(lat. causalis - causal, causa - cause), or causality, a concept used in traditional philosophy to denote the necessary genetic connection of phenomena, of which one (cause) causes the other (effect). In this context, K. was interpreted as one of the forms of the universal connection of phenomena, as an internal connection between what already exists and what is generated by it, what is still becoming. It was assumed that this distinguishes K. from other forms of communication, which are characterized by the correlation of one phenomenon to another. The internal connection was considered as the essence of K., it was understood as an internal relationship inherent in the things themselves. K. was supposed to be universal, because. according to the natural-scientific views of that time, there are no phenomena that would not have their own causes, just as there are no phenomena that would not have (would not give rise to) certain consequences. The connection between cause and effect was considered necessary: if there is a cause and the corresponding conditions are present, then an effect inevitably arises. Subsequently (especially in the 20th century), the principle of co-ordination underwent a radical rethinking. (See Anti-Oedipus, Determinism, Neodeterminism, "Death of God".)
Definitions, meanings of the word in other dictionaries:
Philosophical Dictionary
(lat. causalis - causal, causa - cause) or causality - a philosophical category for designating the necessary genetic connection of phenomena, of which one (cause) determines the other (effect). K. can be interpreted as one of the forms of the universal connection of phenomena, given that K ...
The latest philosophical dictionary
To the question of causality and causativity in the language system
The interest of scientists from various fields of knowledge (philosophers, physicists, linguists) to the problem of causal relationships is due to the specificity of this category, which reflects the primary importance of causal relationships in human life.
Causal relations are universal relations, since there are no phenomena that would not have their own causes, and there are no phenomena that would not give rise to certain consequences.
These relations fix the consolidation in the language of the most important stage of human thinking - a logical conclusion, the transition from ascertaining to logical thinking, inference. That is why the study of the problems of expressing causal relationships by linguistic means does not lose its relevance.
In the linguistic literature, two terms can be found that correlate with the causal category - causality and causality. Both terms go back to the Latin causa "reason, foundation", "incentive". However, there is no clear definition of the categorical essence of causality and causation.
This state of affairs certainly creates additional difficulties in the work of linguists whose works are aimed at establishing adequate means of expressing causal relationships in the most different languages. The following question requires clarification: the definition of the status of the categories of causality and causation.
Both concepts are inevitably connected with the philosophical concepts of causality and cause-and-effect relationships. The causal relationship is one of the leading forms of interconnection and conditionality of the processes of objective reality. The categories of cause and effect reflect the objective relationships that exist in nature and society.
Causality is interpreted as a philosophical category to denote an objective genetic connection of phenomena, of which one (called the cause) determines the other (called the effect or action). Cause and effect reflect one of the forms of universal connection and interaction of phenomena. A cause is a phenomenon whose action causes, determines, changes, produces or entails another phenomenon, the latter is called a consequence. Thus, the relationship of cause and effect is necessary and inevitable: if there is a cause and appropriate conditions, then an effect inevitably arises.
All phenomena, events, processes in nature, society and thinking are caused or conditioned by other phenomena, events, processes, that is, more or less certain causes. No matter how deeply a person comprehends the world, no matter what new patterns he discovers in the world, the law of the connection between cause and effect does not cease to be relevant.
For the first time, the ancient philosopher Aristotle turned to the typology of cause-and-effect relationships, who classified the type of cause-and-effect relationships according to a certain component in the binary combination of two phenomena, starting from the correspondence between the type of effect and the type of cause. Aristotle created two classifications: a typology of the causes of things and a typology of the causes of human actions.
The modern understanding of the cause is directly related to the active beginning of the causing event. Any consequence is explained human activity, the awareness of logical causality (as a connection with a universal pattern, "logical inclusion") comes much later.
Causal or causal relationships are of universal importance and exist in all forms of matter movement. Causality, along with other categories of philosophy, finds its expression in every science, in every subject of knowledge. As a consequence, it is conceptualized and reflected in the language.
Causal connection - as one of the most important forms of interconnection between the phenomena of reality - exists where the necessary generation of one by the other is superimposed on the temporal sequence of events.
