What genre does the hero of our time belong to? Hero of our time" by Lermontov and the hero of our time in modern literature

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

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

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

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

5. Tiers of language structure.

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

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

As a result, the concepts of system and structure became fundamental theoretical concepts linguistics in general.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ideas about the systemic organization of language have been developed in several areas of structural linguistics.

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

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

Structure is the structure of a system.

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

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

The language is open dynamic system: it is in a state of constant development, enriching itself with new elements and getting rid of obsolete ones.

From communication means In animals, the language system is distinguished by its ability to express logical forms of thinking.

The language system differs from artificial formalized sign systems in the spontaneity of its emergence and development, as well as the possibility of expressing deictic, expressive and motivating information.

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

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

Let's look at these signs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

; ; borrowed sound [f].

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

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

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

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

Syntagmatics (horizontal)

south into the mountains into the forest

for an excursion, etc.

The language is bidirectional. Thus, with the help of language we comprehend perceived reality. And at the same time, it is aimed at the inner, spiritual world of man. Consequently, two spheres closely interact in language: material and spiritual. Language recreates the material world in its secondary - ideal manifestation.

One of the main tasks of linguistics is to identify the patterns of the internal structure of language. A deep and consistent study of the internal organization of language began in the 19th century and was formed as an independent theory by the middle of the 20th century thanks to the establishment of a systems approach in science.

The systematic approach in linguistics has received diametrically opposed assessments: complete support and complete denial. The first gave rise to linguistic structuralism, the second - the desire of supporters of the so-called traditional linguistics to defend the priorities of the historical method, which, in their opinion, is incompatible with the systemic one. This intransigence stems mainly from different understandings of what a “system” is.

In philosophy, “system” is “order”, “organization”, “whole”, “aggregate”, “totality”. Further we observe the semantic complication of the concept. It is conceptualized as a “self-developing idea,” an integrity containing many steps. As scientists note, since the second half of the 20th century we can talk about a developed systemic style of thinking.

Currently, systems are classified into: 1) material (consisting of material objects) and ideal (from concepts, ideas, images); 2) simple (consisting of homogeneous elements) - complex (uniting heterogeneous groups or classes of objects); primary (consisting of elements that are significant for the system due to their natural properties) - secondary (elements of which are used specifically to transmit information, for this reason such systems are called semiotic, that is, symbolic; integral (in which the connections between the elements are stronger than the connections of the elements with the environment) - summative (in which the connections between elements are the same as the connections between the elements and the environment); natural - artificial; dynamic - static; open (that is, interacting with the environment) - closed; self-organizing - unorganized; controlled - uncontrollable, etc.

What place does language occupy in this classification of systems? It is impossible to unambiguously classify a language into one of the types due to the multi-qualitative nature of language. It belongs to the category of complex systems, since it combines heterogeneous elements (phonemes, morphemes, words, etc.) The question of the scope of localization (or existence) of language remains debatable. The opinion that it exists in the form of linguistic memory is not unfounded, but, nevertheless, this is not the only condition for its existence. The second condition for its existence is the material embodiment of its ideal side in linguistic complexes.

Since the ideal and material sides are inextricably linked in language, and it is intended to transmit information not by nature, but as a result of the purposeful activities of people to consolidate and express semantic information (that is, ideal systems - concepts, ideas), it should be considered as a secondary semiotic system .

Representatives of structuralism view the language system as closed, rigid and uniquely determined. Comparativists, if they consider language a system, then only a holistic, dynamic, open and self-organizing system. This understanding satisfies both traditional and new directions in the science of language. What is the relationship between the concept of “language system” and such related concepts as “totality”, “whole”, “organization”, “element” and “structure”? Before answering this question, it is necessary to find out how the concepts of “elements” and “units” of a language relate, since the “system” of a language presupposes the presence of minimal, further indivisible components of which it consists.

With the development of the systematic study of language and the desire to understand the internal properties of linguistic phenomena, there is a tendency towards a meaningful distinction between the concepts of “elements” and “units” of language as a part and a whole. As components of language units (their expression plan or content plan), language elements are not independent, since they express only some properties of the language system. Units of language have all the properties of a language system and, as integral formations, are characterized by relative independence (ontological and functional). Units of language form the first system-forming factor.

The concept of “system” in linguistics is closely related to the concept of “structure”. A system is understood as a language as a whole, since it is characterized by an ordered collection of its units, while a structure is the structure of a system. In other words, systematicity is a property of a language, and structure is a property of a language system.

