be included in several FSH at once. When translating such phraseological units, the context must be taken into account. Conclusion Comparative analysis of phraseological units with the component "Mund"/"mouth" in German and Russian revealed their significant similarity at the semantic level. Despite the different structure of languages, and, consequently, different ways of expressing syntactic relations ...

A study was conducted in the Russian and English languages, which made it possible to describe the linguoculturological specifics of color designations in set phrases, the features of their reflection and functioning in Russian and English. Comparison of set phrases with a color adjective based on dictionary entries revealed that in the explanatory dictionaries of Russian and English...

Different cognitive meanings, and we get the Perfect Progressive form, which is very disliked by many students, although in fact it is not simple, but very simple. 1.3 Tenses of the English verb Active Voice (active voice: "I do") Simple (simple) Continuous (long) Perfect (complete) Perfect Continuous (complete-long) ...

With what cadets of the senior classes listen to the divergent good-natured uncle. (Chekhov, Lights). In compound sentences, allied words are not used. Chapter 2 2.1. Compound sentences with coordinating conjunctions. The question of the differentiation of coordinating and subordinating conjunctions on a syntactic basis Shiryaev ...

The comparative method is one of the most common in different sciences. In many areas of human activity, there is a need for optimal choice. This takes into account all the characteristics of the objects under study, as well as their comparison according to the required criteria.

Comparison as a way of knowing

Comparison is one of the main methods of cognition of the surrounding reality. The basis of this method is quite simple: the definition and comparison of individual phenomena of a social, economic, political or other nature in order to detect distinctive similarities and differences.

On the basis of comparison, a reasonable or hypothetical conclusion is drawn about the homogeneity of phenomena, the similarity of their content, general direction, etc. This allows the use of data on one object in the study of another. If, in the course of the study, some discrepancies were found, then this allows us to indicate the peculiarity, specificity and uniqueness of one phenomenon or object in relation to another.

The concept and categories of the method of comparative analysis

The method of comparative analysis originates from such a general scientific method as analogy. However, unlike the latter, comparison involves the use of elements of other methods, including analysis, methods of thinking, modeling, synthesis, induction, deduction, etc. The main purpose of comparison is to obtain new facts not only from the various properties of the compared objects or phenomena, but also analysis their various relationships. Based on this, it is possible to draw up a general trend of their subsequent functioning and development.

Methods of a comparative approach lead to the fact that already established views on certain phenomena and facts can be revised. Comparison can also reveal features that are specific to a particular object or phenomenon, but were not previously known to researchers. Thus, comparison contributes to a deeper study and knowledge of objects and phenomena, as well as the search for their distinctive features and differences at different levels of research.

Benchmarking mechanism

The comparative research method has its own mechanism, which includes the following components:

• General scientific methods. These include: analogy, induction and deduction, analysis and synthesis, etc.
• Logic apparatus. An extensive category system that is used in comparison and analysis operations. Each object or phenomenon has its own system of categories.

Particular attention is also deserved by such a variation of the comparison method as segmentation. Its essence lies in the fact that information about an object or phenomenon is divided into separate parts - segments, which are subsequently subjected to research. At the same time, the comparison can be carried out according to different criteria, in particular, the historical-comparative method is often used, where the object is studied not only in comparison with other objects, but also in comparison with itself at different time stages.

Segmentation as one of the methods of comparative analysis involves the study of not only the characteristics of individual elements of a particular object or phenomenon, but also the nature and trends of its functioning and development within the whole.

Stages of comparative analysis and forecasting

The comparative method of assessing objects and phenomena provides for the implementation of research at several levels:

• Collection and processing of all received information. At the same time, all data must be objective, accurate and provable.
• Systematization of information. All data must be divided into different categories and the collected material should be given a structural form.
• Interpretation of the received data. Based on the analysis and comparison of information, specific conclusions are drawn.

With the correct implementation of these steps, the researcher can formulate justifications for the forecast. The simplest method of forecasting is a direct comparison of information about an object or phenomenon at different levels, for example, in different regions, countries, etc. The second method of forecasting involves the formulation of specific hypotheses supported by real facts.

Benchmarking Rules

The comparative research method will be effective only if all the rules for its implementation are observed:

• Implementation of comparison at different levels using analogy, system-historical analysis and logic.
• The correct choice of objects for the implementation of the comparison process.
• Specific goal setting.
• The comparative analysis method should be carried out using specific criteria.
• A clear definition of the features of the compared objects and phenomena.
• Processing of comparison results and analysis of the possibility of their application in practice.

All data obtained during the research process must be clear, unambiguous and provable.

Types of comparative studies

The comparative method has its own typology. In science, the following types of research are distinguished:

• According to the scope of the study: macro- and micro-comparison.
• According to the goals, practical (or functional) and theoretical (or scientific) research is distinguished.
• According to the level, research can be intersystem, intrasystem, intranational, historical, intersectoral, etc.

