Language as a system of systems is the beginning. The emergence of language and the origin of specific languages. Various theories of the origin of language

The question of the origin of language is one of the most complex and not fully resolved in linguistics, for it is closely connected with the origin of man himself. The languages ​​that exist on earth today (even of the most primitive peoples in their culture) are already at quite a high level development. Whereas the origin of language dates back to an era with archaic forms of relationships between people.

The Becoming of Man as biological species belongs to the Cro-Magnon period (40-50 thousand years ago), when Homo sapiens has already become quite close to modern man both in external physical appearance (shape of the skull and facial features) and in level of intelligence (ability to organize collective forms labor activity, build houses, make tools, weapons, clothing, etc.). Apparently, at the same time, language is being formed and skills in using speech are being developed. Thus, the emergence of the first language is separated from the “deepest” reconstruction itself by much longer periods (today linguistic methods allow us to penetrate into the depths of centuries by no more than 10 thousand years). Therefore, all theories of the origin of language (both philosophical and philological) are, in a certain sense, hypothetical.

In existing theories of the origin of language, two approaches to solving this problem can be conventionally distinguished: 1) language appeared naturally; 2) language was created artificially by some active creative force. Second point of view for a long time was predominant, differences were observed only in the question of whether Who created a language and from what material. In ancient linguistics, this question was formulated as follows: was language created “by establishment” (the theory of “theses”) or “by the nature of things” (the theory of “fusey”)? If language was created by institution, then who established it (God, man or society)? If language was created by nature, then how do words and the properties of things, including the properties of man himself, correspond to each other?

The largest number of hypotheses was generated by the first question - who created the language, what is the nature of the forces and reasons that brought the language to life? The question of the material from which the language was built did not cause much disagreement: these were sounds generated by nature or people. Gesture and facial expressions participated in the transition from them to articulate speech.

Many primitive cultures had myths about the origin of language, and in various historically unrelated cultures, language was conceptualized as a special gift received by people from a certain deity.

In the early stages of the development of civilization, there was a logos theory of the origin of language (from Lat. polysemantic word logos “word”, “language”). In accordance with this theory, the origin of the world was based on a spiritual principle, which was designated in different words- “God”, “Logos”, “Spirit”, “Word”. The spirit, acting on matter in a chaotic state, created the world. The final act of this creation was man. The spiritual principle, or “Logos,” thus existed before man, controlling inert matter.

In the traditions of many religions, the Word existed before the appearance of man, ordering the forms of matter that were in a chaotic state, ultimately creating man himself. In the Egyptian Memphis theological treatise, many centuries before Christianity, the idea of ​​the Logos-Word creating the world was expressed. IN holy books Thoth, the Egyptian god of wisdom and writing, stated that “Thought is God the Father, the Word is his Son, they are inseparable and connected in eternity, and their union is life. Thought and Word create the action of omnipotence.” A similar cosmological idea is found among many peoples of the world: for example, the natives of the Marshall Islands believe that the main role in the act of creation was played by magic spells God Loa - heaven, earth and people are generated by his Word. Cosmological ideas African tribe Dogon are based on the fact that the world was created by the god Amma not just by the Word, but from his name.

The idea of ​​the Word as a creative principle, the primacy of everything spiritual in the world, is also characteristic of the biblical tradition: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,” says the Gospel of John, i.e. and in the biblical tradition, the bearer of the word was God (every day the creation of the world was sanctified by the word of God). This divine theory of the origin of language was shared by such major thinkers as Plato (IV century BC), German enlighteners of the 18th century. I. Herder, G. Lessing and others. The very complexity of human language served as proof that language was God's gift to humanity. The word, according to this theory, had, however, not only divine, but also human origin, since man, created in the image and likeness of God, received from God the gift of speech. “And man named the names of all the livestock, and the birds of the air, and every wild beast,” says the Bible (Old Testament, Genesis 2:20). But there was still no trust in the man and his mind. The Word he created was imperfect, so it had to go through the “court of the elders.” Moreover, the man’s word dominated him and undermined the strength of his spirit and mind.

The development of science (and above all astronomy, physics, biology) contributed to the establishment of new knowledge about the earth, its biological, physical and social laws. The “creative function” of the divine word - Logos - did not correspond to the new views of man. From the point of view of the ethics of the new philosophy, man, as a thinking being, himself created and transformed the world. Language in this context was considered as a product of his activity.

These views were most clearly expressed in the doctrine of the social contract. This doctrine united different theories that in their own way explained the origin of language - onomatopoeic, interjectional, and the theory of labor teams. In accordance with the onomatopoeic theory (which was defended, in particular, by the ancient Greek materialist philosopher Democritus, the German philosopher and scientist G. Leibniz, the American linguist W. Whitney, and others), the first words of the language were an imitation of the sounds of nature and the cries of animals. Of course, any language has a certain number of onomatopoeic words (for example, peek-a-boo, woof-woof) and their derivatives (cf. cuckoo, bark), but these words are very few, and with their help it is impossible to explain the appearance of “voiceless” names of objects and phenomena outside world(cf. river, distance, shore).

