TYPOLOGY AS A SPECIAL BRANCH OF LINGUISTICS Текст научной статьи по специальности «Языкознание и литературоведение»

54

PHILOLOGICAL SCIENCES / «еЮУШШШМ-ЛШШаИ» #1И7©), 2023

OUT: 811.111.

Алиева Захира Мешади Алекпер

Гянджинский Государственный Университет Доктор философии по филологии, доцент Заведующая кафедрой «Практические языки» DOI: 10.24412/2520-6990-2023-11170-54-56 ТИПОЛОГИЯ КАК ОСОБЫЙ РАЗДЕЛ ЯЗЫКОЗНАНИЯ

Aliyeva Zahira Mashadi Alakbar

Ganja State University Ph.D., associate professor Head of the "Practical Languages" department

TYPOLOGY AS A SPECIAL BRANCH OF LINGUISTICS

Аннотация.

Типология в общенаучном масштабе - это метод исследования сложных объектов путем их сопоставления, выявления их общих, или сходных черт и объединения схожих объектов в некие классы (группы, типы). Типология языков, или лингвистическая типология занимается изучением основных, существенных признаков языков, их группировкой, выведением общих закономерностей, наблюдаемых в ряде языков, и установлением типов языков.

Abstract.

Typology on a general scientific scale is a method of studying complex objects by comparing them, identifying their common or similar features and combining similar objects into certain classes (groups, types). The typology of languages, or linguistic typology, studies the main, essential features of languages, their grouping, the derivation of general patterns observed in a number of languages, and the establishment of types of languages.

Ключевые слова: Типология, язык, лингвистика, диахроническая типология, общая типология

Keywords: Typology, language, linguistic, diachronic typology, general typology

Common features may be due to the common origin of languages, i.e. their kinship or genealogy, as well as long-term geographical and/or cultural contact. In the first case, as a result of commonality, languages are systematized into "language families" (groups, macro families, etc.), in the second case, they form "language unions". In cases where the commonality of the structural features of languages is not due to either their primary genealogical relationship or secondary areal affinity, it is possible to identify common features due to the actual combat capabilities of the language, which are based on the physiological, cognitive, mental and emotional capabilities of a person as its carrier. Only in the study of such commonalities and differences in linguistics is the idea of a type used as a certain union of objects (in this case, languages) taking into account their common features. [1]

It should be noted, however, that the genealogical, territorial and typological classifications of languages complement each other and intersect: thus, the language families, groups and subgroups identified in comparative historical linguistics got their name according to geographical and ethnographic features -Indo-European, Ural-Altaic, Caucasian, etc. d. (moreover, the Indo-European languages actually represented a linguistic union at the stage of their existence). Later, when the most important structural and typological similarities of different languages were revealed in the ability of words to attach inflectional and derivational morphemes, Indo-European and Semitic languages were assigned to the inflectional type (languages that are characterized by a developed morphological struc-

ture of the word, and most of the morphemes are polysemantic), Turkic, Mongolian, Tungus-Manchurian, Finno-Ugric, Japanese - to agglutinative (languages that are characterized by "gluing" a whole chain of unambiguous grammatical morphemes one after another), Sino-Tibetan - to isolating (languages in which words do not have grammatical design (inflectional morphemes), where "pure" roots are used), Chukchi-Kam-chadal and the languages of most American Indian tribes - to polysynthetic languages, in which words are combined into a single whole without formal indicators of each of the words, so that as a result a word is formed that corresponds in others languages to a whole phrase or even a sentence). [2]

Depending on which languages are compared, as well as on what goals are pursued in the study, there are general typology and typology of private, comparative and comparative linguistics, level typology and typology of a particular language, structural (formal) and functional typology, etc. Diachronic typology occupies a special place in typological studies, since as a result of development; a language can change its typological characteristics and belong to different types in different historical periods.

The main approaches in typological research are the systematic approach and the field approach, which allow to single out the typologically significant features of languages, dominant and recessive typological features, as well as to distinguish between the concepts of language type, language type and type in language. When describing similarities and differences between languages, typology uses the concepts of isomorphism and allomorphism, respectively. In accordance with the

«COyyOMUM-JMTMaL» #M7©)), 2023 / PHILOLOGICAL SCIENCES

55

degree of prevalence of typological similarities, absolute (complete, unlimited) universals, statistical (incomplete, "almost") universals and uniques are distinguished. In the linguistics of universals, universals are subdivided into inductive and deductive, synchronic and diachronic, elementary and implicative, linguistic and extra linguistic, etc. Comparison of languages implies the concept of a reference language, under which Latin (or other inflectional languages) was understood in different historical periods of the development of typology, hypothetically reconstructed proto-language, native language, amorphous languages, etc. In modern typology, the standard language is considered as a metalinguistic typological invariant, identified on the basis of language universals and subdivided into a minimum and maximum standard language, as well as a universal and particular standard language. [3]

The peculiarity of typology as a section of linguistics is that it is based on a generalization of data from all other linguistic disciplines (phonology, grammar, lexicology, etc.) and finds a way out in the applied sections of linguistics, making it possible to predict difficulties caused by the typological features of different languages, when teaching foreign languages and when translating.

