The relationship between them is a linguistic experiment. Theoretical concept of linguistic experiment and its use in psycholinguistic research

4.6.5. Linguistic analysis There are no tangible discrepancies for this place (a couple of manuscripts omit the conjunction???), there are no conjectures either, so we skip textual analysis, moving on to linguistic analysis. Strictly speaking, from a grammatical point of view

The essence and main goal of linguistic experiment in Russian language lessons

Linguistic experiment is one of the main methods of working on a text. It can be taught in grammar lessons, speech development; when working on the language of works of art; can accompany many other types of work.

Wide and conscious use of this technique requires a deep understanding of the essence of the experiment, knowledge of its various types. Mastering linguistic experimentation will help the teacher choose the right solutions in a problem situation, both in class and outside of class, for example, when selecting didactic material.

What is the essence of a linguistic experiment, what are its types?

The source material of a linguistic experiment is the text (including the text of a work of art), and the final material is its deformed version.

The main goal of the educational experiment is to justify the selection of linguistic means in a given text, to explain “the only correct placement of the only necessary words” (L. N. Tolstoy); moreover, establishing an internal relationship between the linguistic means selected for a given text.

Awareness of this should warn teachers against being overly carried away by the process of experimentation and, at the same time, focus on the obligation to draw detailed and targeted conclusions after comparing secondary and primary text materials.

So, for example, experimenting with the sentence: “Wonderful Dnieper in calm weather..." (Gogol), we get secondary material: "The Dnieper is beautiful in calm weather; Wonderful Dnieper in calm weather..."But we can’t stop there in any way. This would deprive the experiment of its purpose and turn it into an end in itself. A further conclusion is required: N.V. It was not by chance that Gogol chose the wordwonderful, not synonymouswonderful, wonderfuletc., because the wordwonderfulalong with the main meaning (“very beautiful”) contains a connotation of originality, extraordinary beauty, uniqueness .

An indispensable condition for the truth of conclusions in an experiment is to clarify the boundaries of the observed linguistic unit: sound, word, phrase, sentence, etc. This means that if a teacher begins an experiment using a word, then until the end of the experiment he must work with the word, and not replace it with a phrase or other units of language.

A linguistic experiment in its focus can be analytical (from the whole text to its components) and synthetic (from units of language to text). When studying the language of works of art at school, as a rule, an experiment of an analytical nature is used. This does not mean at all that experiments of a synthetic nature should not take place in school. It can be successfully used in grammar lessons and in this case is called construction .

According to the communicativeness - non-communicativeness of the final material (deformed text), a linguistic experiment can be positive and negative.

A negative experiment outlines the boundaries of the manifestation of the linguistic phenomenon under consideration in the best possible way and thereby reveals its specificity.

So, for example, attempts to replace in the phrasepour contempt onthen the first, then the second word gives one possible replacementpour contempt on.

All other replacements represent negative material: “sprinkle with contempt”, “drench with anger”, “pour with disdain”, etc.

Such experimentation reveals the phraseological essence of the phrasepour contempt on.

A visual demonstration of the features of the modern Russian literary language, the choice of a solution in a problem situation, and analysis of the writer’s language can be carried out at school using experiments of various types.

1. Elimination of this linguistic phenomenon from the text. For example, the exclusion of all adjectives in the definition function from the text (excerpt from “Bezhin Meadow” by I. S. Turgenev). Primary text:It was a beautiful July day, one of those days that only happen when the weather has settled for a long time. From early morning the sky is clear; the morning dawn does not burn with fire: it spreads with a gentle blush.

Secondary text:It was...a day, one of those days that only happen when the weather has settled for a long time. The sky has been clear since morning; ...the dawn does not burn with fire; she spreads... with a blush.

Conclusion: the secondary text is devoid of qualitative characteristics of the details or objects described. Such text does not give an idea of ​​what the artistic details are in terms of color, shape, etc.

This is how the teacher shows and the students learn the semantic and artistic-visual function of adjectives.

2. Substitution (replacement) of a language element with a synonymous or single-function one. For example, in the text of the story by A.P. Chekhov's "Chameleon" wordcomingreplace with a wordwalking,and the wordwalksin a wordcoming: Police warden Ochumelov walks through the market square in a new overcoat and with a bundle in his hand. A red-haired policeman walks behind him with a sieve filled to the top with confiscated gooseberries.

This replacement gives a secondary text with different combinations of words: a police warden is walking, a red-haired policeman is walking. After such a replacement, the conclusion about the advantages of the primary text, in which a neutral verb is first given, is inevitable.comingin relation to a person of high rank, then a synonymous verb is givenwalkswith a touch of solemnity

Expanding (of a common text) may be aimed at in-depth understanding of it during slow reading .

In our opinion, the beginning of M. Yu. Lermontov’s poem requires interpretation by the deployment technique:And it’s boring, and sad, and there’s no one to give a hand in a moment of spiritual adversity...The development reveals the generalized nature of the first impersonal sentence: “And I, and you, and each of us are bored and sad...” It would be wrong to attribute the feelings expressed in this poem only to the personality of the author.

