On the other hand, European grammars of the XV-XVII centuries. connected in one way or another with the Reformation. Some grammarians developed and propagated the philological hopes of the Reformation; others opposed her.
Just as the initiative to translate Scripture into the vernacular came from the Protestants (see §95), so the first Slavic grammars were created by the Protestants. Such is the Czech grammar of the Protestant priests Philomath, Optat and Gzel (Namesht, 1533); the first Polish grammar of the Calvinist, later Socinian Piotr Statorius-Stoensky (Krakow, 1568); best in the 16th century Czech grammar by Jan Blago-slava, head of the Protestant community "Czech Brethren" (manuscript 1571); the first Slovene grammar compiled by one of the leaders of Slovene Protestantism, Adam Bohoric (Wittenberg, 1584).
Grammars, however, were not a specifically Protestant phenomenon. They were also created by Catholics and Orthodox. Grammar could also have a counter-reformation orientation. These are the first printed East Slavic grammars - "Adelfotis", the grammars of Lawrence Zizanius and Meletius Smotrytsky. They were compiled by Orthodox scribes to support the Church Slavonic language. Just as the Gennadiev Biblical Code of 1499 and the Ostrog Bible printed on its basis of 1581 resisted reformist attempts to translate Scripture into vernacular languages, so the grammar of Meletius Smotrytsky was the largest philological action in defense of the cult supra-ethnic language of Slavia Orthodoxa.
At the same time, there are new features in Smotrytsky's position. In his grammar, there is no attitude, common in Orthodox literacy, towards the Church Slavonic language as a sacred and exclusive language*; there are no arguments, usual for Orthodoxy, about the special "grace" of the "Slavonic" language or its superiority over Latin. Meletiy Smotrytsky does not evaluate languages according to the religious principle and de facto recognizes their equality.
* Wed. the apology of the Church Slavonic language as the language of the holy and giving salvation from the Orthodox Ukrainian monk John Vishensky (XV? century): "God almighty<..>better baptizes in the Slovenian language, but rather than in Latin"; to the saints and saints "be saved and sanctify the same holy language Slovenian source" (Vishensky I. Soch. / Preparation of the text, article and commentary by I.P. Eremin. M .; L.: Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1955, pp. 192, 194. However, the interpretation of the Church Slavonic language as sacred was not canonical in Orthodoxy.
In Smotrytsky's grammar, the opposition of Church Slavonic as sacred language folk ("simple move") as a non-sacred, worldly language. In the preface to the grammar, written in "simple language", Smotrytsky recommends referring to it when teaching the "Slavonic" language. In the text of the grammar itself, he often explains Church Slavonic forms or phrases with the help of a "simple mov", including translating biblical verses into it. Smotrytsky's attitude to grammar itself was also new: Protestantly sober, far from attributing sacral and theological significance to grammar.
The reformative sound of Smotritsky's grammar was muffled when it was republished in Moscow (1648), "naturally", without the name of the author, who became a Uniate in 1627. All explanations and translations in the vernacular were excluded from the text of the grammar. Smotrytsky's modest preface in "simple language" was replaced by anonymous (dating back to the writings of Maxim the Greek) Church Slavonic discourses on the holiness of the "Slovenian" language and piety of grammar, with reference to the main Orthodox authorities (Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, John Chrysostom). In the Moscow edition, the format and font were enlarged, the margins became wider. Combined with lengthy prefaces and afterwords, this greatly increased the bulk of the book. Cinnabar headings and initials appeared in it. All this gave the Moscow grammar of 1648 a solemn and impressive appearance, making it "the official publication of Moscow literacy" (Yagich, 1910, 30).
Thus, in the XVII century. grammar still belonged to the church. Grammars were written by church people, for church schools. Grammarians were based on the language of Scripture and taught to understand this language. Grammars could still be the subject of confessional controversy and bias; it still made sense to define grammars as Orthodox, Jesuit or Protestant.
Not only the religions of Scripture (Revelation), but all written religious and intellectual traditions almost simultaneously with the codification of the doctrine come to the need to interpret the written authoritative text. In general, a return to what was written down, to the need to understand what was said before (and not at the moment of speech), is always associated with certain difficulties in understanding speech - due to new conditions in t about r and h n about g about perception. The greater the time and distance that separates the author of a text from his late reader, the greater the differences between the contemporary reader and subsequent readers in interpreting the text. Therefore, following the codification of the doctrine, or even simultaneously, methods for determining the meanings of individual words, statements and entire works are developed - in this culture, a commentary tradition is formed as a tool for preserving and transmitting authoritative knowledge.
The first commentary schools in the history of culture took shape almost simultaneously in the 6th century. BC: in Ancient Greece, in the religious and philosophical brotherhood of the Pythagoreans, founded by Pythagoras (c. 540-500 BC), and in ancient China, in the circle of the closest students and followers of Confucius (551-479 BC). It is no coincidence that it was in the school of Pythagoras that the famous ipse dixit "said himself" was born - as the motto of the guardians and transmitters of authoritative knowledge (see §56). The Pythagoreans were the first to write commentaries on Homer. They discovered the phenomenon of the allegorical meaning of words and utterances (understanding allegory in a broader sense than it is now accepted - as all sorts of indirect, figurative, symbolic, allegorical meanings).
In China, commentary concerns in the school of Confucius led to the creation of the first ever explanatory dictionaries. They gave explanations of difficult hieroglyphs extracted from the texts of Confucius. In the IV century. BC. detailed treatises-commentaries appear: individual passages from Confucius are interpreted here, retold "in their own words" or simply translated into modern language (History, 1980, 95).
Judaism, as a religion of Scripture, with its characteristic particularly careful and biased attention to the word, gave semasiology new impulses. The sages-rabbis in the Talmud taught to distinguish 32 ways of interpreting the Mishnah (see §82) - this is comparable to the system of tropes and figures (including "figures of thought") in ancient rhetoric, but with the essential difference that the Talmud taught analysis, i.e. interpretation of the text, and rhetoric - synthesis, i.e. generation of the text.
An outstanding contribution to semasiology was made by the famous Jewish-Hellenistic thinker Philo of Alexandria (c. 25 BC - c. 50 AD), according to S.N. Trubetskoy - "intermediary between philosophy and Revelation". Connected by origin with the Hellenized Jews of Alexandria, having received a brilliant Greek education, Philo combined pagan philosophy and Jewish monotheism in his work. A.F. Losev wrote about Philo this way: “This Jewish philosopher is in love even with Homer and Hesiod and tries, through all sorts of allegorical interpretations, to bring this ancient Greek wisdom closer to the biblical way of thinking.<...>Philo applies Greek philosophy and especially Stoic Platonism to interpret the Bible and especially the Pentateuch of Moses" (Losev, 1980, 82-83).
According to Philo. The "Pentateuch" is an allegory, which has a spiritual meaning to be interpreted. Each word of Scripture has a double reading: a fiery sword - and a "fiery sword" and a "logos, word"; heaven and field are not only "heaven and field", but also "a soul full of strength and might"; salt is both "salt" and "permanence"; etc. Genuine understanding, according to Philo, involves the awareness of the connection (similarity and difference) of two meanings - the literal meaning of the interpreted text and its allegorical spiritual meaning. To reveal the "spiritual meaning" Philo develops a special technique of interpretation, involving, firstly, the method of dieresis * and, secondly, the "ten Aristotelian categories" - essence, quality, quantity, relation, action, enduring, possession, position, time and space (for details see: Losev, 1980, 114-128).
Philo's ideas about the non-uniqueness of the meaning of the text found further development in patristics and later Christian hermeneutics. Teachings about the four meanings of Scripture (literal, allegorical, historical and sacred) were popular. In the margins of the Bible of the famous Italian preacher G. Savonarola (1452-1498), his own notes are preserved, in which he gives six interpretations of biblical verses about the six days of creation. Here are six interpretations of the first day: 1) The interpretation is literal: The first day. Sky. Earth. Light. 2) Spiritual interpretation: Soul. Body. Driving mind. 3) Allegorical interpretation in relation to Old Testament: Adam. Eve. Beam (future redemption). 4) Allegorical interpretation in relation to the New Testament: The people of Israel. Languages. Jesus Christ. 5) Moral interpretation: Soul, body in the sense of reason and instinct. Redemption Light. 6) Analogous interpretation: Angels. People. Vision of the Lord (the presentation is given according to the book: The Middle Ages in its monuments / Under the editorship of D.N. Egorov. M.. 1913. S. 274-275).
