Book: V.K. Zhuravlev “External and internal factors of language evolution. Internal and external factors of language development

Type - incorporating languages

In languages ​​of this type, the objects of actions and the circumstances of their commission are expressed not by special members of the sentence (additions and circumstances), but by affixes that are part of the verb. Sometimes the subject of the action (subject) can also receive an expression as part of a verb-predicate. Thus, all members of a sentence can be included in one word, so it is often said that words-sentences function in incorporating languages.

In the Chinook language, the language of the Oregon Indians, the word "i-n-i-á-l-u-d-am" means "I gave it to her on purpose." Consider what each of the morphemes means:

i - elapsed time;

n - 1st person singular;

i - the object of the action "this";

á is the second object of the action “she”;

l - an indication that the object is not direct, but indirect (“she”);

u - an indication that the action is directed from the speaker;

d - root meaning "give"

am - an indication of the target action.

Over time, languages ​​change. Obviously, these changes do not occur spontaneously, but in a certain direction. Since the language is closely connected with the life of society, changes in it are aimed at ensuring that it better serves the needs of communication within the language community that speaks this language.

Among the factors that cause language changes, it is customary to distinguish between external and internal causes.

External associated with the characteristic features of the language community using a given language, and with the historical events that this language community is experiencing. There is reason to believe that under the influence of communication features typical for a given language community, each language in the course of its evolution gradually develops and improves those features that are inherent in one of the four types of languages.

If a language is used by a homogeneous and numerous language community, then traits develop in it. inflections And synthetism . For example, the Russian language, which has all the prerequisites for the formation of a large number of words that convey the subtlest shades of meaning (boy, boy, boy, boy, etc.) and for the ability to express grammatical meaning in different words using different affixes.

If the language community is mixed with another language community and becomes heterogeneous, then the language develops features analyticism : the number of affixes is reduced, and many grammatical meanings begin to be expressed using function words. It is these changes that the English language has undergone in the process of its development.

If a language exists for a long time in a heterogeneous language community, then it can turn into a language insulating type. In this case, it loses all forms of inflection, and grammatical meanings begin to be expressed in it exclusively by word order or functional words. Obviously, the Chinese language has gone this way.

Incorporating languages ​​are characteristic of very small, isolated communities, whose members are so well aware of all current events that short and capacious words-sentences are enough for them to exchange information, in which verbal stems are combined with affixes denoting objects and circumstances of the action.

LANGUAGE EVOLUTION, an area of ​​linguistics that occupies an intermediate position between theories of the origin of language and the study of diachronic universals. Included in the total set of sciences dealing with human evolution.

The question of whether there is a certain common force that determines the development of languages ​​has been dealt with in antiquity. This force has been called variously: the principle of least effort, the factor of economy of effort, the factor of laziness, and so on. However, the final formation of the theory of language evolution as a certain branch of science in general, using the achievements of anthropology, paleontology, history, linguistics, etc., occurred only at the end of the 20th century, when specialized journals on this issue began to appear (for example, "The evolution of language" and others), conferences are organized (for example, "Evolang", Paris, 2000), etc.

Undoubtedly, the emergence of this special branch of knowledge would have been impossible without the synthesis of a number of scientific trends that arose in the 20th century.

1. Firstly, this is the idea of ​​the unidirectionality of the language process in all languages ​​of the world (with the exception of the "dead" languages), associated in linguistics with the name of the American linguist E. Sapir. His position is the so-called drift, according to which “language changes not only gradually, but also sequentially ... it moves unconsciously from one type to another and ... a similar direction of movement is observed in the most remote corners of the globe. It follows from this that unrelated languages ​​all too often end up with similar morphological systems in general. The idea of ​​a single development process was also expressed in Russian linguistics by the supporters of the so-called "new doctrine of language": I.I. Meshchaninov, Abaev, S.D. Katsnelson and others. According to their ideas, each language goes through a certain number of the final stage is the so-called "nominative system", which does not distinguish between the case of the subject in transitive and intransitive verbs. In this case, the theory of V.I. Abaev about two stages of the evolution of language in terms of form turned out to be significant: about language as an ideology and about language as a technique. With the "technization of language", the internal "ideological" form of the language fizzles out and grammaticalization intensifies.

The ideas of the unidirectionality of language development were expressed in the 20th century. O. Jespersen, who gave these concepts an axiological orientation. In his opinion, the most mature and most suitable for modern international communication is, according to its systemic indicators, precisely the English language. The introduction of a teleological idea into language change, in particular, supported by R. where quoted above question where...Target, this Cinderella of the ideology of the recent past, is being gradually and universally rehabilitated.”

However, in the last decades of the 20th century a number of books have been published (Lass R. On explaining language change. Cambridge, 1980; Aitchison J. Language change: progress or decay? Bungay, 1981 and others), who support the so-called "uniformity" principle, or "the principle of pantemporal uniformity". In particular, "not properly justified in the present cannot be true of the past", "no reconstructable unit or configuration of units, process of change or stimulus for change can refer only to the past". In other words, in language the present is always an active argument for the verification of phenomena of any age. Thus teleological ideas are declared to be mystical. The discussions that arose contributed to the consolidation of evolutionary theory.

2. The second driving stimulus for the modern theory of language evolution was the work of the "communicative-discursive" direction (primarily - Talmi Givon). Givón T. The drift from VSO to SVO in Biblical Hebrew. – Mechanisms of syntactic change. Austin, 1977; Givón T. On understanding grammar. NY – San-Francisco – L., 1979, and later work) and similarly thinking linguists who deal with the grammatical-syntactic aspect of the formation of language systems, is determined by the fact that the communicative level is in the center of their attention, and the driving force in this approach is the person and the development of his discursive attitudes. Givon expressed the idea that the most archaic is the order of the elements in the statement, which iconically correlates with their deployment in a communicative situation. He calls such code "pragmatic". In the future, the former iconic becomes symbolic. The language makes the transition from the pragmatic code to the language proper - there is a "syntaxization" that languages ​​carry out in different ways (these ideas are close to the concept of language as an "ideology" and as a "technique" by Abaev).

Syntactic structures, in turn, are modified by the emerging inflectional morphology. There is a so-called "re-analysis", i.e. redistribution, reformulation, addition or disappearance of surface structure components. The driving point of language change is the speaker himself. Thus, in this theory, the members of one paradigm do not change simultaneously, but depending on the anthropocentric attitude. In addition, the development of entire lexico-grammatical classes is also determined by the evolution of human existence and the expansion of the world and horizons. Homo sapiens. So, in particular, the appearance of ordo naturalis: SVO (i.e. the word order “subject – predicate – object”) Givon connects with the expansion of the clip of topics (actants) in the texts and the appearance of anaphoric structures and, in connection with this, the syntactic sequence: Previous Rheme, then Starting Theme.

3. In the 20th century. for the construction of a general theory of language evolution, the theory of linguistic universals, in particular, diachronic universals (works by J. Greenberg and others) was essential. Works on diachronic universals and studies on content (contensive) typology are joined by searches for primary units that characterize the proto-language. If almost all researchers close to the evolutionist theory agree that the basis of speech activity was syntax, more precisely, not yet dissected statement, then on the question of what were the primary elements of language, throughout the 20th century. various opinions were expressed. So, for the "teleologists" - German scientists of the 1930s (E.Hermann, W.Havers, W.Horn), the primary ones were small words no more than a syllable long, which at first were interrogative, then demonstrative, then turned into indefinite pronouns. These small words were combined in various ways in a linear flow of speech. For the ideologists of the “new doctrine of language”, the development of language begins with a long period of kinetic, non-sound speech, and sound speech is born from ritual sounds of a magical nature. The primary sound complex, according to the Marrists, did not matter; it accompanied kinetic speech. Then sound speech appeared, decomposed not into sounds and not into phonemes, but “into separate sound complexes. It was these integral complexes of sounds that had not yet been dissected that humanity originally used as integral words” (Meshchaninov). There were four primary speech elements ( sal, ber, yon, rosh) and they were "asemantic", i.e. attached to any semantic complex. These legendary four elements were at first considered purely totemic names, and even indicators of the inflectional type were raised to them, i.e. to totems. However, the Marrists, like the teleologists, relied on the primary role of certain "pronominal" elements, which then form verbal and nominal inflections. There is also a theory of primary elements based on primary interjectional cries (S. Kartsevsky, E. Hermann). Each of these "interjections" had a consonantal support, which later modified the accompanying vocal, forming a syllable of the "consonant - vowel" structure, such modifications became more and more clear and they acquired a clearer functional meaning, as a rule, associated with pointing.

