CC BY
27
ЛОГИКА И ТЕОРИЯ ПОЗНАНИЯ
2020.01.010. МОЗГОВОЙ ЛИ., СЛАБОУЗ ВВ., ДУБИНИНА В.А. ФИЛОСОФИЯ ЛИНГВИСТИКИ: МЕТАЭПИСТЕМОЛОГИЧЕС-КИЙ АНАЛИЗ.
MOZHOVYI L.I., SLABOUZ V.V., DUBININA V.A. Philosophy of linguistics: meta-epistemological analysis.
Аннотация. Цель статьи - анализ философии лингвистики с точки зрения метаэпистемологии. В работе представлен краткий исторический обзор исследуемой проблемы, исследуются несоответствия в употреблении терминов «языкознание», «лингвистика», «философия языка», «философия лингвистики», «лингвистическая философия». Авторы представили обновленное определение термина «философия лингвистики» с точки зрения метаэписте-мологического подхода. В статье исследуются междисциплинарные отношения философии лингвистики и определяется трудность выделения данной науки как самостоятельной. Наряду с вышесказанным демонстрируются приоритетные методы, используемые философией лингвистики. Авторы также уделяют внимание доказательству того, что философия лингвистики и лингвистическая философия - две отдельные дисциплины, но дисциплины, тесно связанные друг с другом. Лингвистическая философия изучает философские проблемы языка путем анализа слов естественных языков и логических отношений между ними. Философия лингвистики позволяет выявить и оценить сущностные характеристики языка путем семантического, синтаксического и прагматического методов, которые необходимо использовать одновременно. В выводах указывается, что метаэпистемологиче-ский подход к философии лингвистики позволяет анализировать отношения между философией, лингвистикой и научной истиной, с одной стороны, и их историческим пониманием - с другой. С фи-
лософской точки зрения очень важно и необходимо определить метод построения философии лингвистики, поскольку в этом случае философия лингвистики имеет дело с общими и организующими идеями, такими как объективность, доказательство, правдивость, ясность, очевидность. Проанализировав первоисточники и работы выдающихся философов и лингвистов, авторы пришли к заключению, что наиболее интересный и важный момент заключается в том, что метаэпистемологический анализ помогает преодолеть разногласия между философией, лингвистикой и философией лингвистики. Две науки - философия и лингвистика - способны встретиться, прийти к согласию, объединиться в философию лингвистики и при этом оставаться самими собой. Таким образом, философия должна найти существенную потребность в исторических и лингвистических исследованиях, а лингвистика должна использовать философский принцип, позволяющий достичь границ своего поля на основе необходимости другого.
Ключевые слова: философия лингвистики; метаэпистемоло-гический анализ; лингвистическая философия; философия языка; языкознание; лингвистика; семантический, синтаксический, прагматический методы.
Abstract. The purpose of the paper is to analyze philosophy of linguistics from the viewpoint of meta-epistemology. In the work the brief historical overview of the problem under study is presented, the inconsistencies in using the terms «science of language ("iazyko-znanie")», «linguistics», «philosophy of language», «philosophy of linguistics», «linguistic philosophy» are investigated. The authors have represented the renewed definition of the term «linguistic philosophy» from the viewpoint of meta-epistemological approach. In the paper the interdisciplinary relations of philosophy of linguistics are studied, and the difficulty of separating this science as an independent one is determined. Along with the foregoing, the priority methods used by philosophy of linguistics are demonstrated. The authors also pay attention to the proof that philosophy of linguistics and linguistic philosophy are two separate disciplines but disciplines that are closely related to each other. Linguistic philosophy studies the philosophical problems of language by analyzing the words of natural languages and the logical relationships between them. Philosophy of linguistics allows identifying and evaluating the essential characteristics of language
through semantic, syntactic and pragmatic methods that must be used simultaneously. The findings indicate that the meta-epistemological approach to philosophy of linguistics allows analyzing the relationship between philosophy, linguistics and scientific truth, on the one hand, and their historical understanding, on the other. From the philosophical point of view, it is very important and necessary to determine the method of constructing philosophy of linguistics, since in this case philosophy of linguistics deals with general and organizing ideas, such as objectivity, proof, truthfulness, clarity, evidence. After analyzing the primary sources and works of prominent philosophers and linguists, the authors have come to the conclusion that the most interesting and important point is that the meta-epistemological analysis helps to overcome the differences between philosophy, linguistics, and philosophy of linguistics. Two sciences - philosophy and linguistics -are able to meet, come to an agreement, unite in philosophy of linguistics and at the same time remain themselves. Thus, philosophy must find a substantial need for historical and linguistic research, and linguistics must use a philosophical principle that allows reaching the boundaries of its field based on the need for another.