The interjection theory (which was developed by the German scientists J. Grimm, G. Steinthal, the French philosopher and educator J.-J. Rousseau, etc.) explained the appearance of the first words from involuntary cries (interjections), provoked by sensory perception of the world. The primary source of words were feelings, internal sensations that prompted a person to use his linguistic abilities, i.e. supporters of this theory main reason The emergence of words was seen in the sensory perception of the world, the same for all people, which in itself is debatable. Of course, interjections and their derivatives are included in the vocabulary of any language, but there are very few of these words, and what about words that lack expressive and emotional connotation? In addition, no child will speak until he is surrounded by talking people.

A variant of the interjection theory was the theory of labor commands and labor cries (it was put forward by German scientists - historians L. Poiret and K. Bucher). According to this theory, the interjection cry was stimulated not by feelings, but by the muscular efforts of a person and joint labor activity.

All three theories, thus, were based on ideas about the unity of the human psyche, reason and rational knowledge, which entailed the assumption of the emergence of the same initial sound form in all members of society in the same situation. Therefore, the first, simplest from the point of view of information content were onomatopoeic words, interjections and labor cries. Later, according to a social contract, these first sounds-words were assigned to objects and phenomena that were not perceived by hearing.

The progressive role of the doctrine of the social contract was that it proclaimed the material, human source of the origin of language, destroying the constructions of logos theory. However, in general, this theory did not explain the origin of language, since in order to imitate, one must perfectly control the speech apparatus, and primitive man the larynx was practically undeveloped. In addition, the interjection theory could not explain the appearance of words lacking expressiveness, which were neutral designations of objects and phenomena of the external world. Finally, this theory did not explain the fact of agreement on language in the absence of language itself. It assumed the presence of consciousness in primitive man before the formation of this consciousness, developing along with language.

A critical attitude to the doctrine of the social contract gave rise to new theories, among which the most notable was the evolutionary theory of the origin of language. Representatives of this theory (German scientists W. Humboldt, A. Schleicher, W. Wundt) associated the origin of language with the development of the thinking of primitive man, with the need to concretize the expression of his thoughts: thanks to thinking, man began to speak, thanks to language he learned to think. The emergence of language, therefore, occurred as a result of the development of human feelings and reason.

This point of view found its most vivid expression in the works of W. Humboldt. According to his theory, the birth of language was due to the internal need of humanity. Language is not only a means of communication between people, it is inherent in their very nature and is necessary for spiritual development person. “The people create their own language as a tool human activity“, writes W. Humboldt, “therefore, language should be considered not as a dead product, but as a creative process, as a continuous activity of the spirit.” The origin and development of language, according to Humboldt, is thus predetermined by the need for development public relations and human spiritual potential. Considering language as something directly inherent in man, as a kind of gift to humanity from its inner nature, this theory, however, did not answer the question of internal mechanisms transition from the prelinguistic to the linguistic state of people, although some of its provisions were developed in the social or labor theory of the origin of language.

Concept social theory the origin of language was outlined by F. Engels in his work “Dialectics of Nature” in the chapter “The Role of Labor in the Process of Transformation of Ape into Man.” Engels associated the emergence of language with the development of society. Language is part of the social experience of humanity. It arises and develops only in human society and is acquired by each individual person through his communication with other people.

The main idea of ​​his theory is the inextricable internal connection between the development of labor activity of the primitive human collective, the development of the consciousness of the emerging person and the development of forms and methods of communication. He developed the following theoretical model of the relationship between language and society: 1) social production based on the division of labor; 2) reproduction of the ethnic group as the basis of social production; 3) the formation of articulate speech from inarticulate signals; 4) the emergence of social consciousness on the basis of individual thinking; 5) the formation of culture as the selection and transmission from generation to generation of skills, abilities, and material objects that are important for the life of society. Speaking about the origin of language, Engels writes: “...like consciousness, language arises only from need, from the urgent need to communicate with other people. Formed people came to the point where they had a need to say something to each other... The need created its own organ: the undeveloped larynx of the monkey was slowly but steadily transformed through modulations, and the organs of the mouth gradually learned to pronounce one articulate sound after another.” The appearance of language was thus preceded by a stage of long evolution, first biological and then biosocial.

The main biological prerequisites were the following: freeing the forelimbs for labor, straightening the gait, and the appearance of the first sound signals. Biological evolution affected primarily the lungs and larynx. It required straightening the body, walking on two limbs, and freeing the hands to perform labor functions. In the process of labor activity, further development of the human brain and organs of articulation took place: the direct image of an object was replaced by its sound symbol (word). “First work,” writes Engels, “and then, along with it, articulate speech were the two most important stimuli, under the influence of which the monkey’s brain gradually turned into the human brain. The development of the brain and the feelings subordinate to it, an increasingly clear consciousness, the ability to abstraction and inference had the opposite effect on work and on language, giving both more and more new impetuses to further development» .

The emergence of language, according to Engels, was thus connected both with the process of cognition of the external world and with the process of development of consciousness under the influence of human labor activity. The need for intelligent communication (in which the communicative and cognitive functions of language were carried out, without which language cannot be a language) caused its appearance.