4. Finally, in the second half of the 20th century. there were more and more observations in separate language zones, which undoubtedly testified to a unidirectional process of language evolution - at least in an isolated language fragment. Such, for example, are the concepts of tonogenesis (J. Hombert, J. Ohala), according to which the tonal state is the result of predictable combinations of frequency increase after deaf and decrease after voiced; This type of word phonetics is carried out for all languages ​​at the early stages, but it is phonologized only for some. Such are the observations about the later development of the forms of the future tense, about the later formation of the indefinite article in comparison with the definite article, about the transition of spatial prepositions to temporary ones, but not vice versa, etc. Local unidirectionality can also be illustrated by examples from the syntax. For example, among other diachronic universals, J. Greenberg formulated the position that agreed definitions for a name should eventually gravitate towards preposition, and inconsistent definitions towards postposition.

At the end of the 20th century a set of issues related to the problem of the evolution of language and determining the driving force of this evolution merged with problems of a broader anthropocentric plan, and a new branch of science arose, bringing together linguists, psychologists, anthropologists, biologists and paleontologists. This trend, focusing on the teachings of Charles Darwin, calls itself "neo-Darwinism". A significant scientific innovation in this area is the focus on filling the gap between the beginning of the existence of the language as such and the functioning of proto-languages, reconstructed by comparativists who study different language families. In the epistemological sense, this cycle of problems directly correlates with the problems of the emergence of language, the localization of the proto-language and the causes of its occurrence. However, if we separate these two circles of problems, which are often discussed at joint conferences and symposia, the totality of the interests of the modern theory of language evolution is reduced to the following cycles of tasks: 1) what was the structure of the proto-language? 2) what was its change in the early stages of evolution? 3) what are the driving forces of this evolution? do these forces remain unchanged at the present time? 4) what was the proto-language of mankind? 5) what main stages of its evolution can be outlined? 6) Is there a single one-way traffic path for all languages? 7) what is the driving force behind language change? 8) Does this driving force itself evolve along with the change in language?

As for the first cycle of tasks to be solved, first of all, there is a discussion about whether the proto-language was a language of a purely vocal structure - for the rudiments of the language and the distinguishing sound elements of primates differ in tone and are built on a vocal basis - or whether the proto-language began with the construction of proto-consonants. Related to this issue is the question of the difference in the proto-language of the male and female speech model.

The second hotly debated aspect of evolutionary theory is the question of the discreteness or diffuseness of proto-language elements and the related question of what was primary: discrete isolated components or extended units resembling statements.

A new element of evolutionary theory is also the discussion of whether representations of reality (symbols) existed independently of the developing proto-language or the development of brain connections went in parallel with the development of increasingly complex language models. Thus, the question of the simultaneity or separation of the existence of form and content is discussed. In other words, it is suggested that the double articulation (in terms of expression and in terms of content) of the modern language is a fact of later evolution. And initially these were two non-discrete structures: sounds and meanings. However, two parallel processes were going on: the discrete in the language was transformed into a continuum and vice versa.

What are the minimal sound units of the proto-language now? According to one approach, the primary unit was the syllable, and it was the syllable, i.e. combinations of flow interruption with vocalization, language owes its origin. From another point of view, bundles of backgrounds were primary - phonestems (as a rule, of consonant origin), conveying a certain diffuse semantics associated with each consonant bundle of backgrounds.

Finally, phonemes, i.e. generalized units of the sound system, according to one concept, were later basic constructs, gradually taking shape from linear extensions, according to another concept, they existed at an early stage interspersed with diffuse formations and functioned in the form of particles with a global meaning, most often of a syntactic nature, and then already formed a separate system.

One of the most cited and well-known authors of this trend D. Bickerton (Derek Bickerton) formulated in a special work the difference between natural language and proto-language: 1) free variability is allowed in proto-language, in natural language different ways of expression perform different functions, 2) in proto-language there is not yet zero as an element of the system, 3) the verb in the protolanguage cannot be polyvalent, 4) in the protolanguage there are no rules of "grammatical expansion" (i.e., the protolanguage did not know inflection).

Protocommunication may have been metaphorical in nature. At the same time, there was a certain vanished model of comparing everything with everything that can be identified on the material of the most ancient cosmogonic riddles, guided by the dismemberment of the First Man (Purusha - in the ancient Indian tradition). The surrounding reality was presented in a direct cut on the principle of "here and now".

What are the main stages in the evolution of a proto-language to more complex systems? The most generally accepted is the scheme of the most frequently cited authors of this direction (J.-M. Hombert, Ch. Li) that the proto-language developed in three stages: first (if you represent it graphically) as a long almost straight line, then step by step - rise (the first inflections appeared), then - a sluggish curve, and suddenly - a sudden increase with the transition to the primary language. The first stage is the reflection of emotions, the establishment of social ties (W.Zuidema, P.Hogeweg), information about the “here and now”. Then - the transition from the call (calls) - to the words. Essential is the development of the concept of I, i.e. secularization of the speaking personality and its separation from the addressee. As a result, language evolved in parallel with the development of social structures. Similar to this is another chronology of protolinguistic evolution (Chr.Mastthiesen), according to which the protolanguage also evolved in three stages.

1. Primary semiotics (iconic signs), attachment to the actual context, expression of expression.

2. Transition to language: the emergence of lexicogramma. The emergence of pragmatics

3. Language in our modern sense. There is a transition from iconic signs to symbols (U.Place).

A number of authors explain the long period of stagnation in the evolution of the proto-language (from 1.4 million to 100 thousand years BC) by the absence of names and declarative phrases, due to which there could be no exchange of information necessary for human development (R.Worden).

Thus, the possibility/impossibility of transmitting information and the volume of this information, including virtual situations, are currently being brought to the fore. So, in a special experiment, the difference in the reaction of a modern person to the sudden and unexpected (for example, the appearance of a white rabbit in a cafe) and to the discussion of jointly resolved social problems (J.-L.Dessales) was demonstrated. The transmitted information is divided into intentional, i.e. aimed at influencing the addressee, and purely declarative. Primates, according to experimenters, do not know the intentional principle. But even within these limits, scanning of information is different and there is already an attraction of attention with its focusing - on the subject and on the object (I. Brinck). A clear difference between the proto-language and the language of higher primates is the ability to deny information, to negate within the limits of what is reported (Chr. Westbury).

If we move on to the evaluative component in relation to the very idea of ​​evolution, then over the centuries of the existence of linguistics, the theory of the "impoverishment" of the language, its "corruption", its regressive movement has been repeatedly put forward. In this regard, of course, not all languages ​​experience a progressive evolutionary movement, but due to a number of reasons, both external and internal, they fall into disuse, are not preserved and/or are minimized in their structure. In this regard, a fundamentally new approach to the dialects of a developed literary language is possible - not only as a repository of disappeared relics, but also as an arena for studying what is missing in a dialect in comparison with the literary language. In recent decades, the theory of the “withdrawal” of the language to its former positions has been put forward: “the theory of paedomorphosis, or noothenia” (B. Bichakjian). According to this theory, the language moves towards the previously learned, discarding the acquired later and more complex. The evolution of language is thus the result of backward movement, which is in our genes. This theory was opposed by a number of scientists (in particular, Ph.Lieberman and J.Wind), who stated that all the data of human evolution as a whole deny the theory of noothenia and language cannot differ from other phenomena of human development.

The repeatedly put forward theories of the main driving force of language development - the least effort, laziness, economy of effort, etc. can be reduced to the same thing: the desire to increase the information transmitted by the language per unit of time, which requires compression and / or the development of super-segment relations both in terms of content and in terms of expression.

It should be noted that the human body is by no means indifferent to how the language mechanism works. He tries in a certain way to respond to all those phenomena that arise in the language mechanism that do not adequately correspond to certain physiological characteristics of the organism. Thus, a constantly operating tendency of the adaptation of the language mechanism to the characteristics of the human body arises, which is practically expressed in tendencies of a more particular nature. Here are examples of intralinguistic changes:

1) In phonetics: the emergence of new sounds (for example, in the early Proto-Slavic language there were no hissing sounds: [g], [h], [w] - rather late sounds in all Slavic languages, resulting from the softening of sounds, respectively [g], [ k], [x|); the loss of some sounds (for example, two previously different sounds cease to differ: for example, the Old Russian sound, denoted by the old letter%, in Russian and Belarusian languages ​​coincided with the sound [e], and in Ukrainian - with the sound [I], cf. others .-Russian a&gj, rus, Belarusian, snow, Ukrainian sshg).

2) In grammar: the loss of some grammatical meanings and forms (for example, in the Proto-Slavic language, all names, pronouns and verbs had, in addition to the singular and plural forms, also dual forms used when talking about two objects; later the category of dual numbers have been lost in all Slavic languages ​​except Slovenian); examples of the opposite process: the formation (already in the written history of the Slavic languages) of a special verbal form - the gerund; the division of a previously single name into two parts of speech - nouns and adjectives; the formation of a relatively new part of speech in Slavic languages ​​- the numeral. Sometimes the grammatical form changes without changing the meaning: they used to say cities, snows, and now cities, snows.

