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? Not conditional<182>But is such a distinction made by 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 it found appropriate theoretical justification 3 2 . But the problem of these different approaches to the study of language has come to the fore since F. de Saussure formulated his famous antinomy of diachronic and synchronic linguistics 3 3 . 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 turns out to be internal, static (i.e. freed from the temporal factor) and systemic, and diachronic linguistics - external , evolutionary (dynamic), and lacking systematicity. 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 3 4, which gave rise to a huge literature, but began to be used as an essential feature separating entire linguistic schools and directions (cf., for example, diachronic phonology and glossematic phonemics or descriptive linguistics).
It is extremely important to note that in the process of ever-deepening study of the problem of the relationship between diachronic and synchronic linguistics (or evidence of the absence of any relationship), an identification gradually occurred that Saussure himself may not have intended: diachronic and synchronic study of language as different operations or working methods used for certain purposes and by no means mutually exclusive, began to correlate<183>sya with the very object of study - language, and is derived from its very nature. In the words of E. Coseriu, it turned out that it was not taken into account that the difference between synchrony and diachrony relates not to the theory of language, but to the theory of linguistics 3 5 . Language itself does not know such distinctions, since it is always in development (which, by the way, was also recognized by Saussure) 3 6 , which is not carried out as a mechanical change of layers or synchronic layers, replacing each other like guards (the expression of I. A. Baudouin de Courtenay), but as a consistent, causal and continuous process. This means that everything that is considered in language outside of diachrony is not real. state language, but only its synchronicity description. Thus the problem of synchrony and diachrony is really a problem of working methods and not of the nature and essence of language.
In accordance with the above, if you study a language from two angles of view, such a study should be aimed at identifying how, in the process of language activity, phenomena that relate to the development of language arise. The need, as well as to a certain extent the direction of such study, is suggested by the famous paradox of S. Bally: “First of all, languages constantly change, but they can only function without changing. At any moment of their existence they are a product of temporary equilibrium. Consequently, this balance is the resultant of two opposing forces: on the one hand, tradition, which delays<184>a change that is incompatible with the normal use of language, and on the other hand, active tendencies pushing this language in a certain direction” 3 7. The “temporary balance” of language is, of course, a conditional concept, although it acts as a mandatory prerequisite for the implementation of the communication process. Through the point of this balance there pass many lines, which on one side go into the past, into the history of the language, and on the other side rush forward into the further development of the language. “The mechanism of language,” I. L. Baudouin de Courtenay formulates extremely accurately, “and in general its structure and composition in given time represent the result of the entire history preceding it, the entire development preceding it, and vice versa, by this mechanism in known time is determined further development language" 3 8 . Consequently, when we want to penetrate into the secrets of the development of language, we cannot decompose it into planes independent of each other; such a decomposition justified by the particular goals of the study and also acceptable from the point of view of the object of study, i.e. language will not give the results that we are striving for in this case. But we will certainly achieve them if we set the goal of our research as the interaction of the processes of functioning and development of language. It is in this regard that further presentation will be carried out.
In the process of language development, a change occurs in its structure, its quality, 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 a 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. Because, therefore, in the functioning of language we're talking about about certain norms, about certain rules for using the language system,<185>insofar as 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 language occurs in the activity of the latter. The functioning of language, which serves as a means of communication for members of a given society, establishes new needs that society places on 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, and the norms in accordance with which the language operates are revised.
Thus, the functioning and development of language, although separate, are at the same time interdependent and interdependent phenomena. In the process of language functioning as a tool of communication, language changes occur. Changing the structure of a 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 a 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, in the rules and norms of its functioning reflects the living, active laws of language development 3 9 .<186>
What specific forms does the interaction of the processes of functioning and development of language take?
As stated above, for a language to exist means to be in continuous activity. This position, however, should not lead to the false conclusion that every phenomenon that arose 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 existing rules of a given language, then it is hardly possible to discern in this any process of language development and to determine the laws of its development from these phenomena. Since in the development of a language we are talking 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 occurring in the structure of the language, differentiation is necessary here various phenomena. Depending on the specifics of the various components of language, new phenomena and facts that arise in the process of language functioning can take different forms, but all of them are associated with its development only if they are included in the language system as new phenomena of a natural order and thereby contribute to gradual and continuous improvement of its structure.
The functioning and development of language are not only interconnected, but also have great similarities. The forms of these and other phenomena are ultimately determined by the same structural features of language. Both of these phenomena can be used to characterize the features that distinguish one language from another. Since the development of language occurs in the process of functioning, the question apparently comes down to identifying ways in which the phenomena of functioning develop into phenomena of language development or to establishing a criterion by which it will be possible to delimit these phenomena. Establishing that the structure of a language is a formation, the details of which are connected with each other by regular relationships, one can choose its obligatory “two-dimensionality” as a criterion for including a new linguistic fact in the structure of a language.<187>vost". Each element of the structure of a language must represent a natural connection of at least two elements of the latter, one of which in relation to the other will represent its unique “linguistic” meaning. IN otherwise this element will be outside the structure of the language. By “linguistic” meaning we 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 background element of the structure of language 4 0. The forms of connection between structural elements are modified in accordance with the specific features of the structural components of the language in which they are included; but they are necessarily present in all elements of the structure of the language, and lexical meaning should also be included among the structural elements of the language. Based on this position, it can be argued that a sound or a complex of sounds, without a “linguistic” meaning, as well as a meaning that is in one way or another naturally not connected with sound elements language, is outside its structure, turns out to be not a linguistic phenomenon. “Linguistic” meanings are possessed by grammatical forms, words and morphemes as members of a single language system.
If, therefore, a fact that arose in the process of the functioning of language remains one-dimensional, if it is devoid of “linguistic” meaning, then it is not possible to say that, being included in the structure of language, it can change it, i.e. define it as fact of language development. For example, the concept of temporary relations or the concept of the nature of an action (type), which turns out to be possible to express in one way or another (descriptively) in language, but which, however, do not receive a fixed and naturally manifested<188>in the activity of language, the mode of expression in the form of a corresponding grammatical form, construction or grammatical rule cannot be considered as facts of the structure of the language and associated with its development. If in this regard we examine a number of English proposals
Imustgo?I have to go?
I havetogo??but I don't go to
The present
Icango?I can go?time,
I may go? etc.?
it will become 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 Ishallgo or Youwillgo, which, by the way, is what the American linguist Cantor does in his book 4 1 thus counting 12 forms of the future tense in English. However, although in such an expression as Imustgo, etc., the concept of time is expressed by linguistic means, it does not have a fixed form, like the construction Ishallgo; it, as is usually said, is 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 of sentence construction.
From this point of view, speech sound taken in isolated form also turns out to be devoid of “linguistic” meaning. What may have meaning in a certain complex, that is, in the phonetic system, is not retained by 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 “linguistic” meaning, also turn out to be outside the boundaries of the linguistic structure, as if sliding along its surface and therefore cannot be associated with the development of a given language .
