Linguistic typology and the problem of linguistic universals. Typology of languages. Language universals. Typological (morphological) classification. Mathematical methods and techniques for language analysis

Languages can be studied in descriptive, genetic, areal, typological and universal aspects. These aspects are not always strictly distinguished. There may be mutual influence between the results obtained with different approaches. Nevertheless, differences in degrees of abstraction from the empirical material of specific languages should be taken into account.

Universal in linguistics- one of the most important concepts of typology, a property inherent in all or the vast majority of natural languages. The development of the theory of universals is often associated with the name of Joseph Greenberg, although similar ideas were put forward in linguistics long before him.

The theory of linguistic universals, or linguistic universology, deals not with individual languages or sets of genetically, areally and typologically similar languages, but with all languages of the world without exception, considering them as particular manifestations of a single human language. Universology is interested in linguistic universals, i.e. universal, essential features found in all or most languages of the world. These features are built by the researcher in the form of hypotheses, which are then tested on the empirical material of specific languages. . In other words, linguistic universology is primarily a theoretical and deductive discipline. It is no coincidence that many linguists believe that the general theory of language is, first of all, the theory of linguistic universals.

At each of the higher levels of research (at the comparative-historical and areal, then at the typological and, finally, at the universal), any specific language receives a more meaningful characteristic.

A linguistic universal is a feature found in all or the absolute majority of the world's languages. Often a universal is also called a statement (judgment) about such a pattern inherent in human language. The idea of the universality of certain phenomena in languages has never been alien to scientists who turned to the problems of the nature and essence of language.

Research into linguistic universals should answer the following questions: What generally can and cannot be in a language? What is in the nature of human language and what is contrary to its nature? What restrictions are imposed on language by its very nature? Which phenomena are compatible in language, and which, on the contrary, exclude each other? What phenomena in language may presuppose the presence or absence of other phenomena? How do general patterns manifest themselves in the specifics of different languages, with their external differences? How are universal patterns consistent with different types of languages (in answering these questions, universology merges with typology)?

The description of language in general from the standpoint of universology is its representation as a system of closely interconnected features that are universal in nature. Typology is limited only to a set of those general features that are important for describing the corresponding language type, and adds specific features to these general features.

In a universal description of a language, universals are usually listed in sequence from the most general to the more specific. For example:

If there is differentiation of parts of speech in a language, then they also include a verb.

If a language has a verb, then the language may or may not have differentiation by mood.

If a language has differentiation according to moods, then it has an indicative mood.

If there is some aspectual-temporal opposition in the forms of the non-indicative mood, then the same opposition exists in the forms of the indicative mood, etc.

It is customary to distinguish the following types of universals:

According to the method of formulating statements about universals- universals deductive (mandatory in all languages, including those unknown to the researcher) and inductive (fixed in known languages).
According to the coverage of the languages of the world - absolute (complete) and statistical (incomplete) universals. Some researchers believe that universology should deal only with absolute universals.
In their structure, universals are simple (the presence or absence of any phenomenon in the languages of the world) and complex (the presence of dependence between different phenomena, the presence between them of relations of the type of implication “if A, then B”).
Contrasted absolute universals (characteristic of all known languages, for example: every natural language has vowels and consonants) and statistical universals (trends). An example of a statistical universal: almost all languages have nasal consonants (however, in some West African languages, nasal consonants are not separate phonemes, but allophones of oral stops in the context of nasal consonants). Adjacent to statistical universals are the so-called frequentals - phenomena that occur in the languages of the world quite often (with a probability exceeding random).

Absolute universals are contrasted also implicative (complex) , that is, those that assert a connection between two classes of phenomena. For example, if a language has a dual number, it also has a plural number. A special case of implicate universals are hierarchies, which can be represented as a set of “two-term” implicate universals. Implicative universals can be like one-sided (X > Y), so and bilateral (X<=>Y). For example, SOV word order is usually associated with the presence of postpositions in a language, and conversely, most postpositional languages have SOV word order.

In relation to the synchrony/diachrony axis - synchronic and diachronic universals.
In relation to the language itself - phonological, grammatical, semantic, etc. universals. Thus, the phonological universals include the following: languages can have no less than ten and no more than eighty phonemes; if there is a contrast between consonants in terms of hardness and softness, then there is no contrast in tones. Semantic universals include patterns of development of word meanings from concrete to abstract: “heavy (in weight)” > “difficult”; “bitter (to taste)” > “sorrowful, mournful”; "sweet (to taste)" > "pleasant"; "empty" > "meaningless, frivolous"; "big" > "important". The interdependence between different structural levels is evidenced by the following universal: if in a language a word is always monosyllabic, then it is monomorphemic and there is a contrast of tones in the language; If the subject in a language comes before the verb and the object comes before the verb, then the language has case.
Actually linguistic and semiotic (communication) universals. In this case, research is aimed at establishing the boundaries between natural human language and all other communication systems (for example, artificial languages, kinetic speech, communication systems in the animal kingdom, etc.). Thus, Charles F. Hockett points out 16 essential features in which natural human sound language differs from the communication systems of animals and the absence of which in biocommunication systems means that animals do not have language as such.