* Diereza (Greek diairesis - distance, division, distinction) - a methodological device in Platonic dialectics, consisting in a sequential and stepwise dichotomous (binary) division of generic categories into species.
Thus, the need to preserve authoritative knowledge and transmit it in an authentic form led to the emergence of traditions of commenting on significant texts. In different cultures, one of the main phenomena of semasiology was discovered and realized quite early - the phenomenon of polysemy, i.e. ambiguity of a linguistic sign (word, lexical phrase, utterance) *. At the same time, it is natural that ambiguity was understood quite broadly and undivided (including various types of polysemy, allegory and symbolism). In different traditions, commentators and keepers of authoritative texts have come to create explanatory dictionaries. The dictionary form of knowledge representation is still the main genre for describing meanings in semasiology.
* Polysemy (from the Greek polys - "a lot" and sema - "sign") - the presence of different, but to some extent related meanings for the same word (or phrase); in semiotics - the possibility of different interpretations of a single sign or a certain sequence of signs (text, film, musical work, etc.). 122. Addition of the main lexicographic genres
in Slavic cultures (XI-XVII centuries)
The minimum comment (so to speak, "commenting unit") is a gloss*, i.e. explanation of a single incomprehensible word or expression in this text. In handwritten books, glosses were often made either in the margins of the manuscript (against the line where the incomprehensible word was encountered) or between the lines (the so-called interlinear glosses). Later, glosses began to be combined into collections of interpretations, glossaries. The oldest glossaries for Homer date back to the 5th century BC. BC, i.e. to the very beginning of the ancient Greek commentary tradition.
1660 - "Grammar General and Rational" - without indicating the authors.
Port-Royal - convent, center of advanced thought, n. circle of scientists.
The grammar was written in French, it was very quickly translated into English. Reissued many times. It starts with the development of a number of problems general theory language ( the beginning of the birth of general linguistics)
Formulate principles underlying language in general
Rely not on the conclusions of logic and on the Latin language, but on generalization and comparison of several languages
For the first time in history, reliance on empirical material, questions are raised about the ratio universal and specific in languages
The material used is Latin, French, Spanish, It, Greek, German, other Greek, and Heb.
2 parts of grammar:
1. Phonetics and graphics
2. Grammar
The introduction gives a definition of grammar (g is the art of speech).
The most convenient signs are the sounds of the human voice, in order to prolong their existence, to make them visible, letters were invented.
Part 1 - "On letters and signs of writing"
Quite often, letters turn out to be empty characters that do not have sound. – homme
They characterize the syllable, write about the stress, the word itself is what is pronounced and written separately.
On the reform of the spelling of the French language. Champs - campus (lat), chantes - cantus (lat).
According to Lanslo, extra letters are very useful, because. contribute to the establishment of analogy between languages. He suggested marking unpronounceable letters with a dot.
Easy way to learn to read in any language- you need to start with the most frequent letters, simple words.
Part 2 - "Etymology"
form principles of classification of parts of speech. Language is made up of signs that reveal what is going on in the mind.
2 classes of parts of speech:
1) Denoting communication object(name, pronoun, nar, adverb, article, preposition)
2) Signifiers way of thinking(verb, conjunction, interjection)
From the art of speaking made a real science. General language theory is impossible without going beyond one language.
Up to the 14th century linguistics was dominated by traditions coming from antiquity. During the Renaissance, there was a surge of interest in linguistics for the following reasons:
1) National languages are created and developed, numerous normative grammars of modern European languages appear - English, German, French, Spanish, Hungarian, Czech, Slavic.
2) As a result of the discovery of America in 1492, the sea route to India, Magellan's round-the-world voyage, the linguistic outlook is expanding, the study of languages on an international scale. Acquaintance of Europe with a huge number of new exotic languages, including Sanskrit.
The discovery of Sanskrit and the acquaintance of European linguists with it caused interest in the problem of the origin of languages, the search for ancient roots and a common source of languages known at that time, since the obvious similarities between Sanskrit and modern European languages \u200b\u200bcould not be accidental. There is a hypothesis that Sanskrit is the parent language of European languages, this hypothesis was not subsequently confirmed, however, historical research in this direction were of great scientific importance, because. they became the prerequisites for the development new revolutionary direction - comparative historical linguistics. Acquaintance with big amount new languages set the important task of discovering the causes of their similarities and differences, which is also the beginning of comparative historical linguistics. Revival of interest in ancient culture. The authority of the church is replaced by the authority of the ancient world, the study of Greek and Latin is revived.
The appearance of the first theory belongs to this period. grammar. It became the universal grammar of Arno and Lanslo. It is based on common universal features inherent in all languages, the common nature of all languages, the general properties of words. This grammar represents the beginning of the scientific study of language, since it presents an attempt scientifically comprehend the structure and functioning of natural language in all the diversity of the world's languages, reveal their unity and indicate their specificity. The material for this grammar was the languages that were representatives of the most significant cultures and allow us to distinguish general fundamentals Languages: Greek, Latin, other Hebrew, French, English, German, Spanish, Italian. The Grammar reveals universal categories, which allow you to describe both a single language and all other languages. It also describes main ways of developing thoughts, i.e. the mechanism of the functioning of the language is described, and examples of syntactic constructions in various languages are given.
In language-ii k. 18 and especially early. 19th century there was an acute need for a new method of learning languages. This need was realized in Wed-Hist. method studies of ulcerative phenomena in the works of him. scientists Franz Bopp And Jacob Grimm, Danish researcher Rasmus Rask and Russian linguist OH. Vostokova, who are considered the founders cf.-histor. language-ia (SIA). In their writings, a comparison of p-p decomp. languages, primarily Indo-Hebrew, for the first time acts as a medium of penetration into the mechanism of the language through the history through which the language passes. In linguist. tradition ancestor SHINING counts F. Bopp . While still at the gymnasium, he studied Sanskrit, Persian, Arabic, and Hebrew. languages. Since 1821, Bopp has been a professor of east. literature and general language at the University of Berlin, and since 1829 - an academician. Formation of lingua. Bopp's concept was influenced by both modern. him Western historical and philological. and linguistic. views, and under the influence of the teachings of ancient Indian. grammarians. Peculiarities lingu. Bopp's concepts consisted primarily in the fact that by comparing the facts of kinship. languages to penetrate into the mystery of the origin of language forms, to determine whether the differences in languages are due to general laws, to reveal those processes by means of which the language has come from its supposed former state to the current one. It is these goals that explain both the construction of the works and the problems raised in them. In their works bopp puts p / d himself 2 ch. tasks: 1) explore in detail and prove the relationship of the Indo-European. languages; 2) reveal the secret of the emergence of inflections. In 1816 coming out first job Bopp “The system of conjugation in Sanskrit in comparison with Greek, Latin, Persian. and German. yaz-mi", in which he singled out and compared the verbal inflections of the 5th Indo-European. languages, noted their similarity as evidence of the common origin of the noted languages, since. inflections are rarely borrowed from one language to another. Main Bopp's work is the three-volume Comparative Grammar of Sanskrit, Armenian, Greek, Latin, Lithuanian, Old Church Slavonic, Gothic and German. languages". Compar. Bopp's grammar is essentially a comparative morphology, since roots and inflections are at the center of observations. phonetic research. phenomena is subject to morphology, is carried out in connection with the analysis of morphological. word structures; syntax as standalone. section is missing. The basis of all scientific construction of grammar is the root theory. Depending on the characteristics of the root Bopp identifies 3 main classes of languages: 1) Languages without true roots, i.e. without roots capable of connecting, and therefore without "organism", without grammar, for example, Chinese; 2) Languages with monosyllabic roots that can be combined, and the verbal and pronominal roots are combined. In this way, these languages, and this is Indo-European. languages, get their "organism", their grammar; 3) Languages with two-syllable verbal roots, for which har-rno obligatory presence of 3 consonants that make up the root. The triconsonant root is the only carrier of the main meaning. Grammatical forms are formed by ext. root modifications. Semitic languages belong to this class. In this classification of languages, the influence of the Romantic is felt. theories Schlegel about a certain "organic period" of the formation of the language, which was characterized by an ideal correspondence of grammatical. logical forms. categories as well as ideas W. von Humboldt about language as the spirit of the people. In addition, Bopp's concept of comparative grammar was influenced by the ideas and traditions of a universal (logical) grammar. They manifested themselves primarily in the fact that, in accordance with her formula “subject-copula-predicate”, Bopp tries to find these elements of logical in the structure of each verb form. judgments. Each verbal form turned out to be a combination of a predicate - a verbal root, grammatical. bundles - the verb-binding "to be", the subject - personal endings. The theory of root classes and the theory of the decomposition of each verb form into 3 main elements in accordance with the "organic" formation of grammar. Forms served as the basis for Bopp theories of agglutination, according to which verb. forms are carriers of real meaning in words, and pronominal roots act as a source of inflection formation, are personal endings of the verb that express the subject. Thus, the merit of Bopp in development SHINING consists primarily in the selection and systematization of genetically common elements into a grammar. str-re Indo-European. languages, in building on this material a general theory, in substantiating the existence of the Indo-European. families of languages. His appeal to the analysis of Indo-European. flexion was also important for SHIN. Correspondences in the system of inflections are a guarantee of family relations of languages, because inflections are usually not borrowed, which cannot be said about the roots and words of the language.
