Methods of modern linguistics for learning Chinese
It is obvious that before each scientist who seriously studies Chinese, there is an acute problem of the methodology (method) of his research, therefore, their perspectives and their own place in the bosom of Sinology.
This question, despite its apparent simplicity, is complicated, if only because the effectiveness of a specific linguistic methodology must be justified in comparison with other methodological systems and analyzed to determine whether it can be used to study a specific language material.
Such a study has so far not been purposefully conducted, which, as we see it, determines the relevance of the study.
')
So, before the beginning of the 20th century - the period when the ideas of F. de Saussure became known about the need to form linguistics as a separate discipline, Russian sinologists have already achieved tremendous success in selecting, analyzing, and systematizing language material.
Two sources of knowledge about the Chinese language, practical Sinology (through Spiritual missions, Military and Diplomatic Agencies) and theoretical Sinology (through the Academy of Sciences and universities) in Russia, received official (state) recognition in the era of Emperor Peter I.
In Russia, within the walls of the Academy of Sciences, Gotlieb (Theophil) Siegfried Bayer (“Hinay grammar”, “Museum Sinicum”) and Lorenz Lang (works on phonetics and dialects) composed their first works on the Chinese language, in the Ecclesiastical Mission - Illarion (Larion) Kalinovich Rossokhin, Alexey Leontyev Leontyev, Alexey Agafonov (works on phonetics, transcriptions of Chinese words, translations of classical works, dictionaries), Chinese studies centers began to form - the Asian Museum of the Academy of Sciences, departments in universities (in Kazan and St. Petersburg) and educational departments.
In addition, the opening in 1837 of the Department of Chinese and Manchu languages ​​in Kazan (the first head - Archimandrite Daniel (Savilov)), the transfer of the department (1854) to St. Petersburg, allowed sinologists to deal exclusively with the problems of China (in general) and Chinese (in particular ).
Within the department, curricula, manuals on the Chinese language, studies in the field of literature were developed.
For example, Osip Wojciechowski (the successor of Daniil Savilov) published "Educational articles for students and beginners to learn Chinese and Manchurian languages", "Literary articles and extracts from the best books for practical exercises in languages."
Kitaists Anton Grigorievich Vladykin, Pavel Ivanovich Kamensky, Stepan Vasilyevich Lipovtsov, Zakhar Fedorovich Leontyevsky purposefully engaged in translating Chinese literature and compiling bilingual (Chinese-Russian and Russian-Chinese) dictionaries. Nikita Yakovlevich Bichurin, in addition, was engaged in the compilation of grammars of the Chinese language (considered Chinese through the prism of a method based on the medieval linguistic tradition).
Thus, despite the fact that in the 18th century and the first half of the 19th century, Chinese was studied solely for the purpose of learning China (as part of it) in the language tradition of European schools, scientists (in terms of linguistics) managed to achieve great results - the first dictionaries, grammars, anthologies, Chinese textbooks (the collection, analysis and systematization of language material were in full swing), there was a tendency towards specialization — clearly defined linguistic and literary profiles were formed in science.
Russian Sinology in the 19th century (within the framework of comparative historical linguistics, using the method of external reconstruction) is closely associated with the names of such scholars as Peter Ivanovich Kafarov (Palladium) (“Chinese-Russian Dictionary”, 1888), Vasily Pavlovich Vasiliev (“Graphic System Chinese hieroglyphs ", 1867," Analysis of Chinese hieroglyphs "1866, 1884), Sergey Georgievsky (" Analysis of hieroglyphic writing as a reflection of the life history of the ancient Chinese people ", 1888;" On the root composition of Chinese in connection with the question of the origin of the Chinese ", 1888), Alexey Osipovich (Iosifovich) Ivanovsky (" Materials for the History of the Aliens of Southwestern China ", 1888," Yunnan's Aliens during the Yuan Dynasty, Ming and Daitsin, 1886), Dmitry Alekseevich Peschurov ("Chinese Russian Dictionary of Key Systems ”, 1897,“ Chinese-Russian Dictionary of Graphic System ”, 1891), Pavel Stepanovich Popov (“ Chinese-Russian Dictionary ”, 1879,“ Brief Introduction to Learning Chinese ”, 1908), Dmitry Matveevich Pozdneev (“The new hieroglyphic Japanese-Korean-Chinese dictionary as an attempt to identify I am the minimum number of hieroglyphs common to the three languages ​​", 1910), Appolinary Vasilyevich Rudakov (" Practical Dictionary of Official Words of the Literary Chinese Language ", 1927), Petr Petrovich Schmidt (Peteris Schmits) (" Experience of Mandarin Grammar ", 1915," Linguistic Introduction in learning Chinese ", 1900/1901).