Keywords: philosophy of linguistics; meta-epistemological analysis; linguistic philosophy; philosophy of language; science of language («iazykoznanie»); linguistics; semantic, syntactic, pragmatic methods.
Introduction. The interest in language, philosophical problems of language and linguistics is so wide, many-sided, ambiguous, difficult, and provocative that it is difficult to cover all the scientific trends and schools which have been studying the problem of language but it can be said for sure that by the end of the 20th century there appeared three main sciences (we are not afraid of using this term, namely «sciences») researching the problems of language, of its analysis, language methods. They are philosophy of language, philosophy of linguistics and linguistic philosophy. In our paper the authors should like to make an attempt to carry out the meta-epistemological analysis of philosophy of linguistics.
Philosophy is of great importance for linguistics out of all the scientific disciplines that investigate natural languages as it is this science has a large impact on understanding the subject of linguistics.
Philosophy enlarging scope helps linguists to build up the paradigmatic categorial system, generalizes grammar rules and laws. Philosophical awareness of the mental space helps to realize language categories more logically and clearly. Philosophy within the limits of philosophy of linguistics is effective in comprehending what processes take place in the consciousness of speakers who, for instance, adapt neologisms or eventually deviate from the previously existing grammar rules as a result of tendencies caused by known facts in the structure of a particular language. Everything above mentioned proves that at the end of the 20th century - the beginning of the 21st century philosophy of linguistics has taken one of the central places.
The degree of scientific elaboration of the problem is determined by the degree of philosophical and methodological interest in philosophy of linguistics, which although is quite visible but which is too heterogeneous, and this makes it difficult to adequately assess it. Philosophy of linguistics is a largely empirical science, while the object of studying methodology should, according to the concept by T.S. Kuhn, be the most mature science (e.g., Physics). The idea of the empirical nature of philosophy of linguistics is, apparently, the main prejudice that prevents the intensification of philosophical-linguistic reflection, for example, in the field of problems of the origin of language, the connection of language and thinking, national pictures of the world. On the other hand, the traditional epistemological problems of the relationship between description and explanation, the specifics of the linguophilosophical and psycholinguistic «image of the world», meaning also prove to be in demand, as evidenced by the analysis of the methodological situation in philosophy of linguistics, made by V.A. Zvegintsev and A.A. Vetrov, who rightly considered the historical and logical-methodological approaches fruitful.
The problem of language, philosophy of language, philosophy of linguistics and linguistic philosophy is one of the most difficult as this problem is connected with the nature of human language which can be interpreted by a variety of figurative ways: as difference of human language from all other possible communication codes, as a result of the evolution of certain biological and physiological factors of the human race such as changes in the design of the skull, the development of the articulatory apparatus, and social ones, as a certain computer program, as a useful skill that requires specific training, as a specific activity.
These difficulties are not removed by the modern level of development of paleontology, neurophysiology, sociology, psycholinguistics, philosophy, linguistics. Different disciplines only increase the degree of difficulty. The relevance of addressing the methodological problems of philosophy of linguistics is enhanced by the fact that there is still insufficient philosophical interest in this science in general, while this specific area of scientific knowledge contains interesting and important material that requires philosophical reflection. Thus, the problem of differentiating philosophy of linguistics from other sciences investigating language, theoretical, methodological and practical issues connected with language, its role, etc. is still relevant and urgent.