Universals are distinguished at all levels of language. Thus, in phonology a certain number of absolute universals are known (often relating to a set of segments); a number of universal properties are also distinguished in morphology. The study of universals is most widespread in syntax and semantics.

The study of syntactic universals is primarily associated with the name of Joseph Greenberg, who identified a number of essential properties associated with word order. In addition, the existence of universals within the framework of many linguistic theories is considered as confirmation of the existence of a universal grammar; the theory of principles and parameters has been studying universals.

Within the framework of semantic research, the theory of universals has led, in particular, to the creation of various directions based on the concept of a universal semantic metalanguage, primarily within the framework of the work of Anna Wierzbicka.

Linguistics also studies universals within the framework of diachronic studies. For example, it is known that the historical transition → is possible, but the reverse one is not. Many universal properties associated with the historical development of the semantics of morphological categories (in particular, within the framework of the method of semantic maps) have been identified.

Within the framework of generative grammar, the existence of universals is often considered as evidence of the existence of a special universal grammar, but functional directions connect them rather with the general features of the human cognitive apparatus. For example, the well-known work of J. Hawkins shows the connection between the so-called “branching parameter” and the characteristics of human perception.

Data from universal studies are of interest for typological, areal, genetic and descriptive linguistics, for solving problems of applied linguistics.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

Introduction

1. History of the study of linguistic universals

1.1 Universal Grammar

1.2 Development of structural linguistics

1.3 Achieving R.O. Jacobson

2. Types of universals

2.1 Absolute (complete) and statistical (incomplete) universals

2.2 Deductive and inductive universals

2.3 Synchronic and diachronic universals

3. Universals at different levels of language

Conclusion

List of sources used

Introduction

Despite the amazing diversity of languages in the world, they still have common properties. Despite all the boundless dissimilarity, it turns out that languages were created, as it were, according to a single model. Although only a few similar properties of languages are formally described, linguists in many cases are aware of their existence and use them to describe new languages. Such common features of languages are called linguistic universals.

Universals are a set of concepts that are common to all or many languages, but are expressed differently in them. [Ozhegov]

The theory of linguistic universals considers and defines:

1. General properties of all human languages, in contrast to animal languages. For example, in human language the channel for any linguistic communication is vocal-auditory: in human language it is possible to easily create and easily perceive new messages.

2. A set of content categories, expressed by one means or another in each language. For example, all languages express the relationship between the subject and the predicate, the categories of possessivity, evaluation, certainty or uncertainty, and plurality.

3. General properties of the language structures themselves, relevant to all language levels. For example, in any language there cannot be less than ten and more than eighty phonemes; if in a language there is a combination of consonants of the form “smooth + nasal”, then there is a combination of the form “smooth + noisy”, etc.

Linguistic universals by their nature are generalized statements about those properties and tendencies that are inherent in any language and shared by all speakers of that language. Therefore, they constitute the most general laws of linguistics.

1 . History of the study of linguistic universals

The history of the study of universals goes back to very distant times. The predecessors of research in this direction were ancient grammarians, who created the doctrine of the members of a sentence, and at a later time - Ya.A. Comenius, R. Bacon and others.

1.1 Universal Grammar

First of all, the history of the study of universals is associated with attempts to develop a universal grammar. The beginning of these attempts dates back to the Middle Ages. The term “grammatica universalis” itself was used already in the 13th century. Subsequently, after the appearance of the famous “Grammar of Port-Royal” by Arnaud and Lanslot, this term became widespread.

Originally, universal grammar was associated with universal semantic categories. Specific languages, in turn, were interpreted as variants approaching this ideal scheme.

The differences of languages, that is, their deviation from the supposed universal scheme, were explained by the degradation of languages in their everyday use. This was consistent with medieval philosophical ideas about the nature of language change, according to which any change in language was considered as its corruption as a result of incorrect use.

The consequence of this was the identification of typology and genealogy, which was characteristic of linguistics until the 19th century, that is, the commonality of form was naturally identified with the commonality of origin; This is also where the normative approach to language came from, when one studied how one should speak, and not how one actually speaks. [Uspensky]

This explains the interest in what is common in languages, and not in their differences. The differences themselves are not given much importance; the main emphasis is on the universal, and not on the specific.

1.2 Development of structural linguistics

Interest in linguistic universals was renewed in the mid-20th century. and is associated with the development of structural linguistics. The problem of universals occupies such representatives of structuralism as Hjelmslev and linguists of the Chomsky school. However, specific work on universals began under the influence of the works of N.S. Trubetskoy and R.O. Jacobson. The immediate stimulus for research into the universal in language in recent years has undoubtedly been the famous report of R.O. Jacobson at the VIII Congress of Linguists in Oslo. Further development of this problem is associated with the names of R.O. Jacobson and J. Greenberg.

In 1961, a special conference on linguistic universals was held in New York, which apparently marked a new stage of research in this area.

In the late 1950s - early 1960s, linguistic theories began to rapidly develop, seeking to determine the basic properties of human language deductively, to derive them from a certain formalism. This approach, represented primarily by generative grammar, was opposed by Greenberg, one of the outstanding linguists of the 20th century, with his inductive, empirical method of studying the universal properties of language. The essence of the method was to survey the languages of different families and regions using the same parameters and identify points of agreement between the languages being surveyed, which were called universals.