The question of the emergence in the process of language functioning of both individual phenomena and facts of the actual development of language is closely intertwined with the question<189>about the structural conditionality of all phenomena occurring in the first. Due to 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, since the norms or rules of a language operating at any given moment are determined by its existing structure, the emergence in the language of all new phenomena - at least in relation to their forms - is also determined by the existing structure. In other words, since the functioning of a language is determined by its existing structure, and facts of development arise in the process of its functioning, we can talk about the structural conditionality of all forms of language development. But this position does not yet give grounds to conclude that all structurally determined phenomena of language relate to the facts of its development. It is impossible to substitute the structural conditioning of all phenomena of language activity for its development. A differentiated approach is still needed here, which can be illustrated with an example.
Thus, in phonetics, more clearly than in any other area of language, the position can be traced that not every structurally determined phenomenon (or, as they also say, 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 is known, phonetics, which most clearly showed historical changes language. As a result of a thorough study of this side of the language, books on the history of the most studied Indo-European languages present, for the most part, a consistent presentation of phonetic changes, presented in the form of “laws” of different orders in relation to the breadth of phenomena covered. Thus, comparative historical phonetics turned out to be the leading aspect of the study of language, with the help of which the uniqueness of languages and the ways of their historical development was characterized. When familiarizing yourself with phonetic processes, one is always struck by their great independence and independence from intralingual, social or other needs. freedom of choice<190>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 Icelandic 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), while in other cases it is absent (Gothic and Old Icelandic). 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). Such particular phenomena can hardly be considered among the facts of language development. 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 do not, apparently, serve the purpose of satisfying any urgent needs in the language system, then languages do not show any interest in implementation of these processes, nor in their direction. But language, however, can further connect such “indifferent” phenomena for it with a certain meaning, and this will manifest itself as a choice of the direction in which the development of language has taken, within the limits of existing possibilities.
In this kind of phonetic processes, it is possible to establish certain patterns, 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 turn out to be represented in many languages, taking the form of universal laws. Thus, assimilation is an extremely widespread phenomenon, manifesting itself in languages in diverse forms and finding different uses. We can distinguish: cases of assimilation associated with positional position (as in the Russian word shish<сшить); асси<191>milations that arise at the junctions of words and are often represented in the form of regular rules of “sandhi” (for example, Notker’s law in Old High German or the rule for the use of strong and weak forms in modern English: she in combination ititisshe and in combination shesays); assimilations that receive natural expression in all relevant forms of language and often limit their action to a certain chronological framework, and sometimes turn out to be specific to entire groups or families of languages. Such, for example, is refraction in Old English, various types of umlauts in ancient Germanic languages, the phenomenon of synharmonism of Finno-Ugric and Turkic languages (cf. Hungarian ember-nek- “to man”, nomed?r-nek- “bird”, Turkish tash-lar-dar- “in the stones”, butel-ler-der- “in the hands”), etc. Despite the diversity of such assimilation processes, what is common to their universal “natural” manifestation is the fact that all of them in their sources are a consequence of mechanical assimilation one sound to another, determined by the peculiarities of the activity of the human articulatory apparatus. Another thing is that some of these processes received “linguistic” meaning, while others did not.
In “autonomous” phonetic phenomena it is difficult to see processes of improvement of the existing “phonetic quality” of a language. The theory of convenience as applied to phonetic processes, as is known, was a complete fiasco. The actual development of phonetic systems of specific languages shattered all the theoretical calculations of linguists. The German language, for example, from the second movement of consonants, has developed a group of affricates, the pronunciation of which, theoretically speaking, does not at all seem easier or more convenient than the pronunciation of the simple consonants from which they developed. There are cases when the phonetic process at a certain period of language development goes in a vicious circle, for example, in the history of the English language bжc>bak>back(ж>a>ж). Comparative consideration also gives nothing in this regard. Some languages pile up consonants (Bulgarian, Polish), others amaze with an abundance of vowels (Finnish). General<192>The direction of change in the phonetic system of a language also often contradicts the theoretical premises of ease 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 the modern German language.
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 they are considered on the same phonetic level, to be extremely conditional and correlated only with the pronunciation skills of people during certain periods of development of each language separately. It follows that it is not possible to talk about any improvement in relation to phonetic processes considered in isolation.
All that has been said does not at all deprive phonetic phenomena of the right to characterize language accordingly. The examples already listed show that they can be characteristic of strictly certain languages, sometimes defining a group of related languages or even a whole family of them. For example, vowel synharmonism is represented in many Turkic languages, having a functional meaning in some dialects, 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 being analyzed) is the most characteristic feature of the Germanic languages. Moreover, you can even install known boundaries phonetic processes of a given language - they will be determined by the phonetic composition of the language. But to characterize a language only by an external sign 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 many ways in the process of language functioning, it is necessary to make 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<193>changes. But at the same time, it turns out to be possible in the history of the same languages to point out phonetic changes that are in no way combined with other phenomena of the language in the general movement of its development. These prerequisites make it possible to approach the issue of the relationship between the processes of language functioning and the internal laws of its development.
The problem of the laws of language development is most directly and closely related to research aimed at revealing the connections between individual phenomena of 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 different linguistic structures. In this regard, all phenomena of each specific language, as already indicated above, turn out to be structurally conditioned, or systemic, and precisely in the sense that they can appear in the process of functioning only of a given language system. But their attitude to the structure of language is different, and linguistic research should be aimed at revealing these differences. It would be frivolous to be content with only external facts and a priori attribute all the differences that distinguish one language from another to the laws of development of a given language. Until it's opened intercom any of the facts of a language with its system, it is impossible to talk about the development of language, much less about its laws, no matter how tempting and “self-evident” this may seem. We should not forget 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 sound speech. Thus he receives a physical and physiological aspect. Both in grammatical rules and in individual lexical units elements find their expression and consolidation cognitive work human mind, only with the help of language is the process of thinking possible. This circumstance inextricably links language with thinking. Through language they find their expression and mental states<194>people who leave a certain imprint on the language system and thus also include some additional elements in it. But sound, the organs of speech, logical concepts, and mental phenomena exist not only as elements of language. They are used by language or 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 also has its own laws of development and functioning. Therefore, there is always a danger of replacing the laws of development and functioning of language, for example, with the laws of development and functioning of thinking. It is necessary to take into account this danger and, in order to avoid it, to consider all the facts of language only through the prism of their connectedness 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 development of a given language until it is considered in the entire system of facts of language development, since with 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 consideration of the facts of language development in their entirety will make it possible to identify those processes that determine the main lines in the historical movement of languages. Only this approach will make it possible to reveal the laws of their development in individual facts of language development. This provision requires a more detailed explanation, for which it seems necessary to consider a specific example.
Among the significant number of various phonetic changes that arose in the process of language functioning, one particular case stands out, being included in the system and leading to its change. This kind of fate befell, for example, the umlaut forms of a number of cases of monosyllabic consonant stems of the ancient Germanic languages. In its origins, this is a common process of assimilation, a mechanical assimilation of the root vowel to the element -i(j) contained in the ending. In different Germanic languages this process is reflected<195>squeezed in different ways. In Old Icelandic and Old Norse, umlaut forms in the singular had dative, and in the plural - nominative and accusative. In other cases, non-umlaut forms were present (cf., on the one hand, fшte , fшtr, and on the other - fotr, fotar, fota, fotum). Old English has a roughly similar picture: 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 a stem in -u, did not retain its old declension forms. It has passed into the declension of nouns with stems ending in -i, which, with the exception of the residual forms of the instrumental case (gestiu), has already unified forms: with one vowel for the singular (gast, gastes, gaste) and with another vowel for the plural (gesti , gestio, gestim, gesti). Thus already in ancient period processes are outlined that seem to prepare the use of the results of the action of the i-umlaut for the grammatical fixation of the category of number precisely in the sense that the presence of an umlaut determines the form of the word as a plural form, and its absence indicates the singular.