3) In vocabulary: numerous and exceptionally varied changes in vocabulary, phraseology and lexical semantics. Suffice it to say that in the publication "New Words and Meanings: A Dictionary-Reference Book on the Materials of the Press and Literature of the 70s / Ed. years, about 5500 entries.

I. Tendency towards easier pronunciation.

The presence in languages ​​of a well-known tendency to facilitate pronunciation has been repeatedly noted by researchers. At the same time, there were skeptics who were inclined not to attach much importance to it. They motivated their skepticism by the fact that the very criteria of ease or difficulty of pronunciation are too subjective, since they are usually viewed through the prism of a particular language. What seems difficult to pronounce due to the operation of the system "phonological synth" to a speaker of one language may not present any difficulties to a speaker of another language. Observations on the history of the development of the phonetic structure of various languages ​​​​of the world also convincingly indicate that in all languages ​​there are sounds and combinations of sounds that are relatively difficult to pronounce, from which each language seeks, if possible, to free itself or turn them into sounds that are easier to pronounce and sound combinations.

II. The tendency to express different meanings in different forms.

The tendency to express different meanings in different forms is sometimes referred to as repulsion from homonymy.

The Arabic language in the more ancient era of its existence had only two verb tenses - the perfect, for example, katabtu "I wrote" and the imperfect aktubu "I wrote". These times originally had species value, but not temporary. As for their ability to express the relation of an action to a certain time plan, in this respect the above tenses were polysemantic. So, for example, the imperfect could have the meaning of the present, future and past tenses. This communication inconvenience required the creation of additional funds. So, for example, adding the particle qad to the forms of the perfect contributed to a clearer delineation of the perfect itself, for example, qad kataba "He (already) wrote." Adding the prefix sa- to imperfect forms such as sanaktubu "we will write" or "we will write" made it possible to express the future tense more clearly. Finally, the use of the perfect forms of the auxiliary verb kāna "to be" in conjunction with the imperfect forms, for example, kāna jaktubu "he wrote" made it possible to more clearly express the past continuous.

III. The tendency to express the same or similar meanings in the same form.

This trend is manifested in a number of phenomena that are widespread in various languages ​​of the world, which are usually called the alignment of forms by analogy. Two most typical cases of alignment of forms by analogy can be noted: 1) alignment of forms that are absolutely identical in meaning, but different in appearance, and 2) alignment of forms that are different in appearance and reveal only a partial similarity of functions or meanings.

Words like table, horse and son in the Old Russian language had specific endings in the dative instrumental and prepositional plural cases.

D. table horse son

T. tables horses sons

P. table of horse sons

In modern Russian, they have one common ending: tables, tables, tables; horses, horses, horses; sons, sons, sons. These common endings arose as a result of transferring, by analogy, the corresponding case endings of nouns representing the old stems in -ā, -jā such as sister, earth, cf. other Russian sisters, sisters, sisters; lands, lands, lands, etc. For alignment by analogy, the similarity of case functions turned out to be quite sufficient.

IV. The tendency to create clear boundaries between morphemes.

It may happen that the boundary between the stem and suffixes becomes not clear enough due to the merger of the final vowel of the stem with the initial vowel of the suffix. For example, a characteristic feature of the types of declensions in the Indo-European stem language was the preservation in the paradigm of the declension of the stem and its distinguishing feature, i.e., the final vowel of the stem. As an example for comparison, we can cite the reconstructed declension paradigm of the Russian word zhena, compared with the declension paradigm of this word in modern Russian. Only singular forms are given.

I. genā wife

P. genā-s wives

D. genā-i to wife

B. genā-m wife

M. genā-i wife

It is easy to see that in the conjugation paradigm of the word wife, the former axis of the paradigm - the basis on -ā - is no longer maintained due to its modification in oblique cases as a result<244>various phonetic changes, which in some cases led to the merger of the stem vowel a with the vowel of the newly formed case suffix, for example, genāi > gene > wife, genām > geno > wife, etc. In order to restore clear boundaries between the stem of the word and the case suffix in in the minds of the speakers, a re-decomposition of the stems took place, and the sound that used to act as the final vowel of the stem went to the suffix.

V. Trend towards economy of language resources.

The tendency to economize on linguistic resources is one of the most powerful internal trends that is manifested in various languages ​​of the world. It can be a priori stated that there is not a single language on the globe in which 150 phonemes, 50 verb tenses and 30 different plural endings would differ. A language of this kind, burdened with a detailed arsenal of expressive means, would not facilitate, but, on the contrary, would make it difficult for people to communicate. Therefore, every language has a natural resistance to over-detailing. In the process of using a language as a means of communication, often spontaneously and independently of the will of the speakers themselves, the principle of the most rational and economical selection of language means really necessary for the purposes of communication is implemented.

The results of this trend are manifested in the most diverse areas of the language. So, for example, in one form of the instrumental case, its most diverse meanings can be included: the instrumental agent, the instrumental adverbial, the instrumental objective, the instrumental limitation, the instrumental predicative, the instrumental adjective, the instrumental comparison, etc. The genitive case also has no less richness of individual meanings. : genitive quantitative, genitive predicative, genitive belonging, genitive weight, genitive object, etc. If each of these meanings were expressed in a separate form, then this would lead to an incredible cumbersome case system.

The vocabulary of the language, numbering many tens of thousands of words, opens up wide opportunities for the realization in the language of a huge number of sounds and their various shades. In fact, each language is content with a relatively small number of phonemes endowed with a meaningful function. How these few functions are singled out, no one has ever investigated. Modern phonologists are concerned with the function of phonemes, but not with the history of their origin. One can only assume a priori that some kind of spontaneous rational selection took place in this area, subject to a certain principle. In each language, apparently, a selection of a complex of phonemes associated with a useful opposition has taken place, although the appearance of new sounds in the language is not explained only by these reasons. With the principle of economy, apparently, the tendency to designate the same values ​​with one form is connected.

One of the clearest manifestations of the trend towards economy is the tendency to create typical monotony. Each language is constantly striving to create a type uniformity.

VI. The trend towards limiting the complexity of speech messages.

The latest research indicates that psychological factors act in the process of generating speech, limiting the complexity of speech messages.

The process of generating speech occurs, in all likelihood, by sequentially recoding phonemes into morphemes, morphemes into words, and words into sentences. At some of these levels, recoding is carried out not in the long-term, but in the human operative memory, the volume of which is limited and equal to 7 ± 2 characters of the message. Consequently, the maximum ratio of the number of units of the lower level of the language contained in one unit of a higher level, provided that the transition from the lower level to the higher one is carried out in RAM, cannot exceed 9: 1.

The capacity of RAM imposes restrictions not only on the depth, but also on the length of words. As a result of a number of linguo-psychological experiments, it was found that with an increase in the length of words beyond seven syllables, a deterioration in the perception of the message is observed. For this reason, with an increase in the length of words, the probability of their occurrence in texts sharply decreases. This limit of word length perception was found in experiments with isolated words. Context makes things easier to understand. The upper limit of the perception of words in context is approximately 10 syllables.

If we take into account the favorable role of the context - intra-word and inter-word - in word recognition, it should be expected that exceeding the critical word length of 9 syllables, determined by the amount of RAM, greatly complicates their perception. The data of linguo-psychological experiments definitely indicate that the volume of perception of the length and depth of words is equal to the volume of a person's working memory. And in those styles of natural languages ​​that are focused on the oral form of communication, the maximum length of words cannot exceed 9 syllables, and their maximum depth - 9 morphemes.

VII. The tendency to change the phonetic appearance of a word when it loses its lexical meaning.

This tendency is most clearly expressed in the process of transforming a significant word into a suffix. So, for example, in the Chuvash language there is an instrumental case characterized by the suffix -pa, -pe, cf. Chuv. pencilpa "pencil", văype "by force". This ending developed from the postposition palan, veil "c"

In colloquial English, the auxiliary verb have in the perfect forms, having lost its lexical meaning, was actually reduced to the sound "v", and the form had to the sound "d", for example, I "v written "I wrote", he "d written" he wrote " etc.

The phonetic appearance of a word changes in frequently used words due to a change in their original meaning. A striking example is the non-phonetic dropping of the final g in the Russian word thank you, which goes back to the phrase God save. The frequent use of this word and the associated change in meaning God save > thank you - led to the destruction of its original phonetic appearance.

VIII. The tendency to create languages ​​with a simple morphological structure.

In the languages ​​of the world, there is a certain tendency to create a language type characterized by the simplest way of combining morphemes. It is curious that in the languages ​​of the world the overwhelming majority are languages ​​of the agglutinative type. Languages ​​with internal inflection are relatively rare.