4. Collapsing may have the purpose of showing the conditions and framework of artistic transformation or metaphorization of a word. For example, in the text by V.P. Kataev “A Farm in the Steppe” we collapse the last phrase. Primary text: ...the storm went far out to sea, where lightning ran frantically across the blue horizon and the roar of thunder was heard.

Secondary text:…The thunderstorm went far out to sea, where lightning ran frantically across the blue horizon and a growl was heard…

Conclusion: wordgrowl(thunder) in the text by V.P. Kataev becomes a metaphor within the phrase. A phrase is a minimal framework for the metaphorization of words.

5. Transformation (transformation) is used in school grammar when replacing an actual construction with a passive one, a declarative sentence with an interrogative one(The student wrote a statement – The presentation was written by a student. Brother was at work today - Was brother at work today?).

6. Rearrangement of words and other linguistic units. For example, we make a rearrangement in the first line of I. A. Krylov’s fable “The Wolf and the Lamb”:On a hot day, a lamb went to a stream to drink.We get: ZA lamb went to the stream to drink on a hot dayand so on. Putting the verb first emphasizes the action. Is this the author's intention? Such permutations vary the thought, emphasize the action, its time, the purpose of the action, etc., and provide justification for the “only necessary placement of words”, enshrined by I. A. Krylov.

Unification – removing the multidimensionality of the text. Any text (speech) is multifaceted and semantically capacious. It reveals the meanings and nuances of the meanings of words, the semantics of grammatical meanings and categories (for example, gender, number for nouns, aspect for verbs); features of syntactic connections and structure of sentences and paragraphs; finally, the originality of rhythm and melody, speech timbre .

We can propose the following unification experiment:

Take as primary material five texts of approximately the same volume: business style, scientific, colloquial, artistic, journalistic. The words were replaced by syllablesta-ta-ta.At the same time, the number of syllables, word stress and rhythm and melody were preserved.

Thus, vocabulary, morphology, and syntax were to a certain extent eliminated in the texts and the phonetic and sound aspects were partially preserved.

Secondary experimental material can be recorded on magnetic tape. When listening to it, one can assume that the majority of those in the audience will guess the style. Then follows the conclusion: rhythm and melody is a style-forming means, “making style.” An observation was made: listening from afar to the muffled voice of a television or radio announcer, only by the rhythm and melody, without distinguishing the words, one can guess what nature of the program is being broadcast (business, artistic, journalistic, etc.)

When experimenting with a coherent text, with the language of works of art or the “art of words” and inevitably dismembering the text to some extent, one must try to prevent the destruction of the aesthetic impression of the entire text. From time to time, as necessary, during the experiment, a whole or partial text should be heard again and again, preferably in an exemplary performance (magnetic tape with recordings of masters of artistic expression, the best artists, records, reading by a teacher, students) .

When using an experiment in Russian language and literature lessons, you should maintain a sense of proportion; select the type, nature of the experiment in accordance with the selection of linguistic means in the text, in connection with the artistic and visual means of the work, which make it unique.

Kupalova A.Yu. Tasks of improving the system of methods of teaching the Russian language. M.: Wolters Kluwer, 2010. P. 75.

Shakirova L.Z. Workshop on methods of teaching the Russian language in national schools. M.: Unity-Dana, 2008. P. 86.

Fedosyuk M.Yu. Ladyzhenskaya T.A. Russian language for non-philological students. Tutorial. – M: Nauka, 2007. P. 56.

The linguistic experiment we conducted was aimed at a practical study of the levels of structure of a linguistic personality.

The linguistic experiment was carried out in two stages.

The first stage of the linguistic experiment

The first stage of the experiment was carried out among students in grade 11B of secondary school No. 59 in the city of Cheboksary. 20 people took part in the experiment (all works are attached). This part of the experiment consisted of 4 tasks and was aimed at studying the characteristics of different levels of the structure of the linguistic personality of students completing their studies in secondary school. Since the zero level of the structure of a linguistic personality is not considered as indicative, characterizing the individual characteristics of a person as the creator of diverse, unique texts, none of the tasks was focused on studying this level.

I. The first task is a text of extremely generalized content, the correct interpretation of which cannot be reduced only to its superficial perception, to the interpretation of its direct meaning.

I. You can only rely on what offers resistance (Stendhal).

High school students were asked to give an interpretation of this phrase in 5-6 sentences.

The passage proposed for analysis is interesting in that it can be interpreted both literally and figuratively. From the point of view of the laws of physics, you can really only rely on solid bodies that offer resistance, since light objects cannot serve as reliable support. At the same time, this statement also has another, deeper, philosophical connotation: you should rely only on those people who, being mature, formed individuals, have their own opinion and are not afraid to express it, even if it does not coincide with yours. Such people are not afraid to criticize you if necessary and honestly say that they don’t like something in order to help you become better and correct some of your own shortcomings. And only such people will also adequately accept criticism from you, trying, perhaps, to correct something in themselves.

The purpose of this activity is to determine whether students were able to sense the dualism of meaning and how they understand the second, deeper aspect of the statement.

According to the results of the analysis of the responses, 12 people reacted to the existence of philosophical subtext and gave an interpretation based on it.