It is remarkable that at the very beginning of the Middle English period conditions arose that were completely identical to those German language, since as a result of the analogy, all singular cases were aligned according to the non-umlaut form. If we take into account the rapid movement taking place in this era towards a complete reduction of case endings, then theoretically we should recognize in the English language the presence of all the conditions for the opposition of umlaut and non-umlaut forms like fot/fet to be used as a means of distinguishing the singular and plural of nouns. But in English this process late. By this time, other forms of development had already arisen in the English language, so the formation of the plural by modifying the root vowel became isolated in English within several residual forms, which from the point of view of modern language are perceived almost as supple<196>tive. In other Germanic languages things were different. IN Scandinavian languages, for example in modern Danish, this is a fairly significant group of nouns (in particular, nouns that form the plural using the suffix - (e)r). But this phenomenon received its greatest development in the German language. Here it found strong footholds in the structure of language. For the German language, this is no longer a mechanical adaptation of articulations, but one of grammatical means. Actually, umlaut itself, as a really manifested assimilation phenomenon, has long disappeared from the German language, as well as the element i that caused it. Only the vowel alternation associated with this phenomenon has been preserved. And precisely because this alternation turned out to be connected by natural connections with other elements of the system and was thereby 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 no historical umlaut in reality. Thus, already in Middle High German there are nouns that have umlaut forms of plural formation, although they never had the element i in their 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 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 arose under general structural conditions, gave identical types of vowel alternation, and even its grammaticalization itself proceeded along parallel lines. But in the English language this is nothing more than one of the phenomena that has not received widespread development, one of the “unfinished plans of the language”, which has left its mark on a very limited circle of elements of the English language system. This is undoubtedly a fact of the evolution of language, since, having arisen in the process of functioning, it entered the English language system and thereby made some changes<197>tions in its structure. But in itself it is not a law of development of the English language, at least for a significant part of the period of its history known to us. This phenomenon lacks regularity to become a law. Talk about linguistic law it is possible when there is not one of the many paths of language development offered by the existing structure to choose from, but a language-specific feature rooted in the very foundation of the structure, entered into its flesh and blood, 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 existing structural possibilities, which in all ancient Germanic languages have many similar features. The English language, to which the type of formation through the alternation of the root vowel turned out to be alien, pushed this type aside, limiting it to the sphere of peripheral phenomena.
The German language is a different matter. Here this phenomenon is not a private episode in the eventful life of language. Here this is the diverse use of a regular phenomenon, which owes its emergence to structural conditions, which in this case form the basis of the qualitative characteristics of language. In the German language, this phenomenon finds extremely wide application both in word formation and in inflection. It is used to form diminutives with -el, -lein or -chen: Knoch-Knöchel, Haus-Hüslein, Blatt-Blättchen; names of characters (nomina-agentis) in -er: Garten-Gärtner, jagen-Jäger, Kufe-Küfer; feminine animate nouns starting with -in: Fuchs-Fьchsin, Hund-Hьndin; abstract nouns formed from adjectives: lang-Länge, kalt-Kälte; causatives from strong verbs: trinken-tränken, saugen-sügen; abstract nouns in -nis: Bund-Bьndnis, Grab-Grдbnis, Kummer-Kьmmernis; when forming plural forms in a number of masculine nouns: Vater-Väter, Tast-Täste; feminine: Stadt-Städte, Macht-Mächte; neuter: Haus-Häuser; when forming past tense forms, conjunctive: kam-kдme, dachte-dдchte; degrees of comparison of adjectives: lang -länger-längest, hoch-höher-höchst, etc. In a word, in the German language there is<198>an extremely branched system of formation, built on the alternation of vowels of this particular nature. Here, the alternation of vowels according to i-umlaut, being systematized and formalized 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 emerged at different times. This type of formation, based on the alternation of vowels, which arose in the process of language functioning initially in the form of a mechanical phenomenon of assimilation, which later received a “linguistic” meaning and was included in the language system, is one of the most characteristic laws of the development of the German language. This type was determined by the phonetic structure of the language, it combined with other homogeneous phenomena and became one of the essential components of its quality, as indicated by the regularity of its manifestation in various areas of the language. He acted, maintaining his active force throughout a significant period of the history of this language. Having entered the structure of the language, it served the purpose of developing its existing quality.
What is also characteristic of this type is that it is the basis on which numerous and often different in origin and meaning are located language facts. This is like the core line of language development. It is linked to the heterogeneous facts that arose at different times in the history of language and are united by this type of formation.
In this review, the path of development of only one phenomenon was traced - from its origin to the inclusion of the qualitative characteristics of language in the basis, 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 appear in the process of functioning of a given language system, but at the same time their relationship 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 into<199>language as episodic facts of its evolution; they do not find a regular expression in his system, although they are conditioned, due to the general causality of phenomena, structural features language. Still others determine the main forms of language development and the regularity of their detection indicates that they are associated with inner core language, with the main components of its structural basis, creating a certain constancy of conditions to ensure the specified regularity of their manifestation in historical path language development. These are the laws of language development, since they depend entirely 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. By virtue of constant movement language forward, phenomena of one order can transform into phenomena of another, higher order, which presupposes the existence of transitional types. In addition, our knowledge of the facts of the history of language is not always sufficient to confidently grasp and determine the presence of a feature that allows us to attribute this fact to one or another category of named phenomena. This circumstance, of course, cannot but complicate the problem of the relationship between the processes of language functioning and the patterns of its development.<200>
The emergence and functioning of language is determined by objective reality, the material world. A person lives in a constantly changing world, so his language must be adapted to denote any object, phenomenon, situation.
Thus, language must change due to the continuous change of life itself. But, on the other hand, language in its specific elements, categories, must be stable, because only under this condition will he be able to fulfill these conditions.
V.A. Serebryannikov: “The processes of restructuring in the language encounter obstacles to the onset of drastic changes, hence uneven pace development for different levels of language."
The most dynamic is the lexical level, and the conservative ones are phonetics and morphology.
The evolution of a language is a quantitative and qualitative update of its structure. It happens continuously.
The causes of language evolution are traditionally divided into external and internal.
EXTERNAL:
- · This includes changes in the inventory and properties of objects in the objective world;
- · Development of science and technology
- · Culture and art
- · Change in the composition of the language community
- · In a word, everything that happens in reality and is reflected in the language.
INTERNAL:
- · These include impulses that “arise in connection with the improvement trend that exists in the language system” (B.A. Serebryannikov).
- · They manifest themselves in a number of trends:
I. Adaptation of the language mechanism to the physiological characteristics of the human body.
- 1. Tendency towards easier pronunciation. It manifests itself in the fact that any language strives to get rid of sounds that are difficult to articulate.
- 2. Tendency to express different meanings in different forms.
- 3. Tendency to express identical values one form. This tendency is manifested in the process of leveling out the forms of his analogy.
