What is modern linguistics. Lecture in Yandex

In linguistics, two traditions of language description coexist: one of them, still continuing the tradition of the Sumerians and the ancient Greeks, describes the language in fragments - separate phonetics and phonology, separate morphology, separate syntax, etc. Another, going from the fourth to the fifth centuries n e. from the Indian monk Panini, describes the language as an integral whole - the description of phonetics, morphology, syntax, semantics is built in the form of mutually oriented rules, with the help of which texts are built from elementary language units.

It is the latter method of describing the language used in the most complex engineering and linguistic models that allow you to automatically translate texts of one language to another. About them and their development and will be discussed at the lecture.


')
Lecturer Alexander Nikolaevich Barulin - employee of the Institute of Linguistics, Russian Academy of Sciences. He graduated from the department of structural and applied linguistics, Faculty of Philology, Moscow State University. M. V. Lomonosov. He studied in graduate school of the Institute of Oriental Studies, USSR Academy of Sciences, defended his thesis on the topic "Theoretical problems of describing the Turkish nominal word form" (1984). He worked at the Institute of Oriental Studies for 12 years. In 1991, together with V. K. Finn and D. G. Lakhuti, he organized the Faculty of Informatics of the RSUH and headed the department of theoretical and applied linguistics created at this faculty. In 1992, according to the project of Barulin, the faculty of theoretical and applied linguistics was organized - he became the dean of this faculty, as well as the head of the department of theoretical and applied linguistics.

Under the cut - a detailed transcript of the lecture.

My name is Alexander Nikolaevich Barulin. I am a senior researcher at the Institute of Linguistics of the Academy of Sciences, in the past I was the dean of the faculty of theoretical applied linguistics. I, in fact, organized it at the RSUH and was the head of the department with the same exact name.

Today we will talk about modern linguistics, about what she already knows, and what else she has to learn to do. Language is studied, in principle, in two ways. The first way is to learn a language in order to speak it later. This is a well-known method, and very often linguistics is identified with science, which deals with the fact that it develops methods for good teaching of various languages. The second way of learning a language is needed in order to understand how it works. The second goal for linguistics is much more important and mostly linguists deal with this issue. They study how a language works, how a speech works and how, strictly speaking, a language appeared, how it developed, and so on. These are the most important issues that concern linguistics.

Modern linguistics is very complicated. What is language for man? Speech is sound and meaning. If we take just any speech, then we can use this scheme: essentially someone who has a certain purpose of communication has a communication channel - sound, some information is transmitted through sound, and there is an addressee who perceives all this and in a certain way everything reacts to this. There are still conditions of communication, there is a code - correlation, just means the signifier and the signified. If we break the speech into some units, it turns out that the final unit will be one character. A morpheme is the smallest meaningful part of a word. It will be the smallest sign that you can reach the smallest in speech splitting, and this will be the smallest morpheme. But, on the other hand, if I speak with someone else, then there are also very many different kinds of signals that can be extracted from which some information can be extracted.

Signals are arranged in a completely different way than language signs. Let's identify the first property of the language, which distinguishes it from all types of animal communication. The first property is that there are three basic components of the linguistic sign: sound, some information about the class of objects that are indicated, and the specific object itself, which is indicated. The ancient Greeks, who established this for the first time, said so: signs - there are three components. The first component is what we hear and the barbarians hear, the second component is what we see and the barbarians see, and the third component is what we understand, but the barbarians do not understand. These are three components that are usually included in a language sign, and, at the same time, meaningful language signs are constructed in a combinatorial way, that is, individual sounds are combined, stretched into a chain of some kind and only this chain of sounds can indicate a holistic meaning. Such linear combinatorics is not found in any animal language.

How else is language different from animal communication systems? Why is this, in fact, a unique phenomenon? In humans, the language can talk absolutely about any situations, types of human activity. It serves all kinds of human behavior. Moreover, the process of speaking relies on a special kind of behavior that animals do not have. This type of behavior is called verbal behavior. Speech relies on speech behavior. What else is included in speech behavior? First, poses. By the pose you can understand a lot, how a person treats the interlocutor, what is the relationship between them, and so on. Secondly, animals do not have this, in any case, when they use sound communication, they do not have this either. A person, in order to speak with another person, approaches him, stops at a certain distance from him, and they begin to speak. It turns out that in different countries this very distance is a little different, that is, in the United States it is about 90 cm approximately, and in Japan it is 45. In one of the books, these components of speech behavior are described, in particular, described as. This is definitely not the case with animals.

In principle, you know that speech is usually accompanied by gestures and facial expressions. And, interestingly, these are independent communication systems in a person, and they can carry exactly the opposite information, because a person says, if he, say, lies. Behind the eyes and gestures, mimicry man is more difficult to keep track of. Now let's pay attention to one more thing: if we take chimpanzees and generally large apes, they also have gestures. Gesturing is a rather young communicative system. That is, the smaller monkeys, non-human, have no gestures, but the larger monkeys have it, and, moreover, are the leading communication system, not sound, but gestural. All communication systems that animals and monkeys have are distributed in some way according to the types of behavior that they have, that is, for example, if they mean aggressive signals, it means that this is one system, which has nothing to do with other communication systems. If it is, let's say \. Some food signals, three food signals, they are opposed to each other, but it is in this narrow system of signs. If we mean, say, a danger signal, then these are also some three signals that are in no way associated with other types of communication and, accordingly, they are also opposed to each other, but are not related to the others. It turns out that in animals, communication is highly dependent on behavior, moreover, it is part of the behavioral program that serves these same signals. This is a fundamental difference from the language.