Simultaneously with Bopp, but independently of him, he began the Middle East. study of the Indo-Hebrew Danish scientist Rasmus Christian Rusk . Rusk graduated from the University of Copenhagen. To study East. Indo-Hebrew languages committed lengthy. journey to India, visiting St. Petersburg, Moscow, the Caucasus and Persia along the way. From 1823 Rusk was a professor in Copenhag. uni. He spoke 25 languages and is the author of grammars for Spanish, Italian, Swedish and other languages. Back in 1811, he published his first work, A Guide to Icelandic, or Old North. language”, in which he opposed the logical. grammar. In 1818 Rusk published his ch. labor in the area compare. descriptions of languages “Research in the field of the ancient north. language, or the origin of the Icelandic language". In this work, the author comes to the conclusion that the Icelandic, or Old North, language originated from Thracian, which is understood as the extinct proto-language of the southeast. Europe, from it, according to Rusk, came the Greek. and lat. languages. Rusk compares Icelandic. language with Greenlandic, Celtic, Basque, Finnish and proves that m / they have no relationship (referring to the Celtic languages, he later changed his views). He finds kinship of Icelandic with Slavonic, Germanic. and Baltic. yaz-mi, presenting them as a determinant. branches within the Indo-Hebrew. language of the family. When comparing languages, Rusk suggests a clear distinction between vocabulary and grammar. He marks the first. the importance of grammar correspondences and that vocabulary, which is associated with the most necessary concepts, phenomena and objects, i.e. ancient vocabulary. Rusk counts grams. correspondence with a more reliable sign of kinship or common origin of languages, tk. when they interact, languages extremely rarely adopt declension and conjugation forms. To another criterion for establishing kinship, he attributed the presence of a number of regular sound transitions in the compared languages. Rask first drew attention to the complex of interrelated phonetic. changes associated with the formation of stop consonants in German. languages from the corresponding Indo-Heb. sounds. These regular phonetic correspondences are called the first Germanic consonant movements. Rusk also described the second movement of the German. consonants associated with the High German distinction. and Low German dialects. Unlike Bopp, Rask does not seek to restore the original forms of the compared languages in his work.
Jacob Grimm researched with the help of Wed-ist. method one language group - Germanic. Grimm was born in Ganau, studied at the jur. Faculty of Marburg University. However, his true calling became philology and literature. In 1830 he occupied the chair of German. language and literature at the University of Göttingen, since 1840 - professor at the University of Berlin. Creative. Grimm's activities were closely connected with the name of his brother - Wilhelm Grimm. The most striking is their creativity. Commonwealth expressed itself in the preparation and publication of the meeting of the people. fairy tales, later called "Tales of the Brothers Grimm". J. Grimm was also engaged in the study of medieval monuments. German liters. Both in fairy tales and in studies on literature, the ideas of romanticism characteristic of J. Grimm, which are widespread in modern times, were clearly manifested. him Germany. According to J. Grimm, a fairy tale is an expression of the spiritual life of the people: through its shell, one can penetrate into the depths of the worldview of distant ancestors. J. Grimm entered the history of linguistics as the author of the four-volume German Grammar. Essentially, this the first historical German grammar. language, based on the analysis of the yaz-th mat-la German. languages, starting with the first letters. monuments. The 1st volume of grammar is devoted mainly to phonetics, the 2nd - to morphology, the 3rd - to word formation, the 4th - mainly to syntax. In his grammar, J. Grimm sought to provide a proper place for dialects along with literary literary language, which distinguishes it from the works of F. Bopp and R. Rusk. J. Grimm considers the existence of specific languages and human beings. language in general as a constant change, improvement. History of the Indo-European language, in his opinion, shows in the development of this language a change 2 processes : 1st characterized by the occurrence of inflection from the combination of parts of words and 2nd- disintegration of flexion. Based on these provisions, J. Grimm speaks of 3 steps , periods in the development of people. language. 1st st.- creation, growth and formation of roots and words. During this period, any grammar. relationships are expressed by a simple combination of individual words. At this stage of development, the language does not leave "monuments of the spirit" (written monuments) and disappears like happy life ancient people. 2nd st. characterized by the flourishing of flexion that has reached perfection. The languages that are at this level are Sanskrit and Ancient Greek. During this period, the languages are distinguished by the completeness of forms, the language is most suitable for versification, the pr-rum of which is ancient Indian and ancient Greek, which has reached the pinnacle of art. poetry. 3rd st. language development - the desire for clarity of thought, which leads to analyticity and the rejection of inflection. This period of language development is represented by modern. languages of India, Persian, Modern Greek, Romansk. yaz-mi, and, to a lesser extent, Germanic. languages. In the marked languages "int. the strength and flexibility of flexion" has largely been lost. TO main merit of J. Grimm in the development of SIYaya include the identification of patterns of sound transitions: the 1st movement of consonants in German. languages, distinguishing them from other Indo-Hebrew. languages, and the 2nd movement of consonants, which underlies the difference between High German. dialects from Low German. and accordingly German. language from the rest of the germs. languages. These patterns of sound transitions were formulated by Grim independently of Rusk, which is why they are sometimes called the Rusk-Grimm law. According to the first law of movement of consonants: a) Indo-European. voiceless plosive p,t,k, in germ. yaz-ah correspond to voiceless fricatives f, th,h; b) Indo-European / voiced aspirated bh,dh,gh-voiced non-aspirated b,d,g; c) Indo-Hebrew. voiced plosive b,d,g- germ. voiceless plosives p,t,k. The laws of movement of consonants were another step towards the transformation of linguistics into an exact science.