- 4. Tendency to save linguistic means. Thus, the limited number of phonemes in any language amounts to tens of thousands of words. Also: in the process of using language, the principles of the most rational and economical selection of linguistic means truly necessary for communication are often implemented spontaneously, regardless of the will of the speakers.
- 5. The tendency to change the phonetic appearance of a word when it loses its lexical meaning. (thank you=God bless).
- 6. The tendency to create languages with a simple morphological structure. An indicator is that in the language in modern times. the world is dominated by affixing languages.
II. Need to improve the language mechanism:
- 1. The tendency to eliminate redundancy of means of expression.
- 2. Tendency to use more expressive forms.
- 3. Tendency to eliminate linguistic elements that have lost their original function.
In Slavic languages, the insignificant functional load of the phoneme was the reason for its loss in the South Slavic and Czech languages.
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 the 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 changes in linguistic concepts.
In linguistics, at the first stages of the development of comparative linguistics, the view was established that the languages known to science experienced a period of their heyday in ancient times, and now they are accessible to study only in a state of destruction, gradual and 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 only become decrepit according to certain laws of life, in sound and formal terms. The languages we now speak are, like all languages of historically important peoples, linguistic products of old age. All the languages of civilized peoples, as far as we know them at all, are to a greater or lesser extent in a state of regression.”
In another of his works, he says: “In the prehistoric period, languages were formed, but in the historical period they perish.” This point of view, based on the representation of language in the form of 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 reason for sound change under all circumstances,” and since the desire for convenience, economy of speech, and at the same time the carelessness of speakers is increasing, then “decreasing sound change” (i.e., unification of grammatical forms), caused by the above reasons, leads the language to decay.
Young grammarians Brugman and Osthoff put the development of language in connection with the formation of the speech organs, which depends on the climatic and cultural conditions of life of the people. “Like the formation of all the physical organs of man,” writes Osthoff, “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 connect the development of language with the life of society, but it vulgarized the social essence of language and in the processes of its development saw only a meaningless change in the forms of language.
“...The same language,” writes, for example, a representative of this trend, J. Vandries, “looks differently at different periods of its history; its elements change, restore, move. But in general, losses and gains compensate each other... Various aspects of morphological development resemble a kaleidoscope, shaken infinite number once. Every time we get new combinations of its elements, but nothing new except these combinations.”
As this brief overview of viewpoints shows, in the processes of language development, although it may seem paradoxical, no genuine development was found. Moreover, the development of language was even thought of as its collapse.
But even in those cases where the development of 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. Throughout its history, this language has gradually reconstructed its grammatical structure in the direction from a synthetic structure to an analytical one. Other Germanic and some Romance languages also developed in this direction. But analytical trends in other languages (Russian or other Slavic languages) did not lead to the destruction of their synthetic elements, for example, case inflection.
B. Collinder, in his article criticizing the theory of O. Jespersen, based on the history of the Hungarian language, convincingly shows that the development of a language can also occur in the direction of synthesis. In these languages, development proceeded along the line 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 laws.
But Jespersen, declaring analytical system the most perfect and absolutely disregarding the possibilities of other directions of development, he saw progress in the development only of those languages that, in their historical path, moved towards analysis. Thus, other languages were deprived of the originality of their forms of development and fit into the Procrustean bed of analytical standards 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 language development.
In the previous sections it has already been repeatedly pointed out that the very form of 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 continuous movement. Based on this quality of the language, the issue of language development should be decided. It is obvious that a language loses its vitality, ceases to develop and becomes “dead” when the society itself dies or when the connection with it is broken.
History knows many examples confirming these provisions. Along with the death of Assyrian and Babylonian culture and statehood, the Akkadian languages disappeared. With the disappearance of the powerful state of the Hittites, the dialects spoken by the population of this state died: Nesitic, Luwian, Palai and Hittite. Classifications of languages contain many now dead languages that disappeared along with the peoples: Gothic, Phoenician, Oscan, Umbrian, Etruscan, etc.
It happens that a language outlives 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 the Latin language, which turned into the language of the Catholic religion, and in the Middle Ages performed the functions of international language Sciences. Classical Arabic plays a similar role in the countries of the Middle East.
The transition of a language to a limited position, to primarily serving certain social groups within a single society, is also a path of gradual degradation, ossification, and sometimes degeneration of the language. Yes, nationwide French, transferred to England (along with its conquest by the Normans) and limited in its use only by the dominant social group, gradually degenerated, and then completely disappeared from use in England (but continued to live and develop in France).
Another example of the gradual limitation of the sphere of language use and deviation from the national position can be Sanskrit, which, undoubtedly, once spoken language general use, but then closed within caste boundaries and turned into the same dead language what the medieval Latin language was like. The path of development of Indian languages went past Sanskrit, through folk Indian dialects - the so-called Prakrits.
These conditions stop the development of language or lead to its death. In all other cases, language develops. In other words, as long as the language serves the needs of the existing society as a means of communication among its members and, at the same time, serves the entire society as a whole, without taking a position of preference for any one class or social group, - language is in the process of development.
If the specified conditions are met, ensuring 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.
V.A. Zvegintsev. Essays on general linguistics - Moscow, 1962.
In its development, linguistics went through two stages: a) pre-scientific (from approximately the 4th century BC to the 18th century), when linguistics was not yet recognized as an independent science and existed within the framework of philology; b) scientific stage, which began in the 19th century, when linguistics emerged as independent science, with its own subject, different from the subjects of other sciences.
1) Formation and development of philology. Philological knowledge as a separate type of activity and professional pursuits developed in the Hellenistic era, by the end of the 4th century. BC e. By this time, the highest point of the rise of Greek culture (5th century BC, the so-called “Greek miracle”, the “golden age” of ancient Greek literature, philosophy, art) was already behind, and new generations were forced to live mainly on the great cultural heritage of the past. One of the most influential centers that concentrated the collection and study of monuments of ancient Greek writing was Alexandria in Egypt. One of the largest libraries was formed here ancient world, numbering up to half a million books and manuscripts.
In a purely practical setting of working on manuscripts library of alexandria Over the course of several generations, a rich, brilliant philological tradition was created among Alexandrian librarians. Many of its representatives managed to become widely famous during their lifetime for their enormous scholarship, skill in handling manuscripts, and the authority of their commentary. These are the names of figures of the 3rd - 2nd centuries. BC e. Callimachus, Zenodotus, Eratosthenes the Philologist (as he called himself, wanting to emphasize his glory as an extraordinary scholar), Aristophanes the Byzantine, Aristarchus of Samothrace, whose activity (222 - 150 BC) constituted the time of the highest flowering of the Alexandrian philology, etc.