The main question that arises in connection with this method is the following: how can one establish that some property is common to all languages of the world? There is only one, no matter how indisputable, yet unrealistic way to achieve such a result: to check for the property of interest every last language that is spoken or has ever been spoken on Earth. This method is unrealistic not only because it requires enormous labor from the researcher, sometimes incommensurate with the result obtained, but also because many aspects of grammar have so far been studied in a relatively small number of languages. Even such a seemingly simple thing as the order of words in sentences and phrases of various types has been studied in detail in a maximum of 20% of the world's languages, and, for example, the semantics of verbal categories is described in detail in an even smaller number of languages.

It follows from this that it is impossible to identify a single linguistic universal in practice. This conclusion, however, is correct only with the most “rigid” understanding of universals, which does not allow exceptions from them. Such an understanding would practically not allow us to talk about the empirical identification of the general properties of human language, so it is quite natural that Greenberg and his followers adopted a different, so-called statistical understanding of universals. It does not require checking universals in every language in the world. Verification of universals is carried out on a fairly limited set of languages, which is called a sample. In Greenberg's early work on the problem of universals, the sample size was 30 languages, but in modern studies it is usually approximately 100 languages. The main requirements for the sample relate not so much to the quantity as to the principles of selecting the languages included in it. The sample should be compiled in such a way that the languages of different families and regions (“areas”) are evenly represented in it. Otherwise, a situation may arise where a property observed for all languages in the sample is in fact not a universal property of the language, but a property characteristic of a family or area with a disproportionately large number of languages in the sample.

In the almost forty years that have passed since the publication of Greenberg's pioneering works, the technique of compiling language samples has been significantly improved, but its basic principles have remained the same: covering the maximum number of language families and areas, with equal, if possible, “representation” of each family and each area in the sample.

1.3 AchievementR.O.JacobsonA

R.O. Jacobson is the largest linguist of the 20th century, who made a huge contribution to the development of typology; in particular, it was he who introduced the concept of linguistic universals into science and formulated the theory of linguistic universals. According to Jacobson, the languages of the world can be considered as variations of one overarching theme - human language, while linguistic universals, being generalized statements about the properties and tendencies inherent in any language, help to identify the most general laws of linguistics. Jacobson's legacy is enormous and has not yet been fully studied by linguists.

2 . Types of universals

Before talking about universals at different levels of language, it is necessary to report on the classification of universals. Analyzing the major works of J. Greenberg and R.O. Jacobson can identify several types of universals.

2.1 Absolute (complete) and statistical (incomplete) universals

Absolute universals are characteristic of all known languages, for example: every natural language has vowels and consonants sounds. Such universals are contrasted with statistical (incomplete) universals. An example of a statistical universal: almost all languages have nasal consonants . However, in some West African languages, nasal consonants are not separate phonemes. Statistical universals include the so-called frequentalia- phenomena that occur quite often in the languages of the world (with a probability exceeding chance).

Absolute universals are also opposed implicative (complex), that is, those that assert a connection between two classes of phenomena. It is argued that if a certain phenomenon (q) occurs in a language, then there is also a phenomenon (w) in it, although the opposite is not necessarily true, that is, the presence of (w) does not mean the presence of (q). So, if a language has a dual number, then it also has a plural number, but the reverse is not always true. An illustration of complex universals can be, for example, the well-known inversely proportional relationships between the average length of a morpheme and the total number of phonemes in a language, between the average length of a word and the ratio of the number of phonemes to the number of syllables, etc. Implicative universals are very numerous, especially at the phonological level.

2.2 Deductive and inductive universals

The statement that a phenomenon is universal can really mean two things:

a) “this phenomenon occurs in all known to the researcher languages" (and, by extrapolation, he assumes that it probably occurs in languages unknown to him);

b) “this is a phenomenon must occur in all languages."

In the first case, the question naturally arises of how representative the material from which this researcher is based is, and, therefore, how legitimate such an extrapolation is. In the second case, the question arises about the foundations on which the researcher is based, attributing a corresponding property to each language. [Uspensky]

In other words, in the first case we are talking about inductive(or empirical), in the second - about deductive universals. Inductive universals are common to everyone famous languages, and deductive - mandatory for all languages.

2.3 SynchronousAnddiachronicuniversals

Synchronic universals are universal linguistic patterns observed in a fixed state of language, and not in the process of its change.

Diachronic universals are universal linguistic patterns observed in the dynamic state of language, i.e. in the process of changing it.

Synchronic and diachronic universals are interconnected. Firstly, there is no such synchronous state that would not be the result of some diachronic processes. Secondly, there is no such diachronic process, the result of which would be a synchronous state that does not correspond to universal laws.

3 . Universals at different levels of language

linguistic universal deductive diachronic

J. Greenberg studied the general patterns of languages and formulated the following universals:

1. “If a nominal object precedes a verb, then the verb forms subordinate to the main verb also precede it.

