The main object of linguistics is the natural human language, in contrast to the artificial language or the language of animals.

Two closely related concepts should be distinguished - language and speech.

Language- a tool, a means of communication. This is a system of signs, means and rules of speaking, common to all members of a given society. This phenomenon is constant for a given period of time.

Speech- the manifestation and functioning of the language, the process of communication itself; it is unique for every native speaker. This phenomenon is variable depending on the speaker.

Language and speech are two sides of the same phenomenon. Language is inherent in any person, and speech is inherent in a particular person.

Speech and language can be compared to a pen and text. Language is a pen, and speech is the text that is written with this pen.

Language as a system of signs

The American philosopher and logician Charles Pierce (1839-1914), the founder of pragmatism as a philosophical trend and semiotics as a science, defined a sign as something, knowing which, we learn something more. Every thought is a sign and every sign is a thought.

Semiotics(from gr. σημειον - sign, sign) - the science of signs. The most significant division of signs is the division into iconic signs, indices and symbols.

1. Iconic sign (icon from gr. εικων image) is a relationship of similarity or similarity between a sign and its object. The iconic sign is built on the association by similarity. These are metaphors, images (paintings, photos, sculpture) and schemes (drawings, diagrams).
2. Index(from lat. index- scammer, index finger, heading) is a sign that refers to the designated object due to the fact that the object really affects it. However, there is no significant resemblance to the subject. The index is built on association by adjacency. Examples: a bullet hole in glass, letter symbols in algebra.
3. Symbol(from gr. Συμβολον - conventional sign, signal) is the only true sign, since it does not depend on similarity or connection. Its connection with the object is conditional, as it exists due to the agreement. Most words in a language are symbols.

The German logician Gottlob Frege (1848-1925) proposed his understanding of the relation of a sign to the object it denotes. He introduced the distinction between the denotation ( Bedeutung) expression and its meaning ( sinn). Denotat (referent) is the object or phenomenon to which the sign refers.

Venus is the morning star.

Venus is the morning star.

In both expressions, the same denotation is the planet Venus, but a different meaning, since Venus is represented in the language in different ways.

Ferdinand de Saussure (1957-1913), the great Swiss linguist who had a huge impact on the linguistics of the 20th century, proposed his sign theory of language. Below are the main provisions of this doctrine.

Language is a system of signs expressing concepts.

Language can be compared to other systems of signs, such as the alphabet for the deaf and dumb, military signals, forms of courtesy, symbolic rites, male plumage, smells, and so on. Language is only the most important of these systems.

Semiology- a science that studies the system of signs in the life of society.

Linguistics is part of this general science.

Semiotics- a synonymous term for the Saussurean word semiology, more commonly used in modern linguistics.

The American semiotician Charles Morris (1901-1979), a follower of Charles Peirce, distinguished three sections of semiotics:

• Semantics(from gr. σημα - sign) - the relationship between the sign and the object denoted by it.
• Syntactics(from gr. συνταξις - system, connection) - the relationship between signs.
• Pragmatics(from gr. πραγμα - business, action) - the relationship between signs and those who use these signs (subjects and addressees of speech).

Some sign systems

language sign

According to F. de Saussure, a linguistic sign is not a connection between a thing and its name, but a combination of a concept and an acoustic image.

concept- this is a generalized, schematic image of an object in our minds, the most important and characteristic features of this object, as it were, the definition of an object. For example, a chair is a seat with a support (legs or leg) and a back.

acoustic image is the sonic ideal equivalent of sound in our minds. When we say a word to ourselves without moving our lips or tongue, we reproduce an acoustic image of a real sound.

Both of these sides of the sign have a psychic essence, i.e. ideal and exist only in our minds.

The acoustic image in relation to the concept is to some extent material, since it is associated with real sound.

The argument in favor of the ideality of the sign is that we can talk to ourselves without moving our lips or tongue, make sounds to ourselves.

Thus, the sign is a two-sided psychic entity, consisting of the signified and the signifier.

concept- signified (fr. signify)

acoustic image- meaning (fr. signifiant).

The sign theory assumes 4 components of the designation process.

In the following example, the following components are involved:

1. The real, material, real tree itself, which we want to designate with a sign;
2. An ideal (mental) concept as part of a sign (denoted);
3. Ideal (mental) acoustic image as part of a sign (denoting);
4. The material embodiment of the ideal sign: the sounds of the spoken word tree, letters denoting the word tree.

Trees can be different, there are no two absolutely identical birches, we pronounce the word tree we, too, are all different (different tone, with different timbre, loud, whisper, etc.), we also write differently (with a pen, pencil, chalk, different handwriting, on a typewriter, computer), but a two-way sign in our minds everyone has the same, because it is perfect.

English linguists Charles Ogden (1889-1957), Ivor Richards(1893-1979) in 1923 in The Meaning of Meaning ( The Meaning of Meaning) visually represented the sign relationship in the form of a semantic triangle (triangle of reference):

• Sign (symbol), i.e. a word in a natural language;
• Referent (Referent), i.e. the subject to which the sign refers;
• Attitude, or reference ( reference), i.e. thought as an intermediary between a symbol and a referent, between a word and an object.

The base of the triangle is shown with a dashed line. This means that the connection between the word and the subject is not obligatory, conditional, and it is impossible without a connection with thought and concept.

However, the sign relationship can also be expressed in the form of a square, if we take into account that the second member of the triangle - thought - can consist of a concept and a connotation. The concept is common to all native speakers of a given language, and connotation, or connotation (lat. connotation- "conscience") - an associative meaning, individual for each person.

For example, a “brick” for a bricklayer may be associated with his work, and for an injured passerby, with an injury.

Language Features

The main functions of the language are as follows:

Communicative function

Language as a means of communication between people. This is the main function of the language.

Thought-forming function

Language is used as a means of thinking in the form of words.

Cognitive (epistemological) function

Language as a means of knowing the world, accumulating and transferring knowledge to other people and subsequent generations (in the form of oral traditions, written sources, audio recordings).

Speech functions

Along with the functions of language, there are also functions of speech. Roman Osipovich Yakobson (1896-1982), a Russian and American linguist (Mayakovsky wrote about him in a poem about Netta, a steamship and a man: ... "talked all the time about Romko Yakobson and sweated funny, learning poetry ...") proposed a scheme that describes the factors (components) of the act of communication, which correspond to individual speech functions language.

An example of an act of communication is the beginning of the novel in verse "Eugene Onegin", if the lecturer recites it to students: "My uncle of the most honest rules, when he fell seriously ill ..."

Sender: Pushkin, Onegin, lecturer.

Recipient: reader, students.

Message: verse size (iambic tetrameter).