The Alexandrians never called their activity by the name of science, eryufYumz, they called it art, fEchnz, namely Yu gsbmmbfykYu fEchnz, that is, “grammatical art,” and themselves, accordingly, “grammarists.” The Alexandrians understood grammar in a very broad sense as an art that relates to everything written and constitutes a known summary, a set of everything known to people. Tb gsmmbfb literally Latin translation-- litterae, means letters, and from here - written, writing, literature. One of the definitions of grammar that has reached us and, apparently, widely known in its time, belongs to Dionysius the Thracian (c. 170 - 90 BC); he understands by “grammatical art” “awareness of most of what is said by poets and prose writers.” The very content of grammatical art, by the same definition, consisted of four parts or “skills”: a) bnbgnshufykn, recitatia, reading - the ability to read a work in accordance with the rules of prosody and expressiveness; b) dYaps iu fykn, recensio, correction - the ability to correct errors in the text of a work; c) eozgzfykn, interpretatio, interpretation - the ability to explain everything in it that requires comment; d) ksyfykn, judicium, judgment - the ability to give it a proper aesthetic assessment, of course, according to the canons of that time. To fulfill these duties, the grammarian had the appropriate tools - opyavos: a) knowledge of language, b) metrics and c) realia (i.e. the things themselves corresponding to the words used in the manuscript). As we see, this is still a very broad understanding of grammar, but gradually within its framework a narrower one is emerging, interpreting grammar as “the art of reading and writing correctly.” In the first Alexandrian “grammars” three sections are already clearly distinguished: a) the doctrine of “letters”, or sounds (since “sound” and “letter” were not yet clearly distinguished, these were the rules for “reading” manuscripts); b) the doctrine of words, or “parts of speech”; c) the doctrine of “composing words.” These three parts correspond to phonetics, morphology and syntax in modern grammars.
These ideas from Alexandria and other Hellenistic centers were transferred to Rome (the original planter of philology in Rome was Crates of Mallos); it continued to live latently during the Middle Ages in the centers of monastic culture, began to live a new life after the Renaissance, and was ultimately transferred to modern times in the form of a powerful tradition of classical philology, that is, philology addressed to the monuments of Greece and Rome.
- 2) During the Renaissance, the process of decomposition of philology begins. This was due to a number of circumstances. Firstly, with the development of trade and navigation, with the great geographical discoveries, many new languages come to the attention of Europeans, significantly different from the classical languages (Greek and Latin); the need to study these new languages required other techniques and skills that differed from those developed within the framework of classical philology; this contributed to the gradual separation of grammar from other branches of philological knowledge. Secondly, with the end of the era feudal fragmentation and isolation, with the creation of centralized states, Europeans are forming a national identity, growing interest in their own national languages and cultures. As a result, " national philologies”, somewhat different from classical (Greco-Roman) philology both in tasks and partly in methods. Many European languages (eg, Germanic, Slavic) differed significantly from Latin, and therefore required different approaches to their study. Thirdly, the stock of all kinds of materials and information that accumulated with the progress of philology became so large that it inevitably caused differentiation of labor. The task of explaining a monument in all respects at once, and, moreover, a monument of any nature, should have become increasingly difficult. On this basis, a division of the previous type of education, that is, education of a general encyclopedic nature, into separate special areas arose. Thus, some philologists dealt primarily with poetic texts, others with prosaic texts, some with handwritten texts, others with inscriptions written on a hard surface; Some philologists specialized in processing monuments from the side of language or metrics, others - from the side of realities, etc. And since philology has always dealt with monuments of the past, i.e. with material historical nature, then, next to philology, the science of history arose, addressed not so much to monuments as directly to reality itself: for the historian, the monument becomes not a goal, but a means, a source of knowledge of the past. All taken together was the cause of a deep crisis in the ancient philological tradition, which had a particularly strong impact in the first half of the 19th century, but was gradually brewing earlier.
- 3) Separation of linguistics into an independent science. However, a real revolution in linguistics was caused by the discovery of Sanskrit (an ancient Indian language) in late XVIII V. The English researcher William Jones (1746-1794), having studied ancient Indian manuscripts, came to the conclusion that Sanskrit is related to Greek, Latin, etc. European languages. He made the assumption that all these languages go back to one common unpreserved ancestor language, which later received the name Proto-Indo-European language. The works of Rasmus Rask (Denmark), Franz Bopp, Jacob Gimm (Germany), A. Kh. Vostokov (Russia) and others laid the foundation for the first scientific method linguistics - the comparative-historical method. It turned out that Greek and Latin are, in essence, just two separate islands in the huge archipelago of Indo-European linguistic world, moreover, significantly inferior to Sanskrit in their significance for the purposes of reconstructing the Indo-European language, which became the main goal of the new science.
Representatives of classical philology met a new direction in the study of language, the so-called comparative (or comparative-historical) linguistics, for the most part either with hostility or bewilderment. In turn, comparative historical linguistics was characterized by the desire to sharply push away from the ancient philological tradition of studying language, to completely break with it, which was quite natural, since this tradition prevented the new science from conquering independent position. Indicative in this regard are the arguments about the relationship between linguistics and philology of the largest representative of comparative historical linguistics of the 19th century. August Schleicher. The object of philology, according to Schleicher, is the spiritual life of peoples, as it is presented in texts, and the object of linguistics is only language. For linguistics, it does not matter how significant in spirit the people speaking a given language are, whether the people have history, literature, or whether they have never had writing. Literature for linguistics is important only as a convenient auxiliary material for understanding languages, and primarily because from it one can extract information about past linguistic eras, about previous linguistic forms. In linguistics, language is an end in itself, while in philology, language serves as a means. Linguist - natural scientist. He relates to languages in the same way as, for example, a botanist relates to plants. A botanist must consider all plant organisms, he must study the laws of their structure, the laws of development. As for the use of vegetation, whether these plants are of value from a practical and aesthetic point of view or lack it is indifferent to the botanist. The most beautiful rose attracts the attention of a botanist just as much as some inconspicuous weed. A philologist is like a gardener. He breeds only certain plants that have significance for humans. For him the most important thing is practical value plants, the beauty of its form, colors, aroma, etc. A plant that is good for nothing will not attract the attention of a gardener, and plants such as weeds even arouse his dislike, regardless of whether they are important representatives of plant forms or not.
But the new science did not appear in place of the old one, since traditional philological studies on the language and style of individual authors, writing genres, etc. did not cease with its development, and the practical need for such activities did not cease to exist. However, over time, the “classics” were forced to take part in the new scientific movement with their own linguistic works on the Greek and Latin languages. Linguistics here owed a lot to Georg Curtius (1820-1885), who was one of the first representatives of classical philology to recognize comparative linguistics and gave fundamental examples of linguistic work proper on the Greek language (cf. his speech “Philologie und Sprachwissenschaft”, 1861). Thus, the successes of comparative linguistics were with great benefit applied to philological work on texts.
- 4) Saussurianism and structuralism. On turn of XIX-XX centuries In linguistics, a number of scientific schools appear, the common feature of which is militant anti-philologism. Particularly characteristic in this regard are the linguistic views of Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913), the founder of the Geneva School. In his “Course of General Linguistics,” he formulates the task of linguistics: “The only and true subject of linguistics is language, considered in itself and for itself.” Saussure downplays the importance of comparative historical linguistics, since, in his opinion, it does not study language as a system, but only isolated changes. Further, he argues that there is no need for a linguist to study the history of the people speaking the language, their literature, culture: “Generally speaking, there is no need to know the conditions under which this or that language developed. In relation to some dialects, such as, for example, the Avestan language (Zend) and Old Church Slavonic, it is not even known exactly which people spoke them, but this ignorance does not in the least prevent us from studying them from the inside.” In this case, “linguist” is again contrasted with “philologist”. Saussure became the forerunner and spiritual father of a powerful movement in linguistics of the twentieth century. - structuralism, which declared the main goal of linguistics to be the study of language as an immanent (self-sufficient, independent) system of signs. Ultimately, this approach to language led to the dehumanization of linguistics.