• 1 student did not give an answer at all.
• 2 people considered only the direct meaning of the statement, without delving into the discovery of additional meanings, but at the same time noted that they were considering only the physical point of view: “If we consider this statement from the point of view of physics, then, considering the table and the person, we can think like this: when a person leans on the table, the table provides resistance to him, and therefore the person does not fall"; "From a physical point of view, you can lean on, for example, a pole only because it provides resistance and does not fall in the direction in which you push it."
• 5 people either did not grasp any of the meanings clearly enough, or avoided answering, or misunderstood the content of the statement: “To resist means to try to prove something of which one is sure; it means that one can rely on this statement”; “I think that Stendhal was talking about some enemy or something that the author could not do, and we must rely on this”; “Resistance means that there is something that contradicts some action or statement. If, for example, there is a lot of debate over some term, that it is contradictory, that it causes resistance, then you can rely on it.”

Thus, based on the results of the first task, we can conclude that more than half of the students perceive additional meanings that certainly accompany texts of an abstract, abstract, generalized nature. The rest either considered only the direct meaning of the statement, or avoided answering, or misunderstood the statement as a whole.

II. The third motivational level of the linguistic personality structure implies the perception of not only additional deep meanings of the statement, but also the possession of general cultural (background) knowledge. Taking into account the fact that precedent texts contain recognized values ​​of world culture, convey the spiritual world of the author of the statement, and make the addressee involved in co-authorship, task II is a text excerpt containing a precedent text, the knowledge of which students are already expected to have by the time they graduate from high school . This task will allow us to determine the degree to which high school students have the background knowledge necessary to perceive such texts.

A text passage and assignments for it proposed for analysis:

It seems to me that he is trying harder for Sasha, because Sasha is far from Apollo (Yu. Nagibin).

Students were required to answer the following questions:

• -Who is Apollo?
• -What, accordingly, is Sasha’s appearance?

As you know, Apollo is the ancient Greek god of beauty, patron of the arts, poetry, music, who was distinguished by his unusually beautiful appearance. Based on these facts, we can conclude that Sasha is far from handsome, because he is “far from Apollo.”

• 1) When answering the question, who is Apollo, almost all students pointed out that Apollo had a beautiful appearance and figure.
• 5 people wrote that Apollo is the god of beauty, but did not indicate his connection with antiquity.
• 6 students wrote that Apollo is a god, without indicating his function.
• 2 people determined that Apollo is the god of the sun in Ancient Greece, and, in fact, they are not so far from the correct answer, because Apollo is the patron of art, poetry, and light.
• 3 students wrote that Apollo is a symbol, an ideal, a standard of beauty, but did not mention that he is a god.

One person did not answer this question, showing not so much ignorance of mythology and literature as an unwillingness to think about the proposed question.

Only 3 students showed deeper and more accurate knowledge, describing Apollo as the ancient Greek god of beauty. Of all the students, only 1 person tried to describe Apollo’s appearance: “He was handsome (with blond hair, regular facial features, and a good figure).”

It should be noted that not a single student gave a sufficiently complete and comprehensive answer. No one mentioned that Apollo is also the patron of the arts, poetry, music, and light.

• 2). Sasha's appearance was correctly identified by 13 students.
• 3 people did not answer this question.
• 4 students gave contradictory answers, either devoid of logic or based on an incorrect interpretation of Sasha’s appearance: “Sasha is also beautiful, but not ideal, she probably has small flaws that make her even more beautiful”; “Sasha is not entirely handsome, but not entirely ugly, since there is no such person who could be comparable in beauty to Apollo.” At the same time, 2 people characterize Sasha’s appearance correctly, but then bring completely unfounded conclusions: “Sasha is ugly, and therefore Apollo doesn’t like it, and he wants everything to be fine with Sasha”; “And Sasha, he is far from ideal, maybe he just has a beautiful soul. Sasha is rich spiritually, not physically. And about Apollo we cannot say that he was rich in soul. He was more famous for the beauty of his body and appearance.”

Thus, we can conclude: despite the fact that not all students were able to fully and exhaustively answer the question of who Apollo is, i.e. did not show deep knowledge of ancient mythology, in general, this did not prevent the majority of students from correctly grasping the author’s intention and correctly assessing Sasha’s appearance.

So, to perceive precedent texts, with the help of which a statement is introduced into a cultural-historical context with a wide time frame, both background knowledge and the ability to establish deep analogies and understand the author’s intention are necessary. Studying the volume of background knowledge and the level of formation of the ability to operate with it when creating and perceiving text allows us to determine the level of cultural and speech training of students and outline the path to their further general and speech development.

III. In order to study the sense of style of high school students, their “sense of communicative expediency,” a task was proposed in which texts with a motivated deviation from functional-stylistic norms were used. Students had to not only discover the appropriateness or inappropriateness of deviations from the dominant style, but also the communicative expediency of combining linguistic means belonging to different speech styles in one text.

In connection with the tasks set, it is logical to question the possibility of studying the sense of style as an ability that does not require the presence of theoretical knowledge - after all, information about the structure of the text and functional styles of speech are provided for in the school curriculum in the basic course of the Russian language. However, a survey of high school students showed that many of them do not have a clear idea of ​​this section of the course, since speech theory was given as an overview in the 5th grade. In addition, determining the reason for mixing styles, especially in non-fiction texts, is not among the requirements for students’ speech development. According to current programs, schoolchildren must be able to create a statement in compliance with stylistic norms, find and eliminate possible errors in their text.