2. In conditional constructions, the conditional part precedes the conclusion. This order is the normal word order for all languages.

3. In desire and goal constructions, the subordinate verb form always follows the main verb, and this is the normal word order; The only exceptions are those languages in which the nominal object always precedes the verb.

4. When a question requiring a “yes-no” answer differs from the corresponding statement by intonation differences, differential intonation features are revealed more clearly at the end of the sentence than at the beginning.

5. If interrogative particles or affixes are fixed in position relative to the sentence as a whole, then with a probability greater than chance, initial elements are found in languages with prepositions, and final elements - in languages with postpositions.”

Of course, only some of the universals are presented here, but from this we can already conclude that universals are distinguished at all levels of language. Thus, in phonology a certain number of absolute universals are known (often relating to a set of segments); a number of universal properties are also distinguished in morphology. The study of universals is most widespread in syntax and semantics. In addition, the existence of universals within the framework of many linguistic theories is considered as confirmation of the existence of a universal grammar; the theory of principles and parameters has been studying universals. Linguistics also studies universals within the framework of diachronic studies. Many universal properties associated with the historical development of the semantics of morphological categories (in particular, within the framework of the method of semantic maps) have been identified.

Conclusion

So, having considered the types of universals, we can conclude that universals are properties inherent in all languages or most of them.

Universals have been the subject of consideration by many famous linguists, the most famous of whom are Roman Osipovich Jacobson and Joseph Greenberg, who made a huge contribution to the study of comparative typology in general.

According to the known classifications, there are different types of universals: diachronic and synchronic, absolute, statistical and implicative, deductive and inductive.

Universals are also distinguished at the following levels of language: phonetic, morphological, syntactic.

Universals perform various functions: they demonstrate the commonality of the principles of linguistic structure in all the diversity of human languages. They also explain why languages are mutually intelligible and determine the very strategy for mastering a foreign language. The study of universals helps to understand not only the structure of language, but also the history of its development.

The study of linguistic universals is of great importance not only for related areas of psycholinguistics and psychology itself; it is, moreover, deeply connected with identifying the patterns of the linguistic aspect of human behavior and therefore is so important for the development of sciences related to the study of behavior.

List of sources used

1. Greenberg J. Some grammatical universals, mainly concerning the order of significant elements / J. Greenberg // New in linguistics. ? 1970. ? Vol. 5. ? pp. 114-162.

2. Greenberg J. Memorandum on linguistic universals / J. Greenberg, C. Osgood, J. Jenkins // New in linguistics. ? 1970. ? Vol. 5. ? pp. 31-44.

3. Melnikov G.P. Language as a system and linguistic universals / G.P. Melnikov // System research. Yearbook 1972. - M.: Nauka, 1973. ? With. 183-204.

4. Uspensky B.A. The problem of universals in linguistics / B.A. Uspensky // New in linguistics. ? 1970. ? Vol. 5. ? pp. 5-30.

5. http://tapemark.narod.ru/les/535c.html

6. http://www.ozhegov.org/words/37360.shtml

Posted on Allbest.ru

12 Answer: Typological classification of languages. Agglutination (sticking) and fusion (fusion). Synthetic and analytical languages.

Typological classification of languages- classification based on similarities and differences in linguistic structure (morphological, phonological, syntactic, semantic), regardless of genetic or territorial proximity. From this point of view, the following are distinguished: isolating (amorphous) type (ancient Chinese, Vietnamese), agglutinating (agglutinative) type (Turkic, many Finno-Ugric languages), inflectional (inflectional) type (Russian language). Some scientists distinguish incorporating (polysynthetic) languages (some Paleo-Asian, Caucasian languages).

Typological classification unites languages according to their common structure and type. It does not depend on origin and relies primarily on grammar.

Typological classification seeks to characterize not specific languages, in which several morphological types are always represented, but the main structural phenomena and trends that exist in languages.

Modern typology, preserving as the most important typological categories the concepts developed by the founders of typology - “analytical type of language”, “synthetic type”, “agglutination”, “fusion”, etc. - abandoned the idea of one and general typological classification languages. It became obvious that just one typological classification (for example, morphological) is not enough, since different language levels have their own typologically significant features that are independent of the structure of other levels of language.

Agglutination and fusion

Within the framework of affixation (primarily formative), two opposite trends are distinguished - inflectional (characterized by the presence of endings), or fusional(“fusion”), and agglutinative(“gluing”) The first is clearly represented in Russian and many other Indo-European languages (inflectional languages), the second - in Finno-Ugric, Turkic, Georgian, Japanese, Korean, Swahili, etc. (agglutinative languages).

The most important differences between these trends are as follows:

1. Inflectional tendency characterized by the constant combination in one formative affix of several meanings belonging to different grammatical categories, the attachment of the affix to a complex of heterogeneous grammes. Thus, in Russian case endings the meanings of case and number are always combined, and in adjectives they also have gender. In verb endings, the meaning of person or (in the past tense and subjunctive mood) gender is combined with the meaning of number, as well as tense and mood; in participle suffixes - the meaning of the voice with the meaning of time. This phenomenon is called synthetosemy (lit., “complexity”). Synthetosemia is especially typical for endings.