Modern anthropological theory develops the biosocial concept of the origin of man and his language, highlighting upright walking, the use of the forelimbs as natural “tools of production,” the development of speech and thinking, complex forms of labor activity, and sociality as separate stages.

She associates the appearance of language with evolutionary anatomical changes in humans, with the formation of his vocal apparatus and changes in the cerebral cortex. So, in particular, archaeological data indicate that the speech apparatus of the Neanderthal (who lived about 230-30 thousand years ago) was different from speech apparatus modern man, since his larynx was located higher than that of a modern person, which made his tongue much less mobile, and therefore, he spoke less articulately than modern people(it is interesting that in infants the larynx is located higher than in adults, and only then does it gradually lower to the position in which it is in an adult). The volume of the brain of “homo erectus” (from 800-1200 cm 3) also differed from the brain of a modern person, the volume of which ranges from 1200-1600 cm 3.

In this evolutionary process, which took more than 500 thousand years, important role The group form of life activity of primitive man also played a role, the need to coordinate joint actions (for example, driven hunting, building huts and pits for storing food, protection from enemies, etc.), which caused the need for speech. The word began to record the experience of a person, which was assimilated by subsequent generations, passed on to them by inheritance. Available scientific data (in particular, cases of children being raised by animals) indicate that the prerequisites for the formation of speech are inherited by humans: if at a certain stage of a child’s development he did not have human communication, then subsequently it is no longer possible for him to develop full-fledged speech.

Language, thus, has become one of the most significant characteristics that distinguishes humans from other living beings (interestingly, attempts by American scientists from the University of Georgia to teach primates language (in particular, chimpanzees) did not lead to positive results, since chimpanzees were never able to reach the level of a two-year-old child, and wild, untrained primates do not spontaneously exhibit the language skills of even a two-year-old child).

The first human language was not yet a language in the full sense of the word: communication, apparently, took place more at the level of gestures and inarticulate cries in order to regulate joint labor activity (mainly it was a call to action and an indication of a tool or product of labor). And only over time, work, communication and consciousness, the formation of new, more complex social relations contributed to the formation of language. In its development, it underwent numerous restructuring, the most important among which were the following:

1) a person has learned the linear principle of speech: he has learned to place words one after another and understand them in interconnection; 2) having mastered the principle of the sequential arrangement of words, man extended it to the organization of sounds in a word: the word began to be “assembled” from individual sounds and syllables, speech became articulate; 3) phonetics has become more complex; 4) vocabulary expanded; 5) from the sequence of words, first the simplest and then more complex syntactic constructions arose.

In addition to communicative and cognitive, language has developed new feature- magical, associated with the ability of a word to influence a person, natural phenomena or society (this function continues today in some archaic societies of Australia and New Zealand, where a person with extraordinary physical endurance, learning that he is bewitched, dies within a day).

Control questions

• 1. Why is the theory of the origin of language one of the most complex and not fully resolved in linguistics?
• 2. What theories of the origin of language do you know?
• 3. What is the essence of the logosic theory of the origin of language?
• 4. What is the doctrine of social contract and what is the inconsistency of this doctrine?
• 5. What is the essence evolutionary theory origin of language?
• 6. Outline the main provisions of the social (or labor) theory of the origin of language.

• 1. Golovin B.N. Introduction to linguistics. - M., 1983. - Ch. 12.
• 2. Donskikh O. A. The origin of language as a philosophical problem. - Novosibirsk, 1984.
• 3. Leontyev A. A. Origin of language // Encyclopedia “Russian Language”. - M., 1997.
• 4. Marks K. German ideology. Collection Op. T. 3 / K. Marx, F. Engels. - 2nd ed. - M., 1955.
• 5. NemchenkoIN.N. Introduction to linguistics / V. N. Nemchenko. - M., 2008. - Ch. 4.
• Human. Philosophical-encyclopedic dictionary. M., 2000. P. 31.
• Atlas of the World's Languages... P. 10.

The definition of language as a system of systems, most fully developed by the Prague School of Functional Linguistics, is undoubtedly justified, but it should not be given the absolute character that we observe in this case. Individual “circles or tiers of linguistic structure” appear in A. A. Reformatsky as self-contained systems, which, if they interact with each other (forming a system of systems or a system of language), then only as separate and integral unities. The result is something like a coalition of allied nations, whose troops are united by the common task of military action against a common enemy, but are under the separate command of their national military leaders.

In the life of a language, things are, of course, different, and the individual “tiers or systems” of a language interact with each other not only frontally, but to a large extent, so to speak, with their individual representatives “one on one.” So, for example, as a result of the fact that the series English words during the period of the Scandinavian conquest had Scandinavian parallels, a splitting of the sound form of some words of common origin occurred. This is how doublet forms were created, separated by natural processes in the phonetic system of Old English, which ended before the Scandinavian conquest. These doublet forms also created the basis for differentiating their meanings.