A.A. Potebnya gives the following definition of causality in Russian: “The concept of an action, like the concept of a subject and an object, is inseparable from the concept of a cause ... there is a cause, causing (action), caused (perfect, done): the reflection of an action on an object is caused by the action of the subject. Causality is composed of the action of the subject and the simultaneity or sequence of this action with the state of the object.
An adequate expression of the category of causality in the language is achieved with the help of lexical means and grammatical constructions. The study of linguistic units used to convey the relations reflected by this category helps to identify characteristic features these units associated with the linguistic interpretation of causality.
Causal relationships are one of the most important semantic categories of natural languages. The conditions under which relationships between events qualify as causative or causal can be represented as follows:
- 1) the relationship between the two events is such that the speaker believes that the occurrence of the causated event occurs at time T 2 , which occurs after T 1 - the time of the causing event;
- 2) the dependence between the causative and the causative events is such that the speaker believes that the occurrence of the causated event depends entirely on the causative event. The dependence of the two events in this case must be such that it allows the speaker to conclude that the causal event would not have taken place at that particular time if the causative event had not taken place.
Cause and effect represent a dialectical unity. A cause that does not act, that is, has no effect, is not a cause, and, conversely, a cause that no longer acts is also not a cause. Therefore, the cause takes place because its effect takes place. The relationship between cause and effect is a universal law that operates at all organizational levels.
Causality in a broad sense combines such meanings as premise, foundation, justification, confirmation, proof, argument, argument, predestination, premise, reason, pretext, stimulus, target motivation. This whole circle of relations presupposes such a connection of situations in which one serves as a sufficient basis for the realization of the other.
Causality expresses to a greater extent the causal dependence expressed syntactic means(unions, allied combinations or their phraseological equivalents).
Causal sentences express the direct conditionality of a broad plan. Thus, causal sentences are literally understood in Russian linguistics as subordinate causes, although they contain an indication not only of the cause, but also of the justification for what is said in the main part of the sentence.
The distinction between subordinate causes and grounds is connected with the conditionality of the phenomena of reality in question: in sentences with subordinate causes, cause-and-effect relationships are reflected, and in sentences with subordinate clauses, ground-conclusion relations (made by the speaker) are reflected. Causal relationships are expressed in subordinate clauses causes through conjunctions and allied combinations because, because, due to the fact that, due to the fact that, since, because, because, etc.
The "causal block" also includes conditional and target sentences. Conditional sentences denoting virtual, mentally allowed events are derivatives of cause-and-effect sentences. Target constructions can be interpreted as a preconceived result of cause-and-effect relationships. Causal, conditional, concessive, target sentences are also referred to as causal generative constructions.
Causativity, in contrast to causality, is a lexical and grammatical category that reflects the causal relationship between the subject and the object.
The causative semantics of the verb is the meaning of the impulse directed by the subject of the action to the object in order to change the subject's action to the state or qualitative verbal attribute of the object. “To cause R. means to act in such a way that the situation of R immediately begins to take place.” .
The semantic binarity of causation is due to the presence of a two-term opposition "cause - effect". Because of this, the semantics of causation presupposes two propositions: one - with the subject-causator and the predicate "causes" the second - with the causative subject and any predicate. Wed:
He broke the cup.
- 1) he caused
- 2) the cup is broken.
Causativity is a kind of relational type of meaning inherent in verbal predicates. The category of causation is a semantic distinguishing feature of the verb, which is important for the entire system of the verb nest. It is this feature that distinguishes causative verbs from other classes of verbs - static, introductive and liquidation.
Depending on the means of expressing the semantics of causation, lexical and grammatical causatives are distinguished. The lexical causative is the verbs semantic structure which the “cause” component is incorporated, cf.: break, build, destroy, etc. The semantics of lexical causatives already includes the meaning of the corresponding static verbs, cf.: water - drink, plant - sit down, kill - die, etc.
A grammatical causative is a morphological and a syntactic causative. Morphological causative are morphologically derived causative verbs ( given type missing in Russian). With a syntactic causative, the meaning of causation is expressed auxiliary verb with the categorical meaning "incitement to action or state". Syntactic causative - these are causative constructions formed with the help of analytical verbs such as force, command.
