Linguistic comparativeism. Genetic, areal and typological classifications of languages
Read also
Ministry of Education and Science
Russian Federation
Municipal educational institution "Davydovskaya secondary school with in-depth study of individual subjects"
ATTENTION TO THE WORD
(abstract)
Performed:
student of class IX "A"
Municipal educational institution "Davydovskaya secondary school with UIOP"
Shatalova Yulia
Scientific adviser:
INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………………2
ORIGIN AND USE OF MODERN WORDS
RUSSIAN LANGUAGE………………………………………………………………..3
IDEA ABOUT THE WORD…………………………………………...3-4
THE SCIENCE OF THE ORIGIN OF WORDS…………………………………4-6
ORIGINALLY RUSSIAN WORDS……………………………………………………..7-8
FOREIGN LANGUAGE WORDS IN THE RUSSIAN LITERARY LANGUAGE….8-10
INTERNATIONAL VOCABULARY IN MODERN RUSSIAN
LITERARY LANGUAGE………………………………………………….10-11
CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………………………….12
LITERATURE………………………………………………………………………………………...13
INTRODUCTION
From early childhood to old age, a person’s entire life is inextricably linked with language.
The child has not yet learned to speak properly, but his clear hearing already catches the murmur of grandmother’s fairy tales and mother’s lullaby. But fairy tales and jokes are a language.
A teenager goes to school. A young man goes to college or university. A whole sea of words, a noisy ocean of speech, catches him there, behind the wide doors. Through the lively conversations of teachers, through the pages of hundreds of books, he sees for the first time the immensely complex Universe reflected in words. Through the word, he learns for the first time about what his eyes have not yet seen. In a sonorous word, the llanos of the Orinoco unfold before him, the icebergs of the Arctic sparkle, the waterfalls of Africa and America rustle. A vast world of starry spaces is revealed; Microscopic cosmos of molecules and atoms become visible.
The new person is related to ancient thoughts, with those that formed in the heads of people thousands of years before his birth. He himself gains the opportunity to address his great-grandchildren who will live centuries after his death. And all this is only thanks to language.
Everything that people do in the truly human world is done with the help of language. Without it, it is impossible to work in concert, together with others. Without his help it is unthinkable to move forward one step in science, technology, crafts, art - life.
“If each member of the human race could not explain his concepts to another,” the great Pomor Lomonosov once said, “then we would not only be deprived of a consistent, common flow of affairs, which is governed by the combination of different thoughts, but we would almost be worse off.” we are the wild beasts scattered throughout the forests and deserts!”
When we say “language,” we think “words.” This is natural: language consists of words, there is nothing to argue about.
But few people truly imagine what it is, the simplest and most ordinary human word, what an indescribably subtle and complex creation of man it is, what a unique (and in many ways still mysterious) life it lives, what an immeasurably huge role it plays in the destinies of its creator - person.
If there are things in the world worthy of the name “miracle,” then the word is undoubtedly the first and most wonderful of them.
Having heard that it is more complex and ingenious than the most advanced mechanism, that it “behaves” sometimes more bizarrely and incomprehensibly than any living creature, you will perhaps consider this a poetic exaggeration. But in reality, everything said is many times paler than reality. To make sure of this, let's start with the simplest and at the same time, perhaps the most complex - with the “ambiguity” of the word.
ORIGIN AND USE OF WORDS OF THE MODERN RUSSIAN LANGUAGE.
IDEA ABOUT THE WORD.
The science of language is accustomed to operating with the concept of “word”. However, a Swiss linguist of the first half of the 20th century. Charles Bally (1865-1947) rightly wrote: “The concept of a word is usually considered clear; in fact, it is one of the most ambiguous concepts found in linguistics.” Attempts to give a strict definition of the word in science in the last century have encountered very great obstacles. Any more or less clear definition of a word was in some way at odds with the tradition or linguistic intuition of native speakers. Some linguists, especially in the United States, have tried to do without the concept of “word” altogether, but this approach further contradicts our intuition. Any native speaker, even an illiterate one, has some conscious or unconscious idea of a word. Such ideas were also reflected in linguistic traditions.
At the same time, in different traditions the idea of a word is not quite the same. The European tradition reflects the idea of a word as a rather complex structure. The science of the last three or four lawsuits has developed the idea that a word is divided into significant parts: roots, prefixes, suffixes, endings. However, the ancient tradition did not distinguish these parts; the word (except for a compound word like reverence) was considered an indivisible unit (with the exception of division into sounds, moras and syllables).
Among the Arabs and Indians, the word also acted as a complex unit. However, the rigid structure of the Arabic root required the identification of the root as a special unit, different from the word: the word consists of the root, its vowel (similar to the inflection of the Greeks) and “additives” - primarily suffixes. Therefore, in the Arabic tradition, two main units were distinguished: the word and the root. The root stood out especially among the Indians. Sometimes they even believe that the concepts of “root”, “suffix”, etc. came to European science in the 16th-17th centuries. from the East.
The word was imagined differently in the Far Eastern traditions. Simplifying somewhat, we can assume that in Japanese, endings (inflectional suffixes) are not distinguished from function words. As a significant word, we understand what in Russian is called the stem of the word (root or root together with suffixes). If the Russian language were described in Japanese, then it would be considered that in the sequence on the tables there are not two, but three words: on, table, ah. But there is only one member of the sentence. From the Japanese point of view, a sentence does not consist of words, but of more complex units.
Finally, in China, “zi” is not only a hieroglyph and a syllable, but also a word. It was “tzu” that was entered into dictionaries. Of course, “zi” as a vocabulary unit had meaning. In modern language, in addition to a significantly larger number of polysyllabic borrowings, there are also complex words consisting of several roots. However, as psychological experiments show, for the linguistic consciousness of even modern Chinese, these complex words are more likely to be perceived as something like Russian phraseological units (railway, kindergarten). Purely grammatical elements are treated as function (“empty”) words, so in the Chinese tradition there was no need to distinguish between a word and a root.
So, in all traditions there was the concept of “word”, but the properties of this unit may not coincide. Probably, both the similarities and differences of traditions here reflect some objective reality that cannot be directly observed. The concept of “word” is psychological in nature. The human brain stores ready-made “blocks” from which speech is built according to certain rules. These “blocks” should not be too short (then the rules for constructing speech would become more complicated) nor too long (otherwise the memory would be overloaded). It can be assumed that the optimal “average” storage unit is the word.
In addition to our intuition and analysis of traditions, this conclusion is also prompted by the analysis of speech disorders, in particular those caused by trauma associated with damage to certain areas of the brain. During the Great Patriotic War, such injuries were studied by the outstanding psychologist Alexander Romanovich Luria (1902-1977). Here is an attempt by one of the wounded to convey the content of the film: “Odessa! Rogue! There... to study... the sea... in... in-the-hole! Arme-on... steamboat... off... oh! Batumi! Young lady... Eh! Mi-li-tsi-o-ner... Eh!.. I know!.. Kas-sa! Money. Eh!.. Cigarettes.” Obviously, this person has no damage to the part of the brain where words are stored, but the mechanism for constructing sentences is impaired. Luria also described another speech disorder in which, on the contrary, sentences are constructed correctly, but the part of the brain associated with storing words is damaged, which is why the vocabulary is very poor, words are replaced by interjections or words with the most general meaning. Thus, different elements of language exist separately in the brain. Therefore, real speech is immeasurably more complex than just a combination of words.
So, a word is, first of all, a unit stored in human memory. The actual linguistic properties of a word may not be the same in all respects, which is reflected in different traditions.
THE SCIENCE OF THE ORIGIN OF WORDS
The origin of words is studied by a science called etymology. This is one of the oldest and one of the most interesting departments of linguistics. Its founders were ancient Greek philosophers, in whose works the term etymology itself appeared, composed of two Greek words: etumon, which means “truth”, and 1оgos, which means “word, doctrine”. That is, at first etymology was the doctrine of truth, the true meaning of words.
With the development of the science of language, the goals and methods of etymological research changed. In modern linguistics, a scientist engaged in etymological analysis faces the following tasks:
firstly, he finds when and where (in what language and dialect) the word appeared;
secondly, it establishes from what parts, according to what model it was created;
thirdly, it determines the ancient meaning of the word.
For example, it has been established that the word kopek appeared in the Russian language in the 16th century. It was formed from the adjective kopeyny and meant a silver coin in circulation at that time with the image of a king sitting on a horse with a spear in his hand - kopey money.
Etymology, for example, explains the relationship of such words as vegetable garden - hedge and city. A city was originally called only a fortification, a fortified city wall (cf. Moscow's Kitay-Gorod, etc.). It turns out that these words are related to the English garden, which mean “garden”.
The etymology of the word takes the researcher literally into the depths of centuries, when there was no written language; it talks about the life of peoples that have long disappeared, about ancient cultural ties between peoples.
To show the variety of methods of etymological analysis and materials that etymologists have to deal with, let us give, as an example, several etymologies of old and relatively new words.
Moon and month. Both of these words are very ancient, common Slavic. The word month has long been used to designate not only a celestial body, but also a period of time, which was determined in accordance with the phases of this celestial body. The word month, as etymological studies show, has the same root as in the verb measure, in the noun measure.
There are different opinions regarding the origin of the word moon. Some scientists believe, for example, that moon has a common root with the word ray.
In modern Russian, the words moon and month, although they are synonyms, differ in their use. Thus, in literary language, it is customary to call a celestial body the moon (especially if we are talking about the Moon as an object of observation or research): “The other side of the Moon”, “Flight to the Moon”, etc. The word month in this meaning is used mainly in popular -colloquial and poetic speech (remember the name of the song - “The Moon is Shining”, the saying “Like a young moon”).
One of Pushkin's early poems is called "The Month". Interestingly, it begins like this:
Why are you coming out of the cloud?
Lonely moon
And on pillows, through windows,
Are you creating a dim glow?
And the same poem ends with these lines:
Why did you, month, drive away?
And drowned in the bright sky?
Why did the morning ray flash?
Why did I say goodbye to my sweetheart?
A month, in addition, has the meaning of a period of time of 30 days. The word moon, as you know, is not used in this sense.
The synonyms moon and month in stable, figurative expressions are differentiated by use.For example, we are talking about fallen from the moon - about a person who shows ignorance, does not know something known to everyone. We also say under the moon, which means “in this world,” “on earth.” It is impossible to replace the word moon with the word month in these expressions.
Etymology is a complex science. It is difficult to become a good etymologist. But people who are far from science also like to look for the origins of words, although they are usually interested in semantic and semantic connections. Under the influence of such folk etymology, words that are distant from each other often come together. For example, scientists know that the ancestor of the word slap in the face is the verb to spit (once fighters before a fist fight had the habit of spitting on their hands). Or it may seem that it is connected with the word ear. This interpretation is folk etymology.
Folk etymology can override the real history of a word. Thus, we associate the word witness with see, understanding it in the meaning of “eyewitness” (one who saw with his own eyes). Initially, it was formed from the verb vede and “to know” (compare: the Ukrainian word svedka or the Belarusian word svedok in the same meaning).
You can learn about the origin of words in etymological dictionaries, which briefly describe their etymology - the origin and history in the language. There are a number of etymological dictionaries, for example: “Etymological Dictionary of the Russian Language” by A. Preobrazhensky, “Etymological Dictionary of the Russian Language” by M. Vasmer, “Concise Etymological Dictionary of the Russian Language”, etc.
ORIGINALLY RUSSIAN AND FOREIGN LANGUAGE WORDS
Throughout its development, the Russian language has changed significantly. Its phonetic system, morphological and syntactic structure were rebuilt. The lexical composition of the language was replenished with new words, and some words ceased to be used. Changes in vocabulary have occurred and are occurring in connection with changes in society. From century to century the social, economic and cultural life of the Russian people developed, new tools, machines, means of communication and transportation, materials appeared, people’s lives improved, new household items appeared, new types of clothing and shoes, cultural items, etc. To name objects, ancient Russian words were preserved and new Russian words were created on the basis of existing words as a result of different methods of Russian word formation. These words make up a layer of the original Russian vocabulary of the modern Russian language.
As a result of political, trade, economic and cultural contacts, trade, cultural, and scientific exchange occurred and continues to occur, and consequently, the penetration of foreign words that have replenished and continue to replenish the vocabulary of the Russian language. For example, in written monuments they are found from the 14th century. borrowed words karaul (from Turkic), grosh (from Polish), feather grass (from Turkic); from the 15th century - herring (from ancient Icelandic), badger (from Turkic); from the 16th century - pharmacy (from Polish), arshin (from Tatar); from the 17th century - harbor (from Dutch), soil (from Polish); from the 18th century - acacia (from German), newspaper (from Italian), pretzel (from German); from the 19th century - bagel (from Ukrainian), bandage (from German), questionnaire (from French), kerosene (from English); in the 20th century - radar (from English), robot (from Czech), scuba gear (from English) and many others. etc. The named words constitute a layer of vocabulary of the modern Russian language that is foreign in origin.
The process of adding new words to a language in two ways - on the basis of existing words and by borrowing from other languages - is a natural phenomenon in all languages, including Russian.
ORIGINALLY RUSSIAN WORDS
Russian language belongs to the Slavic group of languages. Its relatives are the living East Slavic languages - Ukrainian and Belarusian; West Slavic - Polish, Kashubian, Czech, Slovak, Lusatian; South Slavic - Bulgarian, Macedonian, Serbo-Croatian, Slovenian; dead - Old Slavic (South Slavic), Polabian and Pomeranian (West Slavic).
Long before our era, in the territory between the Dnieper and the Vistula, tribes of Slavs became isolated and developed their own common Slavic language.
By the V-VI centuries. Among the Slavs, who by that time had significantly expanded their territory, three groups emerged: southern, western and eastern. The isolation of groups of Slavic tribes was accompanied by the collapse of the common Slavic language into independent languages.
East Slavic (Old Russian) language is the language of an isolated eastern group of Slavic tribes.
From VII to IX centuries. developed, and from the 9th to the beginning of the 12th century. there was an East Slavic (Old Russian) state - Kievan Rus. The population of Kievan Rus spoke closely related dialects of the East Slavic (Old Russian) language.
In the XII-XIII centuries. Kievan Rus was divided into separate principalities. The East Slavic (Old Russian) language gave rise to three languages - Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian. (They mostly became isolated by the 14th century.)