Context: message about illness.

Code: Russian language.

Corresponds context, which is understood as the subject of the message, otherwise called referent. This is a function of transmitting a message, focusing on the context of the message. In the process of communication, it is the most important, as it conveys information about the subject. In the text, this function is emphasized, for example, by the phrases: “as mentioned above”, “attention, the microphone is on” and various stage directions in the plays.

Corresponds sender, i.e. reflects the speaker's attitude to what is being said, a direct expression of the sender's feelings. When using the expressive function, it is not the message itself that is important, but the attitude towards it.

The emotive layer of the language is represented by interjections, which are the equivalents of sentences (“ah”, “oh”, “alas”). The most important means of conveying emotions are intonation and gestures.

K.S. Stanislavsky, the great Russian director, when teaching actors, asked them to transmit up to 40 messages, saying only one phrase, for example, “Tonight”, “Fire”, etc. so that the audience can guess what the situation is.

F.M. Dostoevsky in his "Diary of a Writer" describes a case when five artisans had a meaningful conversation, uttering the same obscene phrase in turn with different intonations.

This function is noticeable in a joke where the father complains about the impoliteness of his son in a letter: “They say, he wrote:“ Dad, money came out. ”No,“ Dad, money came out ”( with a pleading tone)».

The sender and sender may not always be the same. For example, among the Chinook Indian tribe, the words of the leader in front of the people are repeated by a specially assigned minister.

Poetic (aesthetic) function

Corresponds message, i.e. the main role is played by the focus on the message as such, outside of its content. The main thing is the form of the message. Attention is directed to the message for its own sake. As the name implies, this function is used primarily in poetry, where stops, rhymes, alliteration, etc., play an important role in its perception, and information is often secondary, and often the content of the poem is incomprehensible to us, but we like it form.

Similar poems were written by K. Balmont, V. Khlebnikov, O. Mandelstam, B. Pasternak and many other poets.

The aesthetic function is often used in fiction, as well as in colloquial speech. Speech in such cases is perceived as an aesthetic object. Words are accepted as something either beautiful or ugly.

Dolokhov in the novel "War and Peace" with obvious pleasure pronounces the word "on the spot" about the murdered man, not because he is a sadist, but simply because he likes the form of the word.

In Chekhov’s story “Men”, Olga read the Gospel, and did not understand much, but the holy words moved her to tears, and she uttered the words “asche” and “until” with sweet bated breath.

The following dialogue is a typical case of aesthetic function in conversation:

“Why do you always say Joan and Marjorie and not Marjorie and Joan? Do you love Joan more? “Not at all, it just sounds better that way.”

Corresponds recipient a message that the speaker is guided by, trying in one way or another to influence the addressee, to cause his reaction. Grammatically, this is often expressed by the imperative mood of verbs (Speak!), as well as the vocative case in archaic texts (man, son), for example in a prayer in Church Slavonic: " Father ours, who are in heaven ... our daily bread give me us today."

Corresponds contact, i.e. the purpose of the message with this function is to establish, continue or interrupt communication, to check if the communication channel is working. “Hello, can you hear me? -»

For these purposes, the language has a large number of cliché phrases that are used in congratulations, at the beginning and end of a letter, and they, as a rule, do not carry literal information.

"Dear Sir! I consider you a scoundrel and a scoundrel, and from now on I break with you completely and completely.
Sincerely, Your Mr. Pumpkin."

Often, when we don’t know what to talk about with a person, but it’s simply indecent to be silent, we talk about the weather, about any events, although we may not be interested in them.

A fellow villager with a fishing rod walks past us to the river. We will definitely tell him, although it is obvious: “What, fishing?”

All these phrases are easily predictable, but their standardity and ease of use make it possible to establish contact and overcome disunity.

The American writer Dorothy Parker, during a boring party, when casual acquaintances asked her how she was doing, answered them in a tone of sweet small talk: “I just killed my husband, and everything is fine with me.”. People walked away, satisfied with the conversation, not paying attention to the meaning of what was said.

In one of her stories there is an excellent example of a phatic conversation between two lovers who practically do not need words.

"- OK! - said the young man. - OK! - she said.
- OK. So it is, he said.
“So it is,” she said, “why not?”
- I think, therefore, so, he said, - something! So, so be it.
Okay, she said. All right, he said, all right.

The least talkative in this regard are the Chinook Indians. An Indian could come to a friend's house, sit there and leave without a word. The mere fact that he had bothered to come was a sufficient element of communication. It is not necessary to talk if there is no need to communicate something. There is a lack of phatic communication.

Children's speech up to three years is usually phatic, children often cannot understand what they are told, they do not know what to say, but they try to babble in order to maintain communication. Children learn this function first. The desire to start and maintain communication is typical for talking birds. The phatic function in language is the only function common to animals and humans.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the other hand, the formulation of a law deepens and expands the knowledge of particular and concrete phenomena, since it establishes a common nature in them, determines those general trends, along which the development took place phonetic system Russian language. Knowing these laws, we have the opportunity to represent the development of language not as a mechanical sum of separate and unrelated phenomena, but as a natural process that reflects the internal interconnection of the facts of language development. So, in the analyzed example, all individual cases of clearing and falling of the deaf are presented not as isolated cases of phonetic changes, but as a diverse manifestation of a pattern that is unified in its essence, which generalizes all these particular phenomena. Thus, the law reflects the most essential in the processes of language development.

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

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

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

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

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

General and private laws of language

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Private laws of language development cover all its areas - phonetics, grammar, vocabulary. Each sphere of language can have its own laws, which makes it possible to talk about the laws of development of phonetics, morphology, syntax and vocabulary. So, for example, the fall of the Russian language reduced in the history should be attributed to the laws of development of the phonetics of this language. The formation of a frame structure can be defined as the law of the development of the syntax of the German language. The unification of the foundations in the history of the Russian language can be called the law of the development of its morphology. The same law of development of the morphology of the Russian language, which runs like a red thread through its entire centuries-old history, is a progressive strengthening in the expression of the perfect and imperfect aspects. The German language is characterized by the enrichment of the vocabulary of the language by creating new lexical units based on word composition. This way of developing the vocabulary of the German language, which is not characteristic of other languages, such as modern French, can be considered as one of the laws of German word formation.