So, the purpose of the experimental study of the sense of style among high school students was to test their ability to assess the appropriateness - inappropriateness of deviations from functional-stylistic norms, and to determine additional meanings.

Task III aims to test students' ability to create an image of a speaker based on his speech. For this purpose, an excerpt from N. Iovlev’s story “The Artist Syringe” (1991) was offered without indicating the author’s surname or the title of the work.

According to Ovid, the sweetest dreams come to us at dawn; by this time the soul is freed from the oppression of digestion.

Honestly, I won’t have any sweet dreams today - neither at dawn nor after. I'm so stuffed with fried meat that my shrunken, dead stomach won't be able to handle this huge portion for at least a week.

Students were asked to answer 2 questions:

• -what can you say about the author of the work (era, experience, domestic or foreign)?
• -what can you say about the hero (age, habits, occupation, education)?

It was also proposed to determine the style of the text.

The passage is clearly contrasting. Two lines can be traced in it, which at the lexical level are expressed as follows: 1) Ovid, oppression of digestion, right word, grand portion; 2) overeat; shrunken, dead stomach. If the first line characterizes the hero - and the narration is told on his behalf - as an intelligent, educated person, then the second line uses the colloquial word "gobble" and with the mention of a shrunken stomach indicates another side of his life, a possible streak of failures, the fact that the person has sank under their weight . These two lines are not opposed to each other, they form a whole, although they are dissonant. The speech characteristics of the hero reflect the heterogeneity of his image: in the past he is an artist, and now he is a drug addict.

The students' answers were varied, but certain trends can be traced in them. Let us present the generalized results of the analysis of works.

Determining the country and era, the students came to the conclusion that the author could have lived in Ancient Rome (1 answer); in the Middle Ages (1 answer); in noble Russia (3 answers); in Russia, but without indicating the era (1 answer); in 19th century America (1 answer); in the modern era (4 answers); it is impossible to determine the time, since it applies to all eras (1 answer), 6 people did not indicate the country at all. 2 people did not answer this question.

It should be noted that only 3 people differentiated between the author and the hero of the work, and they all agreed that the author is an educated, intelligent person, that he is familiar with the works of ancient philosophers, and the hero is “uneducated and rude” (1 person), “a dreamer and loves to eat" (1 person), "lives a little earlier, most likely under the rule of the USSR." The majority of students either believe that the author and the hero are identical, which indicates an inability to distinguish between the author, the creator of the work, and the characters invented by him (who are not always even exponents of the ideas of the author himself), or they characterize only the author or only the hero, which again does indicate a lack of differentiation between these concepts.

As for the hero’s habits, 6 people note his love of “eating a lot and tasty”; “eat, drink and play poker” (1 person); “eat before bed” (2 people). From this it is clear that the students paid attention only to the superficial content of the text, expressed at the lexical level, without delving into what the author wanted to show. The rest of the students did not cover this point at all, most likely, again due to a misunderstanding of the author’s intention.

The style of speech is defined as conversational (5 people), journalistic (2 people), journalistic with elements of reasoning (1 person), conversational with elements of journalistic (2 people), narrative with elements of reasoning (4 people), artistic (2 people), reasoning, description(1 person). 2 people did not cover this point.

In general, the work showed that none of the students was able to identify the mixing of styles as a literary device, and, accordingly, no one was able to see such a variation in stylistic norms in the character’s speech as a means of revealing the inner world of a person, creating a more complex image of the hero that corresponds to the author’s intention . The absence of this ability does not allow one to fully understand the author’s intention, and in real communication it can interfere with the perception of the interlocutor, leading to an underestimation or incorrect assessment of his personality. The nature of this ability is associated with a sensory-situational type of thinking, with the ability to determine the pragmatic components of linguistic meaning.

Based on the results of this task, aimed at studying the sense of style of high school students associated with the factor of communicative expediency, we can conclude that students have a very limited ability to relate a text to a particular area of ​​communication at the level of a sense of language, i.e. without special knowledge. The ability to perceive variations in functional and stylistic norms does not manifest itself clearly enough, as a result of which students cannot name the reasons for mixing styles and, therefore, fully reveal the author’s intention.

The presence in texts of additional meanings formed by mixing stylistic means reflects the real state of modern Russian speech, therefore the communicative competence of high school students should include the ability to distinguish additional meanings and establish the reasons for their appearance. The development of such an ability also has a clearly expressed pragmatic motive - to strengthen the effectiveness of one’s own speech in various spheres of communication.

IV. The fourth task is aimed at exploring students' knowledge of precedent texts and their ability to create situations in which the meaning of these precedent texts is realized.

Students were asked to define the concept of “Plyushkin” and give examples of situations when this concept receives its implementation.

• 4 people did not answer this question.
• 7 people described this character as a greedy, stingy person, a miser, without indicating the situation when a person could be called that way.
• 7 people gave a more complete description of this character, indicating his features such as unnecessary hoarding, collecting: “Plyushkin is a very greedy person, hoarding, not using the good that he has”; “Plyushkin is a callous and greedy person, whose main goal in life is accumulation. Even if he is very rich, he will never give his money, even to his children, he saves on everything”; “Plyushkin is a person who collects everything, hoards it, even what he doesn’t need. He always has a lot of junk.” But at the same time, not a single student from the named group brought up a situation where one could say something like this about a person.