It is possible to assert that by the beginning of the 20th century, Sinology in Russia was a developed branch of knowledge about the language in which the method of comparative historical linguistics was used. Kitaistics of that time possessed system knowledge of language material (phonetics, vocabulary and grammar of the Chinese language) and was ready to accept the ideas of structural linguistics (see this work in support of this statement by Alexei Ivanovich Ivanov, Vasily Mikhailovich Alekseev, Alexander Efgrafovich Lubimov, Georgiy Feofanovich Smikalov) . It was at that moment that the national structural school of Sinology was born, and the further specialization of Sinologists working on various problems of the Chinese language continues.
Recognition of the foundations of linguistics F. de Saussure by linguists around the world allowed to clarify and apply the new linguistic method of internal reconstruction for Chinese studies, the work was distributed in the following areas: structural direction (structural language), sociological direction (social language), psychological direction (psychological language ). The language was analyzed in synchronic and diachronic key.
Using this method, scientists dealt with the problems of phonetics and phonology (V.M. Alekseev, Yu.K. Shutsky, B.A. Vasilyev), lexicology (V.S. Kolokolov, I.M. Oshanin), grammar (E.D. Polivanov, A.A. Dragunov, A.G. Shprintsin), deciphering the ancient (Yin) writing and the history of the language (Yu.V. Bunakov) and creating the history of cytaistic studies (P.E. Skachkov).
The work was carried out within the walls of the Asian Museum, the College of Orientalists (later the Institute of Oriental Studies of the USSR Academy of Sciences), the Institute of Japhetic Languages ​​(later the Institute of Language and Thinking), the Central and Petrograd Institutes of Living Oriental Languages ​​(later the Moscow Institute of Oriental Studies), the Institute of Sinology (later - Institute of the Far East), All-Russian (All-Union) Scientific Association of Oriental Studies, Turkestan Oriental Institute, Communist University of Working People of the East.
Research in the field of phonetics, vocabulary, grammar, research of hieroglyphic writing and romanization of the Chinese language (within the framework of structural linguistics) gradually prepared the basis for clarifying questions of general linguistics about the essence of language (in a broad sense) and private linguistics about the nature of Chinese, its levels, history , dialectology and reconstruction.
The development of Sinology (after the Great Patriotic War in the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, the Moscow Institute of Oriental Studies, the Institute of the Far East, the Siberian and Far Eastern Branch of the USSR Academy of Sciences, the Moscow State University, the Oriental Department of Leningrad State University, etc.) represents the stage of development of science, during which the problems of general linguistics were solved ( Chinese material) and the Chinese language (NN Korotkov, Yu.V. Rozhdestvensky, VM Solntsev, S.Ye. Yakhontov), ​​phonology, morphology, lexicology, syntax, stylistics (V.I. Gorelov, TP Zadoyenko, B.S. Isaenko, A.M. Karapetiyants, I. Klenin, NN Korotkov, AF Kotova, B.G. Mudrov, IM Oshanin, M.K. Rumyantsev, A.L. Semenas, N.V. Solntseva, N.A. Speshnev , Tan Aoshuan, N.I. Tyapkina, A.A. Khamatova, E.I. Shutova, S. B. Yankiver), stories of the language (I.S. Gurevich, I.T. Zograf, M.V. Kryukov, T.N. Nikitina, M.V. Sofronov, Juan Shuin, V.F. Shchichko, S.E. Yakhontov), ​​dialects and the national language (OI Zavyalova, Yu.V. Novgorodsky, M.V. Sofronov, A.G. Shprintsyn), machine translation (A.A. Zvonov, V.I. Zherebin, V.A. Voronin, A.A. Larin).