Purpose of the paper. The purpose of the paper is to make an attempt to analyze philosophy of linguistics from the point of view of meta-epistemology. The purpose stated determines the objectives of the paper: 1) to determine why the confusion in using the terms «science of language ("iazykoznanie")», «linguistics», «philosophy of language», «philosophy of linguistics», «linguistic philosophy» has appeared and is still existing; 2) to present the definition of the concept «philosophy of linguistics»; 3) to represent the brief historical information concerning the development of philosophy of linguistics; 4) to demonstrate the interdisciplinary relationships of philosophy of linguistics; 5) to show the priority ideas of philosophy of linguistics; 6) to prove that philosophy of linguistics and linguistic philosophy are two different sciences.
Presentation of the main material. The problem of holistic comprehension of language and everything connected with it dates back to the Ancient Times, to the first attempts of the ancient thinkers to understand the sign-symbolic nature of language and its connection with reality. A lot of works have been written on the philosophical problems of language, in which fundamental issues such as the relationship between a word and an object, language universals, the metaphorical nature of nominations, the nature of language norms, the relationship between language and thinking, language and philosophy, etc. are considered. The main methodological difficulty lies in the fact that during the formation of theoretical approaches to formulating philosophical issues and problems concerning language, the interdisciplinary interpretations of certain concepts have not been clearly defined so far. The fact is that in general philology, philosophy
of language, and in linguistics, the general systematic nature of the language is considered, but at different levels of its representation.
If to denote the character of the philosophy of the 20th century the opinion of the modern logic and philosopher A.R. Ankersmit describes the opinions of the most philosophers, «The philosophy of the 20th century was mainly philosophy of language... it is doubtless that the philosophy of language of the 20th century became the Gold Age in the history of philosophy» [1, c. 7].
In the author's opinion, at present, the most vital and controversial problem lies in using the correct terms concerning description of linguistic, philosophical and linguophilosophical issues, namely: science of language («iazykoznanie»), linguistics, philosophy of language, philosophy of linguistics, linguistic philosophy. In the paper presented the authors are going to make a meta-epistemological analysis of philosophy of linguistics. After analysing the huge amount of literary origin sources, dictionaries, doctoral theses, papers written by the native speakers of the Greek, Roman and Romano-Germanic languages (Parmenides, Anaxagoras, Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Lucretius, Cicero, Seneca, Cornutus, Musonius Rufus, Euphrates, Cleomedes, Epictetus, Hierocles, Sextus, Junius Rusticus, Marcus Aurelius, Lucretius, Descartes, F. Bacon, J. Locke, T. Hobbes, G.W. Leibniz, M. de Caritat, L. Dalgarno, A. Arnauld, C. Lancelot, C. Hagege, E. Benveniste, A. Smith, J.G. Herder, J.-J. Rousseau, E.B. de Condillac, Ph.P.F. Noiret, I. Kant, W.M. Wundt, J.G. Hamann, F.G.M.Th. von Herder, H. Schlegel, W. von Humboldt, K. Marx, F. Engels, Ch.W. Morris, G.W.F. Hegel, W.K. Heisenberg, H. Steinthal, A. Schleicher, F. Bopp, W. Grimm, F. Dietz, H. Paul, K. Brugmann, H.G. Delbrück, H.E.M. Schuchardt, B. Croce, K. Vossler, V. Mathesius, R. Jakobson, L. Hjelmslev, L. Bloomfield, Z.S. Harris, Ch.F. Hockett,
A. Meillet, A. Martinet, M. Cohen, J. Marouzeau, J. Fishman, L. Weisgerber, E. Cassirer, W. Dilthey, A. Gehlen, M. Heidegger, T. Adorno, M. Horkheimer, H.-G. Gadamer, N. Chomsky, G. Frege,
B. Russell, G.E. Moore, L. Wittgenstein, J.L. Austin, P. Grice, R.M. Hare, P. Strawson, J. Wisdom, G. Ryle, M. Lazerowitz, E. Ambrose, R. Rorty, S.K. Langer, S. Fish) and Slavic languages, namely Russian and Ukrainian (F. Kuritcyn, D. Gerasimov, M. Grek, L. Zizanii (L. Tustanovskii; the real surname is Kukol), M. Smotritckii, M.V. Lomonosov, V. Adodurov, A.Kh. Vostokov, I.I. Sreznevskii,