Thus, the difference arose between skirt and shirt (<др.-англ. scirt) — «рубашка», а также такие дублетные пары, как egg — «яйцо» и edge (

In a similar way, the German Rappe - “black horse” and Rabe - “raven” (both from the Middle High German form of garre), Knappe - “squire” and Knabe - “boy”, etc., split into two; Russian ashes - gunpowder, harm - vered, having a genetically common basis. An even more striking example of the natural interaction of elements of different “tiers” is the phonetic process of reduction of final elements, well known from the history of Germanic languages ​​(which in turn is associated with the nature and position of the Germanic force stress in a word), which caused extremely important changes in their grammatical system.

It is known that the stimulation of analytical tendencies in the English language and the deviation of this language from the synthetic structure is directly related to the fact that reduced endings turned out to be unable to express with the necessary clarity the grammatical relationships of words. Thus, a purely concrete and purely phonetic process gave rise to new not only morphological, but also syntactic phenomena.

This kind of mutual influence of elements included in different “tiers” or “homogeneous systems” can be multidirectional and go both along an ascending (i.e., from phonemes to elements of morphology and vocabulary) and descending line. Thus, according to J. Vahek, the different fate of paired voiced final consonants in Czech (as well as Slovak, Russian, etc.), on the one hand, and in English, on the other hand, is determined by the needs of the higher planes of the respective languages. In Slavic languages, due to neutralization, they were deafened, but in English the contrast p - b, v - f, etc. was preserved, although the contrast in voicing was replaced by the contrast in tension.

In Slavic languages ​​(Czech, etc.), the appearance of new homonymous pairs of words, due to the deafening of final voiced consonants, did not introduce any significant difficulties in understanding, since in the sentence they received a clear grammatical characteristic and the sentence model in these languages ​​was not functionally overloaded . And in the English language, precisely because of the functional overload of the sentence model, the destruction of the opposition of final consonants and the resulting emergence of a large number of homonyms would lead to significant difficulties in the communication process.

In all such cases, we are dealing with the establishment of individual connections between elements of different “tiers” - phonetic and lexical.

Regular relationships are thus established not only between homogeneous members of the language system, but also between heterogeneous ones. This means that systemic connections of linguistic elements are formed not only within one “tier” (for example, only between phonemes), but also separately between representatives of different “tiers” (for example, phonetic and lexical units). In other words, the natural connections of the elements of a language system can be multidirectional, which does not exclude, of course, special forms of systemic relationships of language elements within the same “tier”.

V.A. Zvegintsev. Essays on general linguistics - Moscow, 1962.

LANGUAGE AS SYSTEM AND STRUCTURE

1. The concept of a system. Language system.

2. The concept of structure. Language structure.

3. Constitutive and non-constitutive units of language. Selection problem
linguistic units.

4. Levels of language structure and their units.

The concept of a system. Language system.

A systematic approach to the study of reality is one of the fundamental methodological principles of modern science. System is a set of elements that is characterized by: a) regular relationships between the elements; b) integrity as a result of this interaction; c) autonomy of behavior and d) non-summarity (non-additivity) of the properties of the system in relation to the properties of its constituent elements. New qualities of the system, in comparison with the qualities and properties of its constituent elements, are created by the transformation of the elements in their interaction. In turn, the actual position of an element, its essence, can only be understood by considering it in the system, in connection with other elements of the system. Therefore, a systematic approach contributes to an objective reflection and knowledge of the phenomena of reality.

The scientific study of reality in the broad sense of the word (nature and man) consists of the discovery of laws and patterns. This cannot be done without systematizing the facts being studied, that is, without establishing natural connections between them. Therefore, already the earliest experiments in the scientific study of language were attempts to systematize linguistic facts on one basis or another.

Since its formation, traditional grammar has in one way or another dealt with the systemic relations of distinguished units, as a result of which

were their classifications. Such traditional systemic connections include, for example, the division of words into parts of speech; identification of certain categories within parts of speech (types of verbs, types of conjugation; gender, types of declension of nouns). The idea that language is not a simple set of means of communication was expressed even ancient Indian researchers Yaski, Panini, ancient Greek philosophers of the Alexandrian school Aristarchus, Dionysius the Thracian.

Wilhelm von Humboldt, Fyodor Ivanovich Buslaev, Alexander Afanasyevich Potebnya, Ivan A. lexandrovich Baudouin de Courtenay emphasized the internal systemic organization of language. A major role in the development of the doctrine of the language system was played by the ideas of I. A. Baudouin de Courtenay on the role of relations in language, on the distinction between statics and dynamics, the external and internal history of language, his identification of the most common units of the language system - phonemes, morphemes, graphemes, syntagmas .

But a systematic approach to language became a generally accepted methodological requirement after the publication of the “Course of General Linguistics” F. de Saussure. Saussure's merit is seen not in the fact that he discovered the systematic organization of language, but in the fact that he elevated systematicity to the fundamental principle of scientific research. In the teachings of F. de Saussure, the system of language is considered as a system of signs.

Its internal structure is studied by internal linguistics, and the external functioning of the language system is studied by external linguistics. Saussure compares language to a game of chess. The main thing in the game is systemic relationships, the functions that the pieces perform. If you lose a piece, for example a horse, you can replace it with any other object - a matchbox, a cork, a piece of sealing wax. This will not change the game; the material itself plays a secondary role. A similar thing can be seen in language. The main thing is the role of the sign in the system, and not its material essence, which can be changed or even replaced by another, for example, writing.