Notice that the language is universal, and the animal's communicative system is not universal, distributed according to the types of behavior and, accordingly, no common communicative system that could allow monkeys to transmit information to each other on any absolutely topics, such a communicative system lower down on the evolutionary ladder, there is nothing like that.
Among other things, the language is different here is what interesting detail. We found out that there are two parts in the language: one sounding, meaning it, the other, semantics, which covers the sense part some and preferential part, that is, those objects that are denoted with the help of linguistic signs. These are two completely different elements. They must somehow be paired.

In 1959, the book of my teacher, Nikolai Ivanovich Zhilkin, was published, which, for the first time, determined that speech was generally controlled from two different centers. In fact, anyone who is somehow familiar with how the brain works and how the brain works during speech, it should be clear that speech relies on breathing. That is, the first component of the speech apparatus is breath. By the way, breathing is controlled from the brain stem, and the whole articulation, on the contrary, is controlled from the cortex. So, here are already two different centers, which, in principle, must be coordinated in order for you to have a holistic speech. In order for everything to be there, indeed, it is conjugated, breathing rests on its own rhythms, there are rhythms of breathing, there are rhythms of thinking. The rhythms of breathing and thinking do not depend on each other, but in speech they somehow agreed, a special system is needed. This special system is precisely due to the fact that so-called projections go from the bark to the so-called ganglion; When all this is consistent, then there is a speech.

The fact is that a person, when he speaks, uses a special breathing mode. There is a breathing mode, when we stand, we are at rest, there is an automatic breathing mode, when we sleep, there is a breathing mode, when we run and agree on the amount of oxygen we need in order to have time to run, there is also a speech breathing mode. What is its feature? When a person speaks, he speaks on an exhalation, unlike, by the way, a monkey. Monkeys can talk while inhaling and inhaling, they don't care at all, and a person speaks only as you exhale. If you only exhale, then hypoxia occurs - this is a lack of oxygen that must flow to the brain, and then the brain begins to somehow turn off. In order to avoid this effect, a person, it turns out, on the exhale makes a trap. This is a feature of speech breathing.

It turns out that there is some element in the person's breathing, there is a breathing mechanism that works according to some of its principles, there is a thinking mechanism that works according to its principles. There is a mechanism for controlling muscles, articulation, which works according to its principles. All this needs to be connected. This distinction between respiratory and mental rhythms, it is well displayed in the language. There are two lines of complication of units in the language, which are well known to you, that is, on the one hand, here are the smallest units from which the meaningful language signs are built, the syllables are built. Syllables have no meaning. These are units focused on breathing rhythms. The syllables of the syllables are built so-called accent words. For example, "in the house" is one accent word, and grammatical words are two "in" and "house." Between them, you can put a word that does not destroy the syntactic links between "in" and "home." “In the big house” between the “in” and “the house” the same syntactic connection is maintained even when it was just “in the house”.

From the accent words are built the so-called bars - a chain of accent words, located between two pauses. Periods are already built from measures. This one line of complication of linguistic units, and the other line of complication of linguistic units of phonemes are constructed meaning the morphs, the smallest units of which single values ​​are built, of morality are built grammatical words. There are two grammatical words "in" and "home." They are already obliged to have meaning and the combination of grammatical words, the phrase, should also have meaning, in contrast to phonetic words. For example, “I would” is combined into one phonetic word, it has one accent, before and after it you can put a pause, but inside it is impossible. This accent word, in principle, consists of two components that are related by meaning. Or, for example, the German "in dem" is combined into an article, plus the preposition "in". Here, two components are connected to each other, which belong to two completely different units, and they are completely unrelated.

Thus, it turns out that one line, which is focused on the rhythms of breathing, I will call it the lines of metric units, and the second line - sign units, that is, the units that form a certain semantic unity, designate some meaning and some object.

What I have just told you is the subject of the special field of linguistics, which is called the philosophy of the language. In principle, linguistics, as you understand, deals with an insanely complex object. Its purpose is to describe how a language works, how it works, what its history is. This task is incredibly complex, and it is divided into separate minor tasks, to which individual linguistics of the discipline is devoted, which deal with their part of some problem. The philosophy of language is concerned with the fact that it determines the role that language plays in human life, it is engaged in what determines, as I have already said, how language differs from other communicative systems.