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

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

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

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

What is language development

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Functioning and development of the language

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All that has been said by no means deprives phonetic phenomena of the right to appropriately characterize language. The examples already listed show that they can be characteristic of strictly defined languages, sometimes defining a group of related languages ​​or even their whole family. So, for example, vowel vowel harmony is represented in many Turkic languages, having a functional meaning in some adverbs, but not in others. In the same way, such a phenomenon as the first movement of consonants (genetically, however, not comparable with the types of assimilation analyzed) is the most characteristic feature of the Germanic languages. Moreover, it is even possible to establish known boundaries of the phonetic processes of a given language - they will be determined by the phonetic composition of the language. But to characterize the language only by an external feature, without any connection with the structure of the language, does not mean to determine the internal essence of the language.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continuation. Beginning in No. 42/2001. Printed in abbreviation

11. COMMUNICATION FUNCTION

The most important function of language is communicative. Communication means communication, exchange of information. In other words, language arose and exists primarily so that people can communicate.

Let us recall the two definitions of language given above: as a system of signs and as a means of communication. It makes no sense to oppose them to each other: these are, one might say, two sides of the same coin. Language also carries out its communicative function due to the fact that it is a system of signs: it is simply impossible to communicate in another way. And the signs, in turn, are designed to transmit information from person to person.

Actually, what does information mean? Does any text (recall: it is a realization of a language system in the form of a sequence of characters) carry information?

Obviously not. Here I am, passing by people in white coats, by chance I hear: "The pressure has dropped to three atmospheres." So what? Three atmospheres - is it a lot or a little? Should I rejoice or, say, run away to hell?

Another example. Having opened the book, we come across, let’s say, the following passage: “Destruction of the hypothalamus and the upper part of the pituitary stalk as a result of neoplastic or granulomatous infiltration can lead to the development of the clinical picture of ND... In a pathoanatomical study, the developmental deficiency of the supraoptic neurons of the hypothalamus was less common than that of the paraventricular ones; a reduced neurohypophysis was also identified. Sounds like a foreign language, doesn't it? Perhaps the only thing we can take away from this text is that this book is not for us, but for specialists in the relevant field of knowledge. For us, it does not carry information.

Third example. Is the statement “Volga flows into the Caspian Sea” informative for me, an adult? No. I know it well. This is well known to everyone. Nobody doubts it. It is no coincidence that this statement serves as an example of banal, trivial, hackneyed truths: it is of no interest to anyone. It is not informative.

Information is transmitted in space and time. In space, it means from me to you, from person to person, from one nation to another... In time, it means from yesterday to today, from today to tomorrow... And "day" here must not be understood literally , but figuratively, in a generalized way: information is stored and transmitted from century to century, from millennium to millennium. (The invention of writing, printing, and now the computer has made a revolution in this matter.) Thanks to language, the continuity of human culture is carried out, the accumulation and assimilation of the experience developed by previous generations takes place. But this will be discussed further below. In the meantime, let's note: a person can communicate in time and ... with himself. Really: why do you need a notebook with names, addresses, birthdays? It was you "yesterday" who sent a message to yourself "today" in tomorrow. And notes, diaries? Without relying on his memory, a person gives information "for preservation" to the language, or rather, to its representative - the text. He communicates with himself in time. Let me emphasize: in order to preserve oneself as a person, a person must communicate - this is a form of his self-affirmation. And in extreme cases, in the absence of interlocutors, he must communicate at least with himself. (This situation is familiar to people who have been cut off from society for a long time: prisoners, travelers, hermits.) Robinson in the famous novel by D. Defoe, until he meets Friday, begins to talk with a parrot - this is better than going crazy from loneliness. ..

We have already said: the word is also, in a certain sense, the deed. Now, in relation to the communicative function of language, this idea can be clarified. Let's take the simplest case - an elementary act of communication. One person says something to another: asks him, orders, advises, warns ... What dictated these speech actions? Concern for the welfare of your neighbor? Not only. Or at least not always. Usually the speaker has some personal interests in mind, and this is quite natural, such is human nature. For example, he asks the interlocutor to do something, instead of doing it himself. For him, in this way, the deed, as it were, turns into a word, into speech. Neuropsychologists say: talking man must first of all suppress, slow down the excitation of some centers in his brain, responsible for movements, for actions (B.F. Porshnev). Speech turns out deputy actions. Well, is the second person the interlocutor (or, in other words, the listener, the addressee)? He himself, perhaps, does not need what he will do at the request of the speaker (or the reasons and grounds for this action are not entirely clear), and nevertheless he will fulfill this request, turn the word into a real deed. But in this you can see the beginnings of the division of labor, the fundamental principles of human society! This is how the largest American linguist Leonard Bloomfield characterizes the use of language. Language, he said, allows one person to perform an action (act, reaction) where another person feels a need (stimulus) for this action.

So, it is worth agreeing with the idea: communication, communication through language is one of the most important factors that “created” humanity.

12. THOUGHT FUNCTION

But a person who speaks is a person who thinks. And the second function of language, closely related to the communicative one, is the function mental(in other words - cognitive, from lat. cognition- 'knowledge'). Often they even ask: what is more important, what is more primary - communication or thinking? Perhaps this is not the way to put the question: these two functions of language determine each other. Speaking means expressing your thoughts. But, on the other hand, these thoughts themselves are formed in our head with the help of language. And if we recall that in the environment of animals, language is “already” used for communication, and thinking as such is not “yet” here, then we can come to the conclusion about the primacy of the communicative function. But it's better to say this: the communicative function educates, “cultivates” the mental. How should this be understood?

One little girl put it this way: “How do I know What I Think? I'll tell you, then I'll know." Truly, the truth speaks through the mouth of a child. We come into contact here with the most important problem of the formation (and formulation) of thought. It is worth repeating once again: the thought of a person at his birth is based not only on universal content categories and structures, but also on the categories of a unit of a particular language. Of course, this does not mean that, apart from verbal thinking, there are no other forms of rational activity. There is also figurative thinking, familiar to any person, but especially developed among professionals: artists, musicians, artists ... there is technical thinking - the professional dignity of designers, mechanics, draftsmen, and again, to one degree or another, not alien to all of us. There is, finally, objective thinking – we are all guided by it in a mass of everyday situations, from tying shoelaces to unlocking the front door... But the main form of thinking that unites all people in the vast majority of life situations is, of course, thinking linguistic, verbal.

It is another matter that words and other units of language appear in the course of mental activity in some kind of “not their own” form, they are difficult to grasp, isolate (of course: we think much faster than we speak!), and our “inner speech” (this is a term introduced into science by the remarkable Russian psychologist L.S. Vygotsky) is fragmentary and associative. This means that the words here are represented by some of their “pieces” and they are connected to each other not in the same way as in ordinary “external” speech, but plus images are interspersed in the linguistic fabric of thought - visual, auditory, tactile, etc. P. It turns out that the structure of "inner" speech is much more complicated than the structure of "external" speech, accessible to observation. Yes it is. And yet the fact that it is based on the categories and units of a particular language is beyond doubt.