In Saussure's concept of systematic language, the concept of significance occupies an important place. A linguistic sign, for example a word, has not only meaning, but also significance, which a sign acquires as a result of its relationships with other signs of the language. The significance of a linguistic unit is determined by its place in the language system, its connections with other units in this system. For example, the significance of a “three” will be different in three-point, five-point, and ten-point grading systems. The significance of the plural will be greater in a language with two forms of number - singular and plural - than in a language with singular, plural and dual. The significance of past tense forms will vary in languages ​​that have different numbers of such forms. In modern Russian, the importance of past tense forms is greater compared to Old Russian, since it has only one past tense form.

The concepts of systematicity of Saussure and Baudouin served as the methodological basis for the formation of structural trends in modern linguistics. Extreme absolutization of the relations of linguistic units is characteristic of Copenhagen Linguistic School(Louis Hjelmslev, Viggo Brendal). In the views of orthodox representatives of this direction, relationships and connections between units of language are abstracted from material carriers - sounds. The main thing is the system of relations, while their material substrates are a secondary and even accidental thing. Language is a network of relationships, a relational frame or construct, indifferent to the nature of its material expression.

In studies of the late 20th - early 21st centuries Viktor Vladimirovich Vinogradov, Vladimir Grigorievich Gak, Victoria Nikolaevna Yartseva the non-rigidity, asymmetry of the language system, and the unequal degree of systematicity of its various sections are emphasized. Vyacheslav Vsevolodovich Ivanov, Tatyana Vyacheslavovna Bulygina identify differences between language and other semiotic systems. Mikhail Viktorovich Panov explores the “antinomies of development” of the language system, Georgy Vladimirovich Stepanov, Alexander Davidovich Schweitzer, Boris Andreevich Uspensky- patterns of functioning of the language system in society, Lev Semenovich Vygotsky, Nikolai Ivanovich Zhinkin- interaction of the language system with brain activity.

There are different types of systems. Language is a secondary complex material-ideal system. The language system has characteristic features, some of which are still the subject of debate:

1) recently the position that language is a sign system has become generally accepted. The transmission of information is carried out by the deliberate activity of people, therefore language is a secondary semiotic system.

2) linguists are unanimous in the opinion that the language system combines heterogeneous components (phonemes, morphemes, words, etc.) and therefore belongs to the category of complex systems.

3) the question of the sphere of existence of language, the materiality or ideality of a sign raises heated debates. Scientists who call language an ideal system proceed from the fact that language as a system is encoded in the human brain in the form of ideal formations: both acoustic images and the meanings associated with them. However, this kind of code is not a means of communication, but a linguistic memory. Linguistic memory is the most important, but not the only condition for the existence of language as a means of communication. The second condition is the material embodiment of the ideal side of language in material units. The idea of ​​the unity of the material and the ideal in language was most consistently developed in the works of Alexander Ivanovich Smirnitsky.

4) representatives of the structural direction consider the language system as closed, rigid and uniquely conditioned. This raises objections from adherents of comparative historical linguistics. If comparativists recognize language as a system, then only as a holistic, dynamic, open and self-organizing system. This understanding of the language system is dominant in Russian linguistics. It satisfies both traditional and new directions in the science of language.

The language system is formed by the following factors:

1) the presence of minimal, further indivisible components. The components of a language system are called elements and units of language. As components of language units, language elements are not independent; they express only some properties of the language system. Language units, on the contrary, possess all the essential features of a language system and, as integral formations, are characterized by relative independence.

2) presence of structure. The structure due to its stability (statics) and
variability (dynamics) is the second most important system-forming factor in language.

3) the third factor in the formation of a language system is the properties of the language
units, which mean the manifestation of its nature, internal
content through relationships to other units. Internal
(own) and external properties of linguistic units. Internal properties
depend on internal connections and relationships established between
homogeneous units. External properties depend on external connections and
relations of linguistic units (for example, their relations to reality, to
thoughts and feelings of a person). These are the properties of naming something, designating,
indicate, express, distinguish, represent, influence.

Language is a means of expressing people's thoughts and desires. People also use language to express their feelings. The exchange of such information between people is called communication. Language- this is “a system of discrete (articulate) sound signs that spontaneously arose in human society and is developing, intended for communication purposes and capable of expressing the entire body of knowledge and ideas of man and the world” 2. This is a special system of signs that serves as a means of communication between people.

Central to this definition is the combination “special system of signs,” which requires detailed explanation. What is a sign? We encounter the concept of a sign not only in language, but also in everyday life. For example, seeing smoke coming from the chimney of a house, we conclude that the stove in the house is being heated. When we hear the sound of a gunshot in the forest, we conclude that someone is hunting. Smoke is a visual sign, a sign of fire; the sound of a shot is an auditory sign, a sign of a shot. Even these two simplest examples show that a sign has a visible or audible form and a certain content that lies behind this form (“they heat the stove,” “they shoot”).