OH. East (pseudo; real name Ostenek) refers to the founders of the Middle East. method in Slavonic. yaz-vom mat-ale. Born in the Estonian city of Ahrensburg, now Kingisepp. East from young years was fond of literature, collected folk songs, proverbs, studied Russian. dialects. He studied in St. Petersburg in the Cadet Corps, then at the Academy of Arts. Since 1826 was a member of the Ros. Academy, in 1841 he was elected an academician of Petersburg. Academy of Sciences. The main works of Vostokov, in which the language is studied in the East. and compare. aspects, the following: “Discourse on Slavic. language", "Rus. Grammar”, “Church Slavonic Dictionary. language”, etc. When comparing languages and establishing the degree of their relationship, according to Vostokov, it is necessary to divide all words into “ first class", or "preeminent", and " second class', or 'minor'. To the first belong the words (substances and adjectives) denoting h-ka, parts of his body, kinship. connections, the main objects of nature (sky, earth, water, etc.) and the qualities attributed to them, and also counts. and pronouns, prepositions, conjunctions, nek. verbs, interjections. These words belong to the most ancient, non-borrowed vocabulary in each language, which, if they coincide in different languages x can serve as a sure proof of the relationship of these languages. The “second-class” words of the Vostokov include the names of tools, crafts, arts, etc., which peoples most often borrow from each other, so the similarity of such words in the compared languages is not yet proof of their relationship. In his works, Vostokov for the first time made a distinction between Old Slavonic, Old Russian. and Russian languages, established their relationship to Polish. and Serbian. In the study of Old Slavonic. monuments of the Vostoks revealed the meaning of small and large yuses, showed their correspondences (nasal vowels) in Polish. language. On the pr-re of the development of Proto-Slavic combinations tj, dj, kt before the front vowels, he characterized the sound correspondences in kinships. yaz-ah and showed the development of combinations in different languages and dialects from one supposed form to modern. facts.
Thus, with the development of SHIN, a Wed-Hist. method language learning, the most important features of which were: 1) establishing the similarity of inflections (especially personal endings of verbs), inflectional indicators of the compared languages; 2) revealing the commonality of certain layers (the most ancient) of vocabulary; 3) establishment of regular sound correspondences (transitions).
Further development of SHIN in the 19th century. associated with the names of major comparativists A.F. potta, A. Schleicher, I. Schmidt, F.I. Buslaeva and other scientists. They refine and improve research techniques, expand the scientific problems of comparative studies. So, A. Schleicher creates a theory family tree, in which the leading role is played by the concept of a proto-language, or an ancestor language. Languages emerge from the parent language, which form a linguistic genus, or a linguistic tree, dividing into language families, or language branches. The theory of A. Schleicher had a huge impact on the development of SHIN, its echoes are felt in a number of modern. research. One of the most significant results comparative studies- Creation of genealogy classification of the languages of the world. Modern Siyae and his recent achievements largely characterized by the discovery of new language materials, the expansion of the subject and methods of research.
INTRODUCTION.
The Grammar of Port-Royal is one of the most significant and famous texts of the world's linguo-philological heritage.
This small book, first published in Paris in 1660, served as a turning point in the development of European linguistic thought.
The authors of the grammar are the outstanding logician and philosopher-Jansenist A. Arno and the remarkable grammarian Kl. Lanslow managed in a concise, almost aphoristic form to set out the foundations of a new approach to grammar. This approach is based on the analysis of the language from the standpoint of "mind", its capabilities and basic "operations"
(hence the definition of grammar as "rational"). The rational aspect of the language reflects, according to the authors of Port-Royal, what is common in the structure of all languages
(hence the definition of grammar as "general"). The grammar of Port-Royal marked the beginning of the tradition of "grammatical science" and, following its model in Europe in the XVIII early XIX V. many European and non-European languages have been described. This model was widely introduced into school teaching. As a philosophical and logical-linguistic work, Grammar has not lost its significance even today.
It is of interest to linguists of all profiles, philosophers, logicians, historians of science and culture, philologists.
HISTORICAL PREREQUISITES FOR THE CREATION OF THE "PORT-ROYAL GRAMMAR".
After Thomas of Erfurt for about two centuries theoretical approach to the language has not received significant development. However, it was precisely at this time that a new view of languages was gradually emerging, which ultimately singled out the European linguistic tradition from all the others. There was an idea about the plurality of languages and the possibility of their comparison.
Of course, the fact that there are many languages has always been known, and there have been isolated attempts to compare languages. However, as noted above, each of the linguistic traditions was explicitly or implicitly based on observations of a single language, which was always the language of the corresponding cultural tradition. It was possible to reorient from one language to another, as was the case in Ancient Rome and in Japan, it was possible, especially at an early stage in the development of a tradition, to transfer the categories of another, previously described language into the language of one’s culture, but the formation of a tradition or even its variant was always accompanied by a closure in the study of one language. IN medieval Europe the Greek and Latin versions of the tradition almost did not come into contact with each other. IN Western Europe even in the 13th-14th centuries, when developed writing already existed in a number of languages, Latin was still considered the only worthy object of study. Isolated exceptions, such as Icelandic phonetic treatises, were rare.
The situation began to change in some countries from the 15th century, in others from the 16th century. By this time, the period of feudal fragmentation had ended in a number of states, and the formation of centralized states was underway. Writing was actively developing in many languages, both business and literary texts, including works by such prominent authors as Dante, F. Petrarch, J. Chaucer. The further, the more spread the idea that Latin is not the only language of culture.
The national and linguistic situation in late medieval Europe had two features that influenced the development of further ideas about the language. Firstly, Western Europe did not constitute a single state, but was a multitude of states, where in most cases they spoke different languages. Moreover, among these states there was not a single one that could claim dominance (as in the past the Roman Empire and the short-lived empire of Charlemagne). For this reason alone, no language could be perceived as as universal as Latin. French for German or German for French were foreign languages, and not the languages of a dominant state or a higher culture. Even in England, where in the XI-XV centuries. the language of the nobility was French, then finally won English language, which included many French borrowings.
Secondly, all the main languages of Western Europe were genetically related, belonging to two groups Indo-European family- Romance and Germanic, and typologically quite close, having, in particular, similar systems of parts of speech and grammatical categories. From this, quite naturally, the idea arose about the fundamental similarity of languages, which have only partial differences from each other. Instead of the idea of Latin as the only language of culture, the idea arose of several languages approximately equal in meaning and similar to each other: French, Spanish, Italian, German, English, etc.
In addition to this main factor, there were two additional ones. Although in the Middle Ages they knew by hearsay about the existence, in addition to Latin, of two more great languages: Ancient Greek and Hebrew, but very few actually knew these languages, and in modern terms, they were almost not included in the database for Western European language science. Now, in the era of humanism, these two languages began to be actively studied, and their features were taken into account, and the rather large typological differences between the Hebrew language and European languages expanded scientists' ideas about what languages are. Another factor was the so-called great geographical discoveries and the strengthening of trade relations with the countries of the East.
Europeans had to deal with the languages of other peoples, the existence of which they did not suspect. It was necessary to communicate with native speakers of these languages, and the task was to convert them to Christianity. And already in the XVI century. the first missionary grammars of "exotic" languages, including Indian ones, appear. At that time, however, European scientific thought was not yet ready for an adequate understanding of the features of the structure of such languages. Missionary grammars both then and later, up to the 20th century. described these languages exclusively in European terms, and theoretical grammars like Por-
The piano did not take into account or almost did not take into account the material of such languages.
Much more important for the development of the European tradition and its transformation into the science of language was played by the first grammars of the new Western languages. Spanish grammars and Italian appeared from the 15th century, French, English and German - from the 16th century. At first, some of them were written in Latin, but gradually, in such grammars, the languages described simultaneously became the languages in which they were written. These grammars had an educational focus. The task was to form and consolidate the norms of these languages, especially important after the invention in the 15th century. typography. Grammars simultaneously formulated the rules of the language and contained educational material to learn these rules. At the same time, lexicography, which previously constituted a backward part of the European tradition, was actively developed. If earlier glosses prevailed, now, in connection with the task of creating norms for new languages, fairly complete normative dictionaries are being created. In connection with the preparation of such a dictionary for French in 1634 the French Academy was created, which exists to this day; it became the center of language normalization in the country.
Previously, a single Western European tradition began to be divided into national branches. At first, until about the end of the 17th century, language studies were most actively developed in the Romance countries. In the XVI century. after a break, the theory of language begins to develop again. Outstanding French scientist Pierre de la Rama (Ramus) (1515-1672, killed in
St. Bartholomew's Night) completed the creation of the conceptual apparatus and terminology of syntax, begun by modists; it is he who owns the system of sentence members that has survived to this day. The theoretical grammar, written in Latin, but already taking into account the material of various languages, was created by F. Sanchez
(Sanctius) (1550-1610) in Spain at the end of the 16th century. He already contains many ideas, later reflected in the grammar of Port-Royal.