Confirmation of this was found in various experiments, especially actively carried out in the middle of our century. The subject was specially "puzzled" and while he - to himself - was thinking about some problem, his speech apparatus was examined from different angles. Either they shone through his pharynx and oral cavity with an X-ray machine, then with weightless sensors they removed the electric potential from his lips and tongue ... The result was the same: during mental (“dumb!”) activity, the human speech apparatus was in a state of activity. Some shifts, changes took place in it - in a word, work was going on!

Even more characteristic in this sense are the testimonies of polyglots, that is, people who are fluent in several languages. Usually they can easily determine at any given moment what language they are thinking in. (Moreover, the choice or change of the language on which the thought is based depends on the environment in which the polyglot is located, on the very subject of thought, etc.)

Famous Bulgarian singer Boris Hristov, long years living abroad, considered it his duty to sing arias in the original language. He explained it this way: “When I speak Italian, I think in Italian. When I speak Bulgarian, I think in Bulgarian.” But one day at the performance of "Boris Godunov" - Hristov sang, of course, in Russian - the singer came up with some idea in Italian. And he unexpectedly continued the aria ... in Italian. The conductor was petrified. And the public (it was in London), thank God, did not notice anything ...

It is curious that among writers who speak several languages, authors who translate themselves are rarely found. The fact is that for a real creator to translate, say, a novel into another language means not only to rewrite it, but change mind, re-feel, write again, in accordance with a different culture, with a different "view of the world." Irish playwright Samuel Beckett, Nobel laureate, one of the founders of the theater of the absurd, created each of his pieces twice, first in French, then in English. But at the same time he insisted that we should talk about two different works. Similar arguments on this subject can also be found in Vladimir Nabokov, who wrote in Russian and English, and other "bilingual" writers. And Yu.N. Tynyanov once justified himself about the heavy style of some of his articles in the book “Archaists and Innovators”: “Language not only conveys concepts, but is also the course of their construction. Therefore, for example, the retelling of other people's thoughts is usually clearer than the retelling of one's own. And, consequently, the more original the thought, the more difficult it is to express it...

But the question arises by itself: if a thought in its formation and development is connected with the material of a particular language, then does it not lose its specificity, its depth when transmitted by means of another language? Is it then possible at all to translate from language to language, to communicate between peoples? I will answer this way: the behavior and thinking of people, with all their national coloring, obeys some universal, universal laws. And languages, with all their diversity, are also based on some general principles (some of which we have already observed in the section on the properties of the sign). So, in general, translation from language to language is, of course, possible and necessary. Well, some losses are inevitable. Just like acquisitions. Shakespeare in Pasternak's translation is not only Shakespeare, but also Pasternak. Translation, according to a well-known aphorism, is the art of compromise.

All of the above leads us to the conclusion: language is not just a form, a shell for thought, it is not even means thinking, but rather way. The very nature of the formation of mental units and their functioning largely depends on the language.

13. COGNITIVE FUNCTION

The third function of language is cognitive(its other name is accumulative, that is, accumulative). Most of what an adult knows about the world came to him with language, through language. He may never have been to Africa, but he knows that there are deserts and savannahs, giraffes and rhinos, the Nile River and Lake Chad ... He has never been to a smelter, but he has an idea about how iron is smelted, and perhaps about how steel is made from iron. A person can mentally travel in time, turn to the secrets of the stars or the microcosm - and he owes all this to language. His own experience gained by means of the senses constitutes an insignificant part of his knowledge.

How is the inner world of a person formed? What is the role of language in this process?

The main mental "tool" with which a person cognizes the world is concept. The concept is formed in the course of a person's practical activity due to the ability of his mind to abstract, generalize. (It is worth emphasizing: the lower forms of reflection of reality in consciousness - such as sensation, perception, representation, are also found in animals. A dog, for example, has an idea about its owner, about his voice, smell, habits, etc., but a generalized the dog does not have the concept of "owner", as well as "smell", "habit", etc.). This is a unit of logical thinking, the privilege of homo sapiens.

How is a concept formed? A person observes many phenomena of objective reality, compares them, identifies various features in them. Signs are unimportant, random, he “cuts off”, is distracted from them, and the essential signs add up, sum up - and a concept is obtained. For example, comparing various trees - high and low, young and old, with a straight trunk and with a curved, deciduous and coniferous, shedding foliage and evergreen, etc., he singles out the following features as permanent and essential: a) these are plants (generic trait), b) perennial,
c) with a solid stem (trunk) and d) with branches forming a crown. This is how the concept of a “tree” is formed in the human mind, under which the whole variety of observed specific trees is summed up; it is fixed in the corresponding word: tree. The word is a typical, normal form of the concept's existence. (Animals have no words - and concepts, even if there were grounds for their emergence, have nothing to rely on, nothing to gain a foothold in ...)

Of course, some mental effort and, probably, considerable time are needed to understand that, say, a chestnut tree under the window and a dwarf pine in a pot, an apple tree twig and a thousand-year-old sequoia somewhere in America are all "tree". But this is precisely the main path of human knowledge - from the individual to the general, from the concrete to the abstract.

Let's pay attention to the following series of Russian words: sadness, grieve, admire, education, passion, treatment, understand, disgusting, openly, reservedly, hate, treacherous, justice, adore... Is it possible to find something in common in their meanings? Difficult. Unless they all denote some abstract concepts: mental states, feelings, relationships, signs ... Yes, it is. But they also share the same story in a way. All of them are formed from other words with more specific - "material" - meanings. And, accordingly, the concepts behind them also rely on concepts of a lower level of generalization. sadness derived from bake(after all, sadness burns!); grieve- from bitter, bitterness; upbringing- from nourish, food; enthusiasm- from drag, drag(i.e. ‘drag along’); justice- from right(that is, ‘located on the right hand’), etc.

This is, in principle, the path of the semantic evolution of all languages ​​of the world: generalized, abstract meanings grow in them on the basis of more concrete meanings, or, so to speak, mundane ones. However, in every nation, some areas of reality are divided in more detail than others. It is well known that in the languages ​​of the peoples inhabiting the Far North (Lapps, Eskimos) there are dozens of names for different types of snow and ice (although there may not be a generalized name for snow at all). The Bedouin Arabs have dozens of names for different types of camels - depending on their breed, age, purpose, etc. It is clear that such a variety of names is caused by the conditions of life itself. Here is how the famous French ethnographer Lucien Levy-Bruhl wrote about the languages ​​​​of the indigenous inhabitants of Africa and America in the book “Primitive Thinking”: only in relation to all objects, whatever they may be, but also in relation to all movements, all actions, all states, all properties expressed by language). Therefore, the vocabulary of these "primitive" languages ​​must be distinguished by such richness, of which our languages ​​give only a very distant idea.