Linguistic units differ both quantitatively, qualitatively, and functionally. Collections of homogeneous language units form subsystems called tiers or levels.

The structure of a language is a set of regular connections and relationships between linguistic units, depending on their nature and determining the qualitative uniqueness of the language system as a whole and the nature of its functioning. The uniqueness of a language structure is determined by the nature of connections and relationships between linguistic units.

A relationship is the result of a comparison of two or more units of language according to some common basis or characteristic. This is an indirect dependence of linguistic units, in which a change in one of them does not lead to a change in the others. The following relationships are fundamental to the linguistic structure: hierarchical, established between heterogeneous units (phonemes and morphemes; morphemes and lexemes, etc.); oppositional, according to which either linguistic units or their characteristics are opposed to each other.

Connections of linguistic units are defined as a special case of their relations, suggesting a direct dependence of linguistic units. In this case, a change in one unit leads to a change in others. The structure of a language acts as a law of connection between these elements and units within a certain system or subsystem of a language, which presupposes the presence, along with dynamism and variability, of such an important property of structure as stability. Thus, stability and variability are two dialectically related and “opposing tendencies of the linguistic structure. In the process of functioning and development of a language system, its structure manifests itself as a form of expression of stability, and function as a form of expression of variability. The structure of language, due to its stability and variability, acts as the second most important system-forming factor.

The third factor in the formation of a language system (subsystem) is the properties of a language unit, namely: the manifestation of its nature, internal content through its relationship to other units. The properties of linguistic units are sometimes considered as functions of the subsystem (level) formed by them. The internal and external properties of linguistic units are highlighted. Internal ones depend on the connections and relationships established between homogeneous units of one subsystem or between units of different subsystems, while external ones depend on the connections and relationships of linguistic units to reality, to the surrounding world, to the thoughts and feelings of a person. These are such properties of linguistic units as the ability to name, designate, indicate, etc. Internal and external properties are called subsystem (or level) functions. What is the structure of a language system? To answer this question, it is necessary to reveal the essence of those connections and relationships thanks to which linguistic units form a system. These connections and relationships are located along two system-forming axes of the language structure: horizontal (reflecting the property of linguistic units to be combined with each other, thereby performing the communicative function of language); vertical (reflecting the connection of linguistic units with the neurophysiological mechanism of the brain as the source of its existence). The vertical axis of the linguistic structure represents paradigmatic relations, and the horizontal axis represents syntagmatic relations, designed to activate two fundamental mechanisms of speech activity: nomination and predication. All types of relationships between linguistic units in a speech chain are called syntagmatic. They implement the communicative function of language. Paradigmatic are the associative-semantic relations of homogeneous units, as a result of which linguistic units are united into classes, groups, categories, that is, into paradigms. This includes variants of the same language unit, synonymous series, antonymic pairs, lexical-semantic groups and semantic fields, etc. Syntagmatics and paradigmatics characterize the internal structure of language as the most important system-forming factors that presuppose and mutually condition each other. By the nature of syntagmatics and paradigmatics, linguistic units are combined into super-paradigms, including homogeneous units of the same degree of complexity. They form levels (tiers) in the language: the level of phonemes, the level of morphemes, the level of lexemes, etc. This multi-level structure of language corresponds to the structure of the brain, which “controls” the mental mechanisms of speech communication.

Language is a system, i.e. a holistic functional formation, a set of interconnected elements organized in a certain way.

Structure is a set, or pattern, of relationships between elements of a system. These relationships are extremely diverse. Among the different types of relations, syntagmatic and paradigmatic ones are distinguished, which play an extremely important role in language.

Syntagmatic relations - “horizontal” relations unite language units into a simultaneous sequence that has a certain extent; a language unit is combined with neighboring units, forming a syntagma, for example:

house + ik; gingerbread + house.

Paradigmatic relations - relations “vertically” unite homogeneous units into groups, categories, categories based on similarity, commonality of the signifier or signified. We can talk about morphological paradigms: the paradigm of declension or conjugation; lexical-semantic paradigms: thematic group, LSG, synonymous series, etc.

house house house

home house hut

home house house hut

house home

3. The elements of the language system are extremely numerous and heterogeneous, starting from the minimal - differential features and ending with the most extensive - subsystems: lexical subsystem, word-formation, etc. That. language can be defined as a system consisting of subsystems, or particular systems: morphological, syntactic, lexical, etc. In this sense, they say that language is a system of systems.