This fact has its specific reasons. In agglutinating languages, morphemes, as a rule, are marked, their boundaries in the word are defined. This creates a clear intra-word context allowing morphemes to be identified in the longest sequences. This advantage of agglutinative languages ​​was pointed out at one time by I. N. Baudouin de Courtenay, who wrote the following on this subject: “Languages ​​in which all attention in terms of morphological exponents is focused on the affixes following after the main morpheme (root) (Ural-Altaic languages , Finno-Ugric, etc.), are more sober and require much less expenditure of mental energy than languages ​​in which morphological exponents are additions at the beginning of a word, additions at the end of a word, and psychophonetic alternations within a word.

Language is a historical category. This means that over time the language changes, its phonetic structure changes, its vocabulary and grammar change. The very idea of ​​the variability of language was established in linguistics quite late. Even in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, changes in the language were not noticed, or they were considered the result of negligence and lack of education. Variation is the main evidence of the development of a language on a synchronous cut. Variants of words, grammatical forms, syntactic constructions confirm that the language is constantly evolving. The whole process of language development is the disappearance of one linguistic phenomenon and the appearance of another. The moment of the birth of new linguistic phenomena is imperceptible. They appear in speech, begin to be used more and more often, until they become the norm, and they begin to be considered a fact of the language, something ordinary.

The reasons for which language changes occur are divided into two groups: external (extralinguistic) and internal (intralinguistic).

If external factors are due to changes in objective reality (changes in the life of society, the development of scientific and technological progress, the influence of other languages ​​as a result of language contacts, etc.), then internal factors due to changes in the language itself in the course of its functioning.

Being a social phenomenon, language develops according to its own laws, and not according to the laws of the development of society, as the vulgar materialists (academician Marr) claimed, not according to the biological laws of living organisms, as the supporters of the naturalistic trend (Schleicher, Müller) believed, not according to the laws determined by the development of human thinking, as the representatives of linguistic psychologism (Steinthal, Potebnya) thought. The concept of linguistic law was introduced into scientific use by the German neo-grammarists at the end of the 19th century. They believed that the development of language takes place in a circle, and laws operate out of blind necessity, like the forces of nature. Later it was proved that linguistic laws are objective in nature, and their action does not depend on the will and desire of individuals. Of course, one should not absolutize the independence of the language, since it is people who have a certain impact on the course of the development of the language, being its only carriers.

The internal laws of language development summarize the tendencies of historical development in general and in particular. In this regard, a distinction is made between general and particular language laws. General due to the nature of language as a kind of social phenomenon. They are the same for the languages ​​of the whole world and reflect the uniform development of all languages. These include: 1) the law of evolutionary change in the structure of the language, 2) the law of uneven development of different tiers of the language system, 3) the law of analogy.

The law of evolutionary change in the structure of language means that the change of language occurs through the slow accumulation of a new quality and the gradual death of old elements. This law does not deny leaps in the development of a language, but these leaps have their own characteristics and are carried out through the gradual accumulation of some facts and culminate in the final consolidation of a new quality. The linguistic specificity of the leaps is that the final consolidation of a new quality cannot be accurately dated. For example, elements of the new and the old quality still exist and oppose in the language: years and years, road and path, in English. - the parallel existence of two forms of the past tense of the verb to learn (learnt and learned).

The law of uneven development of different tiers of the language system. Vocabulary is the most mobile part of the language, it changes the fastest, as it is the first to reflect all the changes taking place in the world (Internet jargon, mobile phone, satellite TV, etc.). The phonetic, morphological and syntactic systems are more conservative, but they are also undergoing changes. For example, in Russian - a solid pronunciation [p] before back-lingual [k], [g], [x] "top". Phonetic changes in the language are carried out through the change of generations. Often in the same society, the older generation chooses one pronunciation, and the younger generation chooses another.

Plan

LANGUAGE EVOLUTION

1. The concept of the evolution of the language and its forms.

2. Internal and external factors of language evolution.

3. The question of the causality of language changes.

4. Phonetic laws and morphological analogy.

5.Main trends in the development of the language.

6. Stage theories of language development.

7. Socio-historical types of languages.

1. The concept of the evolution of the language and its forms. concept evolution should be interpreted as a natural gradual change in some object, in contrast to revolution , a sharp qualitative leap, as a result of which the object changes radically, turning into another object. Language, according to most scientists, is characterized by evolutionary development: otherwise, as a result of each revolutionary leap, the former language would change radically and mutual understanding between people, between older and younger generations would disappear. However, the opposite point of view was also expressed in Russian linguistics: for example, N. Ya. Marr and his followers believed that language, like other social phenomena, is characterized not only by evolutionary, but also revolutionary changes (See: General Linguistics. M. , 1970, pp. 298-302).

There are the following forms of language evolution : change, development, degradation, improvement.

1)Language change represents the usual replacement of one element of the language system with another (A> B) without qualitative complication or simplification of the system.

2)Language development - this is a change in the language system in the direction of its complication (this is a movement from lower to higher, from simple to complex); as a special case, this is the emergence of new language units, new meanings for words, etc. (Ø>A);

3)Language degradation is such a change that leads to a simplification of the language system; as a special case, it is the disappearance, the disuse of any unit, the reduction in the number of units, meanings of the word, grammatical categories, types of syntactic constructions (A>Ø).

Naturally, the more complex the language system, the more effectively it serves the communicative and cognitive (intellectual) needs of society; the simpler the language system, the less opportunities it has for expressing abstract (abstract) concepts, complex thoughts and ideas.

4)Language improvement - this is a conscious intervention of society in the process of language development. The process of improving the language is associated with the emergence and development literary language .

The complexity of the literary language as an object of study lies in the fact that, on the one hand, it is a self-developing object, which is characterized by the laws of the natural development of the language; on the other hand, society consciously intervenes in this development, striving to improve the literary language (normalizing activity, artistic creativity, language policy). The question of the relationship between spontaneous and conscious factors in the development of the literary language is complex and debatable (For more information about the forms of language evolution, see: Rozhdestvensky Yu. "F. de Saussure on the impossibility of a language policy").

2. Internal and external factors of language evolution. The question of the relationship between internal and external factors of evolution is solved differently by representatives of different philosophical trends. In general, we can talk about two opposite points of view: a) with dialectical (evolutionary) point of view, the source of any development, the main factor is internal contradictions , existing in this or that object, phenomenon; the need to eliminate (resolve, remove) the contradiction and leads to the evolution of this object; b) c mechanistic (metaphysical) point of view, the source of any development, movement is outside push, any external circumstances that cause the object to change.

At the same time, the evolutionist point of view does not at all deny that external factors influence the change and development of an object in a certain way, it is only a matter of the fact that the influence of external factors is not decisive. In turn, the mechanistic point of view does not deny the internal causality of development, but the source, root cause any development sees an external impetus.

The general course of development of evolutionary concepts is characterized by a constant rejection of the absolutization of external factors (Lamarckism) and a growing interest in internal causality (Darwinism, Hegelianism, Marxism). Already in the Hegelian dialectic, the principle self-promotion , self-development, the source of which is the struggle of internal contradictions inherent in every phenomenon, every process. The point is that some kind of internal contradiction is necessary, constantly is present in the device of any object, as a result of the removal of this contradiction, the object develops, its transition to a new quality, but as soon as this contradiction is eliminated, this contradiction is resolved, it is immediately replaced by a new contradiction, and therefore the evolutionary process is endless.

Internal (or dialectical) contradictions are characterized by the following features: 1) they, and not external events, are the main source of development of any object, the root cause of development; 2) dialectical contradictions always have two sides: leading and driven; 3) the resolution of a dialectical contradiction always means the defeat of one of the parties - the driven one, but the defeat is not in the sense of the destruction of this side, but in the sense that properties incompatible with the developed properties of the other, leading side are destroyed in the driven side; 4) dialectical contradictions reflect the deep essence of the phenomenon, they do not lie on the surface, they are discovered by science; 5) in the dialectical contradiction between content and form, the leading side is always the content: it is active, and it is its change that causes the form to change.

3. The question of the causality of language changes. Linguistics has made a significant contribution to the general theory of evolution. Different areas of linguistics answered the question of the causes of language changes in different ways.

1)philosophical rationalism. The rationalistic philosophy of the 17th-18th centuries, actually relying on the previous tradition dating back to antiquity, tried to explain all changes in the sounds and forms of the language by the “laxity” of use, the fuzzy pronunciation of sounds, and the tongue-tied tongue, leading to the “corruption” of the language. Compare, for example, the reasoning of the librarian of the Russian Academy of Sciences Alexander Ivanovich Bogdanov (the last third of the 18th century), who in the manuscript “On the Origin of All Alphabetical Words in the Russian Language” explained the reasons for sound changes in this way: “This happened, it seems, from a lack of pronunciation language of burry people, lisping, hoarse, tambourine, mumblers and other tongue-tied people. However, this “corruption” of the language does not affect its deep rational content and concerns only external, superficial aspects, therefore such changes are reversible: they can be eliminated as a result of the strict and persistent activity of the guardians of the language: grammarians, philosophers, logicians, writers. It is obvious that such explanations could no longer satisfy the linguistic science of the 19th century, since with the help of the comparative historical method it was possible to establish that sound changes have a certain direction, and therefore have the character of laws.