The great Russian-Polish Kurtener linguist proposed to break all the disciplines that deal with the language into two parts: synthetic and analytical linguistics. Synthetic linguistics deals with the rule of constructing artificial languages. They are of two kinds. There are a posteriori languages ​​that are invented on the basis of someone already existing language, or by analogy with natural language, when all the details are invented that are necessary to create such a language, but according to the scheme that already exists in nature. In addition, there are still a priori languages, that is, when a person invents a language from beginning to end. There are also philosophical languages, represent some logical code. For example, one number corresponds to one component of the meaning, then they add up. The word "mother" is divided into two components - the female parent. "Dad" is also divided into two components - the male parent. These two components are denoted by special numbers that can be connected and get the integrity of the word "mom" and "dad". This is roughly how a philosophical language works.

In principle, this is not a very successful invention of mankind, because there, in these philosophical languages, a huge number of absolutely necessary linguistic characteristics are not taken into account. It turns out, only the meaning is taken into account, the expressions are artificially constructed, as the boundaries of linguistic units are indicated are not clear. That is, the concept can be built in rather complicated, then it will consist of an infinitely large number of numbers that correspond to different ideas. A person still cannot perceive such multi-component education.
In the 17th century there was a whole concept, an invention of artificial languages, then everyone talked about the perception of artificial languages. The theme was unusually fashionable. She was engaged in the greatest minds of mankind. Lemnitz, Newton, Wilkins invented artificial languages. Chemist Boyle himself did not invent languages, but he taught all artificial languages ​​that others have invented. He complained that it was practically impossible to talk to them. In them it was impossible to write philosophical treatises, but, especially, to write poetry.

Then, later, philosophical languages ​​played an important role in the invention of the first language - pure meaning. He was invented by Ready Fragen (one of the founders of mathematical logic) and called it "Big Hairscript" - the alphabet of concepts. The idea was that there was a certain set of initial concepts, with the help of which it was possible to construct any expression of a logical language in some way, with a conclusion, and so on.
From this artificial language went all programming languages. This is a great model for creating useful languages ​​that are designed for a narrowly specific purpose. It was impossible to speak in philosophical languages, but, nevertheless, they received some use.

The second direction of linguistic studies of synthetic linguistics is resuscitation, or resurrection, of ancient languages ​​that could be spoken. It should be noted that one experiment was successful - this is the revival of Hebrew, which began in 1879, led to the fact that Israel had a state language, which previously could not speak. He reflected the ancient concepts, was the language of worship, that is, many of the words that were needed to display modern concepts, was not there. Let's move on to the most important part of linguistics, analytical linguistics. First of all, analytical linguistics should be divided into two complex components. The first component, diachronic linguistics, is the methodology for reconstructing the proto-languages, which did not reach us in writing, did not have any written language at all. Linguists are able to reconstruct the proto-languages ​​according to the languages. For example, we have Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian, descended from Old Russian. Old Russian, fortunately, was written, and we can check our methods of reconstruction of the proto-languages. In Latin, it is possible to check the methods of reconstruction by the proto-languages, by the Romance languages: Spanish, Italian, French, Romansh, Romanian, etc. In these languages, the technique was worked out and tested, it turned out that it works quite well. Then they started to reconstruct the language, which did not reach us in any form, namely, the great-grandfather of the European language, that is, a language common to: Romance, Germanic, Slavic, Iranian Indian languages ​​(not all, but some). A special technique was developed, which consists in the fact that regular correspondences are found in languages, that is, two related words are taken and we observe how they differ. , «», «». «» «», , , , , «». .

, - , . , . , , - . – 14-15 . , , . , , . , , , , , - 20 . , . , , , , . , 50-40 . , , – - 200 . . Y- , – 300 . . , 40-50 . , homo sapiens . . , , , , , .

– , . – , , . , . , , , .
, , – , . , . 70- . 70- 20 , , , . , « - ». .

, , , , homo sapiens , - . , , , , , . . , , homo habilis. , , . , , — . , - 50-40 . . , , , , .

, , . , , . — , , , , , . , , , . , . , , .

, . , , , .

. . . -. , , , , . , , , , - .

, , 1915 , , , . , , , , . .

, , , . , . , — . , . : , , , , . , , . . , , , , , , , , , . .

, : , «», «», «», , . , , . , - , , , . , , , . , , , , . , , , . . , , , , , . . , — , , .

, , , , . , , , , , , - . , , . .

, . — 2,5 . . , , . : ( , ), — . . , , , , . , , , - .

, . , , — . , , . , , . , — . , ().

, . , 4- 5 . , , — , , . , , -, , , -, . . 2 . , , , 50- 20 . . . . .

, , , , , , . : , -, “-” -, - , . , , , . .
, , , , , . ( ), . . . , , , ( ) , , , . , — , , , . .

, , - , , , , , , , . , . . . ABBYY, , , . 48 , .

, , , , , , : , . , , . , , , , . , , - , , , .

, , «» . , «» — . «» . , , — «». «» «» «» «» . , , , , , , , , . , . .

, , , . — . , , . , , , . , . . , .

— : . , — , . — . — , , . — . «», «», «» . , , “, , ”.

, . -, - . «» «», «» «» . . «---» . , . , , . , « ». , . , , , . « , , », .

, , , . . , . . : , , . , , , . , , . . , . , , .