Agglutinative the tendency, on the contrary, is characterized by haplofamily (“simple meaning”), the attachment of each formative affix to only one gramme and hence the stringing of affixes to express a combination of heterogeneous grammes. Haplosemic formative affixes of agglutinative languages are not usually called "endings". Sometimes they are designated by the term “prilep”.

2. Inflectional (fusional) the tendency is characterized by homosemy of formative affixes, the presence of a number of parallel affixes to convey the same meaning or complex of meanings.

And this feature primarily concerns endings, and partly also suffixes.

Agglutinative the tendency, on the contrary, is characterized by the absence of homosemy of formative affixes, the standardization of affixes, i.e., the assignment to each gramme of only one affix exclusively serving it, and, accordingly, the absence of parallel formal categories, i.e., the sameness of the declension of all nouns, the sameness of the conjugation of all verbs, the sameness the formation of degrees of comparison in all words capable of having them, etc.

3. Inflectional (fusional) the trend is characterized by cases of reciprocity; overlapping of exponents of morphemes, phenomena of re-decomposition, simplification, absorption of entire morphemes or individual parts of their segmental exponents by neighboring morphemes, as well as the widespread use of alternations. For example, the prehistoric Slavic forms leg~ti and pek-ti turned into lie down, oven, where the infinitive affix is absorbed by the root, but at the same time causes a historical alternation in its final consonant; the endings of Russian adjectives were formed from combinations of a nominal case ending and a pronoun in the same case.

Agglutinative tendency, on the contrary, is characterized by clear boundaries of morphemic segments; the phenomena of simplification and re-decomposition are not typical for it, as is the use of “simulfixes”.

There is a difference in the use of zero affixes.

In languages where the inflectional tendency predominates, null affixes are used in both semantically original forms (e.g.

Russian language in them. p.un. h.), and in semantically secondary forms!

(for example, in gender plural, like hands, boots); in languages where the agglutinative tendency is strong, zero affixes are usually found only in semantically original forms; for such forms, the most typical indicators are zero affixes.

The stem of a word or group of forms in inflectional languages:

type is often dependent, i.e., cannot be used as one of the word forms of this word. This is, for example, the position of many verbal stems in the Russian language: vide-, terpe-, zva-, etc. do not exist as word forms. In agglutinative languages, a stem without affixes represents a normal word type and usually acts as the semantically original word form; it seems that the affixes of indirect forms are attached here not to the base, but directly to the original word form.

As a result of all the listed features in agglutinative languages, not only the formative stems of words, but also the affixes - “adherents” used in each word form, turn out to be much more independent and psychologically more “weighty” linguistic elements than in inflectional languages.

Analytical and synthetic languages

In morphological typology (and this is chronologically the first and most developed area of typological research), firstly, the ways of expressing grammatical meanings and, secondly, the nature of the connection in a word of its significant parts (morphemes) are taken into account. Depending on the ways of expressing grammatical meanings, synthetic and analytical languages are distinguished.

In the languages of the world, there are two main groups of ways of expressing grammatical meanings:

1) synthetic methods and 2) analytical.

Synthetic methods are characterized by the connection of a grammatical indicator with the word itself (this is the motivation for the term synthetic1); such an indicator that brings grammatical meaning “inside the word” can be an ending, a suffix, a prefix, or internal inflection.

A common feature analytical methods is the expression of grammatical meaning outside the word, separately from it - for example, using prepositions, conjunctions, articles, auxiliary verbs and other function words, as well as using word order and the general intonation of the statement.

Most languages have both analytical and synthetic means of expressing grammatical meanings, but their proportion varies. Depending on which methods predominate, languages of synthetic and analytical types are distinguished.

Towards synthetic languages belong to all Slavic languages.

Analytical(from Greek analysis - separation, decomposition, dismemberment - separating, decomposing into component parts; associated with the analysis of Bulgarian), Sanskrit, ancient Greek, Latin, Lithuanian, Yakut, Arabic, Swahili, etc.

Towards the languages of analytical systems include all Romance languages, Bulgarian, English, German, Danish, Modern Greek, Modern Persian, etc. Analytical methods predominate in these languages, but synthetic grammatical means are also used to one degree or another.

Languages in which there are almost no possibilities for synthetic expression of a number of grammatical meanings (as in Chinese, Vietnamese, Khmer, Laotian, Thai, etc.) at the beginning of the 19th century. were called amorphous (“shapeless”), that is, as if devoid of form, but Humboldt already called them isolating.

It was seen that these languages are by no means devoid of grammatical form, just a number of grammatical meanings (namely syntactic, relational meanings) are expressed here separately, as if “isolated”, from the lexical meaning of the word (for details, see Solntseva 1985).

There are languages in which the root of a word, on the contrary, turns out to be so “overburdened” with various auxiliary and dependent root morphemes that such a word turns into a sentence in meaning, but at the same time remains formalized as a word.