F.I. Buslaev, A.A. Potebnia, I.P. Minaev, N.V. Krushevskii, I.A. Bodu-en de Kurtene, A.A. Shakhmatov, F.F. Fortunatov, V.A. Bogoroditckii, L. V. Shcherba, A.A. Reformatskii, N.Ia. Marr, I.I. Meshchaninov, V.V. Vinogradov, A.M. Zemskii, S.E. Kriuchkov, L.Iu. Maksimov, N.M. Shanskii, L.A. Cheshko; I. Kyivskyi, Nestor-Litopysets, K. Turovskyi, D. Zatochnyk, I. Damaskin, K. (Kyrylo) Filosof, Y. Drohobych, P. Rusyn, S. Orikhovskyi-Roksolan, I. Vyshenskyi, K. Stavrovetskyi, K. Sakovych, P. Berynda, Z. Kopystenskyi, S. Kosiv, P. Mohyla, Y. Kononovych-Horbatskyi, I. Hizel, L. Baranovych, I. Haliatovskyi, S. Yavorskyi, F. Prokopovych, M. Kozachynskyi, H. Konyskyi, G. Skovoroda, P. Yurkevych, K. Tvardovskyi, K. Aidu-kevych, Ya. Lukasievych, A. Tarskyi, T. Kotarbinskyi, V. Lesevych, P. Kopnin, D. Chyzhevskyi, V. Vernadskyi, V. Lypynskyi, V. Horskyi, M. Hohol, T. Shevchenko, I. Franko, V. Vynnychenko, I. Vyshenskyi, Z. Kopystenskyi, H. Smotrytskyi, D. Ostrianyn, M. Omelianovskyi, M. Rozental, V. Shynkaruk, M. Shlemkevych, M. Skrypnyk, S. Semko-vskyi, V. Yurynets, D. Dontsov, O. Olzhych, Ya. Lukasevych, M.F. Tarasenko, O. Yatsenko, O. Plakhotnyi, I. Bychko, V.P. Ivanov, O.I. Iatsenko, M.O. Bulatov, V.H. Tabachkovskyi), the authors have concluded that by the beginning of the 21st century there is no order, unanimity of views, definiteness, and determinacy concerning the correct and adequate usage of the above-mentioned terms. The only thing supposed in the given situation is the confusion in using the terms has arisen as a result of the fact that in the Romano-Germanic languages the term «science of language ("iazykoznanie")» is not used or is absent but it is widely used in the Slavic languages. But the term «linguistics» is used in all the world languages. The term and science «linguistics» is wider than the science and term «science of language» («iazykoznanie»). The proof of this is the methodological and terminological apparatus criticus. Such attributes as «external, internal, applied, theoretical, descriptive» can be used both with the term «science of language» and the term «linguistics» but the terms «psycholinguistics», «sociolinguistics», «functional linguistics», «neurolinguistics», «cognitive linguistics», «pragmalinguistics», «linguistics of text», «linguoculturology», «linguoecology», «quantitative linguistics», «computer linguistics», and «cyber linguistics» in the cluster with the term «science of language» are not used. The philosophical interest in language is supported by
fundamental and conceptual issues of linguistics, fundamentally important philosophical problems about the connection between mind, language and word, and the issues of philosophical methodology. These ideas constitute a rich and extremely fascinating field of philosophy related to the expression of thought, its transmission, meaning of the word and truth.
It is necessary to determine the place of linguistics in the general frame of knowledge of language. So, linguistics, which, together with literary studies, special and particular linguistic disciplines and textology, is part of the philological sciences, studies not only existing (which existed or which will possibly exist in the future) languages, but also human language-in-general, what exactly is its main difference from science of language, where specific culturally determined facts of speech or language phenomena are considered, that is, the acts of verbal interaction between speakers of a live language. This difference (by the way, acceptable by no means by all linguists) secures the status of a strict science for linguistics, but science which is capable of comprehending the integrity and wholeness of its object. Its methodology is capable of reaching a level of universal abstractions from a systematic analysis of linguistic material and offers a philosophical meta-position regarding both objects and research methods. It should be noted that in most dictionaries, linguistics and science of language («iazykoznanie») are presented as synonyms. Representing these terms as synonyms is categorically unlawful. In the gnosiological (epistemological) aspect, linguistics includes observation; registration and description of facts of speech; hypotheses to explain these facts; formulation of hypotheses in the form of theories and models that describe language; their experimental verification and refutation; prediction of speech behavior. The explanation of facts can be internal (through linguistic facts) or external (through physiological, psychological, logical or social facts) [4, c. 618-619].