One should not only think that all this diversity is due exclusively to exotic living conditions or the unequal position of peoples on the ladder of human progress. And in languages ​​belonging to the same civilization, let's say European, one can find any number of examples of different classifications of the surrounding reality. So, in a situation in which a Russian would simply say leg(“Doctor, I hurt my leg”), the Englishman will have to choose whether to use the word leg or word foot- depending on which part of the leg is in question: from the thigh to the ankle or the foot. A similar difference is Das Bein And der Fu?- Presented in German. Next, we will say in Russian finger regardless of whether it is a toe or a finger. And for an Englishman or a German, this is "different" fingers, and each of them has its own name. The toe is called in English toe, finger on the hand - finger; in German - respectively die Zehe And der Finger; at the same time, however, the thumb has its own special name: thumb in English and der Daumen in German. Are these differences between fingers really that important? It seems to us, the Slavs, that there is still more in common ...

But in Russian, blue and blue colors are distinguished, and for a German or an Englishman, this difference looks as insignificant, secondary, as for us, say, the difference between red and burgundy: blue in English and blue in German, this is a single concept of “blue-blue” (see § 3). And it makes no sense to raise the question: which language is closer to the truth, to the real state of affairs? Each language is right, because it has the right to its own "vision of the world."

Even languages ​​that are very close, closely related, now and then reveal their "independence". For example, Russian and Belarusian are very similar to each other, they are blood brothers. However, in Belarusian there are no exact matches to Russian words communication(translated as adnosins, that is, strictly speaking, ‘relationships’, or as wear and tear, i.e. ‘intercourse’) and connoisseur(translated as connoisseur or how amatar, that is, ‘amateur’, but this is not quite the same thing) ... But it is difficult to translate from Belarusian into Russian shchyry(this is both ‘sincere’, and ‘real’, and ‘friendly’) or captivity('harvest'? 'success'? 'result'? 'efficiency'?)... And such words are typed into a whole dictionary.

Language, as we see, turns out to be a ready-made classifier of objective reality for a person, and this is good: it, as it were, lays rails along which the train of human knowledge moves. But at the same time, the language imposes its classification system on all participants in this convention - it is also difficult to argue with this. If we were told from an early age that a finger on the hand is one thing, and a toe is completely different, then to mature age we would probably already be convinced of the justice of just such a division of reality. And it would be nice if it was only about the fingers or about the limbs - we agree "without looking" with other, more important points of the "convention" that we sign.

In the late 60s, on one of the islands of the Philippine archipelago (in the Pacific Ocean), a tribe was discovered that lived in the conditions of the Stone Age and in complete isolation from the rest of the world. Representatives of this tribe (they called themselves tasadai) did not even suspect that, besides them, there are still intelligent beings on Earth. When scientists and journalists came to grips with the description of the Tasadai world, they were struck by one feature: in the language of the tribe there were no words at all like war, enemy, hate... Tasadai, in the words of one of the journalists, "learned to live in harmony and concord not only with nature, but also among themselves." Of course, this fact can be explained as follows: the original friendliness and goodwill of this tribe found its natural reflection in the language. But after all, the language did not stand aside from public life, it left its mark on the formation of the moral norms of this community: how could the newly minted tasadai learn about wars and murders? We have signed a different information "convention" with our languages...

So, language educates a person, forms his inner world - this is the essence of the cognitive function of language. Moreover, this function can manifest itself in the most unexpected specific situations.

The American linguist Benjamin Lee Whorf gave such examples from his practice (he once worked as a fire safety engineer). In a warehouse where gasoline tanks are stored, people behave carefully: do not light a fire, do not click lighters ... However, the same people behave differently in a warehouse that is known to store empty (in English empty) gasoline tanks. Here they show carelessness, they can light a cigarette, etc. Meanwhile, empty gasoline tanks are much more explosive than full ones: gasoline vapors remain in them. Why do people behave so carelessly? Whorf asked himself. And he answered: because the word calms them, misleads them empty, which has several meanings (for example, such: 1) 'containing nothing (about vacuum)', 2) 'not containing something'...). And people unconsciously, as it were, substitute one meaning for another. A whole linguistic concept has grown out of such facts - the theory of linguistic relativity, which states that a person lives not so much in the world of objective reality, but in the world of language...

So, language can be the cause of misunderstandings, mistakes, delusions? Yes. We have already spoken about conservatism as the original property of a linguistic sign. The person who signed the "convention" is not very inclined to change it later. And therefore, linguistic classifications quite often diverge from scientific classifications (later and more accurate). For example, we divide the entire living world into animals and plants, but systematologists say that such a division is primitive and incorrect, because there are still at least fungi and microorganisms that cannot be attributed to either animals or plants. Our "everyday" understanding of what minerals, insects, berries are does not coincide with the scientific one - to be convinced of this, it is enough to look into encyclopedic Dictionary. Why are there private classifications! Copernicus proved in the 16th century that the Earth revolves around the Sun, and language still defends the previous point of view. After all, we say: "The sun rises, the sun sets ..." - and we do not even notice this anachronism.

However, one should not think that language only hinders the progress of human knowledge. On the contrary, he can actively contribute to its development. One of the largest Japanese politicians of our time, Daisaku Ikeda, believes that it was the Japanese language that was one of the main factors contributing to the rapid revival of post-war Japan: the role belongs to the Japanese language, its flexible word-formation mechanism, which allows you to instantly create and easily master that truly huge number of new words that we needed to assimilate the mass of concepts pouring in from outside. The French linguist Joseph Vandries once wrote about the same: “A flexible and mobile language, in which grammar is reduced to a minimum, shows thought in all its clarity and allows it to move freely; inflexible and ponderous language constrains thought. Leaving aside the controversial issue of the role of grammar in the processes of cognition (what does it mean in the above quote “grammar is reduced to a minimum”?), I hasten to reassure the reader: you should not worry about this or that particular language or be skeptical about its capabilities. In practice, each means of communication corresponds to its “view of the world” and satisfies the communicative needs of a given people with sufficient completeness.

14. NOMINATIVE FUNCTION

Another extremely important function of the language is nominative, or naming. In fact, we have already touched on it, reflecting in the previous paragraph on the cognitive function. The fact is that naming is an integral part of knowledge. A person, generalizing a mass of specific phenomena, digressing from their random signs and highlighting the essential ones, feels the need to consolidate the knowledge gained in the word. This is how the name comes about. If not for it, the concept would have remained an incorporeal, speculative abstraction. And with the help of a word, a person can, as it were, “stake out” the surveyed part of the surrounding reality, say to himself: “I already know this,” hang up a name plate and move on.