There are languages where grammatical meanings are expressed mainly within words: Latin, ancient Greek, Russian, Polish, Finnish... Such languages are called synthetic: In their words, lexical and grammatical meanings are combined to form a synthesis. There are languages where grammatical meanings are expressed mainly outside the word, in the sentence: English, French and all isolating languages (see Isolating languages), for example Vietnamese. Such languages are called analytical, for them, the word is a transmitter of lexical meaning, and grammatical meanings are transmitted separately: by the order of words in a sentence, function words, intonation...

Typology deals with the combination of features at one or another level of the language system into certain types. It is natural to assume that these types, which are a collection of some-266

These features can be found either in all or in most languages of the globe. These features lead to the establishment of some general patterns that are characteristic of all or most languages. These patterns are usually called linguistic universals. The theory of linguistic universals examines and defines: 1) the general properties of all human languages, in contrast to animal languages. For example, in human language the channel for any linguistic communication is vocal-auditory; in human language it is possible to easily generate and easily perceive new created messages; new idioms constantly arise in human language, etc. 2) A set of meaningful categories, expressed by one means or another in each language. For example, all languages express the relationship between subject and predicate, the categories of passivity, evaluation, definiteness/indeterminacy, plurality; all languages know the division into theme and rheme. 3) General properties of the language structures themselves, relating to all language levels. For example, in any language there cannot be less than ten and more than eighty phonemes; if in the language there are combinations of the form “smooth + noisy”; if there is a contrast between consonants in terms of hardness and softness, then there is no polytony of vowels; in every language there is a contrast between compact and diffuse vowels; the ratio of the number of vowels to the number of consonants in a sound chain cannot be more than two; if a word in a language is always monosyllabic, then it is monomorphemic and there is a musical stress in the language; if there is inflection, then there is a derivational element; if the plural is expressed, then there is a zero morph expressing it; if there is a case with only a zero allomorph, then for each such case there is a meaning for an intransitive verb: if the subject in a language comes before the verb and the object comes before the verb, then there is a case in the language; if the subject comes after the verb and the object comes after the subject, then the adjective is placed after the name; if there is a preposition in the language and no postposition, then the noun in the genitive case is placed after the noun in the nominative case; If

In the language there is a postposition and there is no preposition, then a noun in the genitive case stands before a noun in the nominative case, etc.

Universals are also known that relate to all linguistic levels: for any opposition, a marked member has a rarer occurrence than an unmarked one. Universals of the lexical-semantic plane are known, for example, “heavy in weight” takes on the meaning “difficult”; “bitter to taste” - meaning “sorrowful, mournful”, etc.

There are several classifications of universals, built on different foundations. Thus, the following universals are distinguished: 1) deductive (i.e., obligatory for all languages) and inductive (the phenomenon occurs in all known languages); 2) absolute (complete) and statistical (incomplete); 3) simple (stating the presence or absence of a certain phenomenon) and complex (stating a certain relationship between different phenomena); 4) synchronic and diachronic.

The theory of diachronic universals has been actively developing since the 70s of the 20th century. Recognition of universals in diachrony (for example, the statement that the latest verbal tense in a language is Futurum) presupposes the acceptance of the unidirectionality of linguistic development. Concepts of this kind were expressed in Russian linguistics in the 30s of the 20th century. (works by I. I. Meshchaninov, V. I. Abaev, S. D. Katsnelson).

The assertion that there are universals goes back to ancient grammarians; in the Middle Ages (XIII century) the term grammatica universalis appeared; with the advent of Port-Royal grammar, this concept acquires a linguistic basis. Language universals have become the object of modern linguistics since the early 60s. XX century (mainly in the USSR and the USA). Accumulation of material on various linguistic universals in the 60-70s. was stimulated by the success of the structural-systemic description of languages, especially phonology, as well as by the expansion of the boundaries of structural typology, acquaintance with the languages of Africa, Southeast Asia and Oceania.

The theory of universals has evolved from the search for superficial and then implicate universals, mainly in

synchrony, to the search for diachronic universals and to a broad typological comparison of ways of realizing the same meaningful universal (the latter is characteristic of European linguistics). In the 80s There is an appeal by researchers to the universals of the text and the order of components in syntactic structures. These universals find an explanation in the “picture of the world”, understood through language (a new semantic direction that arose from the analysis of “deep structures”).

Determining the place of universals in linguistic research, we can highlight, according to M. M. Gukhman, two tasks, the solution of which is to one degree or another connected with universals: 1) building a universal model of natural language and 2) studying those typical modifications and variants in which implement many universal categories, features and properties of language. The first task relates to the general theory of language, the second - to the field of typology. Such “complete universals” as the logical-grammatical division of a sentence, or the categories of agene and patient, or attribution and belonging to varying degrees, as well as the opposition of syllabic and non-syllabic phonemes, etc., seem to move into a different key if significant variation is studied in their implementation. The transition to typology is due to a switch from consideration of which features are universal to analysis of how those elements and properties to which the status of universals is attributed are realized, since typology is primarily concerned with qualitative distinctive characteristics. It is in this case that the universal acts as a kind of generalized invariant, modifications of which may turn out to be typological features of languages. This recognizes that there is a significant class of complete universals that participate in the construction of both models - the universal model of language and typologically characterized different languages.

