CC BY
11
General questions relating to both linguistics and literature. Philology (UDC 80)
DOI: 10.18454/RULB.6.40 Валентинова О.И.1, Преображенский С.Ю.2, Рыбаков М.А.3 '^Российский университет дружбы народов МЕТОДОЛОГИЧЕСКИЙ ПОТЕНЦИАЛ СИСТЕМОЛОГИИ В ИНТЕРПРЕТАЦИИ ЯЗЫКОВЫХ ЯВЛЕНИЙ
Аннотация
В статье представлен анализ возможностей использования системологического подхода в решении общих и частных проблем современной лингвистики. Как показало исследование, лингвистическая теория Г. П. Мельникова, основанная на принципе системности, обладает высоким объяснительным потенциалом в области общих проблем лингвистической теории и типологии (выработка единых основ анализа явлений разных уровней, познание причин исторического изменения языка, установление связей между типом языка и условиями его существования) и применительно к частным проблемам, например, объяснительному анализу уровневой структуры семитских языков, раскрытию специфики фонологии и морфологии русских диалектов.
Ключевые слова: лингвистическая теория, методология, принцип системности, структура языка, тип языка.
Valentinova O.I.1, Preobrazhenskiy S.Yu.2, Rybakov M.A.3
'^Peoples' Friendship University of Russia METHODOLOGICAL POTENTIAL OF SYSTEMOLOGY IN THE INTERPRETATION OF LANGUAGE PHENOMENA
Abstract
The article presents the analysis ofpossibilities of using systemological approach in solving general and particular problems of modern linguistics. As the study showed, the linguistic theory of G. P. Mel'nikov, based on the principle of the systematic approach, has high explanatory potential in the field of general problems of linguistic theory and typology (development of a common framework of analysis of phenomena at different levels, knowing of the causes of historical changes of language, relations between language type and conditions of its existence) and for particular problems, for example, an explanatory analysis of the level structure of the Semitic languages, the disclosure of the specifics of the phonology and morphology of Russian dialects.
Keywords: linguistic theory, methodology, system principle, the structure of language, the type of language.
Почта авторов / Author Email: preobrag@mail.ru, verbum-palabra@yandex.ru, ovalentinova@yandex.ru
Introduction
GP. Mel'nikov's system linguistics which, according to scientific ambitions of its author, claimed • methodological priority in linguistics in general and linguistic typology in particular, at present cannot be estimated as an epistemic marginality. But at the time when scientists previously considered leaders embodying genuine linguistic progress, proclaimed linguistics a "theoretically exhausted" field of knowledge (cf: «Once (in 1989) I asked the outstanding linguist Igor Mel'chuk, what was happening to his science. He answered (manifesting no pleasure), that some sciences were theoretically exhausted, including linguistics» (Smirnov 1995), G. P. Mel'nikov's systemology could fill the seeming void. Symptomatically, at those critical 1990ies the concept of "dynamic" typology by A, Ye. Kibrik was published; his monograph (Kibrik 1992) contains references to Yu. P. Rozhdestvenskiy's «Typology of word» (Rozhdestvenskiy 1969) which to a large degree reflects G. P.Mel'nikov's theoretical views. Thus, G. P.Mel'nikov's theory cannot be regarded as completely forgotten and ignored by the scientific «mainstream». In those years, critical for Russian linguistics, G. P.Me'lnikov acquired allies, such as the phonologist E. F. Kirov, typologist A. A. Kretov, Russian syntax researcher M. Yu. Fedosyuk. Presently, judging by the activeness of publishers and internet portals, the Russian linguistic community has regained a certain interest for the scientific heritage of the systemologist. Possibly, the scholars are mainly attracted by the explanatory and prognostic potential of «system linguistics». G. P. Mel'nikov used to test his guesses and ideas in the student audience; that helped manifest the bright and original persuasiveness of the illustrative analogies, which sometimes disappeared in the few monographs by G. P. Mel'nikov, the fact that made editors complain: «This circumstance (limited volume. -authors of the article) must have denied the author the opportunity to use his original manner of presenting his ideas, the manner for which he is famous among the audience at conferences, congresses, seminars and lectures, where he illustrates each of his propositions by demonstrative pictures and examples from various scientific fields, branches of technology, from social and everyday situations» (Kosarev 1978). The authors of the present paper once comprised that very student audience of G. P. Mel'nikov and their object as they see it is actualizing some of the scientist's speculations which remain in their memories, which have never been published as completed texts, but fully realize the explanatory and prognostic potential of his «system linguistics».