2)Early Comparatives. The entire 19th century - the era of the undivided dominance of historical linguistics with its insistent call to study the history of the language in connection with the history of the people. In the early concepts of comparative historical linguistics, the main factor in linguistic evolution was recognized external factor , which can be called socio-historical : tribes settled on the Earth, the natural and social conditions of their habitat changed, it became necessary to give names to new objects and previously unknown phenomena (new plants, animals, landscape features, climate, new activities); another, proper social factor is language contacts with new neighbors. However, socio-historical factors could not satisfactorily explain linguistic changes of a formal nature: changes in sounds and grammatical forms.

3)Young grammarians. The theory of sound laws was most fully and consistently formulated in the works of neogrammarists. As the cause of phonetic changes was put forward anthropophonic factor: sound changes occur as a result of the economy of pronunciation efforts, the desire of a person for the convenience of pronunciation, i.e., their reason lies in human psychology. Phonetic changes may, in turn, lead to a change in grammatical forms (cf.: bed - bed). However, very many grammatical changes cannot be derived from phonetic ones (for example, it is impossible to explain why the dual number disappeared in Russian and other Slavic languages, the category of animation developed, the simple past tenses aorist and imperfect disappeared, and many others). The anthropophonic factor is also commonly seen as external in relation to the language, since the cause of the changes is sought not in the language system itself, its internal contradictions, but in the speaking person.

4)Humboldt. The merit of comparative historical linguistics and philosophy of language of the XIX century. is the discovery of another important reason for language changes, which W. von Humboldt and his followers formulated as "spirit work" . The movement of the “spirit”, its creative development, is a property inherent in it, it appears therefore root cause development of peoples and their languages. Humboldt: “The division of the human race into peoples and tribes and the difference in their languages ​​and dialects are interconnected, but are also dependent on a third higher order phenomena – the re-creation of human spiritual power in ever newer and often higher forms.” If we free this point of view from the terminology of German idealism, which Humboldt operates on, then we can say that the root cause of language change lies in the development of human thinking .

5)pluralistic concepts. It should be noted, however, that the Humboldtian concept does little to explain the causes of phonetic changes. It is difficult to explain, for example, the development of akanya in Russian or the loss of the phoneme “yat” by the needs of the exchange of thoughts. If we admit that phonetic changes are explained by other kinds of reasons, then it should logically be recognized that there is no single, main reason for language changes at all, that there are several or even many such reasons, that internal (intralinguistic) and external (extralinguistic) ) factors. Maurice Grammont (1866-1946), a representative of the French sociological school, adhered to this point of view: “Everywhere it is argued that the causes of language changes are unknown and mysterious. This is inaccurate. There are many of them." According to Grammon, there are seven main reasons: a) the influence of race; b) the influence of climate; c) the influence of the state; d) uncorrected mistakes of children; e) the law of least effort; e) fashion; g) analogy. However, the mechanical combination of many factors of language evolution is ineffective, it does not make it possible to see which of the factors are the main ones and which are secondary, and does not answer the question: what ultimately determines language evolution - external factors or internal causality.

6)Evolutionist concepts of Soviet linguistics they are trying to combine the “Humboldt line” and the anthropophonic factor, since it is quite obvious that, on the one hand, it is difficult to explain sound changes that are purely formal in the development of human thinking (for example, the development of akanya in the Russian language or the loss of the phoneme ѣ “yat”) . On the other hand, the anthropophonic factor is not able to explain the development of grammatical categories, new more complex syntactic structures, etc. One of the successful attempts at such a synthesis is the “E.D. language evolution? (1931). Evgeny Dmitrievich Polivanov(1891-1938) considered the source of language changes striving to save labor energy , or otherwise - "human laziness". Speech activity is determined by two laws, which, in essence, can be considered two sides of one law: a) the law of economy of pronunciation efforts; b) the law of economy of thought efforts.

Then the main contradiction in the development of language is formulated as a contradiction between the energy expended on the expression of thought and the need to adequately and clearly express the thought. It turns out that the "spirit" not only seeks to find the most perfect form for its expression, but also to spend on this a minimum of effort, a minimum of language material. In the struggle of these two aspirations, the evolution of the language takes place. Native speakers, on the one hand, strive for the effectiveness of communication, on the other hand, to minimize the energy costs of communication. This contradiction can be recognized internal for language, if, following Humboldt and Potebnya, language is understood as activity aimed at connecting thought and articulated sound. "Polivanov's law" is in good agreement with the "labor theory" of the origin of the language of F. Enegels, and with the activity approach to the human psyche that dominates in Russian psychology. leading party contradictions in Polivanov's theory turned out to be "human laziness", or the desire to save pronunciation and mental efforts.

T. P. Lomtev (1953) continues the “Humboldt line” differently than Polivanov: “The main internal contradiction , the overcoming of which is the source of the development of the language ... is the contradiction between the available means of a given language and the growing needs for the exchange of thoughts. This contradiction is precisely internal in relation to language, because thinking and language represent a dialectical unity: language in the form of sound complexes appears in relation to thought as a form, and thought appears in relation to these sound complexes as content. Therefore, this same contradiction is also formulated as a contradiction between content and form. The leading party of the controversy is, of course, content , i.e. "the growing need for the exchange of thoughts", slave, subordinate is a linguistic form that changes under the influence of an increasingly complex content. One way or another, this contradiction was also formulated by other Soviet linguists: a) L. V. Shcherba (the contradiction between the interests of understanding and speaking); b) R. A. Budagov (the contradiction between the needs of speakers and the resources of the language). From what has been said, it becomes clear why the social factor should not be considered only as external in relation to language: the need to express and communicate thoughts is, undoubtedly, social needs, inextricably linked with the entire course of development of society. At the same time, as we found out, thinking itself is not something external to the language, being its content. Thus, thinking acts as a mediating link that turns "external" social factors into internal ones. Thus, the approach of T. P. Lomtev makes it possible to answer the the question of the role of external factors in the development of the language: everything external (changes in the social structure of society, migration, contacts) is refracted in thinking and thereby passes into the internal. As for phonetic changes, according to Lomtev, they are not the leading ones that determine language evolution; this is exactly changes , which do not lead to development and improvement language. The predictability of certain phonetic changes is of a probabilistic-statistical nature. The viability of a phoneme in a language is related to its semantic ability: the greater the functional load on this phoneme, the more words and morphemes it delimits, the less likely it is to disappear, to coincide with any other phoneme.

7)Structuralist evolutionary theories they try to explain the evolution of the language by internal contradictions inherent in the system of the language, in its structure. Since the language in structuralist concepts is a system of subsystems, or levels (phonemic, morphemic, lexical, syntactic levels), the solution to the question of the causes of language evolution came down to solving a number of interrelated problems: a) since each level is relatively independent, it is necessary to find the cause of evolution each level (i.e. the causes of phonetic, morphological, lexical and syntactic changes); b) since the levels are still connected and are subsystems of a single language system, it is necessary to establish hierarchy of causes, that is, to show how levels interact, how changes at one level affect changes at another level of the language system; and most importantly, to answer the question: changes at which of the levels are leading, determining the entire language evolution; c) is it possible that the same (or similar) cause of change is acting at all levels, in other words, is it possible to speak of cause isomorphism.

The solution of the problem within the framework of structuralism began with finding out the cause of phonological changes.

A) One of the first theoretical solutions to the question of the cause of phonetic changes was proposed by representatives of the Prague School of Structuralism. So, Nikolai Sergeevich Trubetskoy(1890-1938) wrote that "phonological evolution acquires meaning if it is used for the purposeful restructuring of the system ... Many phonetic changes are caused by the need to create stability ... to the conformity of the structural laws of the language system" (1929). Following Trubetskoy, the same idea is formulated by his colleague Roman Osipovich Yakobson(1896-1982) in his work “Principles of Historical Phonology” (1931): “Traditional historical phonetics was characterized by an isolated interpretation of sound changes, i.e. there was no attention to the system that undergoes these changes ... phonology opposes an anatomically isolated method to a complex … Each change is considered in accordance with the system within which it occurs. Sound change can only be understood if its function in the language system is clarified. In this way, the very structure of the phonological system determines what it should be, determines the sound evolution of a given language.

B) French structuralist André Martinet in his work “The Principle of Economy in Phonological Changes” (1955) he tries to combine the traditional anthropophonic factor (the principle of economy of pronunciation efforts) with the factor of “system pressure” of Trubetskoy-Jakobson: “Traditional articulation and even the whole set of different realizations of a particular phoneme can change if the nature or direction of the pressure exerted by the system is modified. At the same time, the “pressure of the system” is understood as its attraction to an internally logical, economical organization: “The principle of maximum differentiation ... is ultimately the great organizing principle of phonological systems within the boundaries of natural inertia and the most economical structure.” This principle is opposed to the principle of least effort, economy of mental and physical activity. The interaction of principles determines the boundaries of phoneme variation, the presence of a "safety zone", ensures the preservation of "useful oppositions" and the elimination of "useless", redundant oppositions. The phonetic system is thus regarded as self-sufficient, and changes within it are explained from itself.