However, 1 person tried to give an example of a situation where, in his opinion, a person can be called Plyushkin:

“Give me 5,000 rubles!” said Vanya.

• -I won’t give it to you, I need it myself! - said Dima.
• “Well, you’re Plyushkin,” said Vanya, offended.”

As can be seen from the above example, the student does not fully understand the meaning of the concept “Plyushkin”, since it necessarily includes a component of hoarding, unnecessary collecting, which is not reflected in the answer. Moreover, in the above example, Dima, apparently, needs money himself, or, at least, he cannot freely give Vanya 5,000 rubles without putting it to his detriment. Therefore, the student either chose a bad example, or still does not fully understand the meaning of the precedent text.

There is 1 more answer, in which the student demonstrated an attempt to interpret the meaning of the precedent text, based on the associative connection between a bun, that is, a soft bun made from dough, and a plump, good-natured man, who is called Plyushkin for his gentleness: “Plyushkin is a funny, plump man, He treats everything with laughter, but sometimes he takes it seriously when he is offended.”

Thus, based on the results of the fourth task, we can conclude that, although in general the students showed knowledge of the meaning of the precedent text, none of them was able to come up with a situation where this meaning is realized. This means that theoretical knowledge of precedent texts, which is an indicator of the II thesaurus level of a linguistic personality, is not yet a condition that necessarily leads to the competent use of these precedent texts in speech, which characterizes the III motivational level of a linguistic personality.

OUR ARCHIVE

A.M. Shakhnarovich

LINGUISTIC EXPERIMENT AS A METHOD OF LINGUISTIC AND PSYCHOLINGUISTIC RESEARCH

The article was first published in the collective monograph “Fundamentals of the Theory of Speech Activity” (M.: Nauka, 1974) - the first generalizing work created by domestic psycholinguists. The author examines various types of scientific experiments in linguistics. Insufficient understanding that any appeal to “linguistic consciousness” is a type of linguistic experiment leads to an underestimation of the place of experiment in the system of methods of “classical” linguistics and, accordingly, an underestimation of the place of psycholinguistics in the system of disciplines of modern linguistics.

Key words: experiment, psycholinguistics, method, research

The article was published for the first time in collaborative monograph "The bases of the theory of speech activity" (Moscow, Publishing house "Nauka", 1974) which is the first summarizing work created by Russian psycholinguists. The author describes different kinds of scientific experiments in psycholinguistics. Insufficient understanding that each access to language consciousness is a kind of linguistic experiment leads to underestimation of the place of an experiment in the system of classical linguistics methods and correspondently to underestimation of psycholinguistics" place in the system of modern linguistics disciplines.

Key words: experiment, psycholinguistics, method, research.

The purpose of a scientific experiment is to artificially cause a phenomenon to be studied in order to, by observing this phenomenon, understand it more deeply and fully. An experiment should provide opportunities for more detailed observation of the object of study, sometimes under conditions as close as possible to natural ones. When formulating a scientific theory, an experiment is not only a method of testing, verifying the constructed model and the basis for its creation, but also allows one to generalize a particular case of research. When experimenting on individual phenomena, the researcher must recognize each phenomenon as a special case of the general, the mode of existence of the latter.

The experiment is empirical

the basis of a scientific theory and, therefore, influences its heuristic value. The above fully applies to the linguistic experiment.

Linguistic experiment is most widely used in two areas of science: linguistics and language teaching (respectively, it is called linguistic and pedagogical).

A linguistic experiment serves as a way to verify the model constructed by a linguist. With the help of experiment, the linguist determines the heuristic value of the model and, ultimately, the epistemological value of the entire theory. We understand a language model (logical model) as “any sufficiently correct, i.e., satisfying certain requirements for adequacy, description

language" [Leontyev 1965, 44].

A pedagogical experiment is carried out to determine the comparative effectiveness of individual methods and techniques of language teaching. It is carried out under normal educational conditions. In addition, a pedagogical experiment can mean “testing in practice some new pedagogical idea - the possibility of its implementation, its effectiveness” [Ramul 1963]. The pedagogical idea in this case acts as a model for the student to learn new material. In this case, the experiment acts as a way to verify the model.

In relation to language teaching, a pedagogical experiment should help answer the question, “the function of which arguments is the result of our learning” [Leontyev 1969]. The latter necessarily presupposes that a pedagogical experiment should be preceded by a psychological experiment.

Empirical (in our context this is the same as experimental, due to the coincidence of these concepts in the practice of linguistic research) study of language is based on obtaining data on the functioning of the living language system in the individual speech activity of its speaker. What distinguishes such an experiment from an experiment in general is that linguistics deals with the facts, processes, and aspects of the language system themselves, but not with their displayed characteristics. In other words, a linguistic experiment always deals with the study of directly reflected properties of phenomena.

The heuristic significance of a linguistic experiment is determined by how correctly it reveals the measure of adequacy of the language model.