Universal character of the system method
G. P. Mel'nikov characterized the typological structure of Semito-Hamitic languages in several relatively small scientific articles: «Interdependence of tiers in languages of Semitic system»
(Mel'nikov 1965) and «Relation of Semito-Hamitic languages to Indo-European and Ibero-Caucasian languages from the position of system linguistics» (Mel'nikov 1977). But later he often resumed the topic in his oral reports. For instance, there exists a record of his lecture of 1987, addressed to a wide audience. About a year before delivering the mentioned lecture, G. P. Mel'nikov had illustrated some principles of the "Semitic language system", namely, the following one: «... we have two types of signs; one type expresses actions and is basic in all respects, other signs are modifiers of those basic ones. So, if we trace the development of the Semitic language system and compare it to the Indo-European system, we shall see that in the Indo-European systems the basic roots sometimes concern action, and such roots often prevail, but there is plenty of other roots (not verbal); as for Semitic languages, there a process took place of throwing away roots not naming action; they were either forgotten or reinterpreted, as the result, only words naming actions remained» (Mel'nikov 1977: 139). This illustration appears to have had an independent meaning, as it stated isomorphism of semiotic systems of different substantial nature (verbal and visual) performing similar communicative function in the language community where one of the Semito-Hamitic languages was used. G. P. Mel'nikov analyzed the visual system of the ancient Egyptian fresco. The first thing to note was the contradictory combination of visual statics and semiotic dynamics: for any human figure, there was an obligatory angle canon (shoulders horizontal, both feet stiff in pace, both hands shown, on the face in profile the eye shown en face). In such a way, the pictures of people-doers are verbalized, turned into visualized «verbs» - different positions of hands and feet are semantic specifiers of an iconic sign of what is the figure doing - shooting, going, running, carrying water etc. As for the areas of relative freedom in the frescos, they are similar to vocal modifiers: in Semitic languages, firstly, the changing vocal structure of the root consisting of three unchanging consonants, specifies the meaning or conveys a grammar category. In the horizontal picture placed on a wall, the most stable elements are the most standardized large figures, which can also be compared - besides the comparison to the stable consonant base of a Semitic root - to the verbal-attributive predicate of the Semitic sentence. As for the more variable from the point of view of the visual canon elements of the picture, on this level of comparison they will be akin to nominal modifiers of the message.
According to G. P. Mel'nikov's conception, changes in the size of a language community, in the degree of its homogeneity or non-homogeneity, in the frequency and character of communication depending on the conditions and way of life of the native speakers, for instance, nomadic or settled, causes internal reconstruction of language leading to change of language type. The explanatory
potential of the method worked out by G. P. Mel'nikov covers the language substance on every scale, making the method itself universal. The external conditions of life of a language community explain not only the differences in typological characteristics of languages, but also dialect peculiarities of a single language. To make it sure, it is necessary to immerse into G. P. Mel'nikov's system which, as a system aimed to receiving the complete knowledge, possesses a characteristic closedness caused by general interdependence and interrelation of its statements.
Defining the dialect verb forms думаш, думат, corresponding to literary and other dialect forms дум[айеш], дума[йет] as a result of «morphologization of processes on the junction of stem and inflection of verbs» does not mean explaining the cause of their appearance.
A dialect of the Russian language, on the one hand, turns out to be a dialect of a language the system of which is determined by the necessity of maintaining a very large language community retaining homogeneity and leading a settled way of life; on the other hand, the dialect itself is not spread among all Russian native speakers.
According to G. P. Mel'nikov, in the Russian language, in the present external circumstances, when communication of everyone with everyone is impossible due to an extremely large language community, dispersed on an enormous territory, the mechanism of sharing information should imply constant verification of what the speaker wanted to say with what the listener has understood. Such a possibility is given by a nominative system with well-developed inflecting technique.