On the northeastern outskirts of Kievan Rus in the 14th century. The state of Moscow Rus' began to be created, the population of which spoke the emerging Russian language. During the era of the Moscow State and in subsequent eras, the Russian language is the language of only one of the three East Slavic nationalities.
Originally Russian words are divided into: 1) common Slavic, 2) East Slavic (Old Russian) and 3) Russian proper.
The Russian language inherited common Slavic (beard, eyebrow, thigh, head, lip, throat, etc.) and East Slavic (Old Russian) words (hook, vodostal, rope, blackberry, etc.) from the Common Slavic and East Slavic (Old Russian) language. Since the 14th century Russian words proper began to appear in the Russian language (gazebo, get lost, stoker, militia, etc.). Currently, Russian words themselves constitute a significant layer of the vocabulary of the modern Russian language.
Russian words themselves were created on the basis of common Slavic, East Slavic (Old Russian) words and borrowed words. For example, in the 16th century. The word pharmacy was borrowed from the Polish language. On the basis of this word, the adjective pharmacy arose in the Russian language according to the rules of Russian word production. This word does not exist in Polish. The word pharmacy is actually a Russian word.
Scientists, determining the origin of native Russian words, compare in all Slavic languages the meaning and pronunciation of words denoting the same objects, phenomena, signs, actions. Common Slavic words will be those that appear in all or most Slavic languages, and among these languages there must be, if not all, then at least part of each of the three groups of Slavic languages (Eastern, Southern, Western). If it turns out that words exist, for example, only in Bulgarian, Serbo-Croatian, Macedonian and Slovenian languages, then these are South Slavic words; if in Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian, then these are East Slavic (Old Russian) words. If words are found in only one of the languages, then these are already proper formations of one or another Slavic language, for example Russian.
FOREIGN LANGUAGE WORDS IN THE RUSSIAN LITERARY LANGUAGE
Foreign words appear in the Russian language both under the influence of external (non-linguistic) and internal (linguistic) reasons.
External reasons are various connections between peoples. So, in the 10th century. Kievan Rus adopted Christianity from the Greeks. In this regard, many Greek words entered the Old Russian language along with borrowed cult ideas. Scientific terms were also borrowed, names of objects of Greek culture, names of plants, months, etc., for example: idea, comedy, tragedy, history, magnet, alphabet, syntax, grammar, planet, climate, physics, museum, theater, stage , doll, cherry, mint, poppy, cucumber, beet, cedar, January, February, December, etc.
During the same period, in the east and southeast, our ancestors came into contact with the Turkic tribes - the Pechenegs and Cumans. From the XIII to the XV centuries. Ancient Rus' was under the Horde yoke. As a result of this, according to scientists, about 250 Turkic words have taken root in the Russian language. To them. include, for example, the following words: quiver, yurt, cart, chest, boar, lasso, tarantas, shoe, felt, armyak, cap, sash, sheepskin coat, trousers, heel, noodles, khan, label, trestle bed.
Foreign words penetrated the Russian language especially intensively in the 18th century. The administrative and military transformations carried out by Peter I in Russia brought it closer to Western European states. Many administrative, military (especially naval), musical terms, terms of fine, theatrical art, names of new household items, clothing appeared, for example: camp, uniform, corporal, order, soldier, officer, company, assault, bayonet, headquarters, kitchen, sandwich, waffle, minced meat, tie, cap (from German); captain, sergeant, vanguard, artillery, march, arena, attack, gap, battalion, salute, garrison, dugout, sapper, landing, squadron, muffler, suit, vest, coat, bracelet, furniture, chest of drawers, office, buffet, chandelier, lampshade, curtain, marmalade, cream (from French); harbor, fairway, bay, keel, berth, flag, shipyard, dock, cable, yard, trawl, pennant, cabin, sailor, rudder, boat, roadstead (from Dutch); dock, yacht, midshipman (from English); easel, flute, tour (from German); stalls, play, actor, prompter, intermission, plot, ballet, genre (from French); bass, mandolin, tenor, aria, bravo, lodge, opera (from Italian).
Internal reasons are the needs for the development of the lexical system of a language, which are as follows:
1. Eliminating the ambiguity of the original Russian word, simplifying its semantic structure. This is how the words import and export appeared instead of the polysemantic native Russian words import and export. The words import, export began to mean “import”, “export” associated with international trade.
2. Clarification or detailing of the corresponding concept. For example, in the Russian language there was a word varenye, which was used to describe both liquid and thick jam. To distinguish thick jam from fruits or berries, which is a homogeneous mass, from liquid jam, in which whole berries could be preserved, thick jam began to be called the English word jam. The words reportage (in native Russian story) also arose, total (in native Russian universal), hobby (in native Russian hobby), comfort (in native Russian convenience), service (in native Russian service), etc.
3. Replacement of names expressed in phrases with one word. In this way, many original Russian words appeared, for example: dining room - dining room; pavement street - pavement; electric train - electric train, etc. But in a number of cases there were no original Russian words to replace phrases with one word. For example, to replace the phrase marksman, the borrowed word sniper was most suitable. This is how, for example, the words motel - “hotel for autotourists”, sprinter - “short-distance runner” appeared.
In the modern Russian language, there are three types of foreign words: 1) borrowed words; 2) exotic words (exoticisms); 3) foreign language inclusions.
Borrowed words are foreign words that have completely entered the lexical system of the Russian language. They acquired lexical meaning, phonetic design, grammatical features characteristic of the Russian language, are used in various styles, and are written in letters of the Russian alphabet.
Exotic words have also adopted the grammatical properties of the Russian language and are written with Russian letters. However, exoticisms reflect the peculiarities of the life of a people (not Russian) and are used in specific contexts when it comes to the uniqueness of their life, locality, and ethnographic features. Exoticisms are, for example, the words aksakal - “respected person, elder”, aryk - “canal”, mayor - “head of the city government”, prairie - “vast steppe in North America”, etc.
If an object, an idea, or exoticisms are borrowed, they can become borrowed words and become commonly used. For example, the word hockey was exotic, but when this game became widespread among us, the word hockey became commonly used.
Foreign language inclusions differ from the first two groups in that they are transmitted in writing in the same spelling that is characteristic of them in the transmitting language. In oral speech, foreign language inclusions are transmitted in the same phonetic and morphological form as they were in the transmitting language.
Foreign language inclusions are not included in either explanatory or etymological dictionaries. Some of them are included in the appendix to the Dictionary of Foreign Words. Foreign language inclusions are most fully collected in the special “Dictionary of foreign language expressions and words used in Russian without translation.”
Foreign words replenish the vocabulary of the language. This is their great positive role. However, excessive and unnecessary use of foreign words makes communication difficult. It is necessary to use foreign words carefully, not to use them unnecessarily, and to use first of all Russian words if they mean the same thing as foreign ones.
Brief information about the origin of borrowed words in the Russian language is provided in explanatory dictionaries by indicating the source language. Dictionaries of foreign words indicate the source language and reveal the lexical meaning of this word in the transmitting language, and more detailed information about borrowed words is given in etymological dictionaries: in them, in addition to the source or intermediary language, the time of borrowing, semantic and grammatical changes are indicated that occurred on the basis of the Russian language, for example:
Brief etymological dictionary of the Russian language
Paragraph.
School dictionary of foreign words
Paragraph.
Slavic words predominate in the Russian language. But just like in other languages, the Slavic language combined with foreign elements. These words are Greek, Tatar, Latin, German, French. Some of them, having undergone slight changes, have become completely Russian, and they cannot be discarded.
INTERNATIONAL VOCABULARY IN THE MODERN RUSSIAN LITERARY LANGUAGE
Cultural contacts with other peoples have enriched our language with a large number of words and word-forming elements. We inherited many of these elements from. ancient Greeks and Romans and are used mainly in the fields of science, art, technology and politics. It is advisable to know these elements “by sight”: with such knowledge, even words that are new to the reader can be mastered much easier. For example: planet, magnet, theater, climate, democracy, despot, autonomy (from ancient Greek); authority, arena, globe, deputy, doctor, compass, demonstration, agitation, aggression (from Latin).
These and similar words entered other European languages, being formed in accordance with the phonetic and morphological norms of these languages. So, the word revolution in German will be (di revolution), in English (e revolution), in French (la revolution), in Czech (revolyutse).
Words borrowed from Greek and Latin that exist in a number of unrelated languages (three or more) are called international words or internationalisms. Such words in all languages have a common meaning.
The bulk of international words are made up of special words of science, technology, literature, art, as well as socio-political vocabulary, for example: atom, idea, space, biology, tractor, chassis, culture, literature, tragedy, music.
Currently, due to the rapid development of a number of sciences, the process of creating new special words (terms) is underway both in Russian and in other languages. For their formation, Greek and Latin stems and word-forming elements are widely used, for example: auto (Greek), air (Latin), bio (Greek), gene (Greek), background (Greek). The practice of creating terms based on dead ancient Greek and Latin languages has become international. For example, the words telephone, telegraph, balloon, etc. do not have a living source of borrowing.
International words can be created not only on the basis of the vocabulary of one of the specified languages. Often the stem of one language is taken and the word-forming element of another language is taken, or both stems from different languages are used. This is how, for example, the word car is formed: the first part of auto is “itself” from the Greek language, the second mobile is “movement” from Latin.
Not only literature teachers, but also teachers of all subjects can introduce schoolchildren to etymology. The joint compilation of terminological dictionaries with a brief interpretation of words, including international word-forming elements, helps to enrich the vocabulary and awaken interest in the meaning and origin of terms.
Here is an example of such a dictionary:
dem (Greek demos - “people”) - democracy, democratic; demagogy;
krat (Greek kratos - “power”) - democracy,
aristocracy, technocracy;
cosmos (Greek cosmos - “universe”) - astronaut,
space;
log (Greek logos - “word, concept, doctrine”) - geology, biology, philology, physiology;
meter (Greek metron - “measure”) - centimeter, geometry, planimetry;
micro (Greek micros - “small”) - microscope, microelement, microphone;
mono (Greek monos - “one”) - monopoly, mono-dog;
onym (Greek onnma - “name”) - synonym, antonym, homonym, pseudonym, toponym;
scop (Greek snopeo - “I look”) - microscope, telescope, kaleidoscope, stereoscope;
tele (Greek tele - “far”) - telephone, telegraph, television, telescope;
circus (Latin circulus - “circle”) - compass, circulation, circulate.
This small dictionary, of course, does not exhaust the range of foreign language word-formation elements that should be included in the active lexical baggage of schoolchildren.
Active knowledge of Russian and international morphemes makes it possible to understand many words that have come into our dictionary from other languages, and to understand the words of our native language more deeply, more fully and more accurately.
CONCLUSION
When people talk about language, they primarily mean words. Without knowing words, and a large number of them, you cannot know the language or use it. This is especially clear when studying foreign languages. If you have studied the sound composition of a foreign language and its grammar, but you have a poor vocabulary, you know few words, you will never be able to understand this language, read, much less speak it. Of course, words alone without knowledge of the sound composition and grammatical structure of the language also do not provide language proficiency, since only the combination of these three elements constitutes a language. However, it is the knowledge of a large number of words and the ability to use them that determines the degree of language proficiency. This is why the word is the most important element of language.
Knowing a large number of words and using them correctly is important not only when learning foreign languages. It is also necessary in our native language, in the language we have spoken since childhood. It would be wrong to think that
all people who speak Russian, for whom Russian is their native language, speak the same way, use the same words. The vocabulary of different people is different. To a certain extent, it characterizes the degree of human culture.
Scientists have calculated that the vocabulary of an average person speaking Russian is 3 - 4 thousand words, the vocabulary of a great writer, for example Pushkin, is 21 thousand words. Remember the “statements” of one of the characters in the novel by Ilf and Petrov “The Twelve Chairs” - “the cannibal Ellochka”, who spoke in only 30 words! What explains this difference? Differences in education, living conditions, but, in addition, different attitudes towards language. The assimilation of words of the native language partly occurs purely mechanically, unconsciously. A person, like a sponge, absorbs the words of his native language, since from childhood he is surrounded by people who speak this language.
From childhood, we learn, together with the words of our native language, the laws of the construction (formation) of words that apply in the language. This gives us the opportunity, instead of mechanically memorizing thousands and thousands of words, to consciously approach language, comprehend its secrets and learn to use it as a smart and convenient tool.
LITERATURE
, Conversations about the Russian word Publishing house “Znanie”, Moscow 1976
How words are made Ed. Academy of Sciences, Moscow 1963
Reader: Russian writers about the language GUPizd. Leningrad 1955
L. Uspensky A Word about Words Ed. "Children's Literature" 1982
Russian word Publishing house. "Enlightenment" Moscow 1991
Encyclopedia for children Linguistics. Russian language. T10 Avanta Moscow 2002
This page copyright 2003 V.Dem"jankov.
http://www.site
Electronic version of the article:
Russian text and metalanguage of linguistics today // Russian word in world culture: Materials of the X Congress of the International Association of Teachers of Russian Language and Literature. St. Petersburg, June 30 – July 5, 2003. Plenary sessions: collection of reports. In 2 volumes. T.1. / Ed. HER. Yurkova, N.O. Rogozhina. – St. Petersburg: Politekhnika, 2003. P.67–81.
Key words: metalanguage of linguistics, semantic role, text statistics
Among the many functional styles, one can also distinguish the style and language of scientific texts about language, or the metalanguage of linguistics.
Speech is something like a “collective consciousness” in which connections are made and broken between opinions about concepts. Linguistic works are only part of this general speech. Possessing special training, linguists “test” their opinions in their own and others’ speech, taking a peripheral look at word usage in themselves and their colleagues. Over time, the favorite formulas of expression in this metalanguage change, used to make the addressee understand: “We are talking now about language, and not about anything else” and (almost like Kipling) “You and I are brothers in theory , you and me".
Linguistics as a scientific discipline—a collective professional consciousness specializing in the concepts of “language” and “speech”—survived in the 20th century. several waves of terminological fashion. In the era of structuralism, the dominant idea was of language as a system - in fact, of an ordered structure, if we recall the etymology of the word system. In the 1960s the focus was on the idea of language as an operating mechanism. A little later, the “computer metaphor” took root, when speech activity was seen within the framework of a working computer exchanging data in memory, etc.