Work in the field of systematization of universal laws has just begun. The number of identified universals will be constantly expanded, and the methodology for identifying universals will be improved. But now it is clear that this is the direction

It is focused not on the study of individual phenomena of language or languages, but on the study of patterns of a more general order, the knowledge of which will help to understand the functioning of language.

Relevant for the modern theory of universals is the focus on the interpretation of universals. For example, the advancement of important elements at the beginning of the utterance is interpreted through the greater sonority (and greater perceptibility) of the initial position of the utterance, the rise in intonation at the end of a general question is explained by the compression of the vocal cords of the speaker who has not internally completed communication, the decrease in tone at the end of a narrative utterance is explained by the relaxation of the cords. Going beyond the limits of intrasystem interpretation entails new possibilities for explaining the action of universals: social reasons, codification, the emergence of writing, etc. Interpretation and verification of accumulated universals can facilitate the search for new universals, making it not only empirical, but also a priori.

Lecture No. 23

Mathematical methods and techniques for language analysis

Comparative historical linguistics with its interest in specific facts of language, in its substantial, primarily sound, characteristics, in reconstructing the “biography” of linguistic phenomena, with its desire to establish historical connections between them, formulated in the form of laws, with its attention to interlingual relations and contacts of language with the external and internal (psychic) environment of peoples and, finally, with the entire set of analysis methods determined by these interests and tasks, inductive primarily, was the creation and linguistic pinnacle of the 19th century.

Structural linguistics was a kind of antithesis of the comparative-historical and neogrammatical trends in linguistics of the last century. Structural linguistics is characterized by an interest in the synchronic state of language and internal connections between its constituent elements, a zealous attitude towards the logical foundations of the construction of linguistic theory, and the methodology for analyzing language determined by these goals is closely connected with the ideas of the first half of the 20th century.

Structural linguistics contrasted the linguistic atomism of the 19th century with the linguistic atomism arising from the indicated characteristics with the concept of the systemic integrity of language, which became the cornerstone of the 20th century. ¥ the foundation stone of all schools and areas of linguistics. Problem si- I Thematic description required the arrangement of the facts of language in one dimension, abstraction from the historical perspective of their development. Therefore, if in the 19th century the concept of scientificity was previously associated rshch just with the concept of historicism and any scientific grammar was composed on a historical basis, then in the 20th century the concept of scientificity in

The approach to language began to be primarily associated with a strictly synchronous description of its system.

Thus, structural linguistics- this is a set of views on language and methods of its research, which are based on the understanding of language as a sign system with clearly distinguishable structural elements (units of language, their classes, etc.) and the desire of language for a strict (approaching the exact sciences) formal description language. Structural linguistics received its name due to its special attention to the structure of language, which is a network of relationships (oppositions) between elements of the language system, ordered and hierarchically dependent within certain levels.

A structural description of a language involves an analysis of real text that allows one to identify generalized invariant units (sentence patterns, morphemes, phonemes) and correlate them with specific speech segments based on strict rules of implementation. These rules define the boundaries of variation of linguistic units in speech from the point of view of their preservation of self-identity, i.e., they fix a set of permissible synonymous transformations of language units.

Structural linguistics was born from the search for a more consistent system of basic concepts of linguistics and from the desire to develop methods for the synchronic description of modern languages as rigorous as the comparative-historical method was for comparative-historical linguistics.

There are several stages in the development of structural linguistics. The first stage (approximately 20s~50s of the XX century) was characterized by increased, and in some cases exclusive attention to the structure of the expression plan as more accessible to strict description, which led to the forgetting of the content side, exaggeration of the role of relations between elements of the system and ignoring the elements themselves as linguistic entities.

Since the 50s the second stage of development of structural linguistics begins, which is characterized by a turn to the study of the content plan-272

attention to dynamic models of language (in particular, the transformation method in grammar is being developed). Methods and techniques of analysis, originally developed in phonology, are transferred to grammar and semantics. The principles and methods of structural linguistics are beginning to be applied in comparative historical linguistics (in the works of R. O. Yakobson, A. Martine, E. Kurilovich, E. A. Makaev, T. V. Gamkrelidze, etc.). At the same time, the expansion of the frontier of research and the simultaneous use, along with structural methods, of other techniques and research methods led to the fact that structural linguistics, having deepened our understanding of the structure of language, having developed an apparatus for a strict description of its system, “dissolved” in new directions caused by to life with new theoretical searches.

Since the 70s structural linguistics ceases to exist as a separate direction opposed to “traditional” linguistics; Research methods developed by structural linguistics, along with others, are also used in other linguistic disciplines (psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics, etc.). Structural linguistics influenced the development of structural research methods in other humanities - literary criticism, art history, ethnology, history, sociology, psychology.

Two main ideas have become the strongholds of structural linguistics: 1. The requirement for constant consideration of the language function, already put forward by I. A. Baudouin de Courtenay and consistently implemented by linguists of the Prague School; 2. The idea of describing language as a synchronous system, which F. de Saussure insisted on with particular determination. Idea focus represents something common that unites all schools of structural linguistics.