Soviet language historian Valery Vasilievich Ivanov interpreting Martinet's concept, he tries to present the interaction of the anthropophonic factor with the factor of "system pressure" as a constantly renewed contradiction between phonetic and phonological systems, an imbalance between them: "The interests of language as a means of communication require the most clearly organized phonological system, in which its constituent units are phonemes would be maximally opposed to each other ... However, in natural languages ​​there are no ideally constructed phonological systems, and, as you can see, they cannot exist. The explanation for this fact can be found in the two-way nature of speech sounds. On the one hand, the nature of speech sounds is directly related to the work of the organs of speech, directly depends on the physical features of the action of these organs, on the articulatory base of native speakers of a given language. On the other hand, the sounds of speech ... form a system that is characterized primarily by the opposition of these units to each other, which allows them to play a role in distinguishing word forms, that is, to be phonemes... The phonetic and phonological systems, no doubt, are in unity with each other, but at the same time they are also in conflict. The phonological system is based on the requirement of maximum differentiation of linguistic units, the utmost clarity of its construction ... the simpler the phonological construction, the more reliable it is as a means of distinguishing two word forms, and hence it follows that the phonological system requires clarity and sharpness in the articulation of sound realizations and does not tolerate "mixing » of these implementations. Actually, the phonetic system is built on a completely opposite basis: it is determined by the tendency to "economy of pronunciation efforts", i.e., the desire to weaken the tension of articulations, to facilitate the work of the organs of speech, to reduce the certainty in the articulation of a particular sound, and consequently, to weakening the degree of distinguishability of sounds, to a decrease in their opposition. Thus, on the one hand, the desire for maximum differentiation of sound realizations of phonemes, and on the other hand, the tendency to save pronunciation efforts - such is the contradiction that causes opposition to the creation of an ideally constructed phonological system. In essence, it was a presentation of the concept of E. D. Polivanov in terms of structuralism.

C) One of the first attempts to establish hierarchy of causes undertaken by a Polish scientist Jerzy Kurilovich(1958), who put forward the position of "pressure of the higher level on the lower." So, in his opinion, morphology puts pressure on the phonological system, and that, in turn, has a decisive influence on the anthropophonic level. It turns out that phonology only "sensitively reacts" to the requirements of morphology, and in itself is devoid of development. And then something higher puts pressure on morphology, on language as a whole. Thus, within the framework of structuralism, a crisis of the evolutionist concept of self-movement was outlined: the global, final cause of linguistic evolution should be sought outside of language.

D) In ​​an effort to remain within the framework of structuralism, a somewhat different path than Kurilovich goes Vladimir Konstantinovich Zhuravlev(1991), extending the principles developed by N. S. Trubetskoy's school for phonology to morphology: morphological changes are also explained by the system's striving for equilibrium. It turns out that in morphology, as well as in phonology, the unstable balance of the system is also mysteriously constantly disturbed, and the need to restore the balance leads to a restructuring of the system. The interaction of different levels of the language system is explained in a similar way: the restructuring of the phonological system leads to morphological changes, the morphological system, in turn, has a reverse effect on the phonological system, and an unstable balance is restored between them, which is immediately disturbed in some other link of the system ... Thus, Zhuravlev has the principle of a closed cycle: phonetics affects morphology, morphology affects phonetics.

4. Phonetic laws and morphological analogy. So, the evolutionary concept of structuralism raised the question of the hierarchy of factors of linguistic evolution, the interaction and mutual influence of different levels of the language system, in particular, the phonetic and morphological levels.

1)phonetic laws. The merit of comparative historical linguistics was the discovery phonetic laws : sound changes are not random, chaotic, but regular, regular.

The date of birth of historical phonetics can be considered 1818, when Rasmus Rask described the sound changes that later became known as the Germanic consonant movement. At first, the unit of description was a letter: researchers were interested in “letter transitions”, “letter correspondences”. After the work of A. Kh. Vostokov “Discourse on the Slavic Language” (1820), sound gradually moved into the center of attention of historical phonetics. Vostokov determined the original sound of individual Slavic letters (yus and er). After Vostokov, it was no longer possible to confine oneself to ascertaining letter transitions, counting the “correct” and “incorrect” use of letters in a given monument of writing, it was necessary to discern sound changes behind letter transitions.

The initial accumulation of empirical material on sound transitions created the impression of chaos: it seemed that everything was transforming into everything. But half a century of searching for the causes of sound changes gave in the last third of the 19th century. very significant results. Phonetics was created, the science of the structure of the sound apparatus and the physical nature of speech sounds. took shape anthropophonic principle explanations of sound changes, each of which was directly brought under one or another change in articulation, articulatory base, articulatory habits, etc. The idea of ​​the regularity of sound changes, put forward by Rask, gradually matured (he compared, for example, other Greek. Pater with Old Norse fađir). It turned out that not everything goes into everything: sound change is conditioned and limited by syntagmatics (phonetic position).

However, only neogrammarists put forward postulate of the immutability of phonetic laws and the related provision that exceptions to phonetic laws must be explained by other laws. If the early comparativeists unhesitatingly associated Lat. sapiens and Greek sophos on the basis of similarities in meaning and sound, the neogrammarists rejected such a comparison on the grounds that the initial lat. *s in Greek the aspirated sound *h (septem - hepta) must correspond; a - o, p - ph also do not give regular correspondences. The essence of the phonetic law of neogrammarists is formulated as follows: sound[but] regularly goes into sound[in] in a fixed position R in this language L at this stage of its development T. This formulation can be represented as the following formula: P / L / T.

So, for example, the law of the first palatalization of back-linguals in the Proto-Slavic language can be written using the following formula:

[r, k, x > w’, h’, w’] before’V/Slav.

Proto-Slavic back-lingual (g, k, x) turned into soft hissing before the front vowels. Wed the following examples of the transition [to > h']: shout - shout, hand - pen (handles), circle - circle, leg - leg, fly - fly (flies) etc. under. Deviation from this pattern may indicate a change in any parameters of the law:

A) The operation of another phonetic law: shout - shout, knock - knock, run - run, spirit - breathe as if it indicates that the transition occurs not only before the front vowel, but also before [a]; in fact, this is not so: in the Proto-Slavic place /a/ in this position there was a long [ē] (e “yat”), and later the phonetic law of transition [ē > a] began to operate.

B) Presence of type cases doom, throw, cue, cunning also testifies that in the era of the first palatalization, some other vowel stood in this position, and indeed: Old Russian forms death, kydati, kyi, cunning show that after k in these words and in the Proto-Slavic period there was a non-front vowel, and therefore, it was a different position.

C) the presence of cases like price, caesar also suggests that after [ц] there was not a front vowel [e], but some other one. And indeed: a comparison with the Lithuanian kaina and the German Kaisar (lat. Caesar) suggests that initially in this position after [k] there was a diphthong, and therefore the law of the first palatalization did not apply; in late Proto-Slavic, the law of monophthongization of diphthongs began to operate, as a result of which a transition occurred; and only then there was a transition [k > c] before the front vowel, when the law of the first palatalization ceased to operate. The law of transition [r, k, x > z’, q’, c’] is called the second palatalization of the back-lingual ones, because in time it occurred after the first one in a position before the front vowels formed from diphthongs.

D) Presence of cases like hero, genius, Cyril, centaur, cinema, kefir, chiton, cherub may indicate that these words did not belong to the L language at the time of this law, i.e., they were borrowed from another language after the completion of the process of the first palatalization. The phonetic law acts here as a criterion for distinguishing between one's own and someone else's. The deviation from the phonetic regularity in borrowings is evidence of its termination in the era of borrowings.

Thus, the thesis of the neogrammarists about the immutability of phonetic laws is confirmed. All “exceptions” to the phonetic law actually turn out to be imaginary and indicate a change in one of the parameters of the formula - P, T or L. The development of the sound matter of a language is a change in phonetic laws. The new law cancels the old one, each of them has its own historical time.

2)morphological analogy. The neogrammarists drew attention to another type of "exception" to phonetic laws: violations of phonetic laws caused by the action morphological analogy. Consider the effect of morphological analogy on the example of the phonetic law of transition (“e” to “ё”), which was in force in the Russian language in the 14th-16th centuries:

a) transition position - under stress after a soft consonant before a hard one: I carry - carried, blacken - black, honey - honey, darken - dark etc.; there was no transition before the soft consonant: darken - darkness; day - day, stump - stump etc.;

b) transition time - XIV-XVI centuries; The fact that the transition ended by the 17th century is evidenced, in particular, by later borrowings: cutlet, patent, bluff, athlete etc. (we don't say: cutlet, patent, bluff, athlete);

c) the reason for the transition is the influence on [e] of the subsequent solid consonant; as a result of this influence, [e] labialized and became less forward (that is, “moved” towards [o]).