In this regard, it is difficult to distinguish the philosophical problems of linguistics from the linguistic problems of philosophy. After all, there are such areas as linguistic philosophy (this philosophy deals with the logical analysis of language in the context of natural communication) and philosophy of language (this type explores functional modalities of language in terms of ontology, theory of knowledge and even ethics), semiotics and logic. Language is also
considered by hermeneutics, phenomenology by E. Husserl, pragmatism, structuralism, and in these philosophical directions specific linguistic issues are not posed, but on the basis of linguistic data, it is made an attainment to more universal level of abstraction, where language is presented in the form of a universal transcendental hermeneutic unity.
The philosophers themselves underlines that the subject matter of linguistics is language, that is why philosophy of linguistics sets equal to philosophy of language. However, most philosophers consider that equalling philosophy of linguistics to philosophy of language is wrong as «it contains the danger of forgetting the conceptual apparatus of linguistic theories» [2, c. 261]. The same question worries the linguists. For example, analyzing the linguophilosophical studies by V.S. Yur-chenko, in the introductory article O.B. Sirotinina and E.P. Kadkalova write that the linguophilosophical subject area of linguistics «joins in itself philosophy of language and philosophy of science of language ("iazykoznanie"). At the same time, both directions of the linguistic theory have independent significance, since the distinction and correlation of the knowledge system and the object system is one of the main methodological principles of science» [2, c. 9].
Philosophy of linguistics is the philosophy of science as applied to linguistics. This differentiates it sharply from the philosophy of language, traditionally concerned with matters of meaning and reference. The philosophy of linguistics deals with philosophical issues arising in connection with the discipline of linguistics. It covers a wide variety of topics, including: (a) ontological issues, such as the nature of languages and of related entities (e.g. sentences and words), as well the proper characterization of the subject matter of the discipline; (b) epistemological issues, such as the nature and scope of a speaker's knowledge of her language; (c) methodological issues concerning the goals of theorization and the nature of linguistic explanation, the appropriate roles of abstraction and idealization, the import of the competence/performance distinction, and the kinds of data that may justify linguistic hypotheses; (d) pragmatic, paradigmatic and syntagmatic issues.
From Plato to Humboldt, theories of language were not divided into philosophy of language and philosophy of linguistics. From classical antiquity to the end of the 18th century, linguistics was not
separated from logic, and its object was considered to be universal human ways of expressing thought [3]. Isolating linguistics and then philosophy of linguistics into separate spheres of knowledge took place in the 19th century, and this was due to the development of an evolutionary view of language, which made it possible to determine the subject of linguistics - various languages in their historical development, and the subject of philosophy of linguistics which is using the philosophic methods, approaches and ways to analyze linguistics itself as a science. Unfortunately, very often there is a substitution of theses and terms: when one speaks of the philosophic problems of linguistics or of philosophy of science of language («iazykoznanie»), this one speaks of the philosophic interpretations of language, thinking, language consciousness, language picture of the world, texts, etc. From all other types of humanitarian knowledge, philosophy of linguistics is distinguished by the fact that in it objects are recognized by their own modalities. Due to the fact that language as an integral semantic system acts as an intermediary between a person and the world around him, its main characteristic is the immanence of human being. Thanks to the symbolic ability of the person through the language system, the relationship between a name and a thing, between a sign and a meaning, between a speaker and an understanding is actualized, and, thus, according to M. Heidegger, the language gives the person the opportunity to «come true in his/her own being».