Despite the differences in the structural organization of causatives in different languages, the grammatical and lexical means of expressing causative semantics are characterized by a certain set of common meaningful features: the meanings of request, permission, coercion, motivation, etc.
Regardless of the type of causative (grammatical or lexical), the central place in it is occupied by the verb. Therefore, causation is an exclusively verbal category.
Causality combines the entire range of particular meanings that make up conditionality (premise, basis, justification, confirmation, proof, argument, argument, premise, reason, pretext, stimulus and goal setting). Causality is expressed in the language by syntactic means (as a rule, by means of a complex sentence).
Causativity distinguishes only one subgroup from all particular values of conditionality - the target setting and the stimulus. Causativity is a lexical and grammatical category of verbal predicates.
Thus, causal relations are only a component of the concept of causality, along with a premise, concession, condition, goal, etc. That is why causality is a broader category, reflecting the entire spectrum of connections between events in real life, than causality.
Both causality and causation show how speakers of a particular language make a distinction between various types causal relationships, as they interpret the causal connections between events and people's actions.
The means of language, expressing causal relationships, reflect the philosophical, logical and linguistic content. Causal relationships project the course of development of human thinking from a simpler to a more complex understanding of reality.
causality causality language semantic
UDK 821.512.111(052)
N.I. REC, A.R. GUBANOV
CAUSAL AND CAUSATIVE RELATIONS*
Approaches to the study of the ontological essence of the category of causality are considered.
N.I. RETZ, A.R. GUBANOV CATEGORY OF CAUSALITY: THE CAUSAL AND THE CAUSATIVE CONNECTION
Key words: category, causality, causality, causative, universal meaning, semantic relationships.
The approaches to the study of the ontological nature of the category of causality.
Cause-and-effect relationships are of universal importance, since every action is motivated, due to some reason, and there are no phenomena that would not give rise to certain consequences. The terms causality and causation are often correlated with the causal category in the linguistic literature without a clear definition, and this is reflected in the establishment of equivalents in comparative studies.
The study of causal relations, in particular, is closely related to such concepts as "presupposition", "implication", which are understood ambiguously in linguistics. “Among the meanings conveyed by a sentence-statement, presupposition and implication should be distinguished ...” . In the thesis of I.T. Tarasova, the meanings she singled out have a wide and free content: presupposition is the original thought (original meaning), and implication is the meaning-consequence (the resulting thought). A somewhat different approach to the definition of presupposition V.A. Zvegintsev, who believes that “the philosophical definition of presupposition, which is also used in linguistics, boils down to the fact that presupposition should be understood as the conditions that must be met in order for the sentence as a whole to be a statement, a question, a command, etc. If these conditions are not met, then the sentence is recognized as incorrect, false, ungrammatical, not corresponding to the goals of the statement, inappropriate. The presupposition is associated with a "hidden category", which has not received its formal expression, but is considered as some kind of obligatory fund of general knowledge. When analyzing presuppositions, attention is also drawn to the fact that it is impossible to describe the entire set of relations of “natural texts” or statements with logical presuppositions and, in particular, to establish the truth or falsity of sentences that depend on general ideas speaking and listening and from the situation, therefore, another category of presuppositions should be distinguished - pragmatic, which has very unclear boundaries. Indeed, the essence of the problem of presuppositions lies in the separation of different layers in the sense of a sentence. And so the distinction between the content of an utterance and its presupposition is based on two premises: 1) two different layers must be distinguished in the "sense" of the sentence; 2) one of the layers of meaning belongs to the sentence and constitutes its semantic content, while the other is taken out of the sentence (or utterance) and forms the conditions for its correctness.
* The study was carried out under the state contract No. 16.740.11.01.19 FTP "Scientific and scientific-pedagogical personnel of innovative Russia" for 2009-2013.
th understanding ... . When faced with the problem of presupposition, the question arises as to whether the presuppositions of a sentence of one language are preserved when translated into another language, i.e. Are presuppositions universal? As the comparison of the Russian and Chuvash languages (in the area of relations of interest to us) shows, we can only talk about the relative universality of presuppositions (different structural qualities of the compared languages, differences in cultures that determine extralinguistic knowledge). Causal relations can be represented as an implication formula in which two components are combined - a premise (antecedent) and a consequence (consequent). It should be noted that the concepts of “presupposition” and “implication” are often confused, and therefore, it seems to us, the differences between them should be sought in the fact that implication is a logical operation (refers to the structure of a sentence), and presupposition is a non-logical scheme associated with subtext.
The semantic relation, as the content, is a complex denotation, a non-elementary situation, including the relation (P), members of the relation (a) and (b). Various semantic relations are oriented in their own way to the speaker through connection with logical operations along the line of the main universal premise. The main difference between the classes of meanings, as already mentioned, is the quantitative indicator of denotative situations. Meanings reflecting one denotative situation are formed, as S.A. Shuvalov, in cases: a) when the author of the text does not have comprehensive information about the reflected situation or the author of the text finds it difficult to present a verbal image that is adequate to the reflected denotative situation (Either ..., or ...; It cannot be said that ..., but also...); b) when the author of the text, instead of an erroneous idea of the reflected situation, offers a correct, in his opinion, image of the corresponding situation (Not we ... but she ...); c) when the author cares about a complete and vivid reflection of the denotative situation and resorts ... to the use of an association or gives different images of it (He blushes ... how they blush ...; He did not need ...., that is, ...) . All the presented types of this class of meanings are connected only with the author's desire for either accuracy or figurativeness of the verbal image, and not with the peculiarity of the reflected situation.
A fundamentally different kind of relations are the meanings of the second class, which, in turn, are divided into two groups: 1) relations of the type "dictum - dictum", established between dictum predications; 2) relations of the type "modus - dictum", established between modus and dictum predications. It should be noted that the terms "modus" and "dictum" were introduced into linguistics by S. Bally. In linguistic studies, the concept of dictum is presented unambiguously, while the concept of modus is ambiguous. In particular, T.V. Shmeleva distinguishes the following categories of mode: a) actualization categories (“the speaker correlates the fragments of reality he describes with the situation of communication - its participant, place, time”); b) qualifying categories (“the speaker qualifies what is reported on the basis of his ideas”); c) social categories (“the attitude of the speaker to the interlocutor”). Based on the provisions of T.A. Kolosova and M.I. Cheremisina, then the modus represents “a verbalized subjective interpretation of a dictum event, which is given in the aspect of modality (i.e., the possibility, probability of an event and the degree of reliability of the message about it) or in the aspect of the nature of the mental processing of the representation (information) about the dictum event” . As we can see, when considering the modus, the complexity associated with the presence of many
planning of this concept. The common element of this concept, it seems to us, is the element of the semantic organization of meaning, which conveys the speaker's assessment of the content of the utterance. And the semantic relations we are considering can take the form of both “dictum-dictum” and “modus-dictum”, i.e. they can be based on the reflection of two denotative situations that are dictum in nature or modus-dictum in nature. In this case, the reflected situations are in implication relations. Causal relationships are dependency relationships. Dependence here is understood in the sense that one can always name a component that is conditioned and causes it, and therefore also dependent on the conditioned. Relations of dependence does not exclude the possibility of inclusion in causal relations and causative ones. At first glance, the characteristics of the latter coincide with the causal ones. The immediate components of a causative situation (CS) are at least two microsituations interconnected by the relation of causation or infliction. O.A. Khlebtsov in his work on causative verbs: “In this dissertation, causativity is considered as a semantic property of lexical and syntactic units to express cause-and-effect relationships between the realities of objective reality” . In this paper, in connection with the use of causatives, the following parameters are recognized as elements of the (causative) situation under consideration: "causation", "method of causation", "causation result", "subject of causation", "object of causation". Noting the originality of causative situations, G.A. Zolotova characterizes the components of the corresponding situations as follows: “The causator of an action is usually a person, an agent, whose causative action is arbitrary, purposeful. If the place of the causator is occupied by the name of an abstract concept, the causative construction appears in its own variety - involuntary causation. Regarding this variety, the author considers it necessary to make an explanation on the very next page of this work: “It is obvious that the possibility of such a transformation (The hostess forced us to leave the house - The hostess’s hostility forced us to leave the house) (what?) Serves as a criterion for distinguishing between arbitrary and involuntary causation, moreover It should be noted that the latter variety is not at all typical for the causation of an action, "since an involuntary variety of autocausation (autocausative constructions) is organized, according to G. A. Zolotova, on the basis of causators of the type "from + Rod.p." "due to + Rod.p." and so on. As we can see, the phenomenon of causation is distinguished on a structural-semantic basis, and the varieties of causation and causality should be determined in accordance with the structural-semantic meaning of the causative and causal models. As a cross-language metalanguage of causation, as the comparison shows practical material Russian and Chuvash languages, there are such parameters of the causation structure as inducement, command, prohibition, etc. “The category of causation,” as D. Buranov notes, “expresses general causation, which is characterized by the fact that the subject compels, forces, asks, orders, implores the object to perform an action.” Causativation and causality are carried out in various ways in the Russian and Chuvash languages. It is known that the category of causation is characterized by complexity and diversity. The category of causation in the Russian language cannot be recognized as grammatical, since the meaning of causation
activity does not have a permanent form of expression assigned to it, and categorical semantics is expressed by a combination of means of different levels. The structure of the corresponding category in the Russian and Chuvash languages is characterized by certain lexical-grammatical, structural-semantic and lexical-semantic features. It seems to us that the main features for the “delimitation” of causation and causality are: 1) the type of situations reflected in them (situation constants); 2) the semantic-syntactic structure of sentences expressed in these situations (the way of expressing propositions - folded propositions in sentences with causal semantics compared to causative constructions and their deployment. He pushed me. She did not come because of bad weather She didn't come because the weather was bad.
Thus, causative and causal connections are binary in nature, i.e. the corresponding connections imply the presence of two facts or events that are in close unity with each other; the sequence of the described events/phenomena/facts is inherent in the very process of generating a consequence, but the causative connection involves the transfer of knowledge, not the affirmation/denial of something, but the inducement to some action/change in the state of the object. Therefore, causality is "causing" through conditioning, and causality is "causing" through inducement. Causal connections determine the relationship between events (objective situations - proper causal relationships) and the relationship between propositions, each of which consists of a subject and a predicate, and each of the propositions can have one or another degree of expression. In general, when modeling the speaker's speech behavior in causal situations, which consists primarily in the choice of means of expressing one's intention, one should also take into account the consequences that follow from the conditions of communication, from taking into account the situation of communication. The speaker is trying to imagine how the listener will understand him when using different means in expressing certain meanings of conditioning. The entire corresponding model of speech production can be represented at the semantic level and at the level preceding the semantic (deep-semantic), which is associated with extralinguistic reality. It is known that the speaker, bearing in mind some representation of an extralinguistic situation, selects linguistic means, forming several representations of the next level. Therefore, the current model of speech activity, which claims to be sufficiently complete, must also include components that describe the deep semantic level.
On the basis of the factual material of languages with different structures (Russian and Chuvash), one can present a two-level seme model of causal relations (equivalent opposition: “direct conditionality” - event1 and “reverse conditionality” - event2. In linguistic literature, when interpreting the ontological essence of conditionality, an event is often a term is identified with the concept of a proposition. An event, unlike a proposition, does not always cover the entire judgment and does not break down into its constituent elements. The main difference between event and prepositive semantic types, as N.D. Arutyunova points out, boils down to the following: the event meaning unites everything that characterizes the environment of human immersion in the world, and the prepositive meaning unites everything that is the result of immersion of reality In human consciousness... As we can see, N.D. Arutyunova substantiates the thesis that the concept has
three localization features: a) localization in some human sphere; b) the event occurs at some time; c) it (the event) takes place in some real space. The above characteristic of the concept “event” is also reflected in the structure of integral conditional relations: events connected by a causal connection have all the coordinates that are inherent in events. Events that form conditioning relationships can be spontaneous and intensional, they can include other events, and one event is always the cause of another, i.e. in a conditional situation, one of the events is the conditional and the other is the conditional. However, these event values do not cover full content implicative judgment. Very often, in an integral sense, the second event takes on the structure of a fact, because "the more visually the causal relations, the easier they are embedded in the structure of a simple proposition, and thus of a fact." However, the fact does not replace any proposition, but only verified, “truth”, i.e. cannot be expressed in sentences that express a hypothetical modality (If..., then...). The semantic types of conditionality factors - prepositive, eventful, fact-forming - can be expressed in the same way (by full, incomplete nominalizations). The degree of closeness of the semantic multipliers of the integral meaning is often determined by the context (in cases of convergence of conditional relations): With the coming to power of the “democrats”, life in the country did not improve - the temporal sequence of events or the causal connection was updated (the case of neutralizing the opposition of event and fact-forming meanings). And depending on the appropriate interpretation, nominalization with the coming to power can be qualified as an event or as a fact.
Particular attention should be paid to cases where a quasi-causal meaning can arise in the semantics of sentences. In the linguistic literature there is no single list of language units expressing the meaning of causality. The condition for the formation of causal semantic relations is discursive data: the ratio of semantic and pragmatic presumptions. Here are examples: He is difficult to recognize because of the suit (a) and He is difficult to recognize in this suit (b). Let's introduce negative sentences: It is not true that it is difficult to recognize him because of the suit (a) and It is not true that it is difficult to recognize him in this suit. It is very easy to recognize (b). The presumption “he is difficult to recognize” is a semantic presumption of the statement (a) the semantic presumptions of the statement are at the same time the pragmatic presumption of the speaker, and the converse statement is not true: “usually a person looks like himself and is not difficult to recognize” - semantic and pragmatic presumptions do not coincide. And the statement (b) has no semantic presumption and is just an assertion, which also does not coincide with the pragmatic presumption of the statement. But, from the definition of presumptions, presumptions (both semantic and pragmatic) cannot be false, because in this case the sentence-proposition is abnormal, illocutionary "suicidal". And actually causal sentences cannot be false, but quasi-causal sentences allow this option: it depends on the pragmatic presumptions of the sender and addressee.
In modern linguistics, as is known, one of the central problems is the classification of meanings according to the degree of their abstraction, implicitness, and other features. The above semantic feature is associated with the syntax of meanings, which offers the study of compatibility
explicit and implicit meanings. Causality as a semantic category is characterized by a wide semantic variability associated with a complex system of means of formal expression: 1) hypotactic constructions (in Russian), polypredicative constructions in the Chuvash language (in the dependent predicative part, infinite forms of the verb can act as a predicate): a) polypredicative constructions of a synthetic type (the participle acts as a dependent predicate): Pudyonche torlo shuhash palhannaran Ivan samantlaha detse kayryo (T. Peterkki); b) constructions of the analytic-synthetic type (participial-postpositional constructions): Val dyrava layah pölnyo pirki, shkul ussine anlanna pirki hysen yalenche shkul udas shuhashpa dunchyo (T. Peterkki); c) hypotactical constructions of the analytical type (allied braces because, myeonshyon are small: Nauka enepe ilsen, kunashkal turana silos paha mar, vylyakhshan sienlyo, myonshen tesen apat khuranne pasma pultarat (Emelyanov); 2) non-taxis structures with dependent propositive components (deverbative nouns or adverbs): Acha-pacha kartishenche pechok yapalashan havasla duyahat (Uyar).
Literature
1. Arutyunova N.D. Proposition, fact, event (the experience of conceptual analysis) // Izv. Academy of Sciences of the USSR. Ser. lit. and yaz. 1981. V. 46, No. 6. S. 529-546.
2. Buranov D.B. Typological categories and comparative study of languages: Ph.D. dis. ... cand. philol. Sciences. M., 1979. 22 p.
3. Gordon E.Ya. Causative verbs in modern Russian: author. dis. ... cand. philol. Sciences. M., 1981.
4. Zvegintsev V.A. The sentence and its relation to language and speech. M.: Publishing House of Moscow. un-ta, 1976. 307 p.
5. Zolotova G.A. Essay on the functional syntax of the Russian language. M.: Nauka, 1973. 351 p.
6. Kolosova T.A. Cheremisina N.I. On the principles of classification of complex sentences // Questions of linguistics. 1984. No. 6.
7. Kornilov G.E., Kholodovich A.A., Khrakovsky V.S. Causatives and anti-causatives in the Chuvash language // Typology of causative constructions. L.: Nauka, 1969.
8. Tarasova I.P. The meaning of the sentence-statement and communication: author. dis. ... doc. philol. Sciences. M., 1992.
9. Shiryaev E.N. Relations of logical conditionality in complex sentence// Grammatical studies. M.: Nauka, 1991.
10. Shmeleva T.V. Semantic Syntax: Lecture Text. Krasnoyarsk, 1988.
11. Shuvalova S.A. semantic relationships in a complex sentence and ways of expressing them. M.: Publishing House of Moscow. un-ta, 1990.
12. Khlebtsova O.A. Lexico-semantic field of causative verbs: author. dis. ... cand. philol. Sciences. Kharkov, 1986.
REC NATALYA IVANOVNA - doctoral student of the Department of Comparative Philology and Intercultural Communication, Chuvash State University, Russia, Cheboksary ( [email protected]).
RETZ NATALIA IVANOVNA - doctoral candidate of Comparative Linguistics and Intercul-tural Communication Chair, Chuvash State University, Russia, Cheboksary.
GUBANOV ALEKSEY RAFAILOVICH - Doctor of Philology, Professor, Head of the Department of Comparative Philology and Intercultural Communication, Chuvash State University, Russia, Cheboksary ( [email protected]).
GUBaNoV ALEKSEY RAFAILOVICH - doctor of phylological sciences, professor, head of Comparative Linguistics and Intercultural Communication Chair, Chuvash State University, Russia, Cheboksary.
Causality
(Kausalitat; from Latin causa - “cause”) - causality, effectiveness, regular connection between cause and effect. As a principle (causal principle, or law), causality expresses the following: each event has a cause (caused, arises as a result of influence) and at the same time is the cause of another event, or vice versa: nothing happens without a cause. Cause and effect form a chain extending from the past (see Proton kinuri), penetrating the present and disappearing into the future (causal connection; cf. expedient). On closer examination, the cause breaks down at least into the (external) circumstances under which something happens, the (internal) conditions due to which it occurs, and the calling of the action, which is the immediate cause. Example: if the gunpowder is dry (condition) and correctly composed (condition), then due to the impact (call of the action) it ignites (action).
The concept of causality is formed as a generalization of the experience that something, "action", takes place if and only if something else, "cause" has taken place or is happening at that time. At the same time, it is easy to fall into error, taking "post hoc", i.e. temporary "after this", for "propter hoc", i.e. for causal "therefore". In the history of philosophy, the principle of causality was first clearly formulated by Democritus, and how strictly causality incidents - the Stoics and Epicurus. In the Middle Ages, the question of exact causality in nature, one might say, was completely forgotten, and only the natural science of modern times (Bacon, Galileo, Kepler, etc.) began to intensively investigate the principle of the causality of nature, in no way broken through by any supernatural intervention. This scientifically explained objective concept of causality was opposed by the subjectivist understanding of causality, represented primarily by the English empiricists.
For example, according to Hume, belief in causality is based on association, expectation, and habit. Kant considered the universal principle of causality to be a priori, but valid only in the realm of experience. Schopenhauer distinguishes three forms of causality: cause in the proper sense (for the inorganic world), irritation (in organic plant life), and motive (in the actions of all conscious beings). Mill, Spencer, and others tried to understand and explain causality from experience alone, by induction. Positivism (Comte, Avenarius, Mach, and others) replaces the concept of causality with the concept of functional dependence, the concept of cause with a “condition” (see Conditionism).
In the latest ontology, causality refers to categories. It is one of the possibilities of defining or forms of defining the existing (see The doctrine of layers). The latest physics due to the lack of the possibility of repeated empirical verification, the question of the unlimited applicability of the principle of causality in the field of the microworld remains open; it is applied as a working hypothesis, as a heuristic principle, as a probabilistic rule; see Uncertainty relation; Base.