A linguistic sign is also two-sided: it has a form (or signifier) ​​and content (or signified). For example, the word table has a written or sound form consisting of four letters (sounds), and the meaning is “a type of furniture: a slab of wood or other material, mounted on legs.”

Unlike signs that have a natural character ( smoke- sign of fire, sound of a gunshot- shot sign), there is no causal connection between the form of the word (signifier) ​​and its meaning (content, signified). A linguistic sign is conventional: in a given society of people, this or that object has such and such a name (for example, table), and in other national groups it may be called differently ( der Tisch– in German, la table - in French, a table- in English).

The words of a language actually replace other objects in the process of communication. Such “substitutes” for other objects are usually called signs, but what is denoted with the help of verbal signs is not always objects of reality. Words of language can act as signs not only of objects of reality, but also of actions, signs, as well as various kinds of mental images that arise in the human mind.

In addition to words, an important component of language is the ways of forming words and constructing sentences from these words. All units of language do not exist in isolation and in disorder. They are interconnected and form a single whole - a language system.

System - (from the Greek systema - “a whole, made up of parts; connection”) a union of elements that are in relationships and connections that form integrity, unity. Therefore, each system has certain characteristics:

consists of many elements;

its elements are in connection with each other;

these elements form a unity, one whole.

When characterizing a language as a system, it is necessary to determine what elements it consists of, how they are related to each other, what relationships are established between them, and how their unity is manifested.

Language consists of units: sounds; morphemes (prefixes, roots, suffixes, endings); words; phraseological units; free phrases; sentences (simple, complex); texts.

Each of the units is determined by other signs, and itself, in turn, determines them. There are three types of relations between linguistic units: syntagmatic, paradigmatic and constitutive.

Syntagmatic (or linear) relations determine the connection of signs in the speech stream: on the basis of these relations, units of the same order are combined with each other precisely in those forms that are determined by the laws of language. So, when forming a word showerech ka to noun stem showerTo A a diminutive suffix is ​​added - To -, which affects the transformation of the base stem: the final consonant of the stem changes ( To is replaced by h ), and a vowel appears before it. When forming a verb phrase, we put the dependent pronoun or noun in the case form required by the verb control ( see (what? – vin. p.) building; approach (to what? – date) to the building).

Based on paradigmatic relationships, units of the same order are united into classes, and are also grouped within classes. Thus, homogeneous linguistic units are combined and form language levels (Table 1).

Table 1

Within each level, units enter into more complex paradigmatic relationships. For example, combinations soft carriage – hard carriage, being designations of certain types of passenger cars, are opposed to each other and form a minimal sign system - an antonymous pair. Remove one of the combinations, and the system collapses; Moreover, the remaining sign will lose its meaning (it is unclear what soft carriage, if not hard carriage).

Other linguistic signs are in multidimensional relationships with each other, mutually conditioning each other and, thereby, forming private systems within the general system of language. For example, kinship terms make up a coherent system. The signs in this system are opposed to each other on more than one basis (as in the pair soft carriage – hard carriage), and by several: gender ( father – mother, son – daughter), generation ( grandmother – mother – granddaughter), direct/indirect line of kinship ( father – son, uncle – nephew).

Linguistic signs are the most complex. They can consist of one unit (word, phraseological unit) or their combination (sentence); in the latter case, a combination of simple units creates a complex unit. This ability of linguistic units of a lower order to be building material for units of a higher order is determined by the constitutive relations of linguistic units. For example, an independent linguistic sign is a word. The morpheme does not function independently in the language. It manifests itself only in the word, therefore it is considered a minimal, non-independent linguistic sign that serves to construct words. Words, in turn, build phrases and sentences. Sentence, statement, text are composite signs of varying degrees of complexity.

It remains to be seen why language is defined as a special system of signs. There are several reasons for this definition. Firstly, language is many times more complex than any other sign system. Secondly, the signs of the linguistic system themselves vary in complexity, some are simple, others consist of a number of simple ones: for example, window– a simple sign, and the word derived from it windowsill– a complex sign containing a prefix under- and suffix -Nick, which are also simple signs. Thirdly, although the relationship between the signifier and the signified in a linguistic sign is unmotivated and conditional, in each specific case the connection between these two sides of the linguistic sign is stable, fixed by tradition and speech practice and cannot change at the will of an individual: we cannot table name home or window- each of these words serves as a designation of “its” subject.

And finally, the main reason why language is called a special sign system is that language serves as a means of communication between people. We can express any content, any thought using language, and this is its universality. No other sign systems capable of serving as means of communication - they will be discussed below (see 1.3) - have this property.

Thus, language is a special system of signs and methods of connecting them, which serves as a tool for expressing the thoughts, feelings and will of people and is the most important means of human communication.

1. Problems of the system and structure of language in modern language
vistike.

2. Signs of the system and the specifics of the language system, its discovery
strength and dynamism.

3. Language as a system of systems. Language system in synchrony and di
achrony.

4. Theories of the unity of the structure of language.

5. Tiers of language structure.

I. In modern science it is impossible to name such a branch of knowledge, the development of which would not be associated with the introduction into it of the concepts of system and structure. The study of the systemic and structural properties of the object of knowledge has become one of the central tasks of most theoretical disciplines, which, as they develop | improvement from the description of observed facts, their Knacks" to the knowledge of the deep properties of an object and the principles of its organization, expressed primarily in systemic and structural relations.