In ordinary - everyday and literary - word usage, linguistic language is a phantom, since many statements with the word language can be paraphrased without the term language. When they say There are many nouns in Russian, mean that, speaking in Russian, we have a large selection of names. Statement There are no articles in Russian is equivalent to this: “speaking Russian, they never use anything resembling articles of such languages as ancient Greek, English, French, etc.” This is discussed in more detail in the collective monograph Language about language edited by N.D. Arutyunova (M., 2000). Word language in everyday speech in the sense of “linguistic language”, as shown there, is very often synonymous with the terms speech And use of language in linguistic theory. Apparently, the theory of meaning as the use of speech reflects the everyday view of language.
For comparison, let’s take the texts of several popular modern authors reflecting the linguistic taste of the early 21st century - B. Akunin, V. Makanin, Yu. Mamleev, A. Marinina, V. Pelevin, T. Tolstoy, on the one hand, and the texts of linguistic research - on the other.
1. Semantic roles of the word zyk
All contexts can be classified based on the semantic role assigned to the word language in a sentence. This classification
-68- facilitated by the case system: often (but not always) according to the case form ( language, language, language etc.), you can guess what role we are talking about.What is the role of words? In a sentence, words can be subject (subject), predicate (predicate), object, definition, etc. In the dictionary, lexemes are assigned different meanings, which are grouped and classified depending on what concepts are meant in the acceptable contexts of use of word forms.
But, in addition, we can distinguish an intermediate category of description - semantic roles, or simply “roles” of a word in a sentence, not necessarily directly related to syntactic ones. For example, when they say that the subject of speech, specified by a certain word in a sentence, “plays” the semantic role of an agent, they mean that in a picture included in the meaning of the entire sentence, in a given place (in a given “slot”) an active animate being is seen .
When describing language from this angle, the spheres of interest of the lexicographer and the philosopher do not coincide. The lexicographer is most interested in finding out what roles and in what contexts the lexeme under study plays. The philosopher seeks to find out what the “actor” himself is like, whom we perceive as a more or less successful performer of roles, only guessing with what difficulty (or, conversely, with what ease) this performer is given all these roles.
As a result of an empirical analysis of a large corpus of Russian classical literature, we come to the following classification of the roles of words language:
A. Specific uses
1. “Linguistic” language
1.1. Direct values
1.1.1. Storage language: a system of verbal expression of thoughts that serves as a means of communication between people, that is, langue F. de Saussure; typical designs: language X has articles; Ancient Greek has a rich verbal system.
1.1.2. Language as an object with an instrumental purpose: style, syllable; at the same time corresponds to langue, And password, And langage. For example: Misha, being dead, could speak the language of the writer(Yu. Mamleev, Central cycle). In this role language it is especially easy to eliminate, cf.: “could speak like a writer” or – “using the same expressions as writers”, in the second case with the plural form writers.
1.1.3. Language-scene or platform: means and manner of speech, communication, not necessarily verbal ( language of music); something like langage. Typical designs: translate from one language to another; find a common language. This role is opposed to the role of the tool (1.1.2): so, speak beautiful German- not the same as speak beautiful German.
1.1.4. Agent language as a creative force; eg: The damn language has been fighting for independence from the brain since time immemorial(S. Altov).
1.2. Portable meanings (marginal meanings):
-69-1.2.1. (Obsolete) people
1.2.2. Prisoner-informant
2. Oral organ
2.1. Direct meanings (anatomical and gastronomic language):
2.1.1. An organ in the oral cavity in the form of a muscular outgrowth, the main purpose of which is to chew and swallow food. Among other things, in phraseology they talk about the following purposes of such a language (it is not the word that has a figurative meaning in the corresponding idiom language, and the situation outlined as a whole):
Licking tongue; eg: When Tyulpanov finished, the investigator licked his thick lips with his whitish tongue and slowly repeated: Midwife from nihilists? (B. Akunin, Decorator);
Symptomatic language: Zakiday crawled with all his strength, sticking out his tongue and looking at one point - where Marya Afanasyevna froze, gripped by horror.(B. Akunin, Pelagia and the white bulldog);
Symbolic language; eg: And the vile hag showed a wide red tongue(B. Akunin , Jack of spades).
2.1.2. Material for cooking, also called language
2.2. Figurative meanings:
2.2.1. “Organic” tongue, i.e., the tongue as an organ in the oral cavity on which speech is formed ( language-machine), eg: ask on the tongue, roll around on the tongue, (be) on the tongue, fell off / flew off(word) from the tongue.
2.2.2. Object shaped like a tongue: flames, bells, shoe; this group of roles marginal, if there is no further transfer. As a result of further transfer we get a very widely used variety:
2.2.2.1. active organic language (wagging tongue; loosen one's tongue etc.), sometimes personified – i.e.:
2.2.2.1.1. organic agent language:The Evil Tongues said that Zykov and I, as prose writers, are worthy of each other and that the whole difference in our destinies lies in the accident of recognition and non-recognition. ( V. Makanin, Underground).
B. Non-specific uses –
non-specific (extra-role) uses, characteristic of humanitarian speech in general and applicable to almost any abstract name, when they say, for example, that language exists, likes, reflects, language is influenced, language is examined, reconstructed or determine(like something) or himself stands as something; or when the tongue tie up with something, etc.
It is not necessary to expect one author to implement all the role-playing capabilities of our lexeme. So, A.S. Pushkin did not fully exploit the possibilities of word semantics language. Pushkin avoids material, base, “profane” uses of this lexeme, thereby differing from his contemporaries (especially from N.V. Gogol) and later poets (especially S. Yesenin).
In contrast to linguists, writers in works of fiction often talk about organic language, especially often in the nominative and accusative cases. For example: … asked Erast Petrovich
-70- and bit his tongue, because he seemed not supposed to know about this (B. Akunin, Azazel), etc., or about an object that has the shape of a tongue: He dragged the reluctant Erast Petrovich to the porch and pulled the bronze bell by the tongue(ibid.).Now let's compare the texts of modern fiction with some texts of modern linguists. Since in the works of linguists they speak mainly about linguistic language, and only in phonetic studies do they speak about organic language, the main attention will be paid to the direct linguistic meanings of the lexeme language. We classify the material according to the case forms of the word language.
2. Texts of modern fiction
The relative frequency of case forms in works of art is as follows. The most common form is the nominative/accusative singular; its prepositional and (even slightly less common) genitive singular forms are two and a half times less common; instrumental case singular forms are one and a half times less common. The plural genitive case forms are two times less common than the latter, and the nominative/accusative case forms are one and a half times less common. The frequency of other forms is approximately the same. So:
I./V.e. » P.e., R.e. > That is » R.m. > I./V.m. > P.m. > D.m., T.m. > D.e.
I. Singular
1.1. In B. Akunin, as is known, imitating the style of the 19th century, linguistic language is meant in 44% of cases, for example: ... Dante's language sounds, Turkish gambit. In several cases we encounter a “language-scene” ( You showed me your translation of the letter into modern language, B. Akunin, Altyn-Tolobas), and mainly with the predicate know/study (language).
1.2. In V. Makanin’s language is agential in a very small number of cases: ... the language calls, the language is precise, hits the mark(V. Makanin, Underground). In other contexts, this refers to part of the oral cavity.
1.3. In Yu. Mamleev, in only 25% of cases, linguistic language is meant, and mainly as a “language-scene” ( And then it was possible to switch to simpler language: what happened, who is thinking about what, what is writing, Yu. Mamleev, Moscow Gambit).
1.4. In 40% of cases, A. Marinina refers to a linguistic language, most often in the context of “knowing a foreign (English, Italian) language” or as a “language-scene”: On June 1, they were 90 thousand rubles short of the required amount, which translated into commonly understood currency language meant $4,000(A. Marinina, When the gods laugh).
1.5. In V. Pelevin, in half the cases of using this form, linguistic language is meant, namely, most often, as a subject of knowledge and study: That’s why there are so many of his books in Moscow, and children know the language so poorly(V. Pelevin, Generation "P"); In Chapaev’s terminology, this meant learning the language spoken by the masses
-71- (V. Pelevin, Chapaev and emptiness). In addition: as a subject of understanding (... Vera, who understood this language with some effort..., ibid.), subject of development (... What's the point of developing a special language when you can talk about everything perfectly if you meet at common work? V. Pelevin, Ontology of Childhood). A special place is occupied by language as a repository, for example: Language contains “units of meaning” (Carlos Castaneda’s term), used as building material for the creation of a lexical apparatus corresponding to the culture of mental activity(V. Pelevin, Zombification) and the scenes they switch to in order to achieve mutual understanding: Translated into normal language(V. Pelevin, Chapaev and emptiness).1.6. T. Tolstoy mostly talks about protruding tongue: And my friend Olenka, who is here in the Worker’s Izba, draws pictures and sticks out his tongue(T. Tolstaya, Kys). Only twice do we find her mentioning language as a subject of knowledge, such as: A smooth feathery chest, a human face if such a bird sits on your railing, bows its head, coos you look into its eyes, you forget the human tongue, you click like a bird, you jump with its furry legs on a cast iron perch(T. Tolstaya, Night).
2. Genitive case
2.1. In B. Akunin, the overwhelming majority is the mention of ignorance or oblivion of the language, such as: don't know any language or lose your tongue; eg: Tariq Bey was not supposed to understand a single human language(B. Akunin, Jack of Spades).
2.2. The only case of the use of this form by V. Makanin is the language as a machine from which the words come: It just came from the tongue(V. Makanin, Underground).
2.3. Yu. Mamleev also has a very small number of examples, a little more than other cases - with a language-scene: She sang a song in the Slavic language, but an ancient layer of the Proto-Slavic language appeared in it(Yu. Mamleev, Central cycle).
2.4. The vast majority of uses by A. Marinina are in the negation of the predicate of knowledge ( The letters were Latin, but the words were clearly not English, and Zarubin did not know any other foreign language, A. Marinina, The Seventh Victim) and finding a common language, i.e. scene-language (eg: He had already begun to fear that he would not be able to find a common language with this person., A. Marinina, Do not disturb the executioner). And also without negation in the substantive position - with numerals two, four etc., also as a subject of knowledge: Learning a new language was as natural and everyday in the family as reading books, keeping the apartment clean and cooking(A. Marinina, Playing on a foreign field); ... head teacher of the school, teacher of English language and literature(ibid.); and also when talking about the transition from one language-scene to another: ... she translated them correctly from bird language into human language: do not enter the door that is open, look for the one that is locked(A. Marinina, Coincidence of Circumstances). The role of language as an object of knowledge/ignorance prevails.
-72-2.5. In V. Pelevin the substantive position of the word dominates language, eg: ... compete with a master of language who is not offended by losing, he calmed down(V. Pelevin, Day of the Bulldozer Driver); ... Russian language dictionary published by the USSR Academy of Sciences(V. Pelevin, Tambourine of the Lower World). Characteristic for him is the theme of confusion of language ( When language is confused, the Tower of Babel arises, V. Pelevin, Generation "P") and language knowledge, cf. ... at school they didn’t like him for his exaggerated pedantry, poor knowledge of the Russian language, and with Yuri, who knew excellent German, he was on short terms(V. Pelevin, Crystal World).
2.6. In T. Tolstoy this form is very rarely used as a linguistic language, and all in the meaning of platform (... and the translation of an unnecessary book from a rare language is almost finished, T. Tolstaya, Okkervil River). In all other contexts the tongue-organ is mentioned.
3. Dative case
3.1. B. Akunin only once in the context teach language(i.e. the object of knowledge): His mother taught him French, introduced him to French literature and French freethinking.(B. Akunin, Turkish Gambit).
3.2. V. Makanin, Yu. Mamleev, T. Tolstoy do not, but V. Pelevin – once in the phrase approaches to language, i.e. to the subject of study (... even civilizations that are dissimilar to each other have developed typical approaches to what underlies any culture - language and its alphabet, V. Pelevin, Fortune telling on runes or the runic oracle of Ralph Bloom). That is, this form is atypical in a non-specific meaning.
3.3. In most cases, A. Marinina talks about an exam or Olympiad in some language, i.e. role of the knowledge object ( The class teacher announces to parents the results of the city test in the Russian language, A. Marinina, Stolen Dream). Once - as well as about the subject of knowledge in combination with the role of the scene in the predicate be surprised: Korotkov marveled at the correct, almost literary language in which the recent prisoner spoke.(A. Marinina, Requiem). Once we mean the language-machine: The insidious letter “r” rolled across the tongue and teeth in a randomly chosen direction, stubbornly refusing to take its rightful place(A. Marinina, Sixes die first).
4. Instrumental case
4.1. B. Akunin most often talks about clicking the tongue, i.e. not about linguistic language, but about linguistic gesture: He hooked his finger on her orphan stocking, which was hanging from the bed, and pitifully clicked his tongue: “Like a homeless woman - in stripes on a ribbon.”(B. Akunin, Fairy Tales for Idiots). The few references to linguistic language are associated with the predicate express yourself: In the language of yards and garbage, a pure nerd(B. Akunin, Altyn-Tolobas) - this is the role of the phantom language-style (since you can paraphrase a sentence without mentioning the word language), speak:Pakhomenko spoke in good folk language and you will be heard, but he often inserted Little Russian words(B. Akunin, Decorator) and own– i.e. object of knowledge ( I don't speak Her language perfectly, B. Akunin, Mistress of Death).
-73-4.2. V. Makanin speaks only about organic, not linguistic language;
4.3. Yu. Mamleev uses this form (if linguistic language is meant) for predicates like speak. Language here – phantom, a synonym for the word style (We all speak the same language, this is a terrible sign of unity, Yu. Mamleev, Central cycle) or simply redundant, as in the following sentence: ... and the handsome man hears that Nastenka spoke, spoke in human language!(Yu. Mamleev, Folk-mythological stories). There are very few examples with the predicate own, about language as an object of knowledge: ... he had long suspected that he spoke the angelic language(Yu. Mamleev, American Stories).
4.4. A. Marinina in two thirds of cases refers to linguistic language,
Predicate of speech ( But Vasily Petrovich wrote his explanation in normal Russian, without the use of jargon and without a single grammatical error, A. Marinina, Requiem),
- (about) language proficiency: You just need to master one language properly, and only then the further you go, the easier it becomes(A. Marinina, Playing on a foreign field),
Mastery of knowledge (i.e. language as an object), cf. In childhood and adolescence, she was happy only by studying mathematics or a foreign language(A. Marinina, Playing on a foreign field).
4.5. Pelevin met once language skills and one - tongue as a form of the subject in a passive construction: All noticeable deviations of the “mental background” are immediately, like a camera, focused with the tongue(V. Pelevin, Zombification).