In the 17th century the search for the universal properties of the language is being carried out even more actively, especially since the expansion of interstate ties and the difficulties associated with the translation process revived the idea of creating " world language”, common to all, and in order to create it, it was necessary to identify the properties that real languages. The development of universal grammars was also influenced by the intellectual climate of the era, in particular, the popularity of the rationalistic philosophy of Rene Descartes (Cartesia) (1596-1650), although the name “Cartesian grammars” known thanks to N. Chomsky in relation to the grammar of Port-Royal and others like it is not entirely accurate. , since many "Cartesian" ideas were present in F. Sanchez and others even before R.
Descartes.
Linguistics of the 17th century Basically, it went in the field of theory in two ways: deductive (construction of artificial languages) and inductive, associated with an attempt to identify the general properties of really existing languages. Not the first, but the most famous and popular example of the inductive approach was the so-called Port Royal Grammar, first published in 1660 without the names of its authors Antoine Arnaud (1612-1694) and Claude Lanslo (1615-1695).
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PORT-ROYAL GRAMMAR.
The "Grammar of Port-Royal" entered the history of science under a title not belonging to the authors ("Grammar General and Rational" - the beginning of a very long original title). The convent of Por-Rho in those years was the center of advanced thought, it was connected with it by a circle of scientists, which included the authors of the grammar. The book was the result of the commonwealth of two specialists of different professions. A. Arno was a logician and philosopher, co-author of a well-known book on logic, and K. Lanslo was one of the first professional linguists in France, a teacher of languages and an author of grammars; in particular, he was the first in France to teach Latin as a foreign language, with explanations in French. This combination made it possible to explain the high theoreticalness for that time with a fairly good knowledge of the material of several languages.
The authors of the grammar considered insufficient a purely descriptive approach to the language and sought to create an explanatory grammar, it said that the impetus for writing it was "the path of reasonable explanations of many phenomena, either common to all languages, or inherent only in some of them."
In general, the explanatory approach prevails over the descriptive and normative approach in the book. However, a number of sections devoted to the French language contain normative rules. By 1660, the norms of the French language were in general terms formed, but many details were still unpolished. However, the significance of Port-Royal Grammar is primarily not in precepts, but in the explanation of previously described phenomena of language.
The authors of the grammar proceeded from the existence of a common logical basis for languages, from which specific languages deviate to some extent. In itself, such an idea was in the 17th century. not new and went back to modists. This idea for A. Arno and K. Lanslo was so convincing that it did not require special proof. For example, grammar speaks of "natural word order" without evidence of the existence of such an order, and without even describing it (although it is enough that "natural" for them, as well as for modists, was the order "subject - predicate - object").
The authors of the Port-Royal Grammar differed from the modists not so much in the very idea of the basis of languages, but in the understanding of what this basis represents. The modists, speaking modern language, the correspondence between surface and deep structures turned out to be one-to-one, or at least very close to it. They tried to attribute a philosophical meaning to every phenomenon recorded in Priscian's grammar. In this grammar, this is no longer, primarily due to the expansion of the empirical base. If the modists proceeded from one Latin, then here in almost every chapter two languages are considered: Latin and French, Spanish, Italian, Ancient Greek and Hebrew are also quite often mentioned, and occasionally we are talking about the “northern”, that is, Germanic, and about “ Eastern" languages; what is meant in the latter case is not entirely clear. From a modern point of view, the number of languages is small, but compared to the previous time, this was a major step forward.
Orientation to the Latin standard has not yet been completely overcome in grammar, which is especially noticeable in the section on cases and prepositions. Although it is said that “of all languages, only Greek and Latin have cases of names in the full sense of the word,” but the Latin case system is taken as the standard, it is she who is recognized as “logical”. IN ancient Greek, where there is one less case compared to Latin, it is proposed to assume that the missing ablative "is also present in Greek names, although it always coincides with the dative". For the French language, the expression of certain “deep” cases is seen in the use of prepositions or the omission of the article. More difficult case make up adjectives for A. Arno and K. Lanslo. In Latin grammars, it was customary to consider nouns and adjectives as one part of speech - a name, but for French and other new languages
In Europe, these two classes had to be distinguished, a compromise approach was adopted in grammar: one part of speech is distinguished - the name - with two subclasses. Such an interpretation is also projected onto semantics:
"clear" meanings separating nouns and adjectives, and
"vague" meanings common to them: the words red and redness have in common
"vague" meaning and different - "clear". The introduction of “clear” meanings indicates a departure from the Latin standard, the introduction of “vague” ones indicates its partial preservation (however, there is another interpretation, according to which the separation of two types of meanings has a deep philosophical meaning).
However, in a number of other points, the authors of the grammar decisively depart from the Latin standard in favor of the French one. This is especially evident in connection with the article: “There were no articles at all in Latin. It was the absence of the article that led to the assertion ... that this particle was useless, although, I think, it would be very useful in order to make speech clearer and avoid numerous ambiguities. And further: “Everyday life does not always agree with the mind. Therefore, in Greek, the article is often used with proper names, even with the names of people ... In Italians, this use has become common ... We never put the article before proper names denoting people. So, it turns out that among “we”, the French, in this case, “everyday life is consistent with reason”, while other peoples do not. The authors come from the French language and speak of names with a preposition corresponding to "optional" adverbs in Latin, in some other cases.
Reference structures corresponding to "mind" are in most cases constructed on the basis of either Latin or French. But in principle, any languages up to “Eastern” can play this role, as it is said where the rationality of the coincidence of the form of the third person with the stem of the verb is recognized. The authors, apparently, proceed from some a priori and not directly formulated ideas about "logicality" and
"rationality", but in each case they take some real structures of one of the languages known to them (sometimes, as with adjectives, from a contamination of the structures of two languages)
However, there are cases when A. Arno and K. Lanslo digress from the peculiarities of specific languages and approach semantic analysis. Here, the most important are the sections devoted to relatively peripheral issues: relative pronouns, adverbs, ellipsis, etc. One of the most famous places in the book is a fragment of the section on relative pronouns, where the phrase is analyzed: Dieu invisible a crui le monde visible “The invisible god created visible world". Regarding him, A. Arno and K.
Lanslo writes: “Three judgments contained in this sentence pass through my mind. For I affirm: 1) that God is invisible; 2) that he created the world, 3) that the world is visible. Of these three sentences, the second is the main and main, while the first and third are subordinate ... included in the main as its constituent parts; the first sentence being part of the subject, and the last part of the attribute of that sentence. So, similar subordinate clauses are present only in our minds, but are not expressed in words, as in the proposed example. But often we express these sentences in speech. That's what the relative pronoun is for.
If we ignore the terms archaic for our era like "judgment", such a statement seems very modern. The authors of the Port-Royal Grammar clearly distinguish here the formal and semantic structure, which the modists did not actually distinguish, but even many linguists of the 19th and 20th centuries did not always clearly distinguish. Starting from an explanation of the superficial phenomena of the French language (in this section of grammar, only one language is discussed), he proceeds to describe their semantics, which have no direct formal correspondences. Back in the 17th century. they came to the same conclusions as many modern linguists. However, as already mentioned, more often in grammar
The "logical" and in fact the semantic structure corresponds to some surface structure of this or that language.
In some other places of the book, the synonymy of linguistic expressions is discussed, of which one is recognized as more consistent with logic (although it is not always clear whether it is a complete correspondence), and the other can be used instead for the "desire of people to shorten speech" or "for the elegance of speech ". More often in these cases, the phenomena of the French language are taken as the standard. However, the synonymy of some original and non-original expressions was discussed long before the 17th century: one can point to the phenomenon of ellipsis, which has been considered so since antiquity.
Of course, A. Arno and K. Lanslo did not have a clear idea of where their “rational basis of grammar” of all languages comes from. But it is impossible to the authors of the XVII century. make the same demands as for linguists of the 20th century. The very idea of establishing common properties human languages, based on their fundamental equality (even if in reality such properties turn out to be strongly romanized), was an important milestone in the development of linguistic ideas.