Thanks to a systematic approach to the analysis of various linguistic units and categories, noticeable changes have occurred in linguistics: 1) its connections with other sciences have expanded and multiplied; 2) new areas of research were identified; 3) the technique of linguistic analysis was improved, and our knowledge was replenished; important information about the characteristics of linguistic units and the relationships between them; 4) many different aspects were examined from new positions speech activity and functioning language.

As a result, the concepts of system and structure have become fundamental theoretical concepts of linguistics as a whole.

At the same time, the thesis about the systemic nature of language and the importance of studying its structure, which is now accepted almost unconditionally by linguists of different schools and directions, is revealed in specific studies far from the same, and the real content that is put into the corresponding terms is not identical.

Formation and evolution systematic approach to language occurred against the background of the general turn of science of the 20th century from “atomistic” to “holistic” views (i.e., to the recognition of the primacy of the whole over the parts and the universal connection of phenomena). In 21st century science, these trends continue.

N.M. Karamzin was one of the first to speak about the language system (using this term, but without giving it a linguistic interpretation) in connection with the publication of the six-volume “Dictionary of the Russian Academy” (St. Petersburg, 1784-1794) - the first proper academic dictionary Russian language, numbering 43,257 words: “The Complete Dictionary, published by the Academy, one of those phenomena with which Russia surprises attentive foreigners; our, without a doubt, happy fate in all respects is some kind of extraordinary speed: we mature not in centuries, but in decades Italy, France, England, Germany were already famous for many great writers, without yet having a dictionary: we had church, spiritual books; we had poets, writers, but only one originally classical one (Lomonosov) and presented a system of language (emphasis mine - L.I. .), which can be compared with the famous creations of the Academy of Florence and Paris." Let us note that N. M. Karamzin expressed his position on the language system 80 years before F. de Saussure, with whose name the development of this category is associated.

In the teachings of F. de Saussure, the system of language is considered as a system of signs. Its internal structure is studied by internal linguistics, the external functioning of the language system, i.e.

onation in connection with extra-structural reality is studied by external linguistics.

A major role in the development of the doctrine of the language system was played by the ideas of I. A. Baudouin de Courtenay on the role of relations in language, on the distinction between statics and dynamics, the external and internal history of language, his identification of the most common units of the language system - phonemes, morphemes, graphemes, syntagmas .

Ideas about systemic organization languages ​​were developed in several directions of structural linguistics.

Research at the end of the 20th and beginning of the 21st centuries emphasizes the non-rigidity, asymmetry of the language system, and the unequal degree of systematicity of its various sections (V.V. Vinogradov, V.G. Gak, V.N. Yartseva). The differences between language and other semiotic systems are revealed (Vyach. Vs. Ivanov, T. V. Bulygina). The “antinomies of development” of the language system are studied (M. V. Panov), the interaction of internal and external factors of its evolution (E. D. Polivanov, V. M. Zhirmunsky, B. A. Serebrennikov), the patterns of functioning of the language system in society (G V. Stepanov, A. D. Schweitzer, B. A. Uspensky), interaction of the language system with brain activity (L. S. Vygotsky, N. I. Zhinkin, Vyach. Vs. Ivanov).

2. In modern linguistics, in principle, the following definition of a language system has been established: (from the Greek systema - a whole made up of parts) - a set of linguistic elements of any natural language that are in relationships and connections with each other, which forms a certain unity and integrity. Each component of the language system does not exist in isolation, but only in opposition to other components of the system (T. V. Bulygina, S. A. Krylov, LES, p. 452).

Structure is the structure of a system.

A. S. Melnichuk wrote: “It should be recognized that the most appropriate and consistent with the established usage of words in the language is such a distinction between the terms system and structure, in which the system is understood as a set of interrelated and

interdependent elements forming a more complex unity, considered from the side of the elements - its parts, and under structure- composition and internal organization a single whole, considered from the perspective of its integrity... So, for example, the subject is both an element of the syntactic structure of the sentence and a component systems members of a sentence... The structure (system) of language in the language itself cannot be directly observed... The objectively existing structure and system of language are revealed... in the endless repetition of their various aspects and elements, each time appearing in other specific manifestations.”

Language is an open dynamic system: it is in a state of constant development, enriched by new elements and freed from obsolete ones.

The language system differs from the communication means of animals in its ability to express logical forms of thinking.

From artificial formalized sign systems The language system is distinguished by the spontaneity of its emergence and development, as well as the ability to express deictic, expressive and motivating information.

Being to a certain extent open, the language system interacts with environment cognitive activity humanity (the noosphere), which makes it necessary to study its external connections.

In modern taxonomy accepted following signs systems: 1) relative indivisibility of system elements; 2) hierarchy of the system; 3) structure of the system.

Let's look at these signs.