Consequently, the whole system of concepts that modern man possesses rests on a system of names. The easiest way to show this is with proper names. Let's try to throw out all proper names from the courses of history, geography, literature - all anthroponyms (this means the names of people: Alexander the Great, Columbus, Peter I, Moliere, Athanasius Nikitin, Saint-Exupery, Don Quixote, Tom Sawyer, Uncle Vanya...) and all toponyms (these are the names of localities: Galaxy, North Pole, Troy, City of the Sun, Vatican, Volga, Auschwitz, Capitol Hill, Black River...), what will be left of these sciences? Obviously, the texts will become meaningless, the person reading them will immediately lose their orientation in space and time.

But names are not only proper names, but also common nouns. Terminology of all sciences - physics, chemistry, biology, etc. are all names. Even that atomic bomb could not have been created if the ancient concept of "atom" * had not been replaced by new concepts - neutron, proton and other elementary particles, nuclear fission, chain reaction, etc. - and all of them were fixed in words !

There is a characteristic confession by the American scientist Norbert Wiener about how the scientific activity of his laboratory was hampered by the lack of an appropriate name for this line of research: it was not clear what the employees of this laboratory were doing. And only when Wiener’s book Cybernetics was published in 1947 (the scientist came up with this name, taking as a basis the Greek word meaning ‘pilot, helmsman’), the new science rushed forward with leaps and bounds.

So, the nominative function of language serves not just to orient a person in space and time, it goes hand in hand with the cognitive function, it participates in the process of knowing the world.

But a person is by nature a pragmatist, he seeks, first of all, practical benefits from his affairs. This means that he will not name all the surrounding objects in a row, in the expectation that these names will someday come in handy. No, he uses the nominative function intentionally, selectively, naming first of all what is closest to him, most often and most importantly.

Recall, for example, the names of mushrooms in Russian: how much do we know them? White mushroom (boletus), boletus(in Belarus it is often called grandma), boletus (red-headed), mushroom, camelina, oiler, chanterelle, honey agaric, russula, volnushka... - at least a dozen will be typed. But these are all useful, edible mushrooms. And the inedible ones? Perhaps we only distinguish two types: fly agaric And toadstools(well, apart from a few more false varieties: false mushrooms and so on.). Meanwhile, biologists say that there are much more varieties of inedible mushrooms than edible ones! It’s just that a person doesn’t need them, they are uninteresting (except for narrow specialists in this field) - so why waste names and bother yourself?

From this follows one regularity. Every language must have gaps, that is, holes, empty spaces in the picture of the world. In other words, there must be something not named- something that a person (yet) is not important, does not need ...

Let's take a look in the mirror at our own familiar face and ask: what is this? Nose. And this? Lip. What is between the nose and lip? Mustache. Well, if there is no mustache - what is the name of this place? In response - a shrug of the shoulders (or the sly "Place between the nose and the lip"). Okay, one more question. What is it? Forehead. And this? back of the head. What is between the forehead and the back of the head? In reply: head. No, the head is everything as a whole, but what is the name of this part of the head, between the forehead and the back of the head? Few remember the name crown, most often the answer will be the same shrug ... Yes, something should not have a name.

And another consequence follows from what has been said. In order for an object to receive a name, it is necessary for it to enter into public use, to step over a certain “threshold of significance”. Until some time, it was still possible to get by with a random or descriptive name, but from now on it is no longer possible - a separate name is needed.

In this light, it is interesting, for example, to observe the development of the means (tools) of writing. Word history pen, pen, fountain pen, pencil and so on. reflects the development of a "piece" of human culture, the formation of relevant concepts in the minds of a native speaker of the Russian language. I remember how the first felt-tip pens appeared in the USSR in the 1960s. Then they were still a rarity, they were brought from abroad, and the possibilities of their use were not yet entirely clear. Gradually, these objects began to be generalized into a special concept, but for a long time they did not receive their clear name. (There were names “plakar”, “fibrous pencil”, and there were variants in writing: felt-tip pen or felt-tip pen?) Today, a felt-tip pen is already a “settled” concept, firmly entrenched in the corresponding name. But quite recently, in the late 80s, new, somewhat excellent writing tools appeared. This, in particular, is an automatic pencil with an ultra-thin (0.5 mm) stylus, retractable by clicks to a certain length, then a ballpoint pen (again with an ultra-thin tip), which writes not with paste, but with ink, etc. What are their names? Yes, so far - in Russian - nothing. They can be characterized only descriptively: approximately as it is done in this text. They have not yet entered widely into everyday life, have not become a fact of mass consciousness, which means that for the time being it is possible to do without a special name.

The attitude of a person to a name is generally not easy.

On the one hand, over time, the name becomes attached, “sticks” to its subject, and in the head of a native speaker there is an illusion of the originality, “naturalness” of the name. The name becomes the representative, even the substitute, of the subject. (Even ancient people believed that a person’s name is internally connected with himself, is part of it. If, say, the name is harmed, then the person himself will suffer. Hence the prohibition, the so-called taboo, on the use of the names of close relatives.)

On the other hand, the participation of the name in the process of cognition leads to another illusion: "if you know the name, you know the subject." Suppose I know the word succulent– therefore, I know what it is. The same J.Vandries wrote well about this peculiar magic of the term: “To know the names of things means to have power over them ... To know the name of a disease is already half to cure it. We should not laugh at this primitive belief. It lives even in our time, since we attach importance to the form of diagnosis. "My head hurts, doctor." "It's cephalalgia." "My stomach is not working well." – “This is dyspepsia”... And the patients already feel better just because the representative of science knows the name of their secret enemy.”

Indeed, often in scientific discussions you become a witness of how disputes on the essence of the subject are replaced by a war of names, a confrontation of terminologies. The dialogue follows the principle: tell me what terms you use, and I will tell you which school (scientific direction) you belong to.

Generally speaking, the belief in the existence of a single correct name is more widespread than we realize. Here is what the poet said:

When we refine the language
And we will name the stone as it should,
He himself will tell you how it came to be,
What is its purpose and where is the reward.

When we find a star
Her only name is
She, with her planets,
Stepping out of silence and darkness...

(A.Aronov)

Isn't it true, it reminds the words of an old eccentric from a joke: “I can imagine everything, I can understand everything. I even understand how people discovered planets so far from us. I just can’t figure it out: how did they know their names?