Particular subsystems that are connected by hierarchical relationships are called language levels. Thus, language is a hierarchically organized system of private subsystems.

The main criterion for the level of phenomena. the presence in a given subsystem of the language of a special, qualitatively specific linguistic unit - the ultimate / minimal / primary / elementary / unit, i.e. a unit that has properties that are not inferred from the properties of its constituent units. Such linguistic units are: phoneme, morpheme, word, sentence. Thus, a word consists of morphemes, but the main property of a word as the ultimate unit of its level - its nominative function / naming function / - is inherent in the word as a whole; morphemes do not have this function. A sign of a linguistic unit forming a level is. the ability to split the text into just these units.

As a rule, the following levels of language are distinguished; phonological - phoneme level, morphological - morpheme level, lexical - word level, syntactic - sentence level. There is no word-formation, phraseological, or phraseological level, because there are no special elementary, primary units that form them. Thus, a phrase is not an elementary primary unit, it is a combination of words that does not have a special function as a whole; just like a word, it has the function of nomination / naming /.

Typical of language is a complex structure of interconnected heterogeneous elements. In order to determine which elements are included in the structure of language, let's look at the following example: two Romans argued who would say (or write) a shorter phrase; one said (wrote): Eo rus - I’m going to the village, and the other answered: I - go. This is the shortest statement (and writing) that can be imagined, but at the same time it is a completely complete statement, constituting an entire replica in a given dialogue and, obviously, possessing everything that is characteristic of any statement.

What are these elements of a statement?

1) i is a speech sound (more precisely, a phoneme), i.e. a sound material sign accessible to perception by the ear, or i is a letter, i.e. a graphic material sign that is perceptible to the eye;

2) i is the root of a word (in general, a morpheme), i.e. an element expressing some concept;

3) i is a word (verb in the imperative mood in the singular) naming a certain phenomenon of reality;

4) I is a sentence, i.e. an element containing a message.

Little i, it turns out, contains what makes up a language in general: 1) sounds - phonetics (or letters - graphics), 2) morphemes (roots, suffixes, endings) - morphology, 3) words - vocabulary and 4) sentences - syntax.

Nothing else exists or can exist in language.

Why was such a strange example needed to clarify the question of the structure of language? To make it clear that the differences in the elements of the structure of language are not quantitative, as it might seem if we took a long sentence, broke it into words, words into morphemes, and morphemes into phonemes. This example eliminates this danger:

All levels of the structure of language represent the “same” i, but taken each time in a special quality.

Thus, the difference in the elements of the structure of language is qualitative, which is determined by the different functions of these elements. What are the functions of these elements?

1.Sounds (phonemes) are material signs of language, and not just audible sounds. Sound signs of language have two functions: 1) perceptual - to be an object of perception and 2) significative - to have the ability to distinguish higher, significant elements of language - morphemes, words, sentences: sweat, bot, mot, that, dot, note, lot, pine, pine, pine, etc.

2. Morphemes can express concepts:

a) root - real (table-), (ground-), (window-), etc. and b) non-root ones of two types: meanings of attributes (-ost), (-without-), (re-) and meanings of relations (-y), (-ish), sitting - sitting, (-a), (-y) table, table, etc.; this semasiological function, the function of expressing concepts. They cannot name morphemes, but they have meaning; (red-) expresses only the concept of a certain color, and something can only be named by turning the morpheme into a word: redness, red, blush, etc.

3. Words can name things and phenomena of reality; this is a nominative function, a naming function; there are words that perform this function in their pure form - these are proper names; ordinary, common nouns combine it with a semasiological function, since they express concepts.

4.Sentences serve to communicate; this is the most important thing in verbal communication, since language is a tool of communication; this function is communicative; since sentences consist of words, in their constituent parts they have both a nominative and semasiological function.

The elements of this structure form a unity in the language, which is easy to understand if you pay attention to their connection: each lower level is potentially the next highest, and, conversely, each higher level, at a minimum, consists of one lower one: thus, a sentence can minimally consist of one word (.Dawn. Frost.); a word - from one morpheme (here, here, metro, hurray); morpheme - from one phoneme (Sh-i, zh-a-t).

Within each circle or tier of the linguistic structure (phonetic, morphological, lexical, syntactic) there is its own system, since all elements of a given circle act as members of the system.

A system is a unity of homogeneous and interdependent elements. Systems of individual tiers of the language structure, interacting with each other, form the overall system of a given language.