The linguistic experiment has found wide application in the practice of dialectological research. Dialectologists

are faced with the task of modeling the “microsystem” of a language, going from particular cases noted in live speech to building some model of a given dialect. Verification of the model is carried out in a situation of a thought experiment, when the linguist identifies himself with a native speaker of the language (dialect). For the specifics of the linguistic thought experiment, see below.

There are a number of methods for experimental dialectological research, which it would be more fair to call not methods, but research techniques. A dialectologist, as a rule, deals with native speakers of the dialect and receives information from them about different aspects of the language in different ways1. However, the dialectologist's observations are greatly complicated by the fact that they practically cannot be repeated. Having received some empirical material and built a model of a dialect, a dialectologist is often deprived of the opportunity to verify the absolute correctness of his model. This is explained by the fact that oral speech “is accessible to observation only at the moment of utterance, when the act of speech is carried out” [Avanesov 1949, 263]. This, in particular, distinguishes experiments on living languages ​​from experiments on dead languages.

The main techniques used by dialectologists are conversation and questioning. During a live conversation with native speakers of the dialect or in observing their conversation, the researcher receives phonetic and morphological material. When collecting vocabulary material, a survey can be used. During the survey, the names of a number of household items, etc. are clarified. The questions are asked: “What is this?” and “What is it called?” It is not recommended to ask questions like “Do they pronounce you like this?” Such questions, in addition to the fact that they lead to stereotypical answers, which are not always correct, also create a certain attitude in the dialect speaker. From-

1 We do not consider the case when a dialectologist deals with texts (records, folklore).

The negative side of such questions is that they appeal to the “linguistic instinct” of native speakers and the answer contains a subjective assessment that is not taken into account (so it is not the questions themselves that are suitable, but their use and interpretation of the answers).

The so-called “field linguistics” is also close in observation methods and purpose to dialectological research. In a broad sense, this name combines a set of techniques and methods of working with informants in the study of unwritten languages. It is assumed that as a result of “field” experiments, some model of a living language can be compiled (see in this regard).

L.V. Shcherba, almost for the first time posing the problem of a linguistic experiment, wrote that a researcher of living languages, “having built some kind of abstract system from the facts of this material,” must “test it against new facts, that is, see whether those deduced from it answer facts of reality. Thus, the principle of experiment is introduced into linguistics” [Shcherba 1965, 368]. As follows from these words of L.V. Shcherba, methods of linguistic experiment are closely related to models. When experimenting in dialectological research, a linguist usually deals with genetic models, and this determines the experimental techniques. In “field linguistics” not only genetic models can be verified, but also axiomatic ones.

L.V. Shcherba distinguishes two types of experiment - positive experiment and negative experiment. In a positive experiment, “having made any assumption about the meaning of this or that word, this or that form, about this or that rule of word formation or formation, etc., one should try to see if it is possible to say a number of different phrases (which can be endlessly multiplied ), applying this rule. A positive result will confirm

the correctness of the postulate..." [ibid.].

If in a positive experiment the correct form, statement, etc. is constructed, then in a negative experiment a deliberately incorrect statement is constructed, and the informant is required to note the incorrectness and make the necessary corrections. A negative experiment in its structure is the same as a positive one, and between them “there is no fundamental difference and they often complement each other” [Leontyev 1965, 67].

The third type of linguistic experiment was highlighted by A.A. Leontyev. This is an alternative experiment, during which the informant determines the identity/non-identity of the proposed segments. In this regard, it is important to objectify the data obtained from the informant as much as possible. To do this, Harris invites the informant to repeat what he has already said, or asks another informant the question “Would you say the same?” . However, this option of objectification is not very successful. A more successful option seems to be when the informant is asked a standard question - about the identity or non-identity of the proposed segments of speech, to which one can answer unambiguously - “yes” or “no”. However, this version of the experiment directly appeals to the linguistic consciousness of the informant. The most natural would be data obtained indirectly - in the most natural conditions of a live, casual conversation (filmed by a kind of “hidden camera”). During such a conversation, the psychologically real elements of the language system are exteriorized; they acquire functional certainty. In addition, the feedback that is established during communication allows us to objectify the data received based on the interlocutor’s reaction. During the conversation, the informant freely operates with syllables, words, sentences - real “quanta” of the flow of speech. The psycholinguistic reality of these “quanta” is always the same (in contrast to the reality in the consciousness of information

manta phonemes, morphemes, etc.), does not depend on the level of development of speech skills and on the conditions of teaching the informant his native language.

A. Healy offers an interesting option. He describes an experiment using two informants placed with their backs to each other. In front of one lies a series of objects, and the other is silently shown any object of the same series. The informant names an object, and his partner must choose a similar one. Thus, the constructed experiment “includes” not only the generation system, but also the perception system. The question of identity/non-identity of segments of speech is objectified, and it becomes possible (after a series of experiments) to assess the correctness of the statement [Healey 1964].

The researcher’s task is also to reveal and actualize all the potentialities of language. Only if this condition is met will the description of the language be sufficiently adequate. In a “field” experiment conducted using traditional methods of working with informants, it is often impossible to discover “the potential generative capabilities of language that, for one reason or another, are not widely used in the speech of speakers” [Kibrik 1970, 160-161]. A live conversation in this sense also turns out to be very useful: in direct communication, the “turnover” of the potential capabilities of the language is much wider.