CONCLUSION.
The fate of the Port-Royal Grammar was very difficult. At first, she became very popular and was considered exemplary in France until late XVIII- start
XIX century., She was known outside of France. Authors of subsequent
"logical" and "rational" grammarians imitated her. However, after the formation of a new, comparative-historical scientific paradigm, precisely because of its fame, it began to be perceived as an example of “thinking, a priori, childish”, in the words of I. A. Baudouin de Courtenay, a trend in linguistics that squeezes language into logical schemes; often she was also credited with what she was directed against: strict adherence to the Latin standard. The situation did not change in the first half of the 20th century. Among its critics were many prominent scientists: I. A. Baudouin de Courtenay, L.
Bloomfield, C. Hockett and others, who often judged her second hand. By this time, the empirical base of general linguistics had greatly expanded, and
Port-Royal Grammar came to be seen as too obviously confusing the universal properties of the language with the peculiarities of the Romance languages.
A new interest in the book arose in the 60s. 20th century In many ways, N. Chomsky played a role here, declaring its authors to be his predecessors. His opponents rightly point out that he greatly modernized the ideas of grammar and considered it outside the historical context, however, there is indeed much in the book, primarily the idea of common to all languages.
"structures of thought", turned out to be consonant with Chomskyian linguistics. However, the revival of interest in Port-Royal Grammar cannot be reduced only to the authority of N. Chomsky. In the mid 60s. its analysis and commenting were independently taken up by several specialists at once, and N.
Chomsky was just one of them. The "rehabilitation" of the book was connected with the general trends in the world development of linguistics. One of her commentators,
R. Lakoff rightly called Port-Royal's Grammar "an old grammar that had a bad reputation among linguists for a long time, but has recently restored the prestige that it had in its time."
Let us note one more feature of Port-Royal Grammar, which also influenced its further reputation. Like the linguistic writings of the previous time, it was purely synchronic, the "Rational basis" of all languages is considered as something unchanging, and the factor historical development just not included in the concept. Latin and French are considered in the book as two different languages, and not as an ancestor and a descendant language (however, the origin of French from Latin was not as obvious then as it is now).
It should be noted that the deductive approach to language, mentioned above and reflected in attempts to construct an artificial “ideal language”, has long been popular. Many of the greatest thinkers of the 17th century showed interest in it: F. Bacon, R. Descartes, I. Newton, etc. However, when the idea of creating a world language faded into the background (which happened already with early XVIII c.), all the projects mentioned were forgotten. In particular, the project I.
Newton, which remained in the manuscript, was first published in the original only in 1957. The fate of all this kind of research turned out to be much worse than the fate of the Grammar of Por-
Piano"
LIST OF USED LITERATURE.
1. Alpatov V. M. “Port-Royal grammar” and modern linguistics (To the publication of Russian editions) // Questions of Linguistics, 1992, No. 2, p. 57-68.
2. Grammar general and rational Port-Royal.-M.: Progress, 1990.
The origins of grammar as a science
- · Modern methods grammars originate in the Indian linguistic tradition (in the works of Panini in the middle of the 1st millennium BC).
- The system of concepts and categories of modern grammar, up to the terminology (names of parts of speech, cases, etc.), goes back to the ancient linguistic tradition (Greeks - Aristotle, Stoics, Alexandrian school; Romans - Varro (116-27 BC) . e.).
- · In the Middle Ages - one of the seven liberal arts. Being both descriptive and normative, it includes the study of the texts of the classics and a certain understanding of the language; the language identified with Latin appears as a potentially eternal form, directly related to the mechanisms of thought.
- · Greco-Roman grammatical theory through Late Latin grammar (Donat, Priscian) was assimilated by European philologists of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment (for example, the first Church Slavonic grammars - 1591, 1596); at the same time, the concepts and categories of Latin grammar were transferred to the grammars of new languages.
- · In the 17th-18th centuries. there is a significant increase in interest in the logical-philosophical foundations of the theory of grammar (the problem of "universal" or "universal" grammar.).
- · The development of typological research and the creation of the first morphological classifications of the world's languages (beginning of the 19th century) gave impetus to the creation of differentiated conceptual systems for describing languages of different systems; systematic work in this direction was started by H. Steinthal and continued by the neogrammarists.
- The idea of "emancipation" of the grammar of new languages from the Latin-Greek grammatical tradition penetrated into the descriptive grammars of specific languages only at the beginning of the 20th century.
- · The main lines of development of grammar in the 20th century. concerned not so much the methodology of describing specific languages as the problems of grammar theory.
Linguistics originated in ancient times. The emergence of primary knowledge about the structure of the language is associated with the emergence of writing.
Linguistic thought begins to form in the Middle East (3 - 1 thousand BC): Egypt, Sumer and Babylonia, the Hittite kingdom, Phenicia, Ugarit, etc. Here, at the turn of 4 - 3 thousand BC. Egyptian and Sumerian-Akkadian writing arose. These graphic systems initially used ideographic and then verbal-syllabic principles. Among the Western Semites (Byblos, Ugarit, Phoenicia) by the middle of the 2nd millennium BC. formed an alphabetic script. His principles formed the basis of many graphic systems, up to the systems of Indian writing in the East. The Phoenician (Canaanite) alphabet was the prototype of the Greek script, the signs of which were subsequently used in Etruscan, Latin, Coptic, Gothic, Slavic, etc. letter.
The actual theoretical approach to the language in the East is formed and reaches a high degree of development in ancient China, ancient india and the Arab Caliphate.
The Chinese, Indian and later Arabic linguistic traditions influenced to varying degrees the formation of their own traditions in Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Burma, Tibet, Indonesia and Malaysia, Iran, the states of Central Asia, etc. The ideas of European linguistics penetrated these countries relatively late, but at present they have a serious influence on national linguistic schools.
Greco-Roman linguistic tradition as the foremother of European linguistics
In Europe, linguistic knowledge arises in ancient greece, and then continues to be developed in Rome. The problems of language were first discussed from the point of view of philosophy: disputes about the origin of names, the meaning of which is revealed in the dialogue "Cratylus" by Plato (5th-4th centuries BC). This is where the original systems were formed. grammatical concepts, among which the most developed were the system of Aristotle (4th century BC) and the system of the Stoic school (3rd-1st centuries BC).
Grammar itself, as an analogue of modern linguistics, emerged in the Hellenistic period. Its highest achievements were the grammatical works of representatives of the Alexandrian school(from the end of the 4th century BC), especially Dionysius the Thracian (170-90 BC) and Apollonius Diskol (2nd century AD). Grammar was understood as an art. She was responsible for the rules of reading and stress, the classification of consonants and vowels, the structure of the syllable, the definitions of words and sentences, the classification of parts of speech, the categories of names and verbs, nominal and verbal word formation, the features of Greek dialects, and Apollonius Diskol, in addition, methods combining words into sentences. The Alexandrians were supporters of the principle of analogy, i.e. they believed that regularity prevailed in the language, while the supporters of the anomaly principle preferred randomness.
The traditions of the Alexandrian school were continued in Rome.
The Greco-Roman (ancient, Mediterranean) linguistic tradition subsequently became the foundation of European linguistic thought.
Linguistics of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance
European linguistics of the Middle Ages and subsequent periods had to solve the problems of creating writing in native languages. In the West, writing systems were formed through a gradual, mostly spontaneous adaptation of Latin characters to the sound systems of their languages. In the East, in the sphere of influence of Byzantium, original alphabets were invented, which had the Greek letter as their main prototype.
At the end of the 14th - beginning of the 16th centuries. made a significant contribution to the study of grammatical meanings milliners. The grammar of modists, whose central concept was the means of designation, was the first theory of language in the European linguistic tradition.
With the intensification of interest in national languages, the first grammars of many European, as well as a number of non-European languages, began to appear. It became necessary to organize this material, and numerous attempts were made to classify languages on the basis of their typological similarities and alleged family ties.