Kitaistics of this period prepared the basis for constructing (in the future) the highest levels of the Chinese language, building a dynamic system of the Chinese language in the language (in a broad sense), clarifying the nature of language processes.
The development (in general linguistics) of linguistic methodology of descriptivism (method of researching form, L. Bloomfield), glossology (method of studying relationships, L. Elmslev) and generative linguistics (method of describing generative structures, N. Chomsky), the use of these methods in Russian sinology led to the flourishing of syntactic (non-semantic) theories.
In Russian Sinology, these are works (using the method of analyzing syntactic links) N.V. Solntseva (Solntseva N.V. Theoretical grammar of modern Chinese (problems of morphology). - M., 1978. - 152s.), K.V. Antonyan (“Efficient constructions in modern Chinese” - Autor. Diss .... Cand. Filol. Sciences. - M., 1994. - 22s.), E.I. Shutovoy (“The Syntax of Modern Chinese”, 1991), Artemy Mikhailovich Karapetiyants (Doctor of Science Diss. “Typology of the Basic Units of Chinese”, 1992), Tan Aoshuan (“Problems of the Hidden Grammar” - Abstract of thesis ... Dr.-Phil. Sciences - M., 1995. - 43 p.), Boris Yurevich Gorodetsky, Sergey Anatolyevich Starostin ("Reconstruction of the Ancient Chinese Phonological System" - M., 1989. - 727 pp.), Vladimir Anatolyevich Kurdyumov ("Idea and Form. Fundamentals of the predication concept of a language , 1999, “Predication and the nature of communication”, 1999).
The recognition of the syntactic (non-morphological, non-static) essence of a language, in turn, determines the need to substantiate its dynamic structure (method of researching language as a system-dynamic whole, method of substantiating the dynamic structure of language).
Within the framework of this method, the language process can be represented as a certain manifestation (“dictation”) of the dynamics “from” (modus) and “k” (address).
The fundamental point for building this model is that the modus, dictum and address are existing within the language process, which uniquely determines the status of all language processes as certain particular manifestations of the dynamics of the language.
The nature (dynamics) of the language process implies the mandatory implementation of all three structural components (mode, dictum and address). “Subjective” distinguishing or ignoring the latter allows one to understand the difference in the types of language processes and to build their typology (gnoseology of the language), language to structure its dynamics (ontology of the language).
Using the method of representing the language as a system-dynamic whole (substantiation of the dynamic structure of the language), it is possible to systematically present the following language processes (in Chinese):
- universal speaking (in traditional terminology - popular speaking, mode - address) as a process for which mode (the desire to be carried out in a dynamic language) and address (a set of representations that are constantly updated through the language of submissions) are key;
- professional speaking (professional language, dictum - address) as a process for which the personal beginning is not classifying;
- dialect speaking (dialect language, modus - dictum) is a process in which the predictive beginning and the manifestation of language dynamics (without an explicit address) are highlighted.
By analogy, such systems as idiolectic speaking (idiolectrical language, expressed modus), literary speaking (literary language, dictum) and national speaking (national language, address) can be included in this system.
This provision allows us to create an abstraction of the dynamics of the structure of a first-level language (language process model):
- discourse of the highest level (described above);
- discourse of a language of a certain type (active type, nominative type, ergative type; isolating languages, inflective languages, agglutinative languages, incorporating languages);
- discourse of style - an infinite set of texts (the style of everyday communication, newspaper-publicistic style, style of fiction, scientific style, official business style, production and technical style).
In addition, such types of language processes as:
- grammar discourse (sentence, is a pronounced mode);
- discourse of vocabulary (vocabulary, explicit address);
- phoneme discourse (phonetic level, “remnant” of dynamic processes, dictum).
Summarizing the above, we note that the need to develop a method that represents a language as a system-dynamic whole (the method of substantiating the dynamic structure of a language) is due to trends in learning Chinese. The method itself is based on the ideas of Russian Sinology and can be used to systematize the various-level dynamic processes in the Chinese language.