As it is seen from the above-presented material, in the problem field of linguistics lies an equally significant sign-symbolic or, as it is sometimes called, nomenclature structure of the material expression of language: phonetics, grammar, morphology, vocabulary, semantics, syntax, communication, etc. In our opinion, this explains the fact that the philosophical problems of linguistics do not affect linguistics as such, but are found in the field of interdisciplinary interaction. It is obvious that in each of the directions a number of philosophical problems can be distinguished: in logic - a criterion of truth, ontological and cognitive foundations of a statement, formalization; in comparative historical linguistics - the problem of the origin of language and thinking, the migration of semantic concepts within the framework of etymology, the relationship of language, myth and ritual; in structuralism - the problem of structural universals and invariant systems, etc. That is, all the stages of forming theoretical knowledge of
2020.01.010
76 -
language are in contact in one phase or another with philosophy, logic, history, psychology, sociology. At the end of the 20th century, «cognitive science rejects the Saussure dichotomies language - speech, synchronism - diachrony, syntax - semantics, vocabulary - grammar, declares language to be one of a person's cognitive abilities (along with sensations, perception, memory, emotions, thinking); and linguistics as part of the interdisciplinary science of cognitive science. The theory of discourse rejects the natural-science model of knowledge, gives priority to qualitative analysis and puts linguistics in an interdisciplinary science -the so-called human studies, the object of which is a person» [5, c. 1120]. Thus, it can be seen that philosophic problems of linguistics are formulated in the context of other disciplines which investigate language, and, first of all, in the context ofphilosophy. As a result, the corpus of linguistics as a holistic science of language system consists of separate interdisciplinary synthetic directions: philosophy of language, psychology of language, speech physiology, sociolinguistics, pragmalinguistics, ethnolinguistics, mathematic linguistics, etc. In the interdisciplinary interaction of linguistics and philosophy the following non-trivial philosophic issues can be put and solved: 1) the basic functions of philosophy of linguistics; 2) «philosophy» and «linguistics», «language» and «speech», their interaction: 3) natural and artificial language; 4) system of language and nature of a language sign; 5) a sign and the essence of meaning; 6) philosophy of linguistics and linguistic philosophy, their essence; 7) place of philosophy of linguistics and linguistic philosophy in the system of sciences in general.
Thus, it can be concluded, that for philosophy of linguistics one of the key problems within philosophy is its status in the complex of general humanitarian knowledge on language. In other words, the main philosophic problem of philosophy of linguistics (not philosophy of language) is the problem of its scientific sovereignty.
Defining the status of linguophilosophical knowledge can be divided into two directions: 1) for a full-fledged comprehensive understanding of language as a scientific object, philosophy of linguistics needs «donor sciences», which philosophic semes are organically incorporated into the field of theoretical problems of philosophy of linguistics; 2) the theoretical and methodological apparatus of philosophy of linguistics is used in other fields of knowledge for a rigorous description of complex extra-substitutional
objects, for the discursive expression of which a sign-symbolic model is selected. In both cases, the scientific sovereignty of philosophy of linguistics is in doubt.
A rather paradoxical picture is drawn. At the beginning of the discussion, philosophy of linguistics has been characterized as a science capable of comprehending the integrity of the language system, which methodology is capable of moving from the nomenclature analysis of language material to the level of universal abstractions. Then, philosophy of linguistics has been presented either as a methodological system or as a formal-logical apparatus for the purposes and objectives of other humanitarian sciences. In our opinion, the state of science and the degree of both natural scientific and humanitarian understanding of the multilevel relations of man and reality today is such that the marginal state of philosophy of linguistics seems quite logical and appropriate. This interdisciplinary dependence can be interpreted as positive methodological universalism, related to the fact that language is our being, and philosophy of linguistics sacrifices its institutional integrity in the name of cognition through language. The whole history of the formation of linguophilosophical theory consists of attempts to artificially transform an object artificially in order to discard from it something superfluous that did not allow creating a unified theory of language. Perhaps, linguophilosophical knowledge, due to its unusual inter-paradigmatic status, is the only universal way simultaneously to synthesize and analyze the spiritual and material totality of language and its inclusion in complex diverse relationships of the system Man -World.