Of course, do not overestimate the power of the name. And even more so, you can not put an equal sign between a thing and its name. Otherwise, it won’t take long to come to the conclusion that all our troubles stem from the wrong names, and as soon as we change the names, everything will immediately get better. Such a delusion, alas, also does not bypass a person. The desire for wholesale renaming is especially noticeable during periods of social upheaval. Cities and streets are renamed, instead of some military ranks others are introduced, the police become the police (or, in other countries, vice versa!), technical schools and institutes in the blink of an eye intersect into colleges and academies ... This is what the nominative function of language means, this is faith person in the title!

15. REGULATORY FUNCTION

Regulatory the function combines those cases of using the language when the speaker aims to directly influence the addressee: to induce him to some action or forbid him to do something, to force him to answer a question, etc. Wed statements such as: What time is it now? Do you want some milk? Please call me tomorrow. Everyone to the rally! I don't want to hear it again! You take my bag with you. No extra words needed. As can be seen from the above examples, at the disposal of the regulatory function are diverse lexical means and morphological forms (the category of mood plays a special role here), as well as intonation, word order, syntactic constructions, etc.

I note that various kinds of motives - such as a request, an order, a warning, a ban, advice, persuasion, etc. - are not always formalized as such, expressed using "own" language tools. Sometimes they act in someone else's guise, using language units that usually serve other purposes. For example, a mother’s request to her son not to come home late can be expressed directly, using the form of the imperative mood (“Don’t come late today, please!”), Or she can disguise it as a question (“What time are you going to return?”), And also under reproach, warning, statement of fact, etc.; let's compare such statements as: “Yesterday you came late again...” (with a special intonation), “Look, now it gets dark early”, “Metro works until one, do not forget”, “I will be very worried”, etc. .

Ultimately, the regulatory function is aimed at creating, maintaining and regulating relationships in human microcollectives, that is, in the real environment in which a native speaker lives. Targeting the addressee makes it related to the communicative function (see § 11). Sometimes, together with the regulatory function, they also consider the function phatic*, or contact-setting. This means that a person always needs to enter into a conversation in a certain way (call out to the interlocutor, greet him, remind him of himself, etc.) and exit the conversation (say goodbye, thank you, etc.). But does establishing contact come down to an exchange of phrases like “Hello” - “Goodbye”? The phatic function is much wider in its scope, and therefore it is not surprising that it is difficult to distinguish it from the regulatory function.

Let's try to remember: what do we talk about during the day with others? What, is all this information vital for our well-being or directly affecting the behavior of the interlocutor? No, for the most part, these are conversations, it would seem, “about nothing”, about trifles, about what the interlocutor already knows: about the weather and about mutual acquaintances, about politics and football among men, about clothes and children women; now they have been supplemented with comments on television series ... There is no need to treat such monologues and dialogues ironically and arrogantly. In fact, these are not talks about the weather and not about “rags”, but about each other, about us, about people. In order to occupy and then maintain a certain place in the micro-collective (and such is the family, the circle of friends, the production team, housemates, even companions in the compartment, etc.), a person must necessarily talk with other members of this group.

Even if you happen to be together with someone in a moving elevator, you may feel some embarrassment and turn your back: the distance between you and your companion is too small to pretend that you do not notice each other, and start a conversation too in general, it doesn’t make sense - there’s nothing to talk about, and it’s too short to go ... Here is a subtle observation in the story of the modern Russian prose writer V. Popov: “In the mornings, we all went up in the elevator together ... The elevator creaked, went up, and everyone was silent. Everyone understood that it was impossible to stand like that, that they had to say something, say something faster, in order to defuse this silence. But it was too early to talk about work, and no one knew what to talk about. And there was such silence in this elevator, even jump out on the go.

In collectives, on the other hand, the establishment and maintenance of speech contacts is the most important means of regulating relations. Here, for example, you meet your neighbor Maria Ivanovna on the landing and tell her: “Good morning, Marya Ivanna, something is early today ...”. This phrase has a double bottom. Behind its “external” meaning is read: “I remind you, Maria Ivanovna, I am your neighbor and would like to continue to remain on good terms with you.” There is nothing hypocritical, deceitful in such greetings, these are the rules of communication. And all these are very important, simply necessary phrases. Figuratively, we can say this: if today you don’t praise the new beads on your girlfriend, and she, in turn, tomorrow doesn’t take an interest in how your relationship with a certain mutual acquaintance is developing, then in a couple of days a slight chill will run between you, and in a month you may lose your girlfriend altogether... Do you want to experiment? Take my word for it.

Let me emphasize: communication with relatives, friends, neighbors, companions, colleagues is necessary not only to maintain certain relationships in micro-collectives. It is also important for the person himself - for his self-affirmation, for the realization of him as a person. The fact is that the individual plays in society not only a certain permanent social role (for example, "housewife", "student", "scientist", "miner", etc.), but all the time trying on different social " masks”, for example: “guest”, “passenger”, “sick”, “advisor”, etc. And all this "theater" exists mainly thanks to the language: for each role, for each mask, there are speech means.

Of course, the regulative and phatic functions of language are aimed not only at improving relations between members of the microcollective. Sometimes a person, on the contrary, resorts to them for "repressive" purposes - in order to alienate, alienate the interlocutor from himself. In other words, the tongue is used not only for mutual “strokes” (this is the term accepted in psychology), but also for “pricks” and “blows”. In the latter case, we are dealing with expressions of threat, insults, curses, curses, etc. And again: the social convention - that's who establishes what is considered rude, insulting, humiliating for the interlocutor. In the Russian-speaking criminal world, one of the most powerful, deadly insults is “goat!”. And in the aristocratic society of the century before last, words scoundrel was enough to challenge the offender to a duel. Today, the language norm is “softening” and the level of the repressive function is raised quite high. This means that a person perceives as offensive only very strong means ...

In addition to the language functions discussed above - communicative, mental, cognitive, nominative and regulatory (to which we "added" phatic), we can distinguish other socially significant roles of language. In particular, ethnic the function means that the language unites the ethnos (people), it helps to form national self-consciousness. aesthetic the function turns the text into a work of art: this is the sphere of creativity, fiction - it has already been discussed before. Emotionally expressive function allows a person to express in language his feelings, sensations, experiences ... magical(or incantation) function is realized in special situations when the language is endowed with a kind of superhuman, "otherworldly" power. Examples are incantations, deifications, oaths, curses, and some other types of ritual texts.

And all this is not yet the full "circle of duties" of the language in human society.

Tasks and exercises

1. Determine which language functions are implemented in the following statements.

a) Kryzhovka (sign on the building of the railway station).
b) Accounting (placard on the shop door).
c) Hello. My name is Sergey Alexandrovich (teacher entering class).
d) An equilateral rectangle is called a square. (from textbook).
e) “I won’t come to training on Wednesday, I won’t be able to.” - "You must Fedya, you must" (from a conversation on the street).
f) May you fail, you damned drunkard! (From apartment squabble).
g) I learned the science of parting In the simple-haired complaints of the night (O. Mandelstam).