The application of this method, combining the ideas of the schools of the structure and dynamics of the language, determines the methodology of our present and future research.
This question, despite its apparent simplicity, is complicated, if only because the effectiveness of a specific linguistic methodology must be justified in comparison with other methodological systems and analyzed to determine whether it can be used to study a specific language material.
Such a study has so far not been purposefully conducted, which, as we see it, determines the relevance of the study.
')
So, before the beginning of the 20th century - the period when the ideas of F. de Saussure became known about the need to form linguistics as a separate discipline, Russian sinologists have already achieved tremendous success in selecting, analyzing, and systematizing language material.
Two sources of knowledge about the Chinese language, practical Sinology (through Spiritual missions, Military and Diplomatic Agencies) and theoretical Sinology (through the Academy of Sciences and universities) in Russia, received official (state) recognition in the era of Emperor Peter I.
In Russia, within the walls of the Academy of Sciences, Gotlieb (Theophil) Siegfried Bayer (“Hinay grammar”, “Museum Sinicum”) and Lorenz Lang (works on phonetics and dialects) composed their first works on the Chinese language, in the Ecclesiastical Mission - Illarion (Larion) Kalinovich Rossokhin, Alexey Leontyev Leontyev, Alexey Agafonov (works on phonetics, transcriptions of Chinese words, translations of classical works, dictionaries), Chinese studies centers began to form - the Asian Museum of the Academy of Sciences, departments in universities (in Kazan and St. Petersburg) and educational departments.
In addition, the opening in 1837 of the Department of Chinese and Manchu languages ​​in Kazan (the first head - Archimandrite Daniel (Savilov)), the transfer of the department (1854) to St. Petersburg, allowed sinologists to deal exclusively with the problems of China (in general) and Chinese (in particular ).
Within the department, curricula, manuals on the Chinese language, studies in the field of literature were developed.
For example, Osip Wojciechowski (the successor of Daniil Savilov) published "Educational articles for students and beginners to learn Chinese and Manchurian languages", "Literary articles and extracts from the best books for practical exercises in languages."
Kitaists Anton Grigorievich Vladykin, Pavel Ivanovich Kamensky, Stepan Vasilyevich Lipovtsov, Zakhar Fedorovich Leontyevsky purposefully engaged in translating Chinese literature and compiling bilingual (Chinese-Russian and Russian-Chinese) dictionaries. Nikita Yakovlevich Bichurin, in addition, was engaged in the compilation of grammars of the Chinese language (considered Chinese through the prism of a method based on the medieval linguistic tradition).
Thus, despite the fact that in the 18th century and the first half of the 19th century, Chinese was studied solely for the purpose of learning China (as part of it) in the language tradition of European schools, scientists (in terms of linguistics) managed to achieve great results - the first dictionaries, grammars, anthologies, Chinese textbooks (the collection, analysis and systematization of language material were in full swing), there was a tendency towards specialization — clearly defined linguistic and literary profiles were formed in science.
Russian Sinology in the 19th century (within the framework of comparative historical linguistics, using the method of external reconstruction) is closely associated with the names of such scholars as Peter Ivanovich Kafarov (Palladium) (“Chinese-Russian Dictionary”, 1888), Vasily Pavlovich Vasiliev (“Graphic System Chinese hieroglyphs ", 1867," Analysis of Chinese hieroglyphs "1866, 1884), Sergey Georgievsky (" Analysis of hieroglyphic writing as a reflection of the life history of the ancient Chinese people ", 1888;" On the root composition of Chinese in connection with the question of the origin of the Chinese ", 1888), Alexey Osipovich (Iosifovich) Ivanovsky (" Materials for the History of the Aliens of Southwestern China ", 1888," Yunnan's Aliens during the Yuan Dynasty, Ming and Daitsin, 1886), Dmitry Alekseevich Peschurov ("Chinese Russian Dictionary of Key Systems ”, 1897,“ Chinese-Russian Dictionary of Graphic System ”, 1891), Pavel Stepanovich Popov (“ Chinese-Russian Dictionary ”, 1879,“ Brief Introduction to Learning Chinese ”, 1908), Dmitry Matveevich Pozdneev (“The new hieroglyphic Japanese-Korean-Chinese dictionary as an attempt to identify I am the minimum number of hieroglyphs common to the three languages ​​", 1910), Appolinary Vasilyevich Rudakov (" Practical Dictionary of Official Words of the Literary Chinese Language ", 1927), Petr Petrovich Schmidt (Peteris Schmits) (" Experience of Mandarin Grammar ", 1915," Linguistic Introduction in learning Chinese ", 1900/1901).