- 5) Prerequisites for a new synthesis of linguistics and philology. From the middle and second half of the twentieth century. Both linguists and literary scholars actively spoke about the need for a new integration of sciences. It became clear that language cannot be studied in isolation from other cultural and social phenomena: such a study will inevitably be incomplete and will distort our ideas about language. Language can and should be studied not only in general, strictly grammatically, but also in the specific conditions of its historical existence and development. And as soon as this question is raised about the specific historical conditions of the life of a language, the question inevitably arises about the connection of the language with the areas of culture closest to it. Language then appears to the researcher’s gaze not only as an immanent system of signs serving the needs of thinking and social communication, but as one or another set of speech acts, texts of different genres and styles, that is, practical applications of a given system that arise in a certain human environment, in certain time, for the sake of specific practical interests - everyday, literary, artistic, etc. There is a need to study a language in specific cultural and historical conditions of its growth and development. Meanwhile, this approach to the study of language was characteristic of traditional philology. Linguistics, enriched with new methods, must once again return to the circle of philological disciplines. In turn, other philological disciplines (especially literary criticism) were enriched by borrowing new (structural) methods of analysis from linguistics.
So, linguistics is a branch of philology. All philological disciplines are united by the fact that they have a common object of study - texts. Each philological discipline has its own, special subject. The subject of linguistics is language, however, since language is given to us as an object of observation and study only in texts, oral and written, then linguistics inevitably enters the circle of philological disciplines, uses data obtained by other philological disciplines, and itself, in turn, helps others philological disciplines in the study of texts.
Hand, and actually existing units, on the other (phoneme - sound, morpheme - morph, lexeme - lexa, sentence - phrase). 4. In addition, the unity of language and speech as two sides of one object is determined by their function: communicative (all other functions, called either linguistic or speech - accumulative, expressive, constructive, etc. - can be represented as its different sides). The dichotomy “language and speech” is valid only in terms of distinguishing an object and its model in a linguistic description. Language and speech do not exist in isolation from each other; they are not two different phenomena, collectively constituting speech activity, and its two sides. LANGUAGE AS A SIGN SYSTEM The general theory of sign systems is dealt with by semiotics, in which three sections are distinguished: syntactics, semantics, pragmatics. A sign is any deliberately reproduced material fact, designed for someone’s perception and intended to serve as a means of transmitting information located outside of this fact. Conventional signs are specifically designed for the formation, storage and transmission of information. The main types of conventional signs: signal, symbol, linguistic sign. The general properties of signs are highlighted: materiality, reproducibility, conventionality, information content, opposition to other signs in the system. There are so-called secondary signs, characteristic of auxiliary and artificial languages– signs-substitutes. They replace other linguistic signs. The sign (semiotic) aspect of language is usually understood as the correlation of linguistic elements and, consequently, natural language as a whole, with extra-linguistic phenomena. The semiotic aspect of language also includes the property linguistic units to express in a general way the results of a person’s cognitive activity, to consolidate and store the results of his socio-historical experience and the ability of linguistic elements to carry certain information, to perform various communicative tasks in the process of communication. Language as a sign system differs from other specialized sign systems in a number of features: 1) language is a comprehensive, universal means of human communication, 2) it develops naturally, 3) as a specific historical phenomenon, language preserves non-systemic formations, 4 ) to meaning language sign there may be an emotional component. In modern linguistics there is no single sign theory of language. There are several linguistic-semiotic schools, of which three are the most influential: phenomenological, logical-psychological, and bilateral. Representatives of the phenomenological school (L. Bloomfield, E.V. Paducheva, R.G. Piotrovsky, Yu.I. Levin, A.A. Zinoviev, etc.) absolutize the material side of the sign, since they believe that human cognition Only phenomena are accessible, and their essence is unknowable. Therefore, a sign is any object perceived by the senses if it symbolizes another phenomenon that is not directly observed. The sign in this case is equal to the signal. With this understanding, two types of signs are distinguished: acoustic and optical. And language loses its “fusion” with consciousness, its intertwining with activity. The logical-psychological (operational) school (A.A. Richards, C.K. Ogden, A.A. Leontiev, etc.) considers a sign as an ideal or functional formation, impersonal to the material side. A.A. Leontyev believes that a sign is not a real object or phenomenon of reality. This is a model that summarizes the functional properties of this subject. A sign does not exist on its own; it is part of a sign situation. The bilateral (bi – two, latum – side) school understands the sign as a two-sided material-ideal essence (in the traditions coming from V. von Humboldt, A.A. Potebnya, I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay, F. de Saussure ). The material form of the sign is not perceived separately from the meaning. It is important to note that linguistics studies linguistic signs and components of signs, and not objects that are designated by these signs. In modern linguistics, the study of ways to reflect reality in language comes to the fore. The presence of two sides to a linguistic sign allows us to consider an aspect associated with the structure and properties of the signified - the plan of content; the aspect of signifiers is the plane of expression. For linguistics, the relationship between these two plans, which are interconnected, but also presuppose a certain autonomy, is essential. SYSTEM AND STRUCTURE OF LANGUAGE A system in the general scientific sense is understood as an integral internally ordered object, consisting of interconnected parts-elements. An element of a system is an ideal or material object that has a number of properties and is in some kind of relationship with other objects within a given system. From the point of view of the nature of the elements that make up the system, material and ideal systems are distinguished. Elements can be significant in themselves, due to their inherent substantial properties. They form primary material systems. But sometimes the elements of material systems are assigned properties that are not characteristic of them. Such material systems are called secondary. The functioning of a natural language system is to educate infinite number specific systems that carry information. Their formation occurs by combining the language system based on their properties: heterogeneity, discreteness (separation), hierarchy ( consistent submission), linearity. 52 The language system differs from other secondary material systems in a number of properties: 1) it consists of heterogeneous (heterogeneous) elements that form subsystems of homogeneous elements (linguistic levels) interacting with each other; 2) the language system has the properties of dynamism, which is manifested in the opposition of the language system to the linguistic tradition; language is in progress constant change, although it retains the property of always being able communicative suitability; 3) the openness of the language system is manifested in the unlimited number of linguistic units, in the variability of units. The heterogeneity of language units gives rise to its level structure. The language level (tier) is one of the main subsystems of a language, distinguished on the basis of the properties and functions of language units, considered in the order of their hierarchy. Principles for identifying levels: 1) units of the same level must be homogeneous (homogeneous); 2) unit lower level must be part of the highest level units (principle of hierarchy). On such grounds, basic and intermediate levels are distinguished. Each level has its own unit, which has a set of certain properties. Main levels: phonological, morphemic, lexical, syntactic. Intermediate levels: morphonological, word-formative, phraseological. The heterogeneity of language units gives rise to various types of relations between them, which can be considered as syntagmatic and paradigmatic. Syntagmatic relations are based on two or more terms, these are types of relationships between elements of language in a linear sequence (in a speech chain). Syntagmatic relations implement the main function of language – communicative. Speech works are formed from the elements of language. Hence, the syntagmatics of language is a system of combinatory possibilities of linguistic units, based on their structural meanings. In language there is a constant interaction of two types of relations: syntagmatic and paradigmatic. Paradigmatics is a system of options and categories allowed by the structure of a language, of which only one is actualized. In any language, homogeneous elements are represented by a number of variants that make up a certain paradigm - a class of elements. Any paradigm is a set of options united by an invariant. Variants naturally alternate in the process of speech functioning. Due to the linear nature of language, in a specific use there is always one option as a representative of the class. The structure of the system is determined by the nature of the relationships between the elements of the system. Structure is the internal order of the system, its structure, and method of organization. It can be considered abstractly from the object as a result of artificial abstraction, but it cannot exist outside the system, outside its elements. 