1. Relative indivisibility of system elements s. The elements of the system are indivisible from the point of view given systems. Its elements can be further divided, but for other tasks, and, therefore, constitute other systems. Thus, the syntax system consists of a complex sentence system and a simple sentence system. Every sentence consists of words, i.e. we can talk about a system of vocabulary, words break down into morphe-168

this is already a word formation system, etc. But both the lek-j system and the word formation system are already different, not syntak-yukaya, systems. In other words, the elements are potentially de-a, but in this system we are dealing with indivisible elements

". The sign of the potential divisibility of elements is closely related to the functional divisibility of systems, i.e., with the hierarchical structure t systems

2. Hierar the nature of the system. This feature suggests the possibility of dividing this system into a number of other systems (sub- <л), on the one hand, or the entry of a given system as an element into another, broader system. For example, system % syntax is divided into subsystems of a complex sentence, simple sentence, and phrase. In turn, the subsystem of a complex sentence breaks down into subsystems of conjunction- fo and a non-union sentence, the subsystem of the union sentence breaks up into subsystems with coordinating and subordinating connections, etc.

Thus, any system is a complex object with a hierarchical structure.

3. System structure. Structure is a way of organizing elements, a pattern of connections or relationships between them. Consequently, just as a system does not exist without interconnected elements, it is also impossible without the structural organization of its elements.

Language systems can take on different configurations: field, hierarchy of levels, etc.

The system of language is opposed to an ordered set. -If everything in a system is interconnected and interdependent, then changing the parts in an ordered set does not change the matter. Language systems have already been discussed. An example of an ordered set is a student auditorium: tables, chairs, standing in a certain order and oriented towards a lectern, behind which a blackboard hangs. You can add or subtract the number of tables or chairs, you can do without a blackboard, but the audience remains

no audience. If necessary, you can convert it into a miniature classroom.

Following E. Coseriu, the language distinguishes system And norm. The system shows open and closed paths for the development of language, i.e. the system is not only what we observe in the language, but also what is in it Maybe to be understood by members of the same linguistic community. In the process of realizing the capabilities inherent in the language system, the language develops.

So, for example, the system of Russian and Ukrainian consonantism is characterized by the opposition of sounds according to deafness - voicedness. It is known that the sound [v] was sonorant. In the 10th century, Greekisms began to actively penetrate into the Russian language, along with the sound [f], but at first the language consistently rejected this sound (the words sail, Opanas, etc.), this trend is observed in common speeches and dialects (arihmetic, twitch, etc.). The articulation features of [v] and [f] made it possible to form a correlative pair in terms of voicedness - deafness, although [v] in the phonetic series behaves like a sonorant sound, combining with both deaf and voiced consonants (zver - sver), on the contrary, next to voiceless consonants [v] may be subject to assimilation [f] tornik.

There is nothing in speech that is not in the capabilities of language. L.V. Shcherba rightly noted: “Everything that is truly individual, does not flow from the language system, is not potentially inherent in it, without finding a response and even understanding, perishes irrevocably.” Let's compare occasionalisms: “And strawberries of super-watermelon size lie on the ground” (E. Yevtushenko) and “euy” (lily) by M. Kruchenykh.

3. Thus, taking into account the above, it can be argued that every unit of language is included in the system. In modern systems research, two types of systems are distinguished - homogeneous and heterogeneous-Homogeneous systems consist of homogeneous elements, their structure is determined by the opposition of the elements to each other and the order in the chain. Homogeneous systems include systems of vowels, consonants, etc.

Heterogeneous systems are those that consist of heterogeneous elements; they are characterized by “multi-story structure”. In heterogeneous systems, there is a disintegration of the system into subsystems of homogeneous elements that interact with each other, as well as with elements of other subsystems. Above we looked at the syntax system. Language as a whole is a heterogeneous system.

So, for example, vocabulary and word formation are both connected and correlated in many different directions. The formation of new words necessarily relies on existing words; the mechanism of word formation cannot work without such support. At the same time, this mechanism, when working, gives new words, replenishes and changes vocabulary. For example, from the word hand - mitten, get engaged, sleeve, oversleeve, etc.

The concept of systematicity is gradual, that is, it allows for different degrees of rigidity in the organization of the system. In well-organized (rigidly structured) systems (for example, in phonology, as opposed to vocabulary), a significant change in one element entails changes at other points in the system or even an imbalance in the system as a whole. For example, the vowel system in contrast to voiceless and voiced:

["] [D] M, which allowed the deaf to be inserted into her

; ; borrowed sound [f].

The subsystems of language develop at different rates (vocabulary is the fastest, as it is the least rigidly organized, and phonetics is the slowest). Therefore, both in the whole language system and in its individual subsystems, a center and a periphery are distinguished.

Being an element of the system and a component of the structure, every linguistic unit is included in two types of general relations in the language - paradigmatic and syntagmatic.

Syntagmatics- a sequence of units of the same level (phonemes, morphemes, words, etc.) in speech.

Paradigmatics- this is a grouping of units of the same level into classes based on the opposition of units to each other according to their differential characteristics.

Syntagmatics (horizontal)

south into the mountains into the forest

for an excursion, etc.