When studying a natural language, linguists, philosophers, philosophers-linguists are in search of a systematic explanation of its syntax (organizing correctly constructed language expressions such as phrases and expressions), its semantics (studying the meanings of words and their changes), and its pragmatics (studying the relationship of sign systems and their users in specific speech situation). And as the analysis of works on philosophy of language, philosophy and linguistics, philosophy of linguistics shows such an epistemological feature as the opposition of the syntactic-semantic organization of the language to the pragmatic one. This idea is important precisely because, in our opinion, the connecting link of all the above sciences is precisely the pragmalinguistic paradigm, which is currently being developed in two
directions: a) within the framework of the Anglo-Saxon tradition -correlation of the chain of expressions with subjects using this language system (taking into account intentionality, context, as well as psychological factors), b) continental tradition, in the focus of which is the «life of discourse», the formation and its subsequent existence.
The principal characteristic of philosophy and linguistics and then philosophy of linguistics of the 20th century was the fact that the science of language and philosophy of language concentrated on verbal statements and the object of their study - language - turned into an abstract entity, distracted from the physiological and psychological activity of the speaker and listener, and this contradicts the fact of the practical nature of linguistic consciousness.
Returning to the problem of studying a natural language, its semantics, syntax, syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations, it is necessary to mention that investigating syntax since the 1960 s has been determined by the works by Noam Chomsky who, in response to the early behavioral and structural trends in linguistics, used the cognitive approach. The natural linguistic abilities, he underlines, come out of the purposeful cognitive ability which structure is the corresponding subject of discussion of linguistics. Really, Chomsky explains the doctrine of syntax and, to a greater extent, the doctrine of semantics as an attempt to discover cognitive structures. Watching the bright representatives of the middle class, speaking different natural languages, and children learning these languages, Chomsky supposes that many peculiar features of natural languages are explained by the innate properties of linguistic abilities. If to compare the work done by modern philosophers in the field of syntax or semantics, preference is given to the latter. Such philosophers as Gotlob Frege, Bertrand Russell, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Rudolf Carnap, Richard Montague, and Saul Kripke have made a significant contribution to this field of science. One of the main directions in semantics in the last century specialized in the development and precise application of formal, mathematical models to characterize linguistic forms and meanings. In the field of pragmatics, as well as in the field of semantics, much work was done. The philosophical interest in pragmatics was caused by a previous interest in semantics - in the desire to understand the position in which meaning and truth are in relation to each other in a particular case of linguistic communication. Late Wittgenstein, for example, reminds us of the
variety of cases in which linguistic expressions are used and warns us that we can easily reveal their meanings through philosophy.
J. Austin seeks in the intricacies of using the keys to understanding the meanings of terms that philosophy is interested in, such as «intentional», «truth». J. Austin closely monitors several different actions performed by the person unknowingly during the «speech act» (for example: making a sound; pronouncing the sentence «I am hungry» in different situations: at the time of hunger, or as a hint of inviting a guest to join the meal). Herbert Grice, criticizing some of the methods of J. Austin, at the same time agrees that it is necessary to derive the first meaning from the figurative sense of using words and expressions. H. Grice illustrates speech communication as a rational collaborative activity and, in his opinion, some concepts of meaning appear as central strategies and instruments for achieving communicative goals. H. Grice's main interest is philosophical methodology, but his views have been shared by many linguists interested in pragmatics. Recently, linguists and philosophers are increasingly convinced that the tasks and goals of pragmatics, which is far from being just an addition to semantics, are key, meaningful in the search for answers to the questions of where the meaning comes from, what it consists of, and how imperfection of the meaning is overcome and applied by the addressee in various cases of verbal communication. Learning language requires close attention to semiotics dealing with the study of signs and their meaning, regardless of whether they are linguistic or not but, at the same time it is important not to forget of pragmatics. From the point of view of linguophilosophers, this area, in addition to studying the linguistic meaning of the word, should cover wider programs, such as gestural communication, artistic expression, animal signal transmission and other types of information transfer.