If we speak in terms of general semiotics, which, according to tradition, includes semantics, syntactics and pragmatics, then difference schools of structural linguistics can be formulated as follows: glossematicians limited linguistic theory to the description of syntactics (the internal organization of the code), and the Prague residents also willingly included semantics in their circle of interests.

The mantic and pragmatic aspects of language (i.e., its relationship to objects of the external world and to the participants and conditions of communication).

The semiological approach to language adopted by structural linguistics also determined its relationship to the linguistic material itself. If linguistics of the 19th century paid great attention to the implementation of language, then for structural linguistics the text serves only as the source from which a semiological system, obscured by the conditions and form of its physical embodiment, should be derived. The implementation of this general task has confronted structural linguistics with the need to “extract” linguistic units from a continuous linguistic stream, determine their functional (invariant) content on the basis of their infinitely varying representations, and finally, identify the hierarchical organization of language hidden by the linear implementation of speech. These goals largely determined those methods that were called structural.

Thus, for structural methods, a fundamental role was played by the awareness of the dichotomy of language and speech, actual and virtual code and message, endless variation while maintaining stable semiological (functional) content.

So, the goal of a structural description should be to characterize as accurately as possible the structural relationships that are hidden behind directly observable linguistic data. Structural linguistics has proposed and substantiated a certain technique of analysis. If we leave aside some formalized procedures, the most common techniques used in different variants and for different purposes are: 1. The technique of commutation, or substitution, with the help of which the invariant units of language are determined, the relevant features of its plans are fixed, the functional hierarchy is revealed and etc.; 2. The technique of omission (sometimes interpreted as zero substitution), which also has a wide scope of application, and its inverse; 3. The technique of interpolation (or “catalysis”) of missing elements. As 274

As examples of structural techniques, we present a distributional description and component analysis.

The distributive technique was developed by L. Bloomfield in the 20s. XX century, and then developed in the 30-50s. in the works of 3. Harris. Let us outline its essence following Yu. D. Apresyan (Apresyan Yu. D. Ideas and methods of modern structural linguistics. M., 1966).

Distributive linguistics is a diagram of the processes leading to the discovery of the grammar of a language, or an experimental technique for collecting and initially processing raw data. Thus, the researcher acts as a codebreaker, seeking to uncover the code.

The only reality with which the linguist deals is the text to be “deciphered.” All information about the “code” (language) underlying this text must be deduced solely from the analysis of the latter. But the text does not directly contain data about the meanings of the words of the language, its grammar, its history and genetic connections with other languages. Only some elements (parts, segments) are given directly in the text, and for each of them we can establish a distribution or distribution - the sum of all environments in which it occurs, i.e. the sum of all (different) positions of the elements relative to other elements.

To describe the structure of a language in an exhaustive manner means to establish: 1. Its elementary units at all levels of analysis; 2. Classes of elementary units; 3. Laws of combination of elements of different classes. The elementary units are phonemes and morphemes.

Isolation of elementary units of language is achieved using experimental techniques segmentation text and distributional analysis text units detected as a result of segmentation. Classes of elementary units are built on the basis of experimental technology substitution(substitution), and the laws of combination of elements of different classes are established using analysis of the components themselves. The first three techniques can be used, according to their creators, to analyze any aspect of

But any language, but analysis by direct components(NS) is valid only in the area of morphology and syntax.

The idea that units of language, classes of units, and relationships between units can be defined solely by their environment, that is, by their relation to other units of the same order, is the essence of the distributive approach to language.

Segmenting a text into elementary units (sounds or backgrounds at the phonological level and morphs at the morphological level) is only the first step in the procedure for identifying the corresponding units of language - phonemes or morphemes. The second step is identification- establishing which of the elementary text units are identical to each other, i.e., are variants of the same unit of language (allophones of one phoneme or allomorphs of one morpheme), and which are different, i.e., are representatives of different units of language. To solve this problem, distribution analysis in the proper sense of the word is used.

Three types of distribution of elements are established: 1. Text units are in additional distribution if they are never found in the same environments. In most cases, this condition is sufficient to recognize a number of sounds as variants (allophones) of one phoneme. These are the vowel sounds in words that differ in the degree of closedness and openness seven, day(the most closed version, pronounced in the position after a soft consonant and before a soft consonant); sat down affairs(a more open version, pronounced after the soft before the hard); wool, tin(an even more open version, pronounced after the hard and before the soft), pole, gesture(the most open version, pronounced after a hard consonant before a hard one);

2. Text units are in contrasting distribution, if they can occur in the same environments, differing meanings. In this case, they are representatives of different units (phonemes or morphemes). These are the beginning-276

consonants in words volume - house - com - scrap - rum, belonging to five different phonemes; 3. Text units are in free alternation, if they occur in the same environments without distinguishing meanings. For example, variants of the instrumental case morpheme -ey and -ey in the Russian language (land - earth). In all problems of linguistic decipherment, which are posed in a fairly general form, the study of the distribution of elements, albeit taking into account their numerical characteristics and, above all, frequency, remains almost the only means leading to the goal. Later it turned out that distributive analysis is contradictory and does not solve the problems for which it was intended, so its general foundations were refined on the basis of set theory, which resulted in the set-theoretic concