CC BY
0
- Филологические науки-
THE MOST IMPORTANT TRENDS AND PRINCIPLES OF MODERN LINGUISTICS
A.K. Zulpukarova, Associate Professor A.E. Dzhumabaeva, Lecturer Osh State University (Kyrgyzstan, Osh)
DOI:10.24412/2500-1000-2024-10-2-122-125
Abstract. The article is devoted to the new linguistic trends of the late 20th and early 21st century. The sources of these trends, the prospects of their further development, the subjects of research, and the problems are the subject of the study. In the article the main trends and principles of the modern linguistics are identified and described. These are integrative, anthropocentric, communicative, dialogi-cal, discursive, culturocentric, interest in deep knowledge of the language, they interact even in one study.
Keywords: linguistics, tendencies, communiction, discourse, culture, dialogue, human being.
While throughout the twentieth century the main principles of language research were systematic and structural (and, less frequently, functional), today the emphasis is on integrative, an-thropocentric, communicative, dialogical, discursive, cultural, and so on. In modern research, the above-mentioned principles usually interact and condition each other, e.g. integrativity made it possible to see more clearly the deep semantic foundations of language and human mentality, which led to the birth of cognitive linguistics.
And the understanding of the need for a holistic vision of a person (speaker/listener) led to the emergence of integrativity. G. Hegel said: "Only the whole makes sense". Now, without reference to cognitive and cultural categories, there is no doubt that the study of linguistic forms is deliberately incomplete. Or another example. The an-thropocentric principle, which places the speaker at the centre of linguistic research, flows into the communicative and dialogical principle, since both the person and his speech are by nature dia-logical (cf. the Russian proverb "Speech is to flow into another"). And every dialogue, which determines the use of cultural and discursive principles, takes place against the background of culture and society. Thus, most of the principles mentioned above have their origin in the anthro-pocentric vector of modern linguistic research. For the sake of clarity, however, these principles will be characterised separately [1].
Integration as a distinctive feature of the emerging trend is evident, first, in the fact that knowledge gained in different fields of science is not ignored but, on the contrary, is actively used
to solve its problems; and, second, in the range of research problems, which is determined by the multidimensional nature of such phenomena as language, society, culture, consciousness. In this way, multidimensionality is achieved in the solution of a particular problem, while at the same time contributing to the acquisition of other, often unexpected, information that enables the solution of further problems.
By their very nature and essence, the fields of knowledge that have emerged at the end of the last century, such as linguoculturology, lin-guoconceptology, jurislinguistics, etc., are inte-grative. Accepting the challenges of modernity means promoting the development of integration, interdisciplinarity, polydisciplinarity, transdisci-plinarity, which allow a holistic reflection generated by integrated knowledge about the object of study. The only way to give a strong impetus to the development of research and to break down the information barriers between the sciences is through the joint efforts of humanists in collaboration with biologists, physiologists, physicists, economists and educators.
During the second half of the twentieth century, linguistics underwent a change of research priorities: it accepted the productive idea, first expressed by the works of W. Humboldt, of the need to study language directly related to man, his culture, his thought, his consciousness. It turned out that the understanding and explanation of the nature of language is possible only on the basis of the complex activity of man and the world he creates. As a result, it is linguistics that will be the source of a great deal of clarification
- 0UMOMoeunecKue Hayuu-
in the study of human beings. One of the reasons for the change in research paradigm (from systemic to anthropological) was the fact that systemic linguistics required more and more accuracy, the use of mathematical tools, even though linguistics is an inherently imprecise and subjective science. The anthropocentric approach to language, as opposed to the system-centred approach, is not a new phenomenon in linguistics; it is historically of primary importance and can already be found in various early national linguistic traditions: Indian, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese. The anthropocentric approach analyses human beings in language and language in human beings. According to I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay, "language exists only in individual brains, only in souls, only in the psyche of individuals or individuals who make up a given linguistic society [2]. Thus, a key idea in modern linguistics is the idea of the anthropocentricity of language. The anthropocentric paradigm places man at the forefront, and language is seen as the main constitutive characteristic of man, his most important component. The human intellect, as well as man himself, is inconceivable outside of language and linguistic ability as the capacity for the production and perception of speech. Man would not go beyond the directly observable if language did not penetrate all thought processes, if it were not capable of creating new mental spaces. Human texts reflect human thinking, constructing possible worlds, capturing dynamics and ways to express them through language. And this approach to language has great promise today.
Communicating - exchanging thoughts, information, knowledge, feelings, behaviours - is a specific form of interaction between people during cognition and work activities. A distinction is made between communication in the broad sense - as one of the forms of human life activity (including various forms of speaking activity), and communication in the narrow sense that involves exchanging semantic information. Communication is the most important component of the social behaviour of human beings, and the communicative language behaviour itself can be regarded as a part of the national culture. This means that communication has to do with the meaning of social language.
From an activity perspective, communication is understood as a joint activity of those involved
in communication, in the course of which a shared view of the world develops. It is characterised as processual, continuing and contextual-ised. Generally, the activity approach explains the world more humanistically. One of the most common ways of getting information across is to communicate orally, i.e. verbal communication. This "form of the transmission of information is carried out in the form of texts" [3]. Texts are a universal tool which are used both in mass communication schemes and in interpersonal communication. It is based on a certain model that applies to any kind of speech communication, no matter how large it is, how many people are involved in it, or under what conditions it takes place. The schema contains the following components: recipient, news, context/situation, contact, code, recipient. Clearly, humans are at the beginning and end of this chain, since they are the senders and receivers of information in the form of text. The text is an obligatory link in any communication. Thus, language as a global means of communication can be explained and comprehensively described in all its manifestations, according to the communicative principle.