Conclusions. In order to determine why the confusion in using the terms «science of language ("iazykoznanie")», «linguistics», «philosophy of language», «philosophy of linguistics», «linguistic philosophy» has appeared and is still existing, in the paper the combination of traditional epistemological analysis with meta-epistemological analysis has been used, since it is impossible to give an objective scientific analysis of a particular linguistic and philosophic concept, if their historicity is ignored. It has been determined a method of constructing philosophy of linguistics as a meta-epistemology that
does not create the theory of knowledge itself but deals with studying the ideas about knowledge of the language, that is, with general or organizing ideas. The most important thing, in the authors' opinion, that it has been proved in the paper is that meta-epistemological approach to philosophy of linguistics allows analyzing the relations between philosophy, linguistics, and scientific truth, on the one hand, and their historical understanding, on the other hand. From the philosophical viewpoint it is very urgent and important to determine the method of constructing of philosophy of linguistics as in this case philosophy of linguistics deals with common and organizing ideas such as objectivity, proof, truthfulness, clearness, evidence. The conceptual and meta-epistemological considering the science of language shows that the empirical nature of philosophy of linguistics as a science lies not in the facts which it uncovers but in the process by means of which they are being uncovered. The above mentioned reveals that between the empirical and theoretical data are subtler and more complex relationships than direct correlation «hypothesis - fact». The most interesting and important conclusion is in the fact that meta-epistemological analysis helps to overcome the discord among philosophy, linguistics, and philosophy of linguistics. Two sciences -philosophy and linguistics - are able to meet, agree, combine into philosophy of linguistics and remain themselves. So, philosophy should find a substantial need for historical and linguistic research, and linguistics should use a philosophical principle in order to make it possible to reach the borders of its field on the basis of the need for another.
Bibliography
1. Анкерсмит Ф. Нарративная логика: Семантический анализ языка историков. -М.: Идея-Пресс, 2003. - 360 с.
2. Канке В.А. Основы философии. - М.: Логос, 2008. - 288 с. - Режим доступа: http://alleng.org/d/phil/phil070.htm (дата обращения: 04.10.2019).
3. Лебедев М.В. Философия языка на фоне развития философии // Что значит знать? - М.: Центр гуманитарных исследований, 1999. - 204 с. - Режим доступа: http://www.philosophy.ru/library/misc/diskurs/lebedev.html (дата обращения: 04.10.2019).
4. Лингвистический энциклопедический словарь. - М.: Сов. энцикл., 1990. - 682, [3] c.
5. Ревзина О.Г. Лингвистика XXI века: на путях к целостности теории языка // Критика и семиотика. - Новосибирск, 2004. - Вып. 7. - С. 11-20.
2020.01.011. СОУМС С. ИЗМЕНЯЮЩАЯСЯ РОЛЬ ЯЗЫКА В АНАЛИТИЧЕСКОЙ ФИЛОСОФИИ.
SOAMES C. The changing role of language in analytic philosophy // Analytic philosophy: an interpretive history / Ed. by A. Preston. - N.Y.; L.: Routledge, 2017. - P. 34-51.
Ключевые слова: аналитическая философия; язык; логический эмпиризм; философия обыденного языка; классическая логика; философская логика; семантика; интерпретация.
Роль языка в аналитической философии менялась на разных этапах ее развития. В период становления аналитической философии (Г. Фреге, Б. Рассел, Дж. Мур) язык (наряду с новой логикой) стал предметом систематического философского исследования, нацеленного на прогресс в философии математики, а затем на трансформирование метафизики и эпистемологии (с. 36).
Основополагающим документом второго этапа аналитической традиции был «Логико-философский трактат» Л. Витгент-штейна. Одна из главных проблем Витгентштейна состояла в том, чтобы объяснить сущность репрезентативного мышления и языка. Он считал эту проблему единственно реальной философской проблемой (с. 37).
Согласно Витгенштейну, философия не является наукой, поэтому философы ограничены в прояснении мышления и языка. Парадоксально, но они не должны этого делать и путем раскрытия того, как язык соотносится с миром. Не существует истин, которые надо открывать. Поскольку обыденный язык маскирует мысли, философы должны снять эту маску. С точки зрения автора, «это был лингвистический поворот в философии» (с. 38).
Венский кружок анонсировал себя манифестом 1929 г. Его поддержали представители научной концепции мира (Ф. Рамсей, Х. Рейхенбах и Л. Витгенштейн). Результатом деятельности «Кружка» стала феноменалистская интерпретация «Трактата», выполненная В. Крафтом, т.е. все эмпирические высказывания (пропозиции) должны быть редуцированы к высказываниям о данных (с. 38).