53 REGULARITIES OF HISTORICAL CHANGE IN LANGUAGE The implementation of the communicative function requires from the language, on the one hand, stability, immutability, on the other hand, the conditions of communication, constantly developing thinking require the language to continually develop, change and replenish its elements, complicate and improving functions. Thus, there is a constant contradiction between the state of language in a given era and society’s need for more and more adequate expression of increasingly complex forms of communication. It is this that is the main stimulus for language development. Not every change in a language leads to its development, but only one that entails an expansion and complication of the social functions of the language. What causes language changes that lead to improvement and development of language? The modern formulation of the problem is to objectively show how external and internal factors language development. The regular impact of factors: cognitive, psychological, social on the functioning of language gives rise to a number of external and internal laws of language development. Internal laws, reflecting the regularity and sequence of linguistic changes themselves, reveal the relative independence of the development of language as a system. Domestic laws are limited by the properties and functions of linguistic units. External laws reveal stable connections with various aspects of human activity, with the history of society. They cover the norm and content side of the language. External laws of development are divided into general and specific. General ones establish a relationship that is characteristic of all languages: the connection between the general history of a language and the history of society, the connection between the forms of existence of a language and the historical communities of people, the dependence of the development of a language on the territorial and geographical conditions of its functioning (types of language contact: substratum, superstrate , adstrate). Particular laws are characteristic of specific languages or a number of related ones. All laws reveal the main property of language development: the dynamism of language as the most important means communication, capable of finding more and more new forms for expressing thoughts. Changes in language can also be the result of internal factors. They are generated by the language mechanism itself, regardless of the external conditions of the functioning of the language. main feature, which distinguishes internal causes of language changes from external ones in that internal ones do not have any time restrictions. Internal reasons determine, as a rule, the trends (uniform direction of the diachronic development of a language) of the development of a given language, quantitative and qualitative changes in him. Basic internal reasons: 1) adaptation of the language mechanism to physiological 54 features human body; 2) the need to improve the language mechanism; 3) the need to preserve the language in a state of communicative suitability. These reasons give rise to a number of trends: 1) a tendency towards easier pronunciation (vowel reduction, assimilation); 2) the tendency to express identical or similar meanings in one form (alignment by analogy); 3) a tendency to eliminate forms and categories that have lost their original function (loss of the category of gender in the English language); 3) a tendency to save linguistic resources, to limit the complexity of speech messages, and to create languages of a simple morphological structure. In languages, there is an antagonism of tendencies associated with the natural character of the language. Thus, the tendency to create clear boundaries between morphemes “collides” in a number of languages with the tendency to make pronunciation easier (morphonological phenomena). Changes in language can occur under the influence of two driving forces: purpose and implementation of the communicative needs of society and principles of organization of the language system. In this regard, language shows a double dependence of its evolution: on the environment in which it exists, on its internal mechanism. Along with the tendency to change and improve the language, there is a powerful tendency to preserve the language in a state of communicative suitability. All processes of restructuring in language are usually contrasted with processes of inhibition, aimed at consolidating existing linguistic means. In this antagonism language processes - the source of language development. THE PROBLEM OF THE RELATIONSHIP OF LANGUAGE AND THINKING The problem of the relationship between language and thinking is one of the most pressing not only in linguistics, but also in psychology, logic, and philosophy. There is not a single significant work in the field of the listed sciences in which this issue is not discussed in one form or another. The connection between language and thinking is recognized in a variety of linguistic, philosophical, and psychological scientific areas. However, the question of the nature of this connection, the role played by each phenomenon in the process of their interaction remains debatable. Meanwhile, not only the scientific concept about the essence of language and thinking, about the essence of human cognition depends on the solution of this issue. This is also of fundamental importance when solving the problem of the status of the culture of human society, the factors determining its development, and the evolution of living things. The debatability of the problem is primarily due to the complexity and contradictory nature of language and thinking. On the one hand, language and thinking are a product of the human brain as homo sapiens, i.e. thinking and speech are individual and mental. On the other hand, language and thinking are social products, since man himself is a social being. (Cf. “language and consciousness”, “thinking and speech”). Let us define the initial categories, without which it is impossible to consider the problem posed. Reflection (philosophical category) is “a universal property of matter, which consists in reproducing the characteristics, properties and relationships of the reflected object. The ability to reflect and the nature of its manifestation depend on the level of organization of matter.” From a philosophical point of view, thinking is considered as “the highest form of active reflection of objective reality; purposeful, indirect and generalized cognition by the subject of significant connections and relationships of objects and phenomena.” The physiological substrate of thinking is a developed brain. Therefore, from a psychophysiological point of view, thinking is also defined as a property, a function of the brain. At the same time, it is emphasized that thinking is determined by “the characteristics of higher nervous activity, neurophysiological processes and the objective and practical activities of people.” In psychology, thinking is defined as “a process of cognitive activity of an individual, characterized by a generalized and indirect reflection of reality... Psychology studies thinking as a cognitive activity, differentiating it into types depending on a) levels of generalization and the nature of the means used, b ) their novelty for the subject, c) the degree of his activity, d) the adequacy of thinking to reality.” Along with the category of thinking, all of the listed sciences also use the concept of consciousness, which is defined as the highest level of mental activity of a person as a social being. The uniqueness of consciousness consists in 1) the anticipatory nature of reflection, which is associated with the associative-apperceptive nature of thinking in general. Consciousness is 2) the ability to ideally reproduce reality, as well as 3) specific mechanisms and forms of such reproduction at its different levels. Consciousness shapes subjective image objective world. As we see, all of the above definitions, no matter in what aspect they consider the most complex categories of thinking and consciousness, agree that consciousness is the highest form of reflection, characteristic only of man. Thinking exists in two of its forms: sensory-visual and abstract (we immediately note that their separation is quite arbitrary). Sensory-visual thinking, based on the first signal system, is also characteristic of animals. This form of reflection of the world, representing thinking in action (behavior) and manifested in expedient, adequate behavior aimed at satisfying physiological needs. Within the framework of this form of thinking, the formation of very complex mental structures is possible. Abstract (logical) thinking is abstract and conceptual. This is a specifically human form of mental activity, developing with the formation of speech, the second signaling system. Central to the process of abstract thinking is the functional use of a word or other sign as a means of dividing and isolating features, their abstraction from objects and a new synthesis, resulting in the formation of a concept (It is this form of thinking that is called consciousness). The units of sensory-visual thinking are distinguished: sensation, perception and representation. In the process of cognition, representation is a transitional stage from sensation and perception to logical (abstract) thinking. Units of abstract thinking: concept, judgment, inference. The presented problem is so multifaceted that it is necessary to determine at least the main aspects in which it can be considered and focus on one of them. 1. The relationship between language and thinking is clarified in the system of an already established language, in which the results of human cognitive activity are fixed. This is an epistemological approach (cognitive). 2. We can set the task of identifying patterns of interaction between language and thinking in the process of an individual’s speech activity. This is a psychological approach. 3. It is possible to consider language and thinking in the process of their formation and emergence - this is the so-called phylogenetic aspect. 4. A very special aspect is the study of the relationship between language and thinking in the process of their development in a child - the ontogenetic aspect, which is successfully developed in the works of our domestic scientists A. Shakhnarovich, E. Rosengardt-Pupko, I.N. Gorelova and others. Here we are talking about the assimilation of an already existing system of language and thinking through verbal and mental activity with the help of adults. 5. Special patterns exist when learning a second language. They are associated with the recoding of a mental scheme that has national specifics (different structural reflections of the category of time in different languages, negative meanings, the presence of specific stable images and concepts in different language systems). All these aspects, naturally, cannot be presented in isolation, but their isolation is necessary due to the complexity of the problem. Its solution constantly fluctuates between two extremes: between the identification of language and thinking and their complete rupture. Apparently, the correct approach to solving the problem posed will be one that proceeds from the obvious fact - the presence of a complex interaction between language and thinking, with their mismatch both genetic and functional. In the very general view This approach can be formulated as follows: language semiotically represents the mental content that has arisen on a neurophysiological basis, which, in turn, correlates with the realities of reality based on the category of activity. Language communicates between members of a team and allows them to communicate, store, and transmit from generation to generation the necessary information about any phenomena of material and spiritual life. But language is not something external to thinking: there is no relationship of form and content between them. Language as a means of communication is most directly involved in the process of thinking. Language is necessary not only for the verbalization of thought, but also for thought to form it. Therefore, psychologists and psycholinguists more often talk about the speech-thought process or the process of speech-thought. Studies of speech production processes conducted by psychologists and linguists have shown that the transition from thought to expanded speech is inevitably mediated by so-called inner speech. The development of the problem of internal speech began in the works of L.S. Vygotsky. He believed that internal speech is a special independent moment of verbal thinking, arising from external speech. The role of internal speech as an essential link in the generation of a speech utterance was covered in detail by S.D. Katsnelson, A.A. Leontyev, A.R. Luria, A.N. Sokolov, N.I. Zhinkin and other researchers. Inner speech is a complex step-by-step mental formation that is part of a holistic act of activity (Speech accompanies all other types of activity). From the point of view of its structure, internal speech is characterized by 1) pure predicativity (only a predicate is formed, the topic of speech is known to the speaker), 2) the predominance of meaning over meaning (Meaning is “the subjective nature of thought, subject to speech design", "meaning is a system of objective connections behind the word and reflecting real phenomena regardless of the needs of the subject"), 3) agglutination of semantic units. Inner speech is special shape speech thinking, lying between thought and sounding speech, according to L.S. Vygotsky. Internal speech does not duplicate external speech: it is a mechanism that transforms internal subjective meanings into a system of external expanded meanings (speech). That is, it is a system that establishes a correlation between thought and word (correlation, but not identity!). Inner speech, we said, does not yet prove the necessity of audible speech (language) for thinking, but only the necessity for speech, to predict it. But the presence of the mechanism of inner speech itself speaks not of a genetic, original connection between language and thinking, but of the dominance of verbal thinking in humans. METHODS OF LINGUISTIC RESEARCH 58 The highest form of human cognitive activity is the scientific study of objective reality. Scientific knowledge is characterized by purposefulness, systematicity, and the deliberate use of means and techniques of cognition. In the process of cognition, a number of principles are implemented: consistency (synchrony). It focuses on identifying the integrity of the object being studied and studying the internal mechanisms that ensure this integrity. In the 20th century the principle of consistency has become one of the leading ones in the process of cognition. It contained new scheme explanations of reality, revealed a typology of connections between the elements of an object and explained the integrity of the object with these connections. Systematic study of an object involves focusing the researcher’s attention on the internal properties of the object, which can lead to their absolutization (structural directions in the history of linguistics). - historicism (diachrony). Units and categories representing the essential aspects of an object are considered from the point of view of their historical development. Historical linguistics analyzes the laws and reasons for language changes. - there is no abstract truth, truth is always concrete; - practice is the criterion of truth. It is the last principle that allows the subject to receive the so-called. objective (intersubjective) knowledge, correlating the personal individual experience of the knower with the facts of reality (subjective image of the objective world). Scientific knowledge reveals the essential properties of objects, and these properties, as a rule, are not given in direct observation. Therefore, humanity is accumulating research techniques that help identify the hidden specifics of an object. Methods of scientific research are being formed. Method is a research path, as defined by Yu.S. Stepanov, in linguistics - general 1) generalized sets of theoretical attitudes, methods of language research, associated with a certain linguistic theory and methodology, private 2) individual techniques, techniques, operations - technical means of studying a certain aspect of language. The general philosophical theory of the method is studied in methodology, which is a system of principles and methods of organizing theoretical and practical activities. These principles of activity highlight: 1) conditions of acquisition, 2) structure, 3) content of knowledge, 4) ways to achieve truth. Each method is based on the knowledge of objects and phenomena of objective reality, is based on the properties of realities, but nevertheless it is a mental formation, one of the most important categories of subjective dialectics. Taking into account the above, we can propose the following definition of a (linguistic) method: a path and method of cognition of an object, depending on the properties of the object, aspect and purpose of the study. General scientific methods include observation, experiment, induction, deduction, analysis, synthesis, modeling, interpretation. Observation is carried out in natural conditions on the basis of sensory perception of the objects of study. Observation concerns only the external side of phenomena; its results can be random and not reliable enough. The experiment makes it possible to repeatedly reproduce observations in the process of deliberate and strictly controlled influences of the researcher on the object being studied. Induction and deduction refer to intellectual ways of knowing. Induction is a generalization of the results of individual private observations. The data obtained as a result of the experiment are systematized, and a certain empirical law is derived: traffick, k^z"ba, m'l^d"ba, krushk - the law of assimilation according to deafness / voicedness. Deduction is based on a position either postulated or obtained by generalizing the preliminary results of private observations. Deduction allows one to overcome the limited possibilities of sensory experience and direct observation. For example, F. de Saussure suggested the presence of the so-called in some ancient Indo-European languages. laryngeal sounds, which was confirmed by B. the Terrible when deciphering Hittite writings. Induction and deduction are interrelated and interdependent. Their predominant use in one case or another is associated with the distinction between two levels of scientific research - empirical and theoretical. Analysis is understood as the mental or experimental division of an object into its component parts or the isolation of the properties of an object for studying them separately. This is the basis for understanding the general through the individual. Synthesis is the mental or experimental combination of the component parts of an object and its properties and the study of it as a whole. Analysis and synthesis are connected and mutually determined. Modeling is a way of understanding the phenomena of reality in which objects or processes are studied by constructing and studying their models, which is a functional analogue of the original. Interpretation (from Latin interpretatio – explanation, interpretation) – revealing the meaning of the results obtained and including them in the system of existing knowledge. In the 60-70s of the twentieth century, a scientific direction arose - interpretive linguistics, which considers the meaning and meaning of linguistic units dependent on human activity. The technique is the essence of the method, since it is a specific action with linguistic material. For example, within the framework of comparative historical me- 60