Dialogicality, or even polylogicality, is closely related to communicativeness. Mikhail Bakhtin claimed that dialogue is the reality of language, it is not an isolated expression but a social event of linguistic interaction: "The dialogicity of knowledge is fixed in the structure of the finished text" [4]. On the basis of the foregoing, we understand dialog not only as a linguistic interaction between agents, but also as an interaction of the agents' intrinsically different semantic standpoints, different understandings of what they are discussing. Dialogicity manifests the social essence of language, realized in communication, the only form of language being, in the processes of communication, although traditionally dialogue has been regarded as one of the forms of language being. Conversation pervades thought, which is also social and conversational. The peculiarity of dialogical relations lies in the fact that they include logical relations, linguistic relations and psychological relations. It is like a special, complex type of relations when there are independent linguistic personalities behind each replica. Thus, the most important thing in dialog is not even a dialog of positions, as M. Bakhtin thought, but a dialog of language personalities in all their diversity, including social roles. Dialogi-
- 0имомогинеские nayKU-
city is thus a fundamental property of any text, including fiction. As a result of research, it has been proved that every monologue is a special case of dialogue, because the monologue itself is an artificial formation, very conventionally assigned, it is like one big rejoinder in the linguistic interaction. An utterance is only one moment of continuous speech communication and is produced with an attitude of perception, no matter how significant its size and completeness.
In linguistics, sociology, philosophy, political science, psychology, cultural studies and other fields, the problem of discourse has recently become increasingly relevant. Discourse is a difficult area to grasp. It is an elusive, imprecise and constantly evolving entanglement of language and culture. It is the nodal point at which the relationship between language, culture and society finds its true expression. Discourse creates, reproduces and transforms both culture and language at their intersections. The phenomenon of discourse in the text is a kind of communication that is "immersed in life". The dictionary of linguistics gives the following definition of discourse: "Discourse is originally a special use of language ... for the expression of a special mentality. It really exists first and foremost in texts, but in such texts there is a special grammar, a special lexicon, special rules for using words and syntax, a special semantics. It is, after all, a special world. Any discourse is a "possible world". Discourse is a cognitive process that takes place in the value-sense space of an individual, since it is possible to speak of a discursive approach to the text by considering the surrounding world, which is represented by the personal view of the world, and which is represented by the cognitive signs of the linguistic code system of the individual. In order to reveal the thought-
individual's worldview, the discursive framework of the study helps to concretise the codes of the value-sense space [5].
Another trend in modern linguistics is cultur-ocentricity. Language is intimately linked to culture: it is its growth, its development and its expression. This position fully corresponds to W. Humboldt's statements that the study of language cannot be isolated from culture, the bearer of which is every human being, because "...language is the world between the world of external phenomena and the inner world of man". It is the sum of all words, "the united spiritual energy of the people...". Culture is the shaping and organization of a linguistic person's thinking, the formation of language categories and concepts. Culture shapes and organizes the thinking of a linguistic person, and it shapes and organizes language categories and concepts. This is why the world appears through the prism of the culture and the language of the people who are looking at this world. It is the linguistic material that is the most weighty, often the most self-contained information about the world and about the human being in it [6].
So, there is little doubt that the study of language is obviously incomplete without reference to the cognitive, cultural, conscious, and even unconscious aspects of human beings, since language is a complex, integral phenomenon that must be studied in a broad systemic context. Owing to these tendencies, linguistics began to study what a few decades ago was outside the scope of linguistics. It should be noted that the field of linguistics now includes everything that meets the requirements of the theory of sign systems and that reveals the profound semantic foundations of language, human psychology, and culture.
linguistic processes taking place in the
References
1. Kuhn, T. (2009) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions [in:] Actual Problems of Modern Linguistics, Moscow: Flinta-Nauka. - Pp. 17-41.
2. Baudouin de Courtenay, I.A. (1963). Selected works on general linguistics. T. 2. Moscow: House of Academy of Sciences of the USSR.
3. Zulpukarov K.K. On the subject of linguoparemiology: a collection of scientific works of the Russian philology fact. Osh State University // Osh: DiPolygraphy. - 2011. - № 3. - P. 3-12.
4. Zulpukarova A.K. Systematicity and asystematicity in the personal-pronominal paradigm of language. - 2018.
5. Bakhtin, M.M. (1979). Textual Problems in Linguistics, Philology, and Other Humanities. Experience of Philosophical Analysis. Aesthetics of verbal creativity. Moscow.
- Филологические науки-
6. Lurie, S.V. (2005). Psychological Anthropology: History, Current Status, and Prospects: A Textbook for Universities.
7. Sherzer, J. (1977). The ethnography of speaking: A Critical Appraisal. Saville Troike (ed.) Linguistics and Anthropology. Washington DC: Georgtown Un.Press Publ.
ВАЖНЕЙШИЕ НАПРАВЛЕНИЯ И ПРИНЦИПЫ СОВРЕМЕННОЙ ЛИНГВИСТИКИ
А.К. Зулпукарова, доцент А.Э. Джумабаева, преподаватель Ошский государственный университет (Кыргызстан, г. Ош)
Аннотация. Статья посвящена новым лингвистическим тенденциям конца XX - начала XXI века. Предметом исследования являются источники этих тенденций, перспективы их дальнейшего развития, предметы исследования и проблемы. В статье выделены и описаны основные направления и принципы современной лингвистики. Это интегративность, антропоцентризм, коммуникативность, диалогичность, дискурсивность, культуроцентризм, интерес к глубокому знанию языка, они взаимодействуют даже в одном исследовании.
Ключевые слова: лингвистика, тенденции, коммуникация, дискурс, культура, диалог, человек.