It is possible to assert that by the beginning of the 20th century, Sinology in Russia was a developed branch of knowledge about the language in which the method of comparative historical linguistics was used. Kitaistics of that time possessed system knowledge of language material (phonetics, vocabulary and grammar of the Chinese language) and was ready to accept the ideas of structural linguistics (see this work in support of this statement by Alexei Ivanovich Ivanov, Vasily Mikhailovich Alekseev, Alexander Efgrafovich Lubimov, Georgiy Feofanovich Smikalov) . It was at that moment that the national structural school of Sinology was born, and the further specialization of Sinologists working on various problems of the Chinese language continues.
Recognition of the foundations of linguistics F. de Saussure by linguists around the world allowed to clarify and apply the new linguistic method of internal reconstruction for Chinese studies, the work was distributed in the following areas: structural direction (structural language), sociological direction (social language), psychological direction (psychological language ). The language was analyzed in synchronic and diachronic key.
Using this method, scientists dealt with the problems of phonetics and phonology (V.M. Alekseev, Yu.K. Shutsky, B.A. Vasilyev), lexicology (V.S. Kolokolov, I.M. Oshanin), grammar (E.D. Polivanov, A.A. Dragunov, A.G. Shprintsin), deciphering the ancient (Yin) writing and the history of the language (Yu.V. Bunakov) and creating the history of cytaistic studies (P.E. Skachkov).
The work was carried out within the walls of the Asian Museum, the College of Orientalists (later the Institute of Oriental Studies of the USSR Academy of Sciences), the Institute of Japhetic Languages ​​(later the Institute of Language and Thinking), the Central and Petrograd Institutes of Living Oriental Languages ​​(later the Moscow Institute of Oriental Studies), the Institute of Sinology (later - Institute of the Far East), All-Russian (All-Union) Scientific Association of Oriental Studies, Turkestan Oriental Institute, Communist University of Working People of the East.
Research in the field of phonetics, vocabulary, grammar, research of hieroglyphic writing and romanization of the Chinese language (within the framework of structural linguistics) gradually prepared the basis for clarifying questions of general linguistics about the essence of language (in a broad sense) and private linguistics about the nature of Chinese, its levels, history , dialectology and reconstruction.
The development of Sinology (after the Great Patriotic War in the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, the Moscow Institute of Oriental Studies, the Institute of the Far East, the Siberian and Far Eastern Branch of the USSR Academy of Sciences, the Moscow State University, the Oriental Department of Leningrad State University, etc.) represents the stage of development of science, during which the problems of general linguistics were solved ( Chinese material) and the Chinese language (NN Korotkov, Yu.V. Rozhdestvensky, VM Solntsev, S.Ye. Yakhontov), ​​phonology, morphology, lexicology, syntax, stylistics (V.I. Gorelov, TP Zadoyenko, B.S. Isaenko, A.M. Karapetiyants, I. Klenin, NN Korotkov, AF Kotova, B.G. Mudrov, IM Oshanin, M.K. Rumyantsev, A.L. Semenas, N.V. Solntseva, N.A. Speshnev , Tan Aoshuan, N.I. Tyapkina, A.A. Khamatova, E.I. Shutova, S. B. Yankiver), stories of the language (I.S. Gurevich, I.T. Zograf, M.V. Kryukov, T.N. Nikitina, M.V. Sofronov, Juan Shuin, V.F. Shchichko, S.E. Yakhontov), ​​dialects and the national language (OI Zavyalova, Yu.V. Novgorodsky, M.V. Sofronov, A.G. Shprintsyn), machine translation (A.A. Zvonov, V.I. Zherebin, V.A. Voronin, A.A. Larin).