In the cited work by L.V. Shcherba identifies three aspects of linguistic phenomena. “The processes of speaking and understanding” constitute “speech activity.” Dictionaries and grammars of languages ​​constitute the second aspect - the “language system”. “The totality of everything spoken and understood in a certain specific situation, in a particular era of life of a given social

This group constitutes the third aspect of linguistic phenomena - “linguistic material”2.

This implies the need to include two other aspects in the modeling of language (“language system”) - “speech activity” and “speech organization”. If these three aspects find their expression in the model, then in the course of a linguistic experiment linguistic phenomena must be verified in the unity of these three aspects. (In other words, a linguist must study the language used by the speaker.)

A traditionally conducted linguistic experiment is focused on only one aspect of linguistic phenomena. The model is verified on the “individual speech system” as a specific manifestation of the language system, without taking into account those internal factors that ultimately determine the “individual speech system” itself.

The study of the trinity of linguistic phenomena must necessarily involve, in addition to the “language system” and “linguistic material,” also the clarification of “individual speech activity.” In other words, it is necessary to find ways and means of updating the potential capabilities of the language according to their functioning in the mind of the speaker. At the same time, the actual linguistic data may not always coincide with those obtained as a result of the psychological (more precisely, psycholinguistic) “turn” of the experiment. In confirmation of what has been said, one can cite experiments conducted by L.V. Sakharny in Perm to study the psychological reality of word-formation models. These experiments showed that the traditional identification of semantically generalized classes of words in linguistics does not fully correspond to specific semantic typical features when grouping

2 Wed. at A.A. Leontiev, respectively: “linguistic ability”, “language process”, “language standard” [Leontiev 1965].

their placement in the speaker’s mind [Sakharny 1970]. As you can see, with such a “turn” of the experiment, linguistics also benefits, because the picture of the “language system” is complemented and clarified. Thus, “... linguistics... cannot be confined within the framework of a language standard. She must study the language standard, correlating it both with the language process and with the language ability" [Leontyev 1965, 58].

The above is especially important in relation to a thought experiment, which is understood as this type of linguistic experiment when the experimenter and the subject are the same person. L.V. Shcherba, describing this type of experiment, used the well-known psychological term “introspection” and wrote that “the individual speech system is only a concrete manifestation of the language system, and therefore the study of the first for the knowledge of the second is completely legitimate” [Shcherba 1931, 123]. However, the individual speech system is influenced by

There are internal and external factors, under the influence of which it is not reduced to a simple actualization of the language system. These factors can be eliminated (or taken into account) only by preparing certain conditions, formulating a hypothesis and introducing a model to be verified (see [Polivanov 1928]). The more attention paid to the process of (“speaking,” forming, organizing) an utterance when conducting a thought experiment, the higher the measure of adequacy of the linguistic experiment. Insufficient understanding of the important fact that any appeal to “linguistic consciousness”, linguistic “introspection” is a type of linguistic experiment and that this experiment must be organized according to general rules, often leads to an underestimation of the place of experiment in the system of methods of “classical” linguistics and, accordingly, , underestimation of the place of psycholinguistics in the system of disciplines of modern linguistics.

Bibliography

Avanesov R.I. Essays on Russian dialectology. T. I. - M., 1949.

Kibrik A.E. Psycholinguistic experiment in field linguistics // Materials of the 3rd symrosium on psycholinguistics. - M., 1970.

Leontyev A.A. Word in speech activity. - M., 1965.

Leontyev A.A. Psycholinguistic units and the generation of speech utterances. - M., 1969.

Polivanov E.D. Introduction to linguistics for oriental universities. - L., 1928.

Ramul K.A. Introduction to the methods of experimental psychology. - Tartu, 1963.

Sugar L.V. On the problem of the psychological reality of the word-formation model // Proceedings of the 3rd Symposium on Psycholinguistics. - M., 1970.

Shcherba L.V. On the threefold aspect of linguistic phenomena and on experiment in linguistics // Proceedings of the USSR Academy of Sciences - ser. 7. - 1931. - No. 1.

Shcherba L.V. On the threefold aspect of linguistic phenomena and on experiment in linguistics // In the book: Zvegintsev V.A. History of linguistics of the 19th-20th centuries in essays and extracts. Part II. -M., 1965.

Gudschinsky S.C. How to learn an unwritten language. - Santa Ana, 1965.

Harris Z.S. Structural linguistics. - Chicago, 1960.

Healey A. Handling unsophisticated linguistic informants. - Canberra, 1964.

Samarin W. Field linguistics. - New York, 1965.

Everyone is experimenting with language:

poets, writers, wits and linguists.

A successful experiment points to the hidden reserves of language,

unsuccessful ones - to their limits.

N.D. Arutyunova

There is a distinction between sciences: experimental and theoretical. The experiment is considered as a condition for increased accuracy and objectivity of science; the absence of an experiment is generally considered a condition for possible subjectivity.

An experiment is a method of cognition with the help of which phenomena of nature and society are studied under controlled and controlled conditions [NIE 2001: 20: 141]. Mandatory features of an experiment are the presence of controlled conditions and reproducibility.