4.6. In T. Tolstoy it appears only once as an organic language: ... in Sviblov, Teterya was slurring his tongue, - five minutes from the metro(T. Tolstaya, Kys).
5. Prepositional case
5.1. In B. Akunin and V. Makanin exclusively, and in Yu. Mamleev in almost all cases, they mean a stage language in which something is said, for example: This is “birthmark” in pre-Khtur language(B. Akunin, Decorator); They held each other, shouting at each other in their own language(V. Makanin, Prisoner of the Caucasus);
5.2. In the overwhelming majority of cases, A. Marinina refers to the language-scene ( Now I speak to my dad in my own language, but then I was still small and didn’t know how to argue., A.B. Marinina, The Seventh Victim), there are a couple of references to the storage language ( Yurochka, have you ever thought about the fact that sexual chauvinism is clearly manifested in the Russian language?
A. Marinina, The Phantom of Music) and a little bit of language-machine: The words were already swirling on the tongue and were about to burst out, but Sergei caught himself in time: he would kick him out to hell(A. Marinina, Name of the victim nobody).
5.3. V. Pelevin mainly means the language-scene ( In legal language, this means that Allah created the concepts in the first place.,
-74- V. Pelevin, Generation “P”) and noticeably less often – storage language: Even the peaceful word “designer” seemed like a dubious neologism that had taken root in the great Russian language according to the linguistic limit, before the first serious aggravation of the international situation(V. Pelevin, Generation "P").5.4. In T. Tolstoy we find only a couple of examples, in both cases - a storage language: ... and there is no such word in the language to say as far as can be seen from the tower! (T. Tolstaya, Kys).
II. Plural
1. Nominative / accusative case - in the vast majority of cases we have language as an object of knowledge:
1.1. Very rare among B. Akunin; as a linguistic language - an isolated case in the role of an object of knowledge ( He is efficient, writes competently, knows languages, smart..., B. Akunin, Azazel).
1.2. Makanin only uses metonymy (organic language replaces its owner): Evil Tongues said that... (V. Makanin, Underground).
1.3. For Mamleev - only once, with the predicate know (…he knows languages..., Yu. Mamleev, Moscow Gambit).
1.4. In A. Marinina - in the vast majority of cases as an object in the predicate of knowledge and study ( Artyom succeeded, because that’s why he and Artyom, a big-headed guy, knows foreign languages like his native speech, A. Marinina, The Reluctant Killer).
1.5. In V. Pelevin only in the context of language knowledge: ... anyone who understands these languages will go crazy from the greatness of the Germanic spirit(V. Pelevin, Weapons of Retribution).
1.6. T. Tolstoy very rarely, and not as a linguistic language.
2. Genitive case
2.1. B. Akunin has very few cases, namely: the subject of knowledge ( He is very smart, European-educated, knows a myriad of Eastern and Western languages, B. Akunin, Azazel).
2.2. Makanin has only one word in the phrase tongues of the fire(Caucasian prisoner), i.e. not a linguistic or even an organic language.
2.3. Mamleev also has very little, and only in the substantive position in a sentence: He graduated from the Faculty of Foreign Languages somewhere(Yu. Mamleev, Moscow Gambit) – i.e. a place where foreign languages are studied. Another case is in quantification as a scene ( Soon his essay appeared, translated into eighteen languages, and thundered throughout the world...., Yu. Mamleev, American stories).
2.4. A. Marinina has several dozen cases, almost exclusively as a linguistic language, but usually as an object of knowledge and study with quantification ( You said that you know five foreign languages, A. Marinina, The Seventh Victim).
2.5. V. Pelevin has the role of a stage from which they move to another (... had to be content with translations from the languages of the peoples of the USSR, V. Pelevin, Generation "P") and when mentioned mixing languages.
2.6. T. Tolstoy does not.
-75-3. Dative case
3.1. B. Akunin, V. Makanin, Yu. Mamleev, T. Tolstoy, V. Pelevin have practically none.
3.2. A. Marinina uses almost exclusively predicates teach And be capable of foreign languages, i.e., in the role of an object of knowledge and/or study ( Mother linguist, specialist in developing methods for teaching foreign languages, A. Marinina, Requiem).
4. Instrumental case
4.1. In B. Akunin, V. Makanin, Yu. Mamleev, V. Pelevin, T. Tolstoy - very rarely and not in the sense of “linguistic language”.
4.2. In A. Marinina - as a subject of study, with predicates own And study (You may not know, but she is fluent in five European languages, A. Marinina, Playing on someone else’s field).
5. Prepositional case
5.1. B. Akunin has several examples, in which the roles of stage and storage are equally frequent, cf.: Although we speak different languages, the hieroglyphs are the same(B. Akunin, Leviathan); There is no such word in European languages(ibid.). The same with Yu. Mamleev and V. Pelevin.
5.2. V. Makanin and T. Tolstoy do not.
5.3. A. Marinina most often uses a language-scene: Numbers, long phrases, incomprehensible terms, even words in foreign languages - she remembered and reproduced everything with a relaxed smile(A. Marinina, The Illusion of Sin). Much less often – storage: Today she chose the rules for posing a question to a direct object in the languages of the Finno-Ugric group(A. Marinina, Playing on a foreign field). With predicates figure it out And specialize (in languages) language acts as an object of knowledge: Having perfect pitch and being well versed in foreign languages, Nastya thought... (A. Marinina, Coincidence of Circumstances).
3. Texts of modern linguistic works
Descriptive (including the so-called “theoretical grammars”); typical examples - practical grammar of the English language, Academic grammar 1980 (hereinafter AG-1980), dictionaries;
Theoretical.
In both types of linguistic work the word language practically not used in a “non-linguistic meaning”. The focus of these two types of text is different. Descriptive works list the repertoire of means of a particular language; for them, the role of the storage language is most significant. Theoretical works are akin to philosophical works, but with regard to the use of the word language, they have a large, but not complete resemblance to literary texts.
Another feature of theoretical discourse is that it takes language in general (for example: theory of language), and in descriptive works language only very rarely used without indicating which one: English, Russian, Japanese, etc.
-76-Let us compare these types into the same categories as texts of fiction, abstracting from those cases in which language included in citations or examples. We also abstract from nominative sentences, in particular from titles (for example: Russian literary language of the first half of the 19th century), in which, as in general in predicative phrases, any role for the word language difficult to attribute. We do not consider in detail non-specific uses, the proportion of which is huge in theoretical works and much more modest in descriptive ones - which is why, in particular, theoretical works are more accessible to non-specialists than descriptive ones. After all, non-specific predicates direct the interpreter’s thought in a direction that might not yet have been formed for a non-humanitarian, and therefore all statements with such predicates are beyond the understanding and life meaning of a non-linguist mastering a language.
I. Singular
1. Nominative/accusative case
1.1. In descriptive works, frequency predicates are: cover (The syntactic system of a literary language, as well as the literary language as a whole, covers both forms of language - written and spoken..., AG-1980), have (The Russian language has different formal means of expressing subordinating relationships, ibid.) service (The entire English language uses only 7 formulas as predicates., L. Kutuzov, Practical grammar of the English language). With them, language is treated as a repository into which some element can to come in, enriching his ( This expression has long and very firmly entered the Russian language., D.Yu. Kobyakov, Adventures of Words). But the most common - study And know (This book is intended for English language learners..., A.S. Hornby, Constructions and phrases of the English language), when language has the role of an object of knowledge, and translate to (…which is translated into Russian..., ibid.) – the role of the stage.
1.2. In theoretical works there are, in addition to those indicated, other predicates:
- language serves for one purpose or another ( Vedic language that served the Indian branch of the Aryans, I.P. Susov, History of Linguistics),
- language receives spreading(i.e. used), etc.,
Language know, understand, correct- or lose And forget.
Everywhere, language acts as an object. When they say that language functioning or that he reacts for anything produces any ability in itself, etc., this object is interpreted as a mechanism or an organism. On the tongue translate(language-scene), he has, for example, lexemes: Theoretically, nothing seems to contradict the fact that a language has lexemes that have the communicative functions of topic/rheme and given/new(Yu.D. Apresyan, Types of communicative information for an explanatory dictionary). We meet a large number of personifications in the book by Yu.S. Stepanov “Constants” (for example: Language compels or, better said, does not force, but gently and beneficially
-77- guides people in naming, connecting what is named to the deepest layers of culture). Expressions like “language has writing” stand somewhat apart (... The Elamite language also had its own writing with a very long history, I.P. Susov, History of Linguistics): such sentences cannot be paraphrased as follows: “language includes writing.”2. Genitive case
2.1. In descriptive works, this form is used most often in the substantive position, such as: grammatical system of the Russian language, Russian language dictionary. Then the word form language is interpreted, as a rule, not specifically, but as an element of theoretical discourse; In addition, we encounter phrases like learning / teaching / using Russian language, a nominalization in which language plays the role of an object of study/knowledge. More specific is the mention of the storage language: ... being a direct borrowing from the French language, it radically changed its meaning(A.D. Shmelev, The breadth of the Russian soul).
2.2. The same can be said about theoretical work. Expressions like richness of language can be interpreted as a transformed role of storage, and language learning– as the role of an object of knowledge, however, their frequency is relatively low compared to the background of general humanitarian phrases such as: creation for Japanese language, description / grammar of Japanese language, phenomena/features of the Russian language and so on.
3. Dative case
3.1. This form is very uncommon in descriptive works. Class predicates are relatively common belong (The Russian language has a large number of verbless sentences, AG-1980), giving the language the role of storage. However, with this case there is a very high use of non-specific combinations, such as aversion to language And characteristic of modern spoken language.
3.2. Specific uses (such as language teaching And Russian language manuals- where we have language as an object of learning) less often than those cases when the dative case is controlled by a verb of the “general theoretical” class (cf.: turn to the Vedic language, interest in the Chinese language, research in the Russian language).
4. Instrumental case
4.1. In descriptive works, as in the written style of speech in general, the form of passive agent is often used, for example: ... a grammatical pattern (structural diagram, predicative basis), specifically intended by the language to construct a separate, relatively independent unit of message(AG-1980) and comparative designs ( wider use of vowel forms compared to modern literary language, V.M. Markov, Essays on the history of the Russian literary language), predicates like handle(tongue), serve And become (international language). Specific (sometimes nominalized) learning predicates ( study language, work on language, master/be proficient in a language), governing the instrumental case.
-78-4.2. In theoretical works the picture is similar, the number of nonspecific predicates is even greater.
5. Prepositional case
5.1. In descriptive works, the vast majority of uses are associated with the role of storage (for example: ... in the language there is a coincidence, a crossing of their functions in the sphere of nomination, AG-1980), especially with predicates of existence, differentiation ( in Russian they differ…), be used, to gain a foothold, to function, to act, find trend(to something), etc. Only in isolated cases, in lyrical digressions, is the language-scene encountered: How simple and easy it would be to communicate in a foreign language, replacing in sentences only words from one language with words from another!(L. Kutuzov, Practical grammar of the English language). The use of this role gives descriptive writing a popularizing flavor. Non-specific contexts, such as science of language.
5.2. In some theoretical works, non-specific contexts ( ideas about language, science of language etc.), as well as the language-scene (... Jesuit missionaries who published books on Western science and technology in Chinese, I.P. Susov, History of Linguistics) are represented much more widely than a storage language. Sometimes the role of storage and a non-specific role (for example, with a verb see– in something something) are combined within one sentence: Each individual language is seen as a tool for a specific interpretation of the world in accordance with what is inherent in this language
worldview, a tool for forming a picture of the world for the people who speak it (ibid.).
II. Plural
1. Nominative/accusative case
1.1. It is found very rarely in descriptive non-typological or comparative historical texts. By using these forms, the author allows himself to soar above the everyday and does not strive for accuracy: All modern languages came to us from the distant past, continuously developing and improving along the way.(L. Kutuzov, Practical grammar of the English language). Language as an object of study, a stage language (into which something is translated) and a storage language (which includes this or that word) are equally frequent, but non-specific contexts are even more frequent.
1.2. In theoretical works, the use of this form is much greater. Prevail: language-scene (when talking about translation into foreign languages) and non-specific predicates consider, examine, group, compare, evaluate and so on. languages.
2. Genitive case
2.1. In descriptive texts, cases are rare, namely, in the role of an object of knowledge ( language experts, teaching foreign languages) And storage(with a predicate of existence with quantification: something exists in most languages).
2.2. In theoretical texts, the usage is tens of times higher, especially in non-specific roles as a subordinate part.
-79- noun phrases ( Its principles are well applicable to the description of a number of languages of Southeast Asia...., I.P. Susov, History of Linguistics). The role of a repository (from which something comes into another language) is surprisingly rare (eg: ... understanding facts from many previously unknown languages of Asia, Oceania, America, Africa..., ibid). The language-scene is mentioned even less frequently.3. Dative case
3.1. Extremely rare in descriptive texts.
3.2. In theoretical texts - with non-specific predicates, such as: interest in languages, equal to sacred tongues, approach to languages, common to all languages.
4. Instrumental case
4.1. In descriptive texts it is extremely rare - mainly with the verb own (languages).
4.2. It occurs even less frequently in theoretical texts. We find him exclusively in non-specific roles. Namely: the logical subject of a passive construction ( Martynov believes that this word was borrowed by Germanic languages from Slavic, Yu.S. Stepanov, Constants) and with predicates of contact (with languages), comparison or kinship and deal with(with something), for example: In the rank of the language of world communication, the Russian language is in direct contact with only a few languages of the same rank, there).
5. Prepositional case
5.1. In descriptive texts, the role of storage is almost exclusively (... you can still see idiomaticity in two languages (E.M. Vereshchagin, V.G. Kostomarov, Signs of time and place...).
5.2. In theoretical works, the usage is much higher, and the picture is close to what is observed in singular forms.
The relative frequency of case forms in the two types of linguistic texts is as follows. In descriptive works, the most frequent forms are the prepositional case singular, the forms of the genitive case singular are one and a half times less common, the forms of the nominative / accusative case singular are also two times less common, the remaining forms differ little in frequency from each other from friend. So:
P.e. » R.e. » I./V.e. »> That is, P.m., D.e. » I./V.m., R.m. > T.m. > D.m.
In theoretical works, singular genitive case forms predominate, singular nominative and prepositional case forms are used approximately two and a half times less often, and plural genitive case forms are used a little less often. Forms of instrumental and dative and singular cases. are used two times less often:
R.e. »> P.e. > I.e./V.e. > R.m. » That is > D.e. > P.m. > I./V.m. > T.m. > D.m.