The ending of the noun in nominative case and the personal ending of a finite verb denote the same person: паренЬ думаЕТ. The ending of the nominative case парен—Ь represents a reduced simplest clause «Некто делает», the finite form of the verb also represents a reduced predicative unit: the stem of the verb names an action, and the personal ending дума[й—ЕТ ] names the person performing the action.
Such technique - first subject, then action - gives a chance of collating the uttered and the comprehended. First the named subject allows the recipient to assume, judging from the knowledge of general qualities of the subject, what action the latter can perform, and the action named subsequently indicates (by way of ending) the person which is the subject of the named action: дума[й—ЕТ ] - 'дума—ОН'.
In conditions of limited communication reduced to everyday life, when both the speaker and the listener know equally well who is the initiator of the described action, the necessity of confirming the correct understanding of who is in question is diminished, and the form думат, characteristic of some Russian dialects, appears.
Generally, minimal change of form leads to change of meaning. Change of form is always connected with change of meaning, and this connection is absolutely obligatory. At such understanding of correlation between form and meaning, when asked: «Which form is correct, профессоры or профессора?.», we shall answer: it depends on what you want to say. If you consider the professors as a «disjoint set» in which the personality of each professor is important, you say профессорЫ. If you mean not a «disjoint set», but a homogeneous mass, you say профессорА. Where it is said профессоры, as it was in the Russian Empire, the social status of a professor is incomparably higher than there where the form профессора, is habitually used, no matter whether the speakers understand the difference in meaning or think in standard stereotypes, like an obsolete form/ a modern form.
Explaining phenomena of a certain language level by facts of other levels as the central idea of G. P. Mel'nikov's linguistic theory
Explaining phenomena of a certain language level by facts of other levels discloses the central idea of G. P. Mel'nikov's linguistic theory. In polemics with the followers of structural linguistics, G. P.
Mel'nikov had always argued the interdependence of language levels, showing by way of examples their being organic parts (subsystems) and having their own functions within the whole suprasystem, i.e. language. He did not reject the well-known level model of language, but considered it one of the aspects of the system model which structural linguistic never attempted to build. Following F. de Saussure, they considered language «in itself and for itself», never turning to its external functions and conditions of existence. This autonomy principle was applied by structural linguists to investigating separate levels. As for typological classifications, they, if taken into account at all, were regarded as completely independent from one another.
In his work of 2000, «System typology of languages: synthesis of morphological and phased classifications of languages» G. P. Mel'nikov, as it is clear from the title, synthesized the synchronic and diachronic aspects of typological classification and thus put an end to the generally accepted and fruitless opposing of «morphological classification» to «phased classification by stage». It has become clear that linguistic typology cannot be only synchronic, and historic linguistics cannot be only descriptive and local. Also the interrelation of morphological and syntactic structures of languages was shown in the light of Mel'nikov's initial idea that both structures of the external form of language are generated by its internal form; the latter is «the essence of the language system manifesting itself through numerous observable projections, including "morphological" and "phased" classifications of language types» (Mel'nikov 2000: 52).
Change of such parameters as the size of a language community and the degree of continuity of the social experience leads to the change of language type in the direction: incorporating language (in morphological and syntactic aspects non-distinctive of these levels) -incorporating ergative language (in morphological aspect incorporation is partial, the object of an utterance is singled out) — agglutinative ergative language (terminative and attributive angle) - agglutinative nominative language (the subject is singled out) — inflective nominative language (the subject come out to the foreground, all parts of the sentence tend to morphological formalization, eventivity is the main trait of the nominative angle) — isolating nominative language (parts of the sentence are devoid of morphological formalization, the situation is depicted in an outline, in a general contour).