The prerequisites for a typological comparison of languages existed long before the emergence of proper scientific typology; for example, in the Middle Ages, "folk" languages were compared with Latin, ideas were already expressed about the universality of languages, about the development of languages, etc. However, consistently scientific comparison of languages began at the beginning of the 19th century with the discovery of Sanskrit. The first typologies were of a comparative (genealogical) direction; Thus, F. von Schlegel, the author of the book-manifesto of Indo-European studies "On the Language and Wisdom of the Hindus" (1808), for the first time tried to divide all the languages of the world according to the type of word structure into inflectional and affixing. A. von Schlegel added languages of the amorphous type to this classification, and divided inflectional languages into earlier, synthetic and later, analytical, characterized by the loss of features of inflection. The founder of classical German typology is W. von Humboldt, who refined the Schlegel classification to four types, adding languages of an incorporating type to it. The idea of stages in the development of languages was further developed by Humboldt's student A. Schleicher. Despite the fact that during the XIX century. a number of researchers expressed a number of observations related to other features of languages (for example, F. Bopp drew attention to the structure of the syllable, highlighting monosyllabic languages, G. Steinthal - to the fixed order of words in a sentence in languages in which there is a loss of inflectional features, etc.), the main typology of languages was the morphological classification of HumboldtSchleicher. [4]

Each type was presented as a section, a cell into which individual specific languages were entered; predominantly morphological principle of classification: languages were classified mainly according to the structure of the word, although separate phonological

and syntactic typological features were outlined; close connection with comparative historical studies, com-parativeism; historical-cultural (evolutionary), stadial approach in describing the glottogonic process: types of languages were considered as stages of a single historical process of the formation of the languages of the world; evaluative approach: types of languages were evaluated as less perfect and more perfect, namely, languages of isolating types were considered less perfect, inflectional languages were considered as the pinnacle of grammatical development, and the loss of inflections was seen as a decline, degradation of the language. [5]

By the end of the XIX century the dominant comparative-historical paradigm of linguistics in a certain sense has exhausted itself, which was associated with a change in scientific approaches. The typology of languages received a new impetus in connection with the emergence of systemic linguistics at the beginning of the 20th century. The first in this series was the stepped, multilateral typology of languages by E. Sapir (1921). Within the framework of the same systematic approach, there was a return to the problems of typology in the research activities of the Prague Linguistic Circle (V. Skalichka, T. Milevsky and others). Instead of classifying languages, they proposed considering lists of typo-logically significant features; this direction is called "characterology of languages". It was in the fundamental work of this direction, "Theses of the Prague Linguistic Circle" (1929), that the terms "typology" and "linguistic type" were first used. Representatives of this trend also began to deal with the level comparison of languages, for example, N. Trubetskoy became the founder of the systemic phonological typology. In Russia, there was a return to the ideas of stadiality within the framework of the "theory of a single glottogonic process" by N. Marr. He believed that the language belongs to the superstructure, therefore its development turns out to depend on changes in the basis, and he connected the stages in the development of the language with the stages in the development of society: the primitive communal system (the stage of primitive communism) - amorphous (isolating) languages, the tribal system - agglutinative languages, class society - inflectional languages; at the stage of capitalism, there is a demarcation of national forms of language, which at the stage of communism must again merge into a single international language of an amorphous type (according to the law of "negation of negation" and "development in a spiral"). One of the most important typological and syntactic theories of the twentieth century became the theory of the Soviet linguist I.I. Meshchaninov, called "contensive typology". I.I. Meshchaninov discovered that the relations "subject - predicate - object" is so important that they affect not only the syntactic systems of languages, but also their morphology and vocabulary, therefore they can become the basis for distinguishing the following language types: nominative, er-gative and passive.

Typology should deal not only with morphology, but also with other aspects of the language; polytypo-logical approach: all languages are polytypological, i.e. combine to varying degrees different typological features; consistency: the basis of typology is not a list of

56

PHILOLOGICAL SCIENCES / «<g©LL©qUWM~J©U®MaL» #M7©)), 2023

elements, but their correlation in the language system; functionality: comparative typology should pay attention not only to the structure, but to the semantics and functioning of language units.

A significant contribution to the development of typology methods (in addition to general scientific and general linguistic methods, as well as to the previously used comparative historical and proper typological methods) was made by J. Greenberg, the founder of "quantitative typology" : his method of typological indices allows calculating various typological parameters based on counting their occurrence in hundred-word texts. J. Greenberg established the indices of synthesis, agglutination, composition, derivation, prefixation, suffixation, isolation, agreement, etc.

Literature

1. Ackerman, Farrell and Nikolaeva, Irina (2013) Descriptive typology and linguistic theory: a study in

the morphosyntax of relative clauses. Stanford, CA: CSLI and University of Chicago Press.

2. Anderson, Stephen (2015) Dimensions of Morphological Complexity, in Baerman, Matthew; Brown, Dunstan and Corbett, Greville G. (eds.), Understanding and Measuring Morphologicaln Complexity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 11-28.

3. Baker Mark and James McCloskey (2007) 'On the Relationship of Typology to Theoretical Syntax', in Linguistic Typology 11: pp. 273-284.

4. Clahsen Harald (2016) ' Contributions of Linguistic Typology to Psycholinguistics', in Linguistic Typology 20: pp. 599-614.

5. LaPolla, Randy J. (2016) 'On Categorization: Stick to the Facts of the Languages', in Linguistic Typology 20: pp. 365-376.