As we can see, by the use of prepositional and genitive singular forms one can distinguish theoretical works from descriptive ones.
However, if one takes any particular theoretical work in isolation, then, depending on the interests and background of the author, one may find
-80- interesting deviations from these patterns. Thus, in the work of Yu.S. Stepanov “Constants” (1st ed., 1997) we have:P.e. (417) > R.e. (382) » I./V.e. (221) > P.m. (144) > R.m. (101) » That is (48) > D.u. (30), I./V.m. (28) » D.m. (11), T.m. (10).
That is, in terms of its most frequent characteristics, this work is rather descriptive, and not by chance: after all, it is built as a dictionary, even if it interprets theoretical problems.
Conclusion
Word language very often used both in classical fiction of the 19th and 20th centuries, and in the literature of the early 21st century, but it has properties different from those in the works of linguists. The main character of linguistic works is language, not man. The main character of everyday speech is precisely a person. Under the influence of everyday speech, everyday consciousness at the end of the 20th - beginning of the 21st century. There has been a turn in our science towards “man in language”. This is an interest in the study of everyday ideas about the world, “naive theories” (folk theories) of ethics, psychology, philosophy.
Abstraction from the everyday interests of an ordinary person, the need for a large background of factual and terminological knowledge makes it difficult to access fundamental linguistic knowledge. Perhaps the position of linguistics is even worse than that of other sciences. Thus, school knowledge of theoretical mathematics, physics, chemistry, etc. remains for life, but it is unlikely that anyone will name a comparable amount of information from the theory of language. Moreover, conceptual poets use our linguistic terms in a parodic manner.
In a sense, this position is natural. Linguistic metalanguage - like any “professional language” - is similar to jargon. As with jargon (for example, argot), not everything that is essential for everyday consciousness can be expressed in this metalanguage. For example, a declaration of sincere love in slang sounds parodic. Argot is much more suitable for expressing contempt, hatred, etc. For a poet, language is an object of love and admiration. And expressing this love for language in a linguistic metalanguage is as difficult as declaring one’s love in a thieves’ argot. And vice versa: not everything that a linguist can say to his colleagues is significant for an ordinary person (how well we formulate our thoughts in a publicly accessible language is another matter). It can be assumed that when linguistics acquires the social status of other sciences - mathematics, chemistry, physics - if this ever happens - the use of the word will change and become more diverse language in everyday speech. We need to strive for such an increase in the status of the humanities: otherwise the vacuum will be filled with something that has nothing to do with spirituality.
The question arises: does theoretical linguistics have problems that are as vitally necessary for any person in the 21st century as the foundations of other scientific disciplines? Or is the basic knowledge base in our field reduced to the technical equipment associated with the formulation
-81- norms (“rules”) of a native or foreign language? By the way, the average educated person does not always master this area impeccably, cf. frequent use of the term letter instead of sound from non-specialists.The answer to the question posed sounds differently in different eras, and this question is very important for the development of spirituality in our society.
There are prerequisites for the development of spirituality in our society: man by nature is a spiritual being. This is evidenced by the desire of children to express themselves first in an adult intellectual language, and then to make this adult intellectual language the language of their inner world. These are inclusions in colloquial speech that originally belonged to the register facing the form of the statement: Briefly speaking, enough, purely specifically And as if. A curious innovation in the language of schoolchildren and students is the use what with predicates of knowledge and belief: I thinkwhat it won't rain tomorrow. These inclusions have always irritated representatives of the older generation, who are accustomed to using them “for business.” Apparently in vain. After all, if the place reserved by nature for spirituality is not occupied first by intellectual jargon, and then by intellectual mentality, it is filled with something else.
Let us remember: at the end of the 20th century. we complained that young people use borrowings from the English language. But when in the 1990s. these borrowings were replaced by extensive inclusions from the speech of the criminal world; we belatedly realized that of two evils, Americanisms are better. We can say with confidence: “intellectualisms” are even less evil than Americanisms.
From Guest >>
Write a concise summary!!!
When people talk about language, they primarily mean words. Without knowing a large number of words, you cannot know a language or use it. This is especially clear when studying foreign languages. If you have studied the linguistic composition of a foreign language and its grammar, but you have a poor vocabulary, you will never be able to understand this language, read, much less speak it. However, it is the knowledge of a large number of words and the ability to use them that determines the degree of language proficiency. This is why the word is the most important element of language. Knowing a large number of words and using them correctly is also important in your native language. It would be wrong to think that all people whose native language is Russian speak the same way. The vocabulary of different people is different. To a certain extent, it characterizes the degree of culture of a person; scientists have calculated that the vocabulary of an average person speaking Russian is 3-4 thousand words, and the vocabulary of a great writer, for example Pushkin, is 21 thousand words. What explains this difference? The assimilation of words of the native language partly occurs purely mechanically; a person from childhood absorbs the words of his native language because from childhood he is surrounded by people who speak this language. However, along with such unconscious assimilation of the native language, active assimilation and conscious interest in the language play an important role. Therefore, even people living in the same conditions and having the same education speak differently. The language of some is monotonous, gray and inexpressive, while the language of others is colorful and rich.
Left a reply Guest
When talking about language, we first of all mean words. You cannot know a language and use it without knowing a large number of words. This becomes clear when learning a foreign language. Having studied the linguistic composition of a foreign language, but having a poor vocabulary, you will not be able to understand this language, read or speak it.
It is the knowledge of a large number of words and the ability to use them that allows one to judge the degree of language proficiency. Therefore, the word is the most important element of language. Knowing a large number of words and being able to use them correctly is also important in your native language. But people have different vocabulary. It indicates, first of all, the degree of human culture.
It is estimated that an ordinary person has a vocabulary of three to four thousand words, and Pushkin, for example, has a vocabulary of about 21 thousand words. This difference is easily explained. We remember some words purely mechanically, because the people around us speak this language. Another way is the active acquisition of the language, interest in it. Therefore, people with the same education speak differently. Some have a gray and inexpressive language, while others have a colorful and rich language.
Subject: “Russian language”
On the topic: “Language as the most important means of human communication”
INTRODUCTION.
In Ancient Greece and Rome, the culture of the native word was already developing. The ancient world raised wonderful poets, writers, playwrights - masters of artistic speech. This world has given stories of outstanding speakers who posed and solved important issues of speech mastery. In society, understanding of the usefulness and necessity of good speech grew, and respect for those who knew how to appreciate and successfully use their native language strengthened. Techniques for exemplary language use were studied in special schools.
Later, in various countries, including Russia, progressive social circles jealously protected their native language from damage and distortion. The awareness grew that speech is a powerful force if a person is willing and knows how to use it. This consciousness became clearer and more definite the more successfully and widely developed artistic, scientific and journalistic literature.
In Russia, the struggle for speech culture received comprehensive development in the works of M. V. Lomonosov and A. S. Pushkin, N. V. Gogol and I. S. Turgenev, N. A. Nekrasov and A. P. Chekhov, A. I. Kuprin and M. Gorky - in the works of those whom we call classics of Russian artistic expression; Political and judicial figures, orators, and scientists contributed to the formation of exemplary Russian speech.
In their practical activities and theoretical statements, an understanding of the multifaceted role of language in the development of fiction, science, and journalism was increasingly formed. The originality, richness and beauty of the Russian language, and the participation of the people in its development were increasingly appreciated. The activities of revolutionary democrats - V. G. Belinsky, A. I. Herzen, N. G. Chernyshevsky, N. A. Dobrolyubov, N. A. Nekrasov, M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin - made it possible to understand even more deeply the national significance of language and participation of literature in its improvement.
Marxist philosophical teaching played an important role in the development of correct views on language. K. Marx and F. Engels in “The German Ideology” (1845-1846) formulated the famous philosophical definition of language. It expresses thoughts about language as a means of communication and knowledge of reality, about the unity of language and thinking, about the original connection of language with the life of society.
The Marxist understanding of the role of language in people’s lives is briefly and clearly conveyed by the famous words of V.I. Lenin - “language is the most important means of human communication.” The need for communication was the main reason for the emergence of language in the distant past. The same need is the main external reason for the development of language throughout the life of society.
Communication between people using language consists of the “exchange” of thoughts, feelings, experiences, and moods.
Words, combinations of words and sentences express certain results of people’s mental activity (concepts, judgments, conclusions). For example, the word tree expresses the concept of one of the plant species. And in the sentence green tree the idea is expressed about the presence of a certain attribute (green) in a certain object (tree). Thus, the sentence expresses a qualitatively different result of a person’s cognitive work - compared to the result that is expressed in a separate word.
But words, their combinations and entire statements not only express concepts and thoughts: they participate in the very process of thinking, with their help thoughts arise, are formed, and therefore become a fact of a person’s inner life. I.P. Pavlov substantiated the materialist position that human thoughts cannot exist and develop outside of speech. The “second signaling system” (language) is involved in the formation of thoughts. This is why psychologists talk about improving thought in words.
LANGUAGE AS A MEANS OF HUMAN COMMUNICATION.
The world is full of miracles. Isn’t it a miracle that we can talk to people in another city and still see them? Or watch from Earth what is happening in the spaceship? Or watch sports games taking place in another hemisphere? Is it just that? But among various miracles, we somehow do not pay attention to one of the most amazing ones - our native language.
Human language is an amazing, unique miracle. Well, what would we humans be worth without language? It is simply impossible to imagine us without languages. After all, it was language that helped us stand out from animals. Scientists realized this a long time ago. “For the scattered peoples to gather in commons, to create cities, to build temples and ships, to take up arms against the enemy, and to carry out other necessary, allied forces tasks, as would be possible if they did not have a way to communicate their thoughts to each other.” This was written by M.V. Lomonosov in the middle of the 17th century in his “Brief Guide to Eloquence.” Lomonosov pointed out two important features of language, or rather, two of its functions: the function of communication between people and the function of forming thoughts.
Language is defined as a means of human communication. This one of the possible definitions of language is the main thing, because it characterizes the language not from the point of view of its organization, structure, etc., but from the point of view of what it is intended for. But why is it important? Are there other means of communication? Yes, they do exist. An engineer can communicate with a colleague without knowing his native language, but they will understand each other if they use drawings. Drawing is usually defined as the international language of technology. The musician conveys his feelings through melody, and the listeners understand him. The artist thinks in images and expresses this through lines and color. And all these are “languages”, so they often say “the language of a poster”, “the language of music”. But this is a different meaning of the word language.
Let's take a look at the modern four-volume Dictionary of the Russian Language. It gives 8 meanings of the word language, among them:
1. Organ in the oral cavity.
2. This human organ involved in the formation of speech sounds and thereby in the verbal reproduction of thoughts; organ of speech.
3. A system of verbal expression of thoughts, which has a certain sound and grammatical structure and serves as a means of communication between people.
4. A type of speech that has certain characteristic features; style, syllable.
5. A means of wordless communication.
6. Outdated People.
The fifth meaning refers to the language of music, the language of flowers, etc.
And the sixth, outdated, means the people. As we can see, to define a people, the most important ethnographic feature is taken - its language. Remember, in Pushkin:
Rumors about me will spread throughout Great Rus',
And every tongue that is in it will call me,
And the proud grandson of the Slavs, and the Finn, and now wild
Tungus, and friend of the steppes Kalmyk.
But all these “languages” do not replace the main thing - the verbal language of man. And Lomonosov wrote about this at one time: “True, besides our words, it would be possible to depict thoughts through various movements of the eyes, face, hands and other parts of the body, like pantomimes in theaters, but in this way it would be impossible to speak without light , and other human exercises, especially the works of our hands, were a great hindrance to such a conversation.”
Indeed, we are now convinced that with the help of “movement of body parts” it is possible, for example, to tell “Anna Karenina” by L.N. Tolstoy. We enjoy watching a ballet on this theme, but only those who have read the novel understand it. It is impossible to reveal the rich content of Tolstoy’s work in ballet. The language of words cannot be replaced by any other.
So, language is the most important means of communication. What qualities should he have to become exactly like this?
First of all, everyone who speaks it must know the language. There seems to be some general agreement that we will call the table by the word table, and running by the word run. How this happened cannot be decided now, since the paths are very different. For example, the word satellite has acquired a new meaning in our time - “a device launched using rocket devices.” The date of birth of this value can be indicated absolutely precisely - October 4, 1957, when the radio announced the launch of the first artificial Earth satellite in our country. “This word immediately became known in this meaning and entered into use among all peoples of the world.
So much for the “agreement”. Everything is simple here, although this meaning itself was already prepared by the Russian language: in the 11th-13th centuries it had the meaning of “comrade on the road” and “accompanying in life”, then - “satellite of the planets”. And from here it’s not far to a new meaning - “a device accompanying the Earth.”
But often not all words are known to speakers of a given language. And then normal communication is disrupted. Most of all, this is connected with words in foreign languages. But misunderstanding may also be associated with original Russian words, known only in a certain territory, or with words that are rarely used or outdated.
But if there are a lot of similar words, it makes reading the text difficult. Therefore, critics speak out against such a heap of dialectisms. This is also what satirists ridicule.
Communication is also made difficult by professional words known only to people of this profession. However, professional vocabulary is a very important part of the language vocabulary. It promotes more accurate and fruitful communication between people of a certain profession, which is extremely necessary. The larger and more accurate the dictionary, the more detailed it allows us to talk about processes, the higher the quality of work.
The understandability of language ensures its role in organizing people. Born as a product of collective labor, the language is now called upon to unite people in work, in the field of culture, etc.
The second quality on which communication depends is that language must cover everything that surrounds a person, including his inner world. This, however, does not mean at all that language must exactly replicate the structure of the world. We really have “words for every essence,” as A. Tvardovsky said. But even that which does not have a one-word name can be successfully expressed by combinations of words.
It is much more important that the same concept in a language can have, and very often has, several names. Moreover, it is believed that the richer such series of words - synonyms, the richer the language is recognized. This reveals an important point; language reflects the outside world, but is not absolutely adequate to it.
Here, for example, is the color spectrum. There are several primary colors of the spectrum. This is now based on precise physical indicators. As is known, light of different wavelengths excites different color sensations. It is difficult to separate exactly “by eye”, for example, red and purple, which is why we usually combine them into one color - red. And how many words exist to designate this color: red, scarlet, crimson, bloody, red, red, ruby, garnet, red, and one could also add cherry, raspberry, etc.! Try to differentiate these words by the wavelength of light. This will not work because they are filled with their own special shades of significance.