Conclusion
G. P. Mel'nikov has proved that syntactic and morphological classifications, although they consider different dimensions of language, are parts of one system and are not absolutely independent: incorporating language cannot be nominative, inflective and isolating languages cannot be ergative. At the same time, there is no direct system of correspondences here: firstly, there are three morphological types that can be syntactically nominative; secondly, an agglutinative language can be both ergative and nominative. This is natural for G. P. Mel'nikov conception, because two classifications based on external forms of different levels, are explained not only through one another, but mostly through a beeper notion of the internal form of the language. Incorporation, for instance, is directed on a detailed description of a situation, not jf a dynamic event including subject and object of action. The tendency of language to create a certain image, called by G. P. Mel'nikov the determinant of a language, depends not on the formal structures of the language but on the typical informational need of the participants of communication. Moreover, it is the factor inducing the language to fix some formal structures as canonic.
References
1. Zubkova L.G. (2003). O glavnom lingvisticheskom trude G,P,Mel'nikova [On the main linguistic work by G.P.Mel'nikov]. In Mel'nikov G.P. (2003). Sistemnaya tipologiya yazykov [System typology of languages], 5-17. Moscow: Nauka Publ.
2. Kibrik A.Ye. (1992). Essays on general and applied problems of linguistics (the universal, the typical and the specific in language. Moscow: MGU Publ.
3. Kosarev Yu.G. (1978). Predisloviye redaktora [Editor's Foreword]. In Mel'nikov G.P. (1978), Systemology and language aspects of cybernetics, 5-12. Moscow: Soviet radio Publ.
4. Mel'nikov G.P. (1965). Interdependence of the tiers structure in Semitic languages. In Semitskiye yazyki [Semitic languages](1965),Vol. 2, p. 2, 793-817. Moscow: Nauka Publ.
5. Mel'nikov G.P. (1977). Relation of Semito-Hamitic languages to Ibero-Cucasian languages from the position of system linguistics. In Tezisy dokladov 3-yey vsesoyuznoy konferentsii semitologov. [Proceedings of the 3-s all-Union conference of semitologists] (1977), 138-141. Tbilisi: AN SSSR Publ.
6. Mel'nikov G.P. (2000). Sistemnaya tipologiya yazykov: sintez morfologicteskoy klassifikatsii yazykov so stadial'noy [System typology of languages: synthesis of morphological and phased classifications of languages]. Moscow: RUDN Publ.
7. Mel'nikov G.P. (2003). Sistemnaya tipologiya yazykov [System typology of languages]. Moscow: Nauka Publ.
8. Roshdestvenskiy Yu.V. (1969).The typology of word. Moscow: MGU Publ.
9. Smirnov I. P. (1995). Foreword to the second edition. In Porozhdeniye interteksta [Generation of intertext] (1995). St.Petersburg: LC Yazykovoy tsentr.
10. http://philosophystorm.org/melnikov-gp-auditoriya-konstruiruet-osnovu-semitskikh-yazykov. 23.03.2016.
DOI: 10.18454/RULB.6.21 Артамонова М.В.
Владимирский государственный университет имени Александра Григорьевича и Николая Григорьевича Столетовых ВОСПРОИЗВОДИМОСТЬ ЯЗЫКОВЫХ ЕДИНИЦ: ЛИНГВО-КОГНИТИВНЫЙ АСПЕКТ
Аннотация
В статье представлены лингвистическая и когнитивная концепция воспроизводимости как способности говорящего извлекать из памяти и употреблять в готовом виде не только слова, но и синтаксические конструкции. Воспроизводимость языковых единиц рассматривается как особое свойство быть постоянным, исторически закрепленным языковым знаком, отражающим действительность, свойство повторяться как одна и та же единица в раз—личных текстах. В статье выделяются интегральные и дифференциальные признаки категории воспроизводимости и категории устойчивости, а также рассматриваются когнитивная обусловленность воспроизводимости, дающая возможность для воспроизводства в речи не только номинативных, но и коммуникативных единиц.
Ключевые слова: воспроизводимость, идиоматичность, фразеологизм, прецедентная языковая единица, когнитивная лингвистика.
Artamonova M.V.