However, in some cases we observe the operation of the same law in a position before a soft consonant. Wed: birch - on a birch, honey - about honey, we carry - we carry etc. In this and similar cases, the transition is no longer explained by phonetic reasons, but by morphological analogy, i.e., the tendency to equalize the paradigm: birch, birch, birch, birch and by analogy: on a birch.

Initially, in the historical studies of morphological analogy, in the words of V.K. Zhuravlev, the role of a “garbage can” was assigned, where “exceptions” from phonetic laws were added, i.e., the “protagonist” of historical linguistics was a phonetic law, and where phonetic for some reason, the law came into conflict with grammar, morphology, it imposed restrictions on its operation. Here is how, in particular, H. Paul imagined the interaction of phonetic laws and morphological analogy: “In the history of language, we constantly observe the struggle of two opposite tendencies ... The stronger the destructive effect of sound changes on groups, the more active the activity of neoplasms ... A factor counteracting the destructive effect of sound change is education by analogy.

The first to see the problem of analogy as an independent factor in morphological evolution was I. A. Baudouin de Courtenay. In his work “On the Role of Analogy in the History of Polish Declension” (1870), he showed that morphological analogy is not just a factor acting in conjunction with phonetic laws, morphological analogy “prevails” over phonetic laws, i.e., “cancels” the effect of phonetic laws . In other words, where the phonetic law and the morphological analogy collide, the morphological analogy turns out to be more important, it is precisely this that “takes over”.

Any phonemic opposition exists in a language as long as it serves morphology, serves the distinction of meaning; any phonetic law is valid as long as it contributes to the distinction of meaning. As soon as the phonetic law becomes a brake on the distinction of meaning, becomes useless or even harmful to grammar and semantics, morphological analogy limits its action.

The next step in the study of morphological analogy was made by Vasily Alekseevich Bogoroditsky, who noted that “the processes of analogy in the language are also natural, as well as phonetic processes. This pattern is found in the fact that formations by analogy in each language usually express a certain direction characteristic of this language. Bogoroditsky also distinguishes between two types of analogy: a) internal analogy, operating within the same paradigm (for example, within the same type of declension); b) external analogy, i.e., the influence of one paradigm on another (for example, the influence of one type of declension on another).

The main line of analogy is it is always the influence of "strong" (prevailing) forms on "weak" ones. This led to the most important conclusion: the action of analogy may not be connected at all with phonetic laws. D. N. Ushakov: “In essence, the history of declension is a solid example of grammatical analogy: our whole task is to reveal its action and give it a proper explanation.”

In the future, the theory of analogy was actively developed in research Grigory Andreevich Ilyinsky(“Proto-Slavic Grammar”, 1916), Alexey Alexandrovich Shakhmatov(“Historical morphology of the Russian language”), as well as Leonid Arsenievich Bulakhovsky, Roman Osipovich Yakobson, Vladimir Konstantinovich Zhuravlev and etc.

So under morphological analogy should be understood as the process of leveling the grammatical paradigm, which consists in the fact that the "weak" morpheme M 1 is replaced by the "strong" (predominant) morpheme M 2 in a given language L at a certain period of its historical development T in a certain grammatical position. VK Zhuravlev in his work "Diachronic Morphology" (1991) expressed this law by the following formula: (M 1 ~M 2 )P/L/Т.

5.Main trends in the development of the language. The question of whether the evolution of languages ​​has a certain direction or, in other words, whether there are trends in it, is debatable. In Soviet linguistics, the point of view on the progressive development of languages ​​was recognized (cf., for example, the studies of R. A. Budagov, F. P. Filin, and others). However, other points of view were also expressed by linguists. For example, the early comparativists (J. Grimm, F. Bopp, A. Schleicher, and others) believed that languages ​​were born, flourished, and declined. The point of view was also expressed, according to which there is no vector in the evolution of languages ​​(i.e., the language does not develop from the lowest stage to the highest or vice versa): only constant multidirectional changes occur in the language (“rotation of forms”), which cannot be assessed by any as progress, not as degradation.

However, some trends in the evolution of human languages ​​can be seen:

1) Valid in all languages the law of destruction of the original syncretism. Initially, mankind used undifferentiated into phonetics, vocabulary, morphology units of the language. The sound was both a word and an utterance. To be more precise, there was no word, no statement, no phoneme in our understanding. Only gradually was the opposition of the phoneme to the word, the word to the sentence, the member of the sentence to the part of speech, etc. established. in the Russian language there was an indistinct opposition to the system of complex sentences to the system of sentences of complex sentences, there was no clear line between pronouns and conjunctions, between coordinating and subordinating conjunctions, between unions and particles (cf. conjunctions like, more and etc.). The facts of the history of other languages ​​known to science allow us to assert that the current opposition of composition to subordination arose from an earlier, undifferentiated connection of statements on this basis (Compare: The ambassador of a man, his name is Ivan). The noun and the adjective in Indo-European and other languages ​​differ by no means natively. So, even in the Old Russian language there was no clear line between nouns, adjectives and adverbs ( Welcome to eat honey drink). And the modern division into verbs and names is also not original, it was preceded by such a state of the language when there was neither a name nor a verb, but there was a diffuse word used to designate both the process and the object (subject) of the action.

2) Valid in all languages the law of abstraction of the elements of the linguistic structure. Its action is expressed in the fact that on the basis of some, more specific elements of the linguistic structure, others develop, less and less specific. On the basis of lexical elements (full-meaning words), grammatical elements are developed - morphemes and auxiliary words. This process has been named grammaticalization (cf. the formation of prefixes and prepositions from significant words).

3) In all languages, the already mentioned law of analogy , which consists in likening some structural elements to others, in the influence of "strong" forms on "weak" ones. So, for example, the verb call in Russian moves its stress by analogy with similar verbs walk, drive, wear etc., although the literary language resists such an “innovation”. By analogy with existing words, new words are formed by their morphemic structure. The law of analogy thus has a "conservative" side: it stabilizes the "rules" by subjecting more and more new words to their influence. But it also has a "destructive" side, it changes seemingly stable structural elements. So, in the history of the Russian language, as a result of the action of the law of analogy, the declension system was rebuilt - instead of the ancient five types, three remained.

6. Stage theories of language development. The identification of general development trends characteristic of all languages ​​contributed to the emergence of the idea among a number of linguists that All languages ​​go through the same stages in their development. . In an even bolder form, this thesis is formulated as follows: all the languages ​​of mankind represent only different stages (phases) of the development of the once single universal language. This process of development of a common human language is called a single glottogonic process. Two types of stage theories are best known.

1) Theories of the first type arose in the 19th century. within comparative historical linguistics and Humboldtianism.

A) Based on the achievements of comparative historical linguistics of their time, the German romantics brothers Friedrich Schlegel (“On the Language and Wisdom of the Indians”, 1809) and August-Wilhelm Schlegel (“Notes on the Provencal Language and Literature”, 1818) identified three grammatical types of languages : one) inflectional(e.g. Indo-European); 2) affixing(e.g. Turkic); 3) amorphous(eg Chinese). At the same time, inflectional languages ​​can be synthetic (like Latin, Ancient Greek) and analytical (like English, Bulgarian). Subsequently, W. von Humboldt added to this classification incorporating languages ​​in which the sentence is one long word, “moulded” from the roots, for example, in the Chukchi “ty-ata-kaa-nmy-rkyn” (“I kill fat deer”, literally: “I-fat-deer- kill-do").

b) in the middle of the 19th century. A. Schleicher returned to the Schlegel classification, filling it with historical and philosophical content. Schleicher was a Hegelian and believed that any development goes through three stages: thesis, antithesis (negation of the previous step) and synthesis (negation of negation, combining the thesis and antithesis in a new quality). On the other hand, Schleicher was a supporter of Darwinism and considered languages ​​to be living organisms, passing, like any organism, through the stages of birth, flourishing and dying. All this together led him to the idea that the three grammatical types of languages ​​represent three stages of development that the human language goes through: a) the first stage - thesis - amorphous (or isolating, according to Schleicher) languages; b) the second stage - antithesis - affixing (or agglutinating) languages; c) the third stage - synthesis - inflectional languages ​​- the highest stage in the development of human languages.

It turns out that for some reason the Chinese language lingered at the first stage, the Turkic languages ​​(for example, Tatar) stopped at the second, and only the Indo-European languages ​​reached the highest stage of development. In turn, the Indo-European languages, according to Schleicher, are unequal: Schleicher considers the stage of flowering the synthetic type of language (Sanskrit, Ancient Greek, Latin, Old Slavonic); in the development of elements of analyticism, he sees features of the decline, decomposition of the language (for example, modern English, Bulgarian, etc.).