The fact that language does not blindly copy the surrounding reality, but somehow in its own way, emphasizing some things more, giving less importance to others, is one of the amazing and far from fully explored mysteries.
The two most important functions of the language that we have considered do not exhaust all its advantages and features. Some will be discussed further below. Now let's think about how, by what signs we can evaluate a person. Of course, you say, there are many reasons for this: his appearance, attitude towards other people, towards work, etc. All this, of course, is true. But language also helps us characterize a person.
They say: you are greeted by your clothes, you are escorted by your mind. How do they learn about intelligence? Of course, from a person’s speech, from how and what he says. A person is characterized by his vocabulary, i.e. how many words he knows - few or many. Thus, the writers I. Ilf and E. Petrov, having decided to create the image of the primitive bourgeois Ellochka Shchukina, first of all, talked about her dictionary: “William Shakespeare’s dictionary, according to researchers, is twelve thousand words. The vocabulary of a black man from the cannibal tribe Mumbo-Yumbo is three hundred words. Ellochka Shchukina easily and freely made do with thirty...” The image of Ellochka the Ogress became a symbol of an extremely primitive person and one feature contributed to this - her language.
How many words does the average person know? Scientists believe that the vocabulary of an ordinary person, i.e. who does not specifically study language (not a writer, linguist, literary critic, journalist, etc.) is about five thousand. And against this background, the quantitative indicator of the genius of outstanding people looks very expressive. The “Dictionary of Pushkin’s Language,” compiled by scientists based on Pushkin’s texts, contains 21,290 words.
Thus, language can be defined as a means of knowing the human person, as well as a means of knowing the people as a whole.
This is what it is - a miracle of language! But that's not all. Each national language is also a storehouse of the people who speak it and their memory.
LANGUAGE IS THE PANTRY OF THE PEOPLE, ITS MEMORY.
When a historian seeks to restore and describe the events of the distant past, he turns to various sources available to him, which are objects of that time, eyewitness accounts (if they are written down), and oral folk art. But among these sources there is one most reliable - language. The famous historian of the last century, Professor B. K. Kotlyarevsky noted: “Language is the most faithful, and sometimes the only witness to the past life of the people.”
The words and their meanings reflect and have survived to this day the echoes of very distant times, the facts of life of our distant ancestors, the conditions of their work and relationships, the struggle for freedom and independence, etc.
Let's take a specific example. Before us is a series of words, seemingly unremarkable, but connected by a common meaning: share, fate, destiny, happiness, luck. They are analyzed in his work “The Paganism of the Ancient Slavs” by academician B. A. Rybakov: “This group of words can even go back to the hunting era, to the division of prey between hunters who divided the spoils, gave each a corresponding share, partly, giving something to women and children - “happiness” was the right to participate in this division and receive their share (part). Everything here is quite concrete, “weighty, rough, visible.”
These words could have retained exactly the same meaning in an agricultural society with a primitive collective economy: share and part meant that share of the total harvest that fell on a given family. But in the conditions of agriculture, old words could acquire a new dual-opposite meaning: when the highway of the primitive zadruga distributed work among plowmen and divided the arable land into plots, then one could get a good “destiny”, and the other a bad one. Under these conditions, the words required a qualitative definition: “good lot” (plot), “bad lot”. This is where the emergence of abstract concepts took place...”
This is what the historian saw in our modern words. It turns out that they contain the deepest memory of the past. And one more similar example.
In one of his works, N. G. Chernyshevsky noted: “The composition of the vocabulary corresponds to the knowledge of the people, testifies... to their everyday activities and way of life and partly about their relations with other peoples.”
Indeed, the language of each era contains the knowledge of the people in that era. Trace the meaning of the word atom in different dictionaries from different times, and you will see the process of comprehending the structure of the atom: first – “further indivisible”, then – “split”. At the same time, dictionaries of past years serve as reference books for us about the life of those times, about people’s attitude to the world and the environment. It is not for nothing that V. I. Dahl’s “Explanatory Dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language” is considered “an encyclopedia of Russian life.” In this amazing dictionary we find information about beliefs and superstitions, about the way of life of people.
And this is not an accident. If you try to reveal the content of a word, you will inevitably have to touch upon the phenomena of life that words denote. Thus, we come to the second sign, called by N. G. Chernyshevsky “everyday activities and way of life.” The everyday activities of Russian people are reflected in numerous words that directly name these activities, for example: beekeeping - extracting honey from wild bees, tar farming - forcing tar out of wood, carriage - winter transportation of goods by peasants when there was no agricultural work, etc. The words kvass, cabbage soup (shti), pancakes, porridge and many others reflect Russian folk cuisine; monetary units of long-existing monetary systems are reflected in the words penny, altyn, and kryvennik. It should be noted that metric, monetary and some other systems, as a rule, were expressed by different nations in their own words, and this is precisely what constitutes the national characteristics of the vocabulary of the folk language.
Relationships between people, moral commandments, as well as customs and rituals are reflected in stable combinations of the Russian language. M. A. Sholokhov in the preface to V. I. Dahl’s collection “Proverbs of the Russian People” wrote: “The diversity of human relationships is immeasurable, which are imprinted in the minted folk sayings and aphorisms. From the abyss of time, in these clots of reason and knowledge of life, human joy and suffering, laughter and tears, love and anger, faith and unbelief, truth and falsehood, honesty and deception, hard work and laziness, the beauty of truths and the ugliness of prejudices have come down to us.”
The third point noted by N. G. Chernyshevsky is also important - “relations with other peoples.” These relations were not always kind. Here there are invasions of enemy hordes and peaceful trade relations. As a rule, the Russian language borrowed from other languages only what was good in them. A. S. Pushkin’s statement on this matter is curious: “...An alien language spread not by sabers and fires, but by its own abundance and superiority. What new concepts, requiring new words, could a nomadic tribe of barbarians, who had neither literature, nor trade, nor legislation, bring to us? Their invasion did not leave any traces in the language of the educated Chinese, and our ancestors, groaning under the Tatar yoke for two centuries, prayed to the Russian god in their native language, cursed the formidable rulers and conveyed their complaints to each other. Be that as it may, hardly fifty Tatar words have passed into the Russian language.”
Indeed, language as the basis of the nation was preserved very carefully. An excellent example of how people value their language are the Nekrasov Cossacks. The descendants of the participants in the Bulavin uprising, who suffered religious persecution in Russia, went to Turkey. They lived there for two or three centuries, but kept their language, customs, and rituals pure. Only concepts that were new to them were borrowed in the form of words from the Turkish language. The original language was completely preserved.
The formation of the Russian language took place in difficult conditions: there was a secular language - Old Russian, and Church Slavonic, in which services were conducted in churches and spiritual literature was published. A. S. Pushkin wrote; “Are we convinced that the Slavic language is not the Russian language, and that we cannot mix them arbitrarily, that if many words, many phrases can happily be borrowed from church books, then it does not follow from this that we can write and lie kiss me instead of kiss me.”
And yet, the role of borrowing as a result of communication between peoples cannot be discounted. Borrowings were the result of important events. One of these events was baptism in Rus' in the 10th-11th centuries and the adoption of Byzantine-style Christianity. Of course, this had to be reflected in the language. I. reflected. Let's start with the fact that books were needed that would set out church canons. Such books appeared, they were translated from Greek. But in the church the service was held in the Old Church Slavonic language (aka Church Slavonic). Therefore, translations were made into Old Church Slavonic.
And the people in Rus' spoke a secular - ancient Russian language. It was used for chronicles and other literature. The parallel existence of two languages could not but affect the influence of Old Church Slavonic on Old Russian. That is why many Old Church Slavonic words have been preserved in our modern Russian language.
And the further history of our country can be traced through outbreaks of foreign language borrowings. Peter I began to carry out his reforms, build a fleet - and Dutch and German words appeared in the language. The Russian aristocracy showed interest in France - French borrowings invaded. They did not come mainly from the war with the French, but from cultural ties.
It is curious that the best was borrowed from each nation. What, for example, did we borrow from the French language? These are words related to cuisine (the famous French cuisine), fashion, clothing, theater, ballet. The Germans borrowed technical and military words, and the Italians borrowed musical and kitchen words.
However, the Russian language has not lost its national specificity. The poet Ya. Smelyakov said very well about this:
You, our great-grandfathers, are in trouble,
Having powdered my face with flour,
ground in a Russian mill
visiting Tatar language.
You took a little German,
at least they could do more,
so that they are not the only ones who get it
scientific importance of land.
You, who smelled like rotten sheepskin
and grandfather’s spicy kvass,
was written with a black splinter,
And a white swan feather.
You are above the price and the price -
in the year forty-one, then,
written in a German dungeon
on weak lime with a nail.
The rulers also disappeared,
instantly and for sure
when they accidentally encroached
to the Russian essence of the language.
And it is also worth remembering here the words of academician V.V. Vinogradov: “The power and greatness of the Russian language are indisputable evidence of the great vital forces of the Russian people, their original and high national culture and their great and glorious historical destiny.”
HOW THE LANGUAGE IS BUILT.
Language can successfully fulfill its main purpose (i.e., serve as a means of communication) because it is “composed” of a huge number of different units connected to each other by linguistic laws. This fact is what is meant when they say that language has a special structure (structure). Learning the structure of language helps people improve their speech.
In order to present the linguistic structure in the most general terms, let’s think about the content and construction of a single phrase, for example, this: For the shores of your dear homeland, you left a foreign land (Pushkin). This phrase (statement) expresses a certain, more or less independent meaning and is perceived by the speaker and the listener (reader) as an integral unit of speech. But does this mean that it is not divided into smaller segments or parts? No, of course it doesn't. We can detect such segments, parts of a whole statement, very easily. However, not all of them are the same in their characteristics. To make sure of this, let’s try to first isolate the smallest sound segments of our utterance. To do this, we will divide it into parts until there is nothing left to divide. What will happen? The resulting vowels and consonants will be:
D-l-a b-i-r-e-g-o-f a-t-h-i-z-n-y d-a-l-n-o-y T-y p-a-k -i-d-a-l-a k-r-a-y ch-u-z-o-y.
This is what our statement looks like if it is divided into individual sounds (the literal representation of these sounds here is not very accurate, because the sound of speech cannot be accurately conveyed by ordinary means of writing). Thus, we can say that the sound of speech is one of those linguistic units that, taken together, form a language and its structure. But, of course, this is not the only unit of language.
Let us ask ourselves: why are speech sounds used in language? The answer to this question is not immediately apparent. But still, apparently, one can notice that the sound shells of words are built from the sounds of speech: after all, there is not a single word that is not composed of sounds. Further, it turns out that speech sounds have the ability to distinguish the meanings of words, that is, they reveal some, albeit very fragile, connection with meaning. Let's take a series of words: house - dam - gave - small - ball - was - howled - ox. How does each subsequent word in this series differ from its predecessor? Just a change in sound. But this is enough for us to perceive the words of our series as differing from each other in meaning. Therefore, in linguistics it is customary to say that speech sounds are used to distinguish between the meanings of words and their grammatical modifications (forms). If two different words are pronounced identically, that is, their sound shells are composed of the same sounds, then such words are not distinguished by us, and in order for their semantic differences to be perceived by us, these words must be put in connection with other words, i.e. e. substitute into the statement. These are the words scythe “tool” and scythe (maiden), key “spring” and key (lock), wind (watch) and wind (puppy). These and similar words are called homonyms.
Speech sounds are used to distinguish the meanings of words, but in themselves they are insignificant: neither the sound a, nor the sound y, nor the sound zhe, nor any other individual sound is associated in the language with any specific meaning. As part of a word, sounds together express its meaning, but not directly, but through other units of language called morphemes. Morphemes are the smallest semantic parts of the language used to form words and to change them (these are prefixes, suffixes, endings, roots). Our statement is divided into morphemes like this:
For the shores, you are far away from home. You are a foreign land.
The sound of speech is not associated, as we have seen, with any specific meaning. The morpheme is significant: with each root, suffix, ending, with each prefix, one or another meaning is associated in the language. Therefore, we should call the morpheme the smallest structural and semantic unit of language. How to justify such a complex term? This can be done: a morpheme is, indeed, the smallest semantic unit of language, it participates in the construction of words, and is a particle of the structure of language.
Having recognized the morpheme as a semantic unit of language, we must not, however, lose sight of the fact that this unit of language is deprived of independence: outside the word it has no specific meaning; it is impossible to construct a statement from morphemes. Only by comparing a number of words that are similar in meaning and sound do we discover that the morpheme turns out to be the bearer of a certain meaning. For example, the suffix -nik in the words hunter-nik, season-nik, carpenter, balalaika player, eysot-nik, defender-nik, worker-nik has the same meaning - it informs about the figure, the character; the prefix po- in the words ran, no-played, sat, no-read, groaned, no-thought informs about the short duration and limitations of the action.
So, speech sounds only distinguish meaning, while morphemes express it: each individual speech sound is not associated in the language with any specific meaning, each individual morpheme is connected, although this connection is found only as part of a whole word (or a series of words), which and forces us to recognize the morpheme as a dependent semantic and structural unit of language.
Let's return to the statement: For the shores of your dear homeland, you left a foreign land. We have already identified two types of linguistic units in it: the shortest sound units, or speech sounds, and the shortest structural semantic units, or morphemes. Does it have units larger than morphemes? Of course there is. These are well-known words (at least by name) to everyone. If a morpheme is, as a rule, built from a combination of sounds, then a word, as a rule, is formed from a combination of morphemes. Does this mean that the difference between a word and a morpheme is purely quantitative? Not at all. There are also words that contain a single morpheme: you, cinema, only, what, how, where. Then - and this is the main thing! - a word has a definite and independent meaning, but a morpheme, as already mentioned, is not independent in its meaning. The main difference between a word and a morpheme is created not by the amount of “sounding matter”, but by the quality, ability or inability of a linguistic unit to independently express a certain content. The word, due to its independence, is directly involved in the construction of sentences, which are divided into words. A word is the shortest independent structural and semantic unit of language.
The role of words in speech is very great: our thoughts, experiences, feelings are expressed in words, combined statements. The semantic independence of words is explained by the fact that each of them denotes a certain “object”, a phenomenon of life and expresses a certain concept. Tree, city, cloud, blue, alive, honest, sing, think, believe - behind each of these sounds there are objects, their properties, actions and phenomena, each of these words expresses a concept, a “piece” of thought. However, the meaning of a word is not reducible to a concept. The meaning reflects not only the objects, things, qualities, properties, actions and states themselves, but also our attitude towards them. In addition, the meaning of a word usually reflects the various semantic connections of this word with other words. Having heard the word native, we perceive not only the concept, but also the feeling that colors it; in our consciousness there will arise, albeit very weakened, ideas about other meanings historically associated in the Russian language with this word. These ideas will be different for different people, and the word native itself will cause some differences in its understanding and evaluation. One, having heard this word, will think about his relatives, another - about his beloved, a third - about friends, a fourth - about his Motherland...
This means that both sound units (speech sounds) and semantic units, but not independent ones (morphemes), are needed, in the end, in order for words to arise - these shortest independent carriers of a certain meaning, these smallest parts of statements.
All the words of a language are called its vocabulary (from the Greek lexis "word") or vocabulary. The development of language unites words and separates them. Based on their historical association, various vocabulary groups are formed. These groups cannot be “lined” in one row for the reason that they are distinguished in the language on the basis of not one, but several different characteristics. Thus, in a language there are vocabulary groups formed as a result of the interaction of languages. For example, in the vocabulary of the modern Russian literary language there are many words of foreign origin - French, German, Italian, ancient Greek, Latin, ancient Bulgarian and others.
By the way, there is a very good guide for mastering foreign language vocabulary - “Dictionary of Foreign Words”.
There are also vocabulary groups of a completely different nature in the language, for example, active and passive words, synonyms and antonyms, local and general literary words, terms and non-terms.
It is curious that among the most active words of our language are the conjunctions and, a; prepositions in, on; pronouns he, I, you; nouns year, day, eye, hand, time; adjectives big, different, new, good, young; verbs to be, be able, speak, know, go; adverbs very, now, now, possible, good, etc. Such words are most common in speech, that is, they are most often needed by speakers and writers.
Now we will be interested in a new, important question in the study of the structure of language: it turns out that individual words themselves, no matter how active they are in our speech, cannot express coherent thoughts - judgments and conclusions. But people need a means of communication that can express coherent thoughts. This means that language must have some kind of “device” with the help of which words could be combined to construct statements that can convey a person’s thought.
Let's return to the sentence For the shores of your dear homeland, you left a foreign land. Let's take a closer look at what happens to words when they are included in a statement. We can relatively easily notice that the same word can change not only its appearance, but also its grammatical form, and therefore its grammatical features and characteristics. Thus, the word shore is placed in our sentence in the genitive plural form; the word fatherland is in the genitive singular form; the word distant is also in the genitive singular form; the word you appeared in its “initial” form; the word leave “adapted” to the word you and the expressed meaning and received signs of the past tense, singular, feminine; the word edge has features of the accusative singular; the word alien is endowed with the same signs of case and number and received a masculine form, since the word edge “requires” precisely this generic form from the adjective.
Thus, by observing the “behavior” of words in various statements, we can establish some patterns (or rules) according to which words naturally change their form and are associated with each other to construct statements. These patterns of regular alternation of grammatical forms of words when constructing statements are studied in school: declension of nouns, adjectives, verb conjugation, etc.
But we know that declension, conjugation, and various rules for linking words into sentences and constructing sentences are no longer vocabulary, but something else, what is called the grammatical structure of a language, or its grammar. You should not think that grammar is some kind of body of information about a language compiled by scientists. No, grammar is, first of all, patterns and rules (patterns) inherent in the language itself, which govern the change in the grammatical form of words and the construction of sentences.
However, the concept of “grammar” cannot be clearly explained unless the question of the duality of the very nature of the word is not fully considered, at least schematically: for example, the word spring is an element of the vocabulary of the language and it is also an element of the grammar of the language. What does it mean?
This means that each word, in addition to individual characteristics inherent only to it, also has common characteristics that are the same for large groups of words. The words window, sky and tree, for example, are different words, and each of them has its own special sound and meaning. However, they all have common characteristics: they all denote an object in the broadest sense of the term, they all belong to the so-called neuter gender, they can all change according to cases and numbers and will receive the same endings. And with its individual characteristics, each word is included in the vocabulary, and with its general characteristics, the same word is included in the grammatical structure of the language.
All words of a language that share their common characteristics form one large group called part of speech. Each part of speech has its own grammatical properties. For example, a verb differs from a numeral both in meaning (the verb denotes an action, the numeral - quantity), and in formal features (the verb changes in moods, tenses, persons, numbers, gender - in the past tense and the subjunctive mood; all verbal forms have a voice and specific characteristics; and the numeral changes according to cases, genders - only three numerals have gender forms: two, one and a half, both). Parts of speech relate to the morphology of a language, which, in turn, is an integral part of its grammatical structure. A word enters into morphology, as already mentioned, by its general characteristics, namely: 1) by its general meanings, which are called grammatical; 2) by their general formal features - endings, less often - suffixes, prefixes, etc.; 3) general patterns (rules) of its change.
Let's take a closer look at these signs of words. Do words have common, grammatical meanings? Of course: walk, think, talk, write, meet, love - these are words with a general meaning of action; walked, thought, spoke, wrote, met, loved - here the same words reveal two more common meanings: they indicate that actions were performed in the past, and that they were performed by one person of the “masculine gender”; below, in the distance, in front, above - these words have a general meaning of a sign of certain actions. It is enough to look at the verbs just given to be convinced that the words also have common formal features: in the indefinite form, verbs of the Russian language usually end with the suffix -т, in the past tense they have the suffix -л, when changing in the present tense, the persons get the same endings, etc. Adverbs also have a kind of general formal feature: they do not change.
That words have general patterns (rules) of their change is also easy to see. The forms I read - I read - I will read do not differ, if we keep in mind the general rules for changing words, from the forms I play - played - I will play, I meet - I met - I will meet, I know - I knew - I will know. It is important that grammatical changes in a word affect not only its “shell”, external form, but also its general meaning: I read, play, meet, know denote an action carried out by one person at one moment of speech; read, played, met, knew indicate an action carried out by one person in the past; and I will read, I will play, I will meet, I will know express concepts about actions that will be carried out by one person after the moment of speech, i.e. in the future. If a word does not change, then this feature - immutability - turns out to be common to many words, i.e. grammatical (remember adverbs).
Finally, the morphological “nature” of a word is revealed in its ability to enter into relations of dominance or subordination with other words in a sentence, to require the addition of a dependent word in the required case form, or to itself take one or another case form. So, nouns easily subordinate to verbs and just as easily subordinate to adjectives: read (what?) book, book (what?) new. Adjectives, subordinate to nouns, almost cannot enter into connection with verbs, and relatively rarely subordinate nouns and adverbs. Words belonging to different parts of speech participate in different ways in the construction of a phrase, that is, a combination of two significant words related by the method of subordination. But, having started talking about phrases, we move from the area of morphology to the area of syntax, to the area of sentence construction. So, what have we been able to establish by looking closely at how language works? Its structure includes the shortest sound units - speech sounds, as well as the shortest non-independent structural and semantic units - morphemes. A particularly prominent place in the structure of language is occupied by words - the shortest independent semantic units that can participate in the construction of a sentence. Words reveal the duality (and even triplicity) of their linguistic nature: they are the most important units of the vocabulary of a language, they are components of a special mechanism that creates new words, word formation, they are also units of the grammatical structure, in particular the morphology, of a language. The morphology of a language is a set of parts of speech in which the general grammatical meanings of words, the general formal features of these meanings, the general properties of compatibility and the general patterns (rules) of change are revealed.
But morphology is one of two components of the grammatical structure of a language. The second part is called the syntax of the language. Having encountered this term, we begin to remember what it is. Not very clear ideas about simple and complex sentences, about composition and subordination, about coordination, control and adjacency emerge in our consciousness. Let's try to make these ideas more clear.
Let us once again call for help our proposal For the shores of a distant fatherland, you left a foreign land. In its composition, phrases easily stand out: For the shores of (what? whose?) distant fatherland (which?) did you leave (what?) land (how oh th?) stranger. Each of the four marked phrases contains two words - one is main, dominant, the other is subordinate, dependent. But none of the phrases individually, nor all of them together, could express a coherent thought if there were not a special pair of words in the sentence, constituting the grammatical center of the utterance. This couple: you left. These are the subject and predicate we know. Connecting them with each other gives a new, most important from the point of view of expression of thought, unit of language - the sentence. A word as part of a sentence acquires temporarily new characteristics for it: it can become completely independent, it can dominate - it is the subject; a word can express a feature that tells us about the existence of an object designated by the subject - this is a predicate. A word as part of a sentence can act as a complement, in which case it will denote an object and will be in a dependent position in relation to another word. Etc.
The members of a sentence are the same words and their combinations, but included in the composition of the statement and expressing different relationships to each other based on its content. In different sentences we will find identical members of the sentence, because parts of statements of different meanings can be connected by the same relationships. The sun illuminated the earth and the boy read the book - these are very far from each other statements, if we keep in mind their specific meaning. But at the same time, these are identical statements, if we keep in mind their general grammatical features, semantic and formal. The sun and the boy equally denote an independent object, illuminated and read equally indicate such signs that tell us about the existence of the object; land and book equally express the concept of the object to which the action is directed and extended.
The sentence, with its specific meaning, is not included in the syntax of the language. The specific meaning of a sentence is included in various areas of human knowledge about the world, so it interests science, journalism, literature, it interests people in the process of work and life, but linguistics is cold to it. Why? Simply because specific content is the very thoughts, feelings, experiences for the expression of which both language as a whole and its most important unit, the sentence, exist.
A sentence enters into syntax by its general meaning, general grammatical features: meanings of narrative interrogative, incentive, etc., general formal features (intonation, word order, conjunctions and allied words, etc.), general patterns (rules) of its construction.
The entire infinite number of already created and newly created utterances based on grammatical features can be reduced to relatively few types of sentences. They differ depending on the purpose of the statement (narrative, interrogative and motivating) and on the structure (simple and complex - compound and complex). Sentences of one type (say, narrative) differ from sentences of another type (say, incentive) both in their grammatical meanings, and in their formal features (means), for example, intonation, and, of course, in the patterns of their construction.
Therefore, we can say that the syntax of a language is a collection of different types of sentences, each having its own general grammatical meanings, general formal features, general patterns (rules) of its construction, necessary to express a specific meaning.
Thus, what in science is called the structure of language turns out to be a very complex “mechanism”, consisting of many different component “parts”, connected into a single whole according to certain rules and jointly performing a large and important job for people. The success or failure of this “work” in each case depends not on the linguistic “mechanism”, but on those people who use it, on their ability or inability, desire or unwillingness to use its powerful power.
ROLE OF LANGUAGE.
Language was created and developed because the need for communication constantly accompanies the work and life of people, and its satisfaction turns out to be necessary. Therefore, language, being a means of communication, has been and remains a constant ally and assistant of a person in his work, in his life.
The labor activity of people, no matter how complex or simple it may be, is carried out with the obligatory participation of language. Even in automatic enterprises, which are run by a few workers and where the need for language would seem to be small, it is still necessary. Indeed, in order to establish and maintain the smooth operation of such an enterprise, it is necessary to build perfect mechanisms and train people capable of managing them. But for this you need to acquire knowledge, technical experience, you need deep and intense work of thought. And it is clear that neither mastering work experience nor the work of thought is possible without the use of a language that allows you to read, books, listen to lectures, talk, exchange advice, etc.
Even more obvious and easier to understand is the role of language in the development of science, fiction, and educational activities of society. It is impossible to develop science without relying on what it has already achieved, without expressing and consolidating the work of thought in words. Poor language in essays in which certain scientific results are presented makes it very difficult to master science. It is no less obvious that serious shortcomings in the speech with which the achievements of science are popularized can erect a “Chinese wall” between the author of a scientific work and its readers.
The development of fiction is inextricably linked with language, which, in the words of M. Gorky, serves as the “primary element” of literature. The more fully and deeply a writer reflects life in his works, the more perfect their language should be. Writers often forget this simple truth. M. Gorky was able to convincingly remind her in time: “The main material of literature is the word, which shapes all our impressions, feelings, thoughts. Literature is the art of plastic representation through words. The classics teach us that the simpler, clearer, clearer the semantic and figurative content of a word, the more strong, truthful and stable the image of the landscape and its influence on a person, the image of a person’s character and his relationship to people.”
The role of language in propaganda work is also very noticeable. Improving the language of our newspapers, radio broadcasts, television programs, our lectures and conversations on political and scientific topics is a very important task. After all, back in 1906, V.I. Lenin wrote that we must “be able to speak simply and clearly, in a language accessible to the masses, decisively throwing away the heavy artillery of sophisticated terms, foreign words, memorized, ready-made, but still incomprehensible to the masses, unfamiliar her slogans, definitions, conclusions.” Now the tasks of propaganda and agitation have become more complex. The political and cultural level of our readers and listeners has increased, therefore the content and form of our propaganda and agitation must be deeper, more diverse, and more effective.
It is difficult to even approximately imagine how unique and significant the role of language is in the work of a school. A teacher will not be able to give a good lesson, impart knowledge to children, interest them, discipline their will and mind if he speaks inaccurately, inconsistently, dryly and clichedly. But language is not only a means of transmitting knowledge from teacher to student: it is also a tool for acquiring knowledge, which the student constantly uses. K. D. Ushinsky said that the native word is the basis of all mental development and the treasury of all knowledge. A student needs good command of the language in order to assimilate knowledge and quickly and correctly understand the teacher’s word or book. The level of a student’s speech culture directly affects his academic performance.
Native speech, skillfully used, is an excellent tool for educating the younger generation. Language connects a person with his native people, strengthens and develops a sense of the Motherland. According to Ushinsky, “the entire people and their entire homeland are spiritualized in language,” it “reflects not only the nature of the native country, but also the entire history of the spiritual life of the people... Language is the most living, most abundant and lasting connection connecting obsolete, living and future generations of the people into one great, historical living whole. It not only expresses the vitality of the people, but is precisely this very life.”
TONGUE STORAGE.
Writers are always searching. They are looking for new, fresh words: it seems to them that ordinary words can no longer evoke the necessary feelings in the reader. But where to look? Of course, first of all, in the speech of the common people. The classics also aimed at this.
N.V. Gogol: “...Our extraordinary language is still a mystery... it is limitless and can, living like life, be enriched every minute, drawing, on the one hand, lofty words from the language of the Church and Bible, and on the other hand, choosing a choice of apt names from their countless dialects scattered throughout our provinces.”