Kitaistics of this period prepared the basis for constructing (in the future) the highest levels of the Chinese language, building a dynamic system of the Chinese language in the language (in a broad sense), clarifying the nature of language processes.
The development (in general linguistics) of linguistic methodology of descriptivism (method of researching form, L. Bloomfield), glossology (method of studying relationships, L. Elmslev) and generative linguistics (method of describing generative structures, N. Chomsky), the use of these methods in Russian sinology led to the flourishing of syntactic (non-semantic) theories.
In Russian Sinology, these are works (using the method of analyzing syntactic links) N.V. Solntseva (Solntseva N.V. Theoretical grammar of modern Chinese (problems of morphology). - M., 1978. - 152s.), K.V. Antonyan (“Efficient constructions in modern Chinese” - Autor. Diss .... Cand. Filol. Sciences. - M., 1994. - 22s.), E.I. Shutovoy (“The Syntax of Modern Chinese”, 1991), Artemy Mikhailovich Karapetiyants (Doctor of Science Diss. “Typology of the Basic Units of Chinese”, 1992), Tan Aoshuan (“Problems of the Hidden Grammar” - Abstract of thesis ... Dr.-Phil. Sciences - M., 1995. - 43 p.), Boris Yurevich Gorodetsky, Sergey Anatolyevich Starostin ("Reconstruction of the Ancient Chinese Phonological System" - M., 1989. - 727 pp.), Vladimir Anatolyevich Kurdyumov ("Idea and Form. Fundamentals of the predication concept of a language , 1999, “Predication and the nature of communication”, 1999).
The recognition of the syntactic (non-morphological, non-static) essence of a language, in turn, determines the need to substantiate its dynamic structure (method of researching language as a system-dynamic whole, method of substantiating the dynamic structure of language).
Within the framework of this method, the language process can be represented as a certain manifestation (“dictation”) of the dynamics “from” (modus) and “k” (address).
The fundamental point for building this model is that the modus, dictum and address are existing within the language process, which uniquely determines the status of all language processes as certain particular manifestations of the dynamics of the language.
The nature (dynamics) of the language process implies the mandatory implementation of all three structural components (mode, dictum and address). “Subjective” distinguishing or ignoring the latter allows one to understand the difference in the types of language processes and to build their typology (gnoseology of the language), language to structure its dynamics (ontology of the language).
Using the method of representing the language as a system-dynamic whole (substantiation of the dynamic structure of the language), it is possible to systematically present the following language processes (in Chinese):
- universal speaking (in traditional terminology - popular speaking, mode - address) as a process for which mode (the desire to be carried out in a dynamic language) and address (a set of representations that are constantly updated through the language of submissions) are key;
- professional speaking (professional language, dictum - address) as a process for which the personal beginning is not classifying;
- dialect speaking (dialect language, modus - dictum) is a process in which the predictive beginning and the manifestation of language dynamics (without an explicit address) are highlighted.
By analogy, such systems as idiolectic speaking (idiolectrical language, expressed modus), literary speaking (literary language, dictum) and national speaking (national language, address) can be included in this system.
This provision allows us to create an abstraction of the dynamics of the structure of a first-level language (language process model):
- discourse of the highest level (described above);
- discourse of a language of a certain type (active type, nominative type, ergative type; isolating languages, inflective languages, agglutinative languages, incorporating languages);
- discourse of style - an infinite set of texts (the style of everyday communication, newspaper-publicistic style, style of fiction, scientific style, official business style, production and technical style).
In addition, such types of language processes as:
- grammar discourse (sentence, is a pronounced mode);
- discourse of vocabulary (vocabulary, explicit address);
- phoneme discourse (phonetic level, “remnant” of dynamic processes, dictum).
Summarizing the above, we note that the need to develop a method that represents a language as a system-dynamic whole (the method of substantiating the dynamic structure of a language) is due to trends in learning Chinese. The method itself is based on the ideas of Russian Sinology and can be used to systematize the various-level dynamic processes in the Chinese language.
The application of this method, combining the ideas of the schools of the structure and dynamics of the language, determines the methodology of our present and future research.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/135074/
All Articles