2. In one film "from foreign life" the hero asks the maid:

Is Mrs. Mayons at home?
And gets the answer:
Your mother is in the living room.

Why does the questioner call his mother so formally, "Mrs. Mayons"? And why does the maid choose a different name in her answer? What language functions are implemented in this dialog?

3. What language functions are implemented in the following dialogue from V. Voinovich's story "The Life and Extraordinary Adventures of a Soldier Ivan Chonkin"?

They were silent. Then Chonkin looked at the clear sky and said:
– Today, you can see everything, there will be a bucket.
“There will be a bucket if it doesn’t rain,” Lesha said.
“It doesn’t rain without clouds,” Chonkin remarked. - And it happens that there are clouds, but there is still no rain.
“It happens that way,” Lesha agreed.
On this they parted.

4. Comment on the following dialogue between two characters in M. Twain's The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.

- ...But if a person comes up to you and asks: "Parlet vu français?" – what do you think?
- I won’t think anything, I’ll take it and crack it on the head ...

Which language features "do not work" in this case?

5. Very often a person starts a conversation with words like listen (you), you know (you know) or by addressing the interlocutor by name, although there is no one next to him, so this appeal also does not make much sense. Why is the speaker doing this?

6. Physics teaches: the primary colors of the solar spectrum seven: red, orange, yellow, green, blue, blue, purple. Meanwhile, the simplest sets of paints or pencils include six colors, and these are other components: black, brown, red, yellow, green, blue. (With the "expansion" of the set, blue, orange, purple, lemon and even white appear ...) Which of these pictures of the world is more reflected in the language - "physical" or "everyday"? What linguistic facts can confirm this?

7. List the names of the fingers on the hand. Do all names come to your mind equally quickly? What is it connected with? Now list the names of the toes. What is the conclusion from this? How does this fit in with the nominative function of language?

8. Show on yourself where the person's lower leg, ankle, ankle, wrist are located. Was this task easy for you? What conclusion follows from this about the relationship between the world of words and the world of things?

9. The following law operates in the language: the more often a word is used in speech, the wider its meaning in principle (or, in other words, the more meanings it has). How can this rule be justified? Show its effect on the example of the following Russian nouns denoting parts of the body.

Head, forehead, heel, shoulder, wrist, cheek, collarbone, hand, foot, leg, waist, temple.

10. A tall and large person in Russian can be called something like this: atlas, giant, giant, bogatyr, giant, colossus, Gulliver, Hercules, Antey, big man, tall, ambal, elephant, closet... Imagine being tasked with coming up with a name for a new plus size ready-to-wear store (52 and up). What name(s) would you choose and why?

11. Try to determine what concepts historically underlie the meanings of the following Russian words: guarantee, antediluvian, literally, proclaim, disgusting, restrained, liberated, collate, distribution, inaccessible, patronage, confirmation. What pattern can be seen in the semantic evolution of these words?

12. Below is a number of Belarusian nouns that do not have one-word matches in the Russian language (according to the dictionary "Samobytnye slova" by I. Shkraba). Translate these words into Russian. How to explain their "originality"? To what function of the language (or to what functions) does the presence of such - non-equivalent - words correspond?

Vyray, paint, glue, gruz, kaliva, vyaselnik, garbarnya.

13. Can you accurately determine the meaning of such words in Russian as brother-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law? If not, why not?

14. In the book “Wild Useful Plants of the USSR” (M., 1976), one can find many examples of how the scientific (botanical) classification does not coincide with the household (“naive”) classification. So, chestnut and oak belong to the beech family. Blueberries and apricots belong to the same family, the Rosaceae. Walnut (hazel) belongs to the birch family. The fruits of pear, mountain ash, hawthorn belong to the same class and are called an apple.
How to explain these discrepancies?

15. Why does a person, in addition to his own name, have a variety of "second names": nicknames, nicknames, pseudonyms? Why should a person, when he becomes a monk, give up his worldly name and take on a new, spiritual one? What language functions are implemented in all these cases?

16. There is such an unwritten rule that students adhere to when preparing for exams: “If you don’t know yourself, explain to a friend.” How can one explain the operation of this rule in relation to the main functions of the language?

* In ancient Greek a-tomos literally meant "indivisible".

(To be continued)

Language is not only a system of signs that symbolically mediates the human world, but also the most important tool of human activity.

The following functions of the language are distinguished:
1) communicative;
2) cognitive (cognitive);
3) nominative;
4) accumulative.

The communicative function of language is related to the fact that language is, first of all, a means of communication between people. It allows one individual - the speaker - to express his thoughts, and the other - the perceiver - to understand them, that is, to somehow react, take note, change his behavior or his mental attitudes accordingly. The act of communication would not be possible without language.

Cognitive, or cognitive, functions of the language (from the Latin cognition - knowledge, cognition) is connected with the fact that the consciousness of a person is realized or fixed in the signs of the language. Language is a tool of consciousness, reflects the results of human mental activity.

Any images and concepts of our consciousness are realized by ourselves and those around us only when they are clothed in a linguistic form. Hence the idea of ​​the inseparable connection between thinking and language.

The nominative function of language follows directly from the cognitive one. Known must be called, given a name. The nominative function is associated with the ability of language signs to symbolically designate things.

The world is known and mastered only when it is named. The world without our names is alien, like a distant unknown planet, there is no man in it, human life is impossible in it.

The name allows you to fix what is already known. Without a name, any known fact of reality, any thing would remain in our minds as a one-time accident. Naming words, we create our own - understandable and convenient picture of the world. Language gives us canvas and paints.

The accumulative function of the language is associated with the most important purpose of the language - to collect and store information, evidence of human cultural activity. Language lives much longer than a man and sometimes even longer than entire nations. The so-called dead languages ​​are known, which survived the peoples who spoke these languages. Nobody speaks these languages, except for specialists who study them.

The overwhelming majority of the gigantic volumes of information produced and produced by mankind exists in linguistic form. In other words, any fragment of this information can in principle be spoken and perceived by both contemporaries and descendants. This is the accumulative function of language, with the help of which mankind accumulates and transmits information both in modern times and in a historical perspective - along the relay race of generations.

Summing up this section, we can derive such a formula for remembering the main functions of the language.

The communicative function provides social connections, life in society.

The cognitive function provides thinking, cognition and orientation in the world.

The nominative function helps to name objects and phenomena.

The accumulative function ensures the accumulation, continuity of knowledge and the existence of man in history.