Writers' turn to colloquial folk speech, to dialects, is a reliable way to develop vocabulary. How happy the writer is to find an apt, figurative word, as if rediscovered for himself!
A. N. Tolstoy once remarked: “The language of the people is unusually rich, much richer than ours. True, there is not a whole series of words and phrases, but the manner of expression, the richness of shades is greater than ours.” The writer compares the literary Russian language (“ours”) and the “folk language.” But we agreed that there are two varieties of this “folk language”. However, here's the thing. Actually, dialect vocabulary does not allow people to communicate only with its help: it serves as an addition to the main vocabulary fund, to well-known words. This is like a local “seasoning” to the well-known vocabulary.
However, folk dialects as a source of replenishment of the language are now being questioned. Young people living in different areas, under the influence of the media - radio, television - forget local words and are embarrassed to use them in speech. Is it good or bad?
This question interests not only us, Russian people. The American writer John Steinbeck expresses concern about this in his book Travels with Charlie in Search of America: “The language of radio and television takes standard forms, and we perhaps never speak so clearly and correctly. Our speech will soon become the same everywhere, just like our bread... Following the local accent, local speech rates will die. Idiomaticity and imagery, which so enrich it and, testifying to the time and place of their origin, give it such poetry, will disappear from the language. And in return we will get a national language, packaged and packaged, standard and tasteless.”
A sad forecast, isn't it? However, we must remember that scientists are not asleep. In various localities, dialect material was collected, and regional dictionaries of local dialects were created. And now work is underway to publish editions of the “Dictionary of Russian Folk Dialects”, more than 20 books of which have already been published. This is a wonderful storehouse that both writers and scientists will look into, a storehouse that can be used in the future. This dictionary summarizes the work of all regional dictionaries and will indicate the existence of each word with its individual meanings.
Our classic writers dreamed of such a “folk language” dictionary. “Really, it wouldn’t be a bad idea to take up the lexicon, or at least criticize the lexicon!” - exclaimed A.S. Pushkin.
N.V. Gogol even began work on “Materials for a dictionary of the Russian language”, and specifically on the dictionary of the “folk language”, because dictionaries of the literary language had already been created by the Russian Academy. Gogol wrote: “For many years, studying the Russian language, being amazed more and more by the accuracy and intelligence of his words, I became more and more convinced of the essential need for such an explanatory dictionary that would, so to speak, put a face to the Russian word in its literal meaning, illuminate If only he would show his dignity, so often unnoticed, more palpably, and would partially reveal his very origin.”
To a certain extent, this problem was solved by V.I. Dahl’s Dictionary, but it did not satisfy the needs of writers.
LANGUAGE IN ACTION IS SPEECH.
Usually they say not “culture of language”, but “culture of speech”. In special linguistic works, the terms “language” and “speech” are in wide use. What is meant when the words “language” and “speech” are deliberately distinguished by scientists?
In the science of language, the term “speech” refers to language in action, that is, language used to express specific thoughts, feelings, moods and experiences.
Language is the property of everyone. He has the means necessary and sufficient to express any specific content - from the naive thoughts of a child to the most complex philosophical generalizations and artistic images. The norms of the language are universal. However, the use of language is very individual. Each person, expressing his thoughts and feelings, selects from the entire stock of linguistic means only those that he can find and that are needed in each individual case of communication. Each person must combine the means selected from the language into a harmonious whole - into a statement, a text.
The possibilities that various means of language have are realized and realized in speech. The introduction of the term “speech” recognizes the obvious fact that the general (language) and the particular (speech) in the system of means of communication are united and at the same time different. We are accustomed to calling the means of communication, taken in abstraction from any specific content, language, and the same means of communication in connection with specific content - speech. The general (language) is expressed and realized in the particular (in speech). The particular (speech) is one of many specific forms of the general (language).
It is clear that language and speech cannot be opposed to each other, but we must not forget about their differences. When we speak or write, we perform certain physiological work: the “second signaling system” operates, therefore, certain physiological processes take place in the cerebral cortex, new and new neuro-cerebral connections are established, the speech apparatus works, etc. What turns out to be a product of this activity? Just those very statements, texts that have an internal side, i.e. meaning, and an external side, i.e. speech.
The role of an individual in the formation of speech is very significant, although far from unlimited. Since speech is built from units of language, and language is universal. The role of an individual in the development of a language is, as a rule, insignificant: the language changes in the process of verbal communication of the people.
Definitions such as “correct”, “incorrect”, “accurate”, “inaccurate”, “simple”, “heavy”, “light”, etc. are not applicable to the language of the people. But these same definitions are quite applicable to speech. Speech shows greater or lesser compliance with the norms of the national language of a certain era. In speech, deviations from these norms and even distortions and violations of them may be allowed. Therefore, it is impossible to talk about the culture of language in the usual sense of these words, but we can and should talk about the culture of speech.
Language in grammars, dictionaries, and scientific literature is described, as a rule, in abstraction from specific content. Speech is studied in its relation to one or another specific content. And one of the most important problems of speech culture is the most appropriate selection of language means in accordance with the expressed content, goals and conditions of communication.
By distinguishing the terms “language” and “speech”, we will have to establish differences between the terms “language style” and “speech style”. In comparison with language styles (discussed above), speech styles represent its typical varieties, depending on the language style used, the conditions and goals of communication, the genre of the work, and the attitude of the author of the statement to the language; Speech styles differ from each other in the features of the use of linguistic material in certain specific verbal works.
But what does it mean to relate to language? This means that not all people know their native language and its styles equally. This means, further, that not all people evaluate the meaning of words in the same way, and not everyone approaches words with the same aesthetic and moral requirements. This means, finally, that not all people are equally “sensitive” to those subtle shades of meaning that words and their combinations reveal in specific statements. Due to all these reasons, different people select linguistic material in different ways and organize this material within a speech work in different ways. In addition, speech styles also reflect differences in people’s attitudes towards the world and man, their tastes, habits and inclinations, their thinking skills and other circumstances that do not relate to the facts and phenomena studied by the science of language.
CONCLUSION.
The struggle for a culture of speech, for a correct, accessible and vibrant language is an urgent social task, recognized especially clearly in the light of the Marxist understanding of language. After all, language, while working, constantly participates in the activity of consciousness, expresses this activity, and actively influences it. Hence the colossal power of influence of words on people’s thoughts, feelings, moods, desires, and behavior...
We need constant protection of the word from damage and distortion, it is necessary to declare war on the distortion of the Russian language, the war that V.I. Lenin spoke about. We still too often hear sloppy (and sometimes simply illiterate), “some kind of” speech. There are people who do not know well and do not appreciate our public wealth - the Russian language. So there is someone and something to protect this property from. We urgently need everyday, intelligent, demanding defense of Russian speech - its correctness, accessibility, purity, expressiveness, and effectiveness. We need a clear understanding that “with a word you can kill a person and bring him back to life.” It is unacceptable to look at the word as something of secondary importance in people’s lives: it is one of the affairs of men.
LIST OF REFERENCES USED:
1. Leontyev A.A. What is language? M.: Pedagogy - 1976.
2. Grekov V.F. and others. A manual for classes in the Russian language. M., Education, 1968.
3. Oganesyan S.S. Culture of speech communication / Russian language at school. No. 5 – 1998.
4. Skvortsov L.I. Language, communication and culture / Russian at school. No. 1 – 1994.
5. Formanovskaya N.I. Culture of communication and speech etiquette / Russian language at school. No. 5 – 1993.
6. Golovin B.N. How to speak correctly / Notes on the culture of Russian speech. M.: Higher School - 1988.
7. Gvozdarev Yu.A. Language is the confession of the people... M.: Enlightenment - 1993.
Mira. This picture of the world, localized in the mind, constantly replenished and adjusted, regulates human behavior. The purpose of this course work is to consider language as a system of signs of a special kind that express ideas; as a system subject to its own order. 1. Language is the most important means of human communication. We speak and write to convey to others...
Subject of research: pedagogical conditions for organizing educational cooperation in Russian language lessons in primary schools. Research hypothesis: the organization of educational cooperation in the process of teaching junior schoolchildren the Russian language will contribute to the effective acquisition of knowledge in the subject if the teacher: · Creates conditions for emotional and meaningful support for each student; ...
A. N. Tolstoy rightly believed that “to handle the language somehow means to think somehow: inaccurately, approximately, incorrectly.” And I. S. Turgenev called: “take care of our language, our beautiful Russian language, this treasure, this heritage passed on to us by our predecessors...” Nowadays, the Russian language is truly becoming international. And this commands us to hold high the banner of the Russian language. ...
From this idea comes another idea of postpositivism - about the identity of the “mental” and the “physical”, this idea is propagated by “elinative materialists”. They believe that the “mental terms” of the theory of language and thinking should be eliminated as unscientific and replaced with terms of neurophysiology. To solve this problem, it is necessary, first of all, as they believe, to reject the “myth of the given,” i.e. statement...
Today, the Russian language is rarely considered as a developing phenomenon. Everyone is used to it, they use words automatically, sometimes without even thinking. And this is understandable, because we are native speakers of Russian. However, based on this, one should at least sometimes be interested in its history and specifics. Over the centuries it has undergone changes, old words were eradicated, new ones were added, and the alphabet also became different. The Russian language as a developing phenomenon represents a completely unique cultural heritage.
Connection to history
Many centuries separate the current Russian language from the one in which our distant ancestors communicated. A lot has changed during this time. Some words became completely forgotten, they were replaced by new ones. The grammar has also changed, and old expressions have acquired a completely different interpretation. I wonder if a modern Russian person met one of our distant ancestors, would they be able to talk and understand each other? It is definitely true that fast-paced life has changed along with the language. Much of it turned out to be very stable. And the speech of the ancestors could be understood. Philological scientists conducted an interesting and painstaking experiment - they compared Ozhegov’s dictionary with the “Dictionary of the Russian Language of the XI-XVII centuries”. During the work, it turned out that about a third of mid- and high-frequency words are identical to each other.
What influenced the changes
Language as a developing phenomenon has always existed, from the very moment people began to speak. The changes taking place in it are an inevitable companion to the history of a language, absolutely any one. But since it is one of the richest and most diverse, it is more interesting to observe how the Russian language develops. It must be said that mainly the conditions for the functioning of the language were changed due to political cataclysms. The influence of the media grew. This also influenced the development of the Russian language, making it more liberal. Accordingly, people’s attitudes towards him changed. Unfortunately, in our time, few people adhere to literary norms; they are becoming more and more widespread. As a result, the peripheral elements of genres have become the center of everything. This refers to vernacular, slang and jargon.
Dialectism
It is worth noting that language is a developing phenomenon in all regions of our vast country. And new norms of lexicology appear both in national speech and in individual regions of Russia. This refers to dialectisms. There is even a so-called “Moscow-Petersburg dictionary”. Despite the fact that these cities are quite close to each other, their dialects are different. A special dialect can be observed in the Arkhangelsk and Vyatka regions. There are a huge number of words that actually mean completely ordinary concepts. But as a result, if these expressions are used, then a resident of Moscow or St. Petersburg will understand such an interlocutor no better than if he spoke the folk Belarusian language.
Slang and jargon
Language as a developing phenomenon could not avoid the introduction of slang expressions into it. This is especially true for our time. How is language developing today? Not in the best way. It is regularly updated with expressions that are most often used by young people. Philologists believe that these words are very primitive and do not have a deep meaning. They also claim that the age of such phrases is very short, and they will not live long, since they do not carry any semantic load and are not interesting for intelligent and educated people. Such words will not be able to displace literary expressions. However, in reality, the exact opposite can be observed. But in general, this is a question concerning the level of culture and education.
Phonetics and alphabet
Historical changes cannot affect any one aspect of the language - they completely affect everything, from phonetics to the specifics of sentence construction. The modern alphabet is derived from the Cyrillic alphabet. The names of the letters, their styles - all this was different from what we have now. Of course, in ancient times the alphabet was used. Its first reform was carried out by Peter the Great, who excluded some letters, while others became more rounded and simplified. Phonetics also changed, that is, sounds began to be pronounced differently. Few people know what was voiced in those days! His pronunciation was close to “O”. By the way, the same can be said about a hard sign. Only it was pronounced like “E”. But then these sounds disappeared.
Vocabulary composition
The Russian language as a developing phenomenon has undergone changes not only in terms of phonetics and pronunciation. Gradually, new words were introduced into it, most often borrowed. For example, in recent years the following sayings have become firmly established in our everyday life: file, floppy disk, show, movie and many others. The fact is that not only language changes, changes also occur in life. New phenomena are formed that need to be given names. Accordingly, words appear. By the way, old expressions that have long sunk into oblivion have recently been revived. Everyone has already forgotten about such an address as “gentlemen”, calling their interlocutors “friends”, “colleagues”, etc. But recently this word has re-entered Russian colloquial speech.
Many expressions leave their environment (that is, from professional languages of a certain profile) and are introduced into everyday life. Everyone knows that computer scientists, doctors, engineers, journalists, cooks, builders and many other specialists in one or another field of activity communicate in “their” languages. And some of their expressions sometimes begin to be used everywhere. It should also be noted that the Russian language is also enriched due to word formation. An example is the noun “computer”. With the help of prefixes and suffixes, several words are formed at once: computerization, geek, computer, etc.
New era of the Russian language
Be that as it may, everything that is done is for the better. In this case, this expression is also suitable. Due to the freedom of forms of expression, a tendency towards so-called word creation began to appear. Although it cannot be said that it always turned out successful. Of course, the formality that was inherent in public communication has weakened. But, on the other hand, the lexical system of the Russian language has become very active, open and “alive”. Communicating in simple language makes it easier for people to understand each other. All phenomena have made some contribution to lexicology. Language, as a developing phenomenon, continues to exist to this day. But today it is a bright and original cultural heritage of our people.
Increased interest
I would like to note that the Russian language is a developing phenomenon that interests many people today. Scientists all over the world are studying it and understanding the specifics that are characteristic of it. Society is developing, science is also moving forward by leaps and bounds, Russia is exchanging scientific developments with other countries, and cultural and economic exchanges are taking place. All this and much more creates a need for citizens of other countries to master the Russian language. In 87 countries, special attention is paid to its study. About 1,640 universities teach it to their students, and several tens of millions of foreigners are eager to master the Russian language. This is good news. And if our Russian language as a developing phenomenon and cultural heritage arouses such interest among foreigners, then we, its native speakers, must speak it at a decent level.