Experimental methods in linguistics make it possible to study the facts of language under conditions controlled and controlled by the researcher [LES: 590].

In the middle of the twentieth century. The opinion has strengthened that experiment in the social sciences is not only possible, but simply necessary. The first person to pose the problem of linguistic experiment in Russian science was Academician L.V. Shcherba. The experiment, in his opinion, is only possible when studying living languages. The object of the experimental methodology is a person - a native speaker who generates texts, perceives texts and acts as an informant for the researcher [LES: 591].

A distinction is made between technical experiments (in phonetics) and linguistic ones. A textbook example of a linguistic experiment proving that the grammatical contour of a sentence is meaningful was the sentence of L.V. Shcherby “The glokaya kuzdra shteko has budlaned the bokr and the curly tail of the bokrenka.” A further development of this fun-in-form experiment was L. Petrushevskaya’s fairy tale “Battered Pussy”.

Without experiment, further theoretical study of language, especially such sections as syntax, stylistics and lexicography, is impossible.

The psychological element of the technique lies in the evaluative feeling of correctness / incorrectness, possibility / impossibility of a particular speech utterance [Shcherba 1974: 32].

Currently, the meaning of a word, the semantic structure of a word, lexical and associative groupings, synonymous series, and the sound-symbolic meaning of a word are being experimentally studied. There are over 30 experimental techniques, each of which has its own strengths and weaknesses.

The experiment is widely presented in syntactic works, for example, in the famous book by A.M. Peshkovsky "Russian syntax in scientific coverage." Let's limit ourselves to one example from this book. In M. Lermontov’s poems “On the blue waves of the ocean only the stars will sparkle in the sky” the word is only used not in a restrictive, but in a temporary sense, because it can be replaced by conjunctions when, as soon as, therefore, we have before us a subordinate clause of time.

The possibilities of a linguistic experiment in the development of a student’s linguistic competence were demonstrated by the outstanding Russian philologist M.M. Bakhtin in his methodological article “Questions of stylistics in Russian language lessons in high school: Stylistic meaning of a non-union complex sentence” [Bakhtin 1994].

As the object of the experiment, M.M. Bakhtin selected three non-union complex sentences and transformed them into complex sentences, recording the structural, semantic and functional differences that arose as a result of the transformation.

I am sad: there is no friend with me (Pushkin) > I am sad, because there is no friend with me. It immediately became clear that in the presence of a conjunction, the inversion used by Pushkin becomes inappropriate and the usual direct - “logical” - word order is required. As a result of replacing Pushkin's non-union sentence with a union sentence, the following stylistic changes occurred: logical relationships were exposed and brought to the fore, and this “weakened the emotional and dramatic relationship between the poet’s sadness and the absence of a friend”; “the role of intonation has now been replaced by a soulless logical conjunction”; dramatization of words through facial expressions and gestures became impossible; the imagery of speech has decreased; the sentence lost its conciseness and became less euphonious; it “seemed to have passed into a silent register, becoming more suitable for reading with the eyes than for expressive reading aloud.”

He laughed - everyone laughs (Pushkin) > It’s enough for him to laugh, and everyone starts laughing obsequiously(according to M.M. Bakhtin, this transformation is the most adequate in meaning, although it paraphrases Pushkin’s text too freely). The dynamic drama of Pushkin's line is achieved by strict parallelism in the construction of both sentences, and this ensures the exceptional laconicism of Pushkin's text: two simple, uncommon sentences in four words reveal with incredible completeness the role of Onegin in the collection of monsters, his overwhelming authority. Pushkin's non-union sentence does not tell about the event, it plays it out dramatically in front of the reader. The allied form of subordination would turn the show into a story.

I woke up: five stations had fled (Gogol) > When I woke up, it turned out that five stations had already fled back. As a result of the transformation, the bold metaphorical expression, almost personification, used by Gogol becomes logically irrelevant. The result was a completely correct, but dry and pale proposal: nothing remained of Gogol’s dynamic drama, of Gogol’s swift and bold gesture.

Determining the type of subordinate clause in the sentence “There is nothing in the world that your hands could not do, that they could not do, that they would disdain” (A. Fadeev), students almost without hesitation answer - an explanatory subordinate clause. When the teacher invites them to replace the pronoun with an equivalent word or phrase, say, “such a thing” or simply “things,” then the students realize that we are dealing with a predicative clause. We took this example from the book “Difficult questions of syntax” [Fedorov 1972]. By the way, it contains many examples of the successful use of experiments in teaching the Russian language.

According to tradition, among the synonyms there is a group of absolute ones, which supposedly have neither semantic nor stylistic differences, for example, the moon and the month. However, their experimental substitution in the same context: “The rocket is launched towards the Moon (month)” eloquently demonstrates that the synonyms are functionally (and therefore, in meaning) different.

Let's compare two sentences: “He leisurely returned to his table” and “He leisurely returned to Moscow.” The second sentence demonstrates that the adverb leisurely implies the commission of an action in front of an observer.

A special place is occupied by the methodology of psycholinguistic experiments, with the help of which researchers penetrate into the depths of a word, studying, for example, its emotional load and connotation in general. All modern psycholinguistics is based on experiment.

The use of a linguistic experiment requires the researcher to have linguistic flair, erudition and scientific experience.