Vladimir State University named after Alexander and Nikolay Stoletovs REPRODUCIBILITY OF LANGUAGE UNITS: LINGVUO-COGNITIVE ASPECT
Abstract
The article speaks on the linguistic and cognitive concepts of reproducibility as of the speaker's ability to retrieve from memory and apply not only words but syntactic constructions. Reproducibility is seen as a special ability to be a stable, historically fixed language unit, reflecting the reality; an ability to be reproduced as one and the same unit in various texts. The article speaks on the integral and distinguishing characteristics of the categories of reproducibility and stability; it dwells on cognitive conditionality of reproducibility, which gives an opportunity to reproduce not only notional units but units of communication.
Keywords: reproducibility, idiomaticity, phraseological unit, precedential language unit, cognitive linguistics.
Почта авторов / Author Email: vladphilolog@yandex.ru
Modern linguistics provides no unified interpretation for the term «reproducibility»; thus the category itself and reproducible language units are defined differently in scientific literature. The phenomenon of language unit reproducibility as of the speaker's ability to retrieve from memory and apply not only words but syntactic constructions, as we see it, needs serious consideration.
Linguistics refers to reproducibility, first of all, at the lexicological and phraseological level of the language. It is well-known that reproducibility - that is the ability of the word to be the same in any two different cases of its usage (e.g., in two different acts of speech; in the speech of two different people; or in two different cases of the same person's speech) — is a major feature of the word. The ability to reproduce or repeat words; or repeatability of the word in speech seems to be a self-evident language reality. Reproducibility of the word (or any other language unit) is an integral condition of the very existence and functioning of the language as a means of communication; thus, it is natural for us to expect that different speech segments, pronounced and heard by different people, at different moments and in different places, will make the same language units, in particular, the same words. If in every speech segment distinguished as a word the word represented something absolutely unique, non-reproducible, non-equal to what a native speaker may find in other speech segments, there would be no information exchange between people, since to understand someone else's speech one would have to know most, if not all, its components. Thus, to understand speech one should be able to perceive its components as reproducible units that are already familiar, that is to equate them with certain familiar units.
The problem of equality occurs then in connection with the fact that in the course of the language use words are reproduced again and again as some units already existing in the language, and each, actually existing in this particular language, word is regularly observed in various cases of its use, in various cases of its replication. Meanwhile, particular cases of the same word's replication are opposed to all the possible volume of other words use, even if those other words have much in common with this particular one.
It should be mentioned that reproducibility does not have only this lexical and semantic nature. For instance, Alexander Smirnitsky believes that when characterizing grammatical and non-grammatical phenomena one should consider the criterion of reproducibility.
According to Smirnitsky, it is an important property of word-forms, within which categorial forms can be distinguished and which are part of grammatical category structure, that they are reproducible in speech thus contributing to the reproducibility of grammatical categories as solid units at the grammatical level [Cmhph^khh 1956].
The term 'reproducibility' is most widely used in the phraseological conception, according to which reproducibility is seen as functional repeatability of units, their ability to be retrieved from memory ready to be used, which is opposed to the free choice and combination of language units in speech. However, reproducibility is not exclusively a property of phraseological units since it characterizes language units at other levels.
It should be admitted that reproducibility - as ability to be a permanent, historically fixed language sign reflecting reality; to be repeated as one and the same unit in different texts; to be retrieved from the language arsenal as a ready-to-use item - is a most common property of phraseological units, distinguishing them from collocations and bringing them closer to the word. Above all else, this feature unites all phraseological units.
The features of stability and reproducibility are characteristic of phraseological units. The named features make the base for classifications of phraseological units. Stability refers to the ability of a phraseological unit to be reproduced in speech as a ready form, with frequent replication of a particular word combination leading to a certain type of dependence between them, which then gets fixed, for instance, in dictionaries and reference books and later is realized in speech again. That is not only the changeability of units but particular properties of inner, structural features, conditioning the character of reproducibility.
However, in linguistic literature, no differentiation is traced between reproducibility and stability of the phraseological unit; and sometimes reproducibility is explained through the stability of a unit.
International scholars have made attempts to define the category of reproducibility and to identify reproducible units; however, linguists never seemed to differentiate between the factors which condition lexical, phraseological and grammatical reproducibility whose concept was easily mixed with that of idiomaticity. So, researchers of English phraseology, describing idiomaticity features either as a speech anomaly breaking either the laws of grammar or the laws of logic [Smith 1925], or as "use of