Linguistics 19th century
In linguistic comparativeism, the leading role from the very beginning belonged to comparative historical linguistics, which created in the first half of the 19th century. its own research method, which provides reliable evidence kinship of languages and allows for the reconstruction of the parent language underlying them, as well as to trace the history of the languages ascending to it. The creators of this method were Rasmus Christian Rask, Franz Bopp, Jakob Grimm, Alexander Khristoforovich Vostokov. Already on the initial stage phonetic was formulated Grimm law. It recorded regular sound correspondences between Germanic and other Indo-European languages (first consonant shift) and between High German and other Germanic languages (second consonant shift).
The comparative historical method was substantially improved in the middle of the 19th century. in the works of August Schleicher, Georg Kurzius and others, at the end of the 19th century. and at the beginning of the 20th century. in the writings of representatives of the so-called neogrammatism, in the studies of representatives of the Moscow linguistic formal school, created by Philip Fedorovich Fortunatov, in the works of the founders of the method of linguistic geography (Georg Wenker, Ferdinand Wrede, Jules Gillieron, Edmond Edmond - Edmond Edmond), etc.
Science in the 19th century the historical (genetic) approach to language was firmly established.
Numerous hypotheses are currently put forward about the presence of genetic links between certain families of languages (the hypotheses are Altaic, Ural-Altaic, Boreal, Nostratic, etc.).
At the same time, it developed typological linguistics(brothers Friedrich Wilhelm von Schlegel and August von Schlegel, Wilhelm von Humboldt, August Schleicher and others), which rose in the 20th century. on new stage(Edward Sapir, Joseph Greenberg, etc.).
During the medieval period, in understanding the nature of language, a logical approach was asserted, dating back to ancient thinkers, according to which it seemed that all the languages of the world were arranged according to one universal scheme, coinciding in terms of meaning (plan of content) and diverging, first of all, in their sound. organization (expression plane). This idea was most clearly embodied in "The General and Rational Grammar of Port-Royal / Port-Royal"(1660; Antoine Arnaud - Antoine Arnauld, Claude Lanslo - Claude Lancelot).
Ideologically dominant in linguistics at the end of the 19th century. and the beginning of the 20th century. direction was neogrammatism. The nature of language was explained by the laws of the individual psyche and physiology. A physiological explanation was given to phonetic laws that knew no exceptions; psychology was relied upon in interpreting the mechanism of alignments by analogy. Only the historical approach to language was recognized as scientific. The language was rather understood not as a system, but as a conglomerate. Many of these principles in the late 19th - early 20th centuries. were criticized by a large number of linguists, among which Ivan Alexandrovich Baudouin de Courtenay and his student Nikolai Vyacheslavovich Krushevsky, Philip Fedorovich Fortunatov and Ferdinand de Saussure should be mentioned.
The development of linguistics in the 20th century. Hugo Schuchhardt, Karl Vossler, Italian neolinguists, Antoine Meillet, and others raised serious objections against the neogrammarists. I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay (1845 -1929), his student in Kazan N.V. Krushevsky (1851-1887), head of the Moscow linguistic school F.F. Fortunatov (1848-1914) and Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913), who had gone through a scientific school with the young grammarians, who taught first in Paris and then at home in Geneva, had the mission to lay theoretical basis of that direction in linguistics of the 20th century, which is known under the name structuralism and which in the 30-60s. turned out to be almost undividedly dominant in world science.
The new research principles were most clearly stated in "Course of General Linguistics" F. de Saussure. The book gained worldwide fame, was translated into many languages, and reprinted many times.
Linguistics of the 20th century in line with structuralist approach Attempts were made to abandon the appeal to other sciences in order to explain the specifics of natural human language and to interpret language as a special phenomenon that has no analogues, exceptional in nature, as a sign system developing and functioning according to its own laws.
Over the past few decades, many laws of the era of linguistic structuralism have been revised.
In modern world linguistics, it is practically the leader European (and now European-American) tradition. It relies primarily on the ancient (Greco-Roman) tradition and the achievements of European linguistic thought of the Middle Ages, the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, but at the same time it took a lot from the Arabic and Indian traditions, significantly expanded its understanding of the structure of the language thanks to latest research in the field of typology of languages and linguistic universology, acquaintance with a variety of languages of a very different system.
The latest linguistics is equally interested in both the internal structure of the language and the influence on it of the environment in which it functions and develops. language system(person, ethnos, society).
The latest linguistics seeks to solve both empirical problems (description of individual specific languages of the world), and linguo-philosophical and theoretical tasks(explaining the essential properties of human language in general; revealing the general laws of the structure, functioning and development of the languages of the world).
Linguo-philosophical and grammatical thought in ancient Greece
Attempts to comprehend the meaning of words are noted, starting with Homer and Hesiod. Etymology turns out to be the first manifestation of reflection on language in the history of Greek linguo-philosophical thought. Initially, the belief in the presence of an inextricable, natural connection between the word and the object it denotes, rooted in mythological thinking, dominated. The Greeks believed that every object had two names - in the language of the gods and in the language of mortals. In 5th century philosophy BC. statements about a purely conditional connection between an object and its name begin to be put forward.
There was a high interest in the practical aspects of using the language. In the 5th c. BC. the science of oratory is born - rhetoric. The main method of teaching the language during this period was the reading of classical and already obsolete poetic texts with their commentary.
Linguistic classes were characterized by isolation on the material only Greek characteristic of further stages in the development of ancient linguistic thought.
The main topic of debate among ancient Greek philosophers is the nature of the connection between the word and the object (between the supporters of the principle of naming physei "by nature" and the principle of nomo "by law" or thesei "by establishment").
The most valuable contribution to the development of the philosophy of language and introduced Plato (420-347 BC) into the theory of language. He owns the most interesting for the history of linguistic thought dialogue "Cratyl", in which the central place is occupied by the question of the relationship between a thing and its name. In the dialogue, Plato confronts the positions of Cratylus (a supporter of the correctness of names from nature) and Hermogenes (preaching a contract and an agreement), involving Socrates as a judge (whose mouth Plato himself speaks, expressing many conflicting opinions and not fully accepting any point of view). Plato recognizes not direct, but distant connections between a word and an object, and allows the possibility of using names out of habit and agreement.
He opens the concept of the internal form (motivation) of a word, distinguishing between non-derivative (non-motivated) and derivative (motivated) words. He owns the idea of an association between the individual sounds of a word and the qualities and properties of things (the idea of sound symbolism).
Plato distinguishes between a word and a sentence ("the smallest speech"). The statement is considered as a complex whole that serves as a verbal expression of a judgment. For the first time, two of its components are distinguished - the subject and the predicate (their verbal expressions are onoma and rhema).
The true founder of the ancient linguistic tradition was another prominent thinker of antiquity , Aristotle(387-322 BC). He addresses the problems of language mainly in essays on judgment, types of inferences, and problems of verbal arts. Aristotle defends the conditional connection between a thing and its name, as well as between a word and the representation to which the word corresponds, between sounds and letters. At the same time, he warns of the danger of abuse of words arising from their ambiguity (this includes both homonymy and polysemy). He draws attention to the phenomena of paronymy and homonymy as types of connection between names.
Aristotle was the first to explore the types of connection between meanings within a polysemic word, as well as the polysemy of cases and other grammatical forms. He makes a statement about the correspondence of the meaning of extralinguistic reality.
The sounds of speech are shared by them into vowels, semivowels and voiceless. He adds a number of articulatory features to Platonic acoustic features. A distinction is made between the types of stress (acute and medium / "clothed"). A syllable is defined not as a simple combination of sounds, but as a qualitatively new formation.
Aristotle distinguishes between three "parts of verbal presentation": the sound of speech, the syllable, and words of different categories. He distinguishes four categories of words ( names, verbs, conjunctions and pronouns along with prepositions).