In addition, there are also synchronous and asynchronous comparison. In the first case, we are talking about parallel and simultaneous comparison, and in the second case, the comparative method can be applied to objects that are in different time periods.

Pros and cons of the comparative method

The comparative approach has a number of pluses and minuses that the researcher should take into account in his work. As for the positives, they are as follows:

• The method allows you to reflect the current and real situation in relation to the object or phenomenon under study.
• All data are statistically justified.
• In the process of research, you can make adjustments to the compared phenomena or objects.
• In the presence of a large amount of information, the method is very easy to implement and gives reliable and reliable results.

The method also has its drawbacks:

• At the time of interpretation of the results of the study, the data may be out of date.
• The accuracy of the obtained data depends on the stability of the object under study.
• For reliable and accurate data, a large amount of information is needed.

The ratio of the positive and negative aspects of the method determines the effectiveness of its application in each specific case.

Benchmarking Examples

Features of the comparison method allow it to be used in a variety of areas, such as:

• Biology and anatomy.
• Linguistics, in particular comparative linguistics.
• Literary criticism and mythology.
• Comparative Politics.
• Economic sciences.
• Jurisprudence and jurisprudence.
• Psychology.
• Sociological sciences.
• Religious studies.
• Philosophy, etc.

The comparative method has a number of features that allow it to be effectively used in a variety of sciences. The method has its own classification, typology, as well as the rules and features of the study at different stages. The choice of this method is determined by the availability of the required amount of information and the selection of optimal criteria.

Sometimes, for an in-depth assessment of historical figures, processes, phenomena, it is advisable to use the method of comparative analysis. For example, compare the political system of two countries with a similar mentality of people and the level of economic development. The classical structure of comparative analysis includes the comparison of several objects, evaluating the object from different angles, identifying features and shortcomings. The author's goal is to discover the common features and characteristic differences of the compared objects.

At the moment, there are many ways to conduct a comparative analysis. Let us pay attention to the main points on which a comparative analysis of the object under study is built. Here are some of them.

1. Context.

it is necessary to find the context, the main idea, around which the subsequent work will be carried out. Simply put, the context can be: a certain problem, theory, main idea that is related to the main object of study. Here is an example, if the purpose of the study is to compare two legal norms that are outwardly similar to one another, it would be correct to fully study the problems of the question asked, based on those areas of legal relations in which legal norms are implemented. In order to add firmness to the work, finally convincing readers of their conclusions, it is necessary to conduct a deep analysis of the processes under study, to scroll through various judgments and approaches to this issue in the head. then highlight the main conclusions that will become the basis for presenting the context in a comparative analysis. When working, it is desirable to use authoritative sources by placing a link to them. A comparative analysis cannot be compiled without a verified context, because this will deprive you of the foundation necessary to build an evidence base when comparing two objects.

2. real grounds for comparison.

In the process of research, it is imperative to justify the reason according to which comparisons of two similar objects will be made. For example, we need to compare which is more beneficial for health: cabbage or beets. The reader will be looking for the logic that guided the researcher when choosing objects for comparison. what should the researcher do in this case, give the reader iron arguments, why is it necessary to pay attention to these objects of research? After evaluating the correctness of your choice and realizing the logical chain of your arguments, the reader will understand that this topic did not arise “out of the blue”, which means you should pay attention to it. So, it is necessary to indicate the reasons for choosing the research topic.

3. Arguments.

You are busy with comparative analysis, which means you need to be guided by facts when comparing two objects objectively. It is worth showing the strength of your statements by highlighting those features in which objects interact with each other. What points should be paid attention to? Determine how the selected objects complement, enrich, contradict, dispute, exclude each other? What is the purpose of well-formed arguments? Evaluate the interaction of two objects. Facts are determined according to the accepted context of ideas (problems, theories), in which compared objects are taken out of brackets (see paragraph 1). In order to focus on the interaction of objects, one should use such words: “while”, “whereas”, “opposite”, “besides”, “complementing”, “excluding”, etc.

4. Methods of comparative analysis.

After editing the introductory part of the task: context, real reasons for comparison, facts and arguments, define one more thing, the method of comparison. The following methods are used for comparative analysis:
A) describe all the advantages and disadvantages of object X, and then object Y.
B) One by one, in turn, parse similar elements of the compared objects.
C) comparing X and Y, you need to clearly put emphasis on one of the objects. This method is used in the only case when X and Y cannot be fully compared with each other. So, object X acts as a tool used to test the arguments of object Y, which were discussed in Point 3.

5. Determine the relationship between the compared objects and the given arguments of Item 3.

The work should be felt as a single organism, for this it is necessary to show the relationship between objects, making up a logical chain of facts characterizing the interaction of two objects. Without such a construction of the work, it will be difficult for the reader to see the connections by which the compared objects interact with each other's arguments.