In this theory, it remained unclear why languages ​​develop so unevenly, and some "moved" far "forward", while others remained at the "lower" stages of development. From the point of view of modern science, the criteria for “perfection” are also doubtful: ancient Indo-European languages ​​​​(such as Sanskrit) are attributed to “flourishing”, and modern ones (such as English) to “decline”. However, it is clear that a much richer and more complex content can be expressed in modern English than in Sanskrit. It is hardly possible to translate into Sanskrit Kant or Hegel or a modern work on cybernetics. In this sense, the "amorphous" modern Chinese is much more "advanced" than Sanskrit or Ancient Greek. The fact is that Schleicher considered the criterion of the perfection of the language to be the richness of its material forms, and by no means the ability of the language to express diverse and complex intellectual information.

C) Schleicher's theory was further developed in the works of the Austrian scientist Friedrich Müller, who connected it with Franz Bopp's theory of agglutination. According to Bopp, Indo-European inflections arose as a result of agglutination ("gluing") to the nominal or verbal root of the "pronoun". This seemed to prove that inflectional languages ​​go back to an earlier agglutinating type.

2) In the first third of the twentieth century. the stadial theory is being revived in a modified form within the framework of "New Doctrine of Language" N. Ya. Marr , becoming the core of his concept single glottogonic process . Marr directly connects various grammatical types of languages ​​with different socio-economic formations (community-clan system, tribal system, class society) and with the stages of development of an ethnos (clan - tribe - nationality - nation). For N. Ya. Marr, and especially for his student I. I. Meshchaninov, the syntactic type of language (the type of sentence presented in a particular language) becomes the main basis for the stage classification. The development of the language was interpreted as a universal process of "rebirth" of one stage of the language into another. This "rebirth", according to Marr, takes place through a revolutionary explosion, as a result of and simultaneously with a change in the social order. Sound speech as a whole was considered to have grown out of subsonic kinetic (manual) speech.

The subsequent staged development of the spoken language was drawn approximately as follows: a) the tribal system is characterized by a mythological type of thinking and an isolating-incorporating type of language; b) early class society is characterized by a passive-logical type of thinking and an affixing (according to Marr) or ergative (according to Meshchaninov) type of language; c) a mature class society is characterized by an active-logical type of thinking (modern formal logic) and an inflectional type of language. At the same time, the number of stages and the classification principles of both Marr himself and his supporters do not always coincide. In the distant communist future, the dialectical-materialist thinking of the proletariat and a single universal language will triumph; the Marrists also had statements according to which mankind would pass to thinking and communication without the help of language.

The constructions of the Marrists, like those of Schleicher, suffered from extreme schematism; many languages ​​\u200b\u200bdid not fit into their “Procrustean bed”. Much of these constructions was just a figment of the imagination. In particular, N. Ya. Marr proposed to reconstruct the stages and determine the place of the language in the stadial periodization on the basis of the “paleontological” “four-element analysis” invented by him, the main thesis of which is that all words of all languages ​​go back to the four original root elements: “sal”, “ ber, yon, rosh. If for the comparative historical method the main levels of reconstruction were phonetics and morphology, then the paleontological method of Marr refocused research attention on syntax, vocabulary and semantics. The phonetic laws discovered by the comparative historical method were almost completely ignored, sound and morphemic comparisons often had the character of complete arbitrariness.

Proponents of the "new doctrine of language" attempted to explain why the modern languages ​​spoken by mankind today were at different stages of development: some were delayed in the early stages, others turned out to be more "advanced". The glottogonic process, according to Marr, is one: it is, as it were, a “mainstream” (mainstream), while some tribes (and their dialects) merge into it, while others remain on the sidelines due to some specific historical circumstances. A new tribe, emerging on the historical arena, as if adjoins a single glottogonic process, catching it already at a certain stage. In this sense, the Slavic language has never been "ergative" or "amorphous", because the Slavic tribe is formed at a time when humanity enters the stage of "civilization", the stage of inflectional languages. Therefore, the Slavic language was already initially inflectional, and, for example, the Celtic languages, according to Marr, reflected an earlier, transitional phase from an agglutinative system to an inflectional one. Such languages ​​of the early stages appear, as it were, on the sidelines of a single glottogonic process, passing the baton to new, young tribal languages.

3)The current state of the stadial theory. The idea of ​​stages in the development of languages ​​has not been rejected by modern linguistics. It can be confidently asserted that languages ​​go through three stages in their development, corresponding to the three stages of the development of an ethnos: a) the languages ​​of the primitive communal system; b) languages ​​of nationalities; c) national languages ​​(languages ​​of nations). Each of these stages is characterized by certain features of vocabulary and grammar. However, there are no facts that would indicate that with the transition from one stage to another, the grammatical type of the language changes: isolating languages ​​do not become agglutinating, agglutinating languages ​​do not turn into inflectional ones. So, the Proto-Indo-European language, the language of the primitive communal system, was undoubtedly the language of the inflectional type. However, the overwhelming majority of modern Indo-European languages ​​(for example, Russian), which are at the third, highest stage of development, are also inflectional. The Chinese language remained isolating, Turkish - agglutinating. However, Russian, Chinese, and Turkish languages ​​equally effectively perform their functions in modern society.

7. Socio-historical types of languages. So, we can come to the conclusion that languages ​​go through certain stages in their development, corresponding to the stages of the development of society (primitive communal system - slave system and feudalism - capitalism); these stages of the development of society correspond to the stages of development of the ethnos (clan - tribe - nationality - nation). Languages ​​at each of these stages of social development have their own characteristics of vocabulary, grammatical structure and stylistic system. The formulated correspondence can be represented in the following table:

Literature:

1. Bernstein S. B. Essay on comparative grammar of Slavic languages. M., 1961. S. 128.

2. Budagov R. A. The struggle of ideas and trends in linguistics of our time. M., 1978. Ch.4. Do social factors oppose factors that are immanent in the science of language?

3. Budagov R. A. What is the development and improvement of the language? M., 1977.

4. Vinokur G. O. On the tasks of the history of language // Zvegintsev V. A. History of linguistics in the 19th and 20th centuries. in essays and extracts. Part II. M., 1960.

5. Grechko V. A. Theory of linguistics. M., 2003. Chapter V. Change and development of the language.

6. Humboldt V. On the difference in the structure of human languages ​​... / / Zvegintsev V. A. History of linguistics in the 19th and 20th centuries. in essays and extracts. Part I. M., 1960.

7. Zhuravlev VK Internal and external factors of language evolution. M., 1982. Chapter "Social pressure on language processes."

8. Zhuravlev VK Diachronic morphology. M., 1991. Ch. 12.

9. Zhuravlev VK Diachronic phonology. M., 1986. Ch. 2, 3.

10. Kolesov VV History of Russian linguistics. SPb., 2003. Article "Formation of the idea of ​​development in linguistics in the first half of the 19th century."

11. Lomtev T. P. Internal contradictions as a source of historical development of the language structure // Lomtev T. P. General and Russian linguistics. M., 1976.

12. Linguistic encyclopedic dictionary / Ch. ed. V. N. Yartseva. M., 1990. Articles "Synchrony", "Diachrony", "Staging theory", "Comparative historical linguistics".

13. Marr N. Ya. Japhetidology. M., 1999.

15. Meie A. Introduction to the comparative study of Indo-European languages ​​// Zvegintsev V. A. History of linguistics in the 19th and 20th centuries. in essays and extracts. Part I. M., 1960.

16. Meshchaninov I. I. New teaching about language. L., 1936. Ch. 10.

17. General linguistics / Ch. ed. B. A. Serebrennikov. M., 1970. S. 298-302.

18. Paul G. Principles of the history of language. M., 1960. Introduction.

19. Polivanov E. D. Where are the reasons for language evolution? // Polivanov E.D. Articles on general linguistics. M., 1968.

20. Rozhdestvensky Yu. V. Lectures on General Linguistics. M., 2002. Lecture 8. Language dynamics.

21. Saussure F. Course of General Linguistics. M., 2004. Part 1. Ch. 3. Static linguistics and evolutionary linguistics.

22. Stalin I. V. Marxism and questions of linguistics // Twilight of linguistics. From the history of Russian linguistics. Anthology. M., 2001.

23. Filin F. P. Essays on the theory of linguistics. M., 1982. Articles "Contradictions and development of language", "On the problem of social conditionality of language".

24. Schleicher A. Darwin's theory as applied to the science of language // Zvegintsev V. A. History of linguistics in the 19th and 20th centuries. in essays and extracts. Part I. M., 1960.

25. Yakubinsky L.P. Selected works. M., 1986. Articles “A few remarks on vocabulary borrowing”, “F. de Saussure on the impossibility of a language policy", "Problems of syntax in the light of the New Doctrine of Language", "Education of peoples and their languages".