A significant contribution to the formation of the foundations of linguistic theory was made by philosophers Hellenistic period (3-1 centuries BC), especially representatives of the Stoic school (Zeno, Chrysippus, Diogenes of Babylon). Stoics were predominantly philosophers and logicians, but they developed their teachings on the basis of linguistic material (and especially the phenomena of grammatical semantics). In the structure of the sentence and in the classes of words, they were looking for a reflection of the real world. From this followed their recognition of the “natural” connection between a thing and its name and their passion for etymological analysis. The meanings of "secondary" words were explained by connections in the objective world. The Stoics developed the first typology of name transfer in the history of language science (transfer by similarity, contiguity, contrast).
In a speech act, they distinguished between “signifying” (the sound of human speech) and “signified”, otherwise “expressed”, i.e. the semantic side of speech, which lies between sound and thought.
Stoics seriously advanced (compared to Plato and Aristotle) in the development of the doctrine of parts of speech (of the order of five or six), in the doctrine of the cases of the name (inclusion of the original / nominative in the number of cases, limiting the concept of case only to the sphere of the name). They created designations for cases, which were subsequently skalked in Latin grammar, and through it in the grammars of many European languages. They developed the doctrine of the tenses of the verb.
Stoics a classification of statements (complete and incomplete) was proposed. The concepts of a verb (rhema) and a predicate predicate (kategorema) were distinguished. The distinction was made between simple and compound sentence. A careful classification of compound sentences has been put forward.
Alexandrian grammar school. The grammar of that time is essentially an analogue of modern descriptive linguistics. In the struggle against the supporters of the principle of anomaly, the Alexandrians actively defend the principle of analogy as the basis of descriptive-classifying and normalizing activity.
The flowering of lexicography is also associated with their activities. Prominent lexicographers of the Hellenistic period were Zenodotus of Ephesus, Aristophanes of Byzantium, Apollodorus of Athens, Pamphilus, Diogenianus.
Alexandrians traced linguistic regularities in classical texts, trying to separate the correct forms from the incorrect ones and putting forward the principle of analogy on this basis (Aristophanes of Byzantium, Aristarchus of Samothrace, especially authoritative in linguistic problems). They develop in detail the paradigms of declension and conjugation.
The first systematic grammar in European science ("Techne grammatike" "Grammatic Art") was created in the Alexandrian school by a student of Aristarchus Dionysius Thracian (170-90 BC). This work defines the subject and tasks of grammar, provides information about the rules of reading and stress, punctuation, classifies consonants and vowels, characterizes syllables, formulates word and sentence definitions, classifies parts of speech (8 classes, identified mainly on a morphological basis). , taking into account only in some cases syntactic and semantic criteria). The author describes in detail the categories of the name and the verb, provides information about the word formation of names and verbs. He distinguishes between the article and the pronoun, distinguishes the preposition and adverb into independent parts of speech, classifies adverbs in detail, including particles, interjections, verbal adjectives. Most of the concepts are illustrated with examples.
Philosophy of language and linguistics in ancient Rome
Grammar as an independent science arises in Rome in the middle of the 2nd century. BC. in connection with the urgent need for critical publications and commenting on many texts of an artistic, legal, historical, religious nature. A good acquaintance with Greek science, culture, literature, rhetoric and philosophy, knowledge of the Greek language by many Romans, lectures and conversations of the theorist of the Pergamon school, Crates of Malos, had a significant influence on the formation of Roman grammar. Huge contribution the outstanding grammarians Aelius Stilon, Aurelius Opillus, Staberius Eros, Antony Gniphon, Atheus Pretextatus, especially Mark Terentius Varro and Nigidius Figulus, contributed to its development.
Discussions about anomalies and analogies (in the spirit of the disputes that took place between Pergamum and Alexandria), about the origin of language, about the “natural” or “conditional” connection of words and the objects they designate, were transferred to Rome from Hellenistic Greece.
A special place in Roman linguistics is occupied by the greatest scientist Mark Terentius Varro (116-27 BC). He owns the treatises “On the Latin Language”, “On Latin Speech”, “On the Similarity of Words”, “On the Usefulness of Speech”, “On the Origin of Latin”, “On the antiquity of letters”, a grammatical volume of the nine-volume encyclopedic work “Science”.
Varro relies in his etymological quest on the views of the Stoics (the "natural" connection of the word with the subject). He distinguishes four classes of things and four classes of words to be analyzed. Varro discovers the phenomenon of rotacism. For etymological purposes, he also draws on dialect material.
Declension (declinatio) is understood as the unity of inflection and word formation. Varro is convinced of the necessity and "usefulness" of declension for any language. He distinguishes between natural declension (inflection), based on "general agreement" and the law of analogy, and arbitrary (word formation), where the will of individuals prevails and anomaly reigns.
For the first time, the original form of the name (nominative case) and the original form of the verb (the first person singular of the present tense in the indicative mood of the active voice) are distinguished. There are words inflected (changeable) and indeclinable (invariable). Based on morphological features, four parts of speech are distinguished: names, verbs, participles, adverbs.
In the last century of the Republic, many writers, public and statesmen(Lucius Shares, Gaius Lucilius, Mark Tullius Cicero, Gaius Julius Caesar, Titus Lucretius Car). In the last decades of the Republic and the first decades of the Empire, the literary Latin language (classical Latin) was formed.
The grammarians of this period (Verrius Flaccus, Sextus Pompeius Festus, Quintus Remmius Palemon) are active in studying the language of writers of the preclassical period, compiling the first large dictionaries and large grammars of the Latin language. Programs for the normalization of the Latin language, proposed by Pliny the Elder and Mark Fabius Quintillian, are compiled and discussed. In the second half of the 1st c. AD in linguistics is formed archaic direction(Mark Valery Prob, Terentius Skaurus, Flavius Capr, Cecellius Vindex, Velius Long). In the 2nd century work is underway to comment on the language of works fiction. There are works on the history of Roman linguistics in the 2nd century. BC. - 2 in. AD (Gaius Suetonius Tranquill, Aulus Gellius).
In the 3rd century there is a general decline in linguistic work. In the 4th c. there is a new rise in linguistic activity. Numerous reference dictionaries appear (Nonius Marcellus, Arusian Messiah), Grammar Probus of the late, Elia Donatus, Flavius Charisius, Diomedes.
At the turn of the 4th and 5th centuries. The treatise of Macrobius "On the differences and similarities of the Greek and Latin verbs" is published. It was the first dedicated work on comparative grammar.
In connection with the collapse of the Roman Empire at the end of the 4th century. the center of linguistic studies moved to Constantinople. Here at the beginning of the 6th c. the most significant Latin grammar of antiquity appeared - "Institutio de arte grammaticae" by Priscian, consisting of 18 books. The author draws on Apollonius Discolus and many Roman grammarians, especially Flavius Capra. He describes in detail the name, verb, participle, preposition, conjunction, adverb and interjection, sets out the problems of syntax (mainly in morphological terms). The name and, together with it, the verb is given a dominant position in the structure of the sentence. Priscian uses research techniques of omission (elimination) and substitution (substitution). There is no stylistic section.
Priscian's grammar summed up the searches and achievements of ancient linguistics. His course was used in the teaching of Latin in Western Europe, along with Donat's textbook, until the 14th century. (i.e. for eight centuries).
The teachings about language that developed in Greece and Rome are two interdependent and at the same time completely independent components of a single Mediterranean linguistic tradition, which formed the initial, ancient stage in the formation of a single European linguistic tradition.
But the history of the European tradition - in connection with the split already in the early Middle Ages of the Christian Church, in connection with the presence of a large number of dissimilarities of a historical, economic, political, cultural, ethnopsychological, sociolinguistic nature between the "Latin" West and the "Greek-Slavic" East - there is a history two relatively independent streams of linguistic thought. One and the same ancient linguistic tradition became the basis of traditions different from each other - Western European and Eastern European.
The first of them (Western European) had the works of Donatus and Priscian as sources, and the Latin language as material for research for many centuries.
Another (Eastern European) tradition drew its ideas mainly from the works of Dionysius Thracian and Apollonius Diskol in their Byzantine interpretation and in translation activities, primarily from Greek into their native languages or into a closely related literary language (as was the case with the southern and Eastern Slavs). Preference was given to Byzantine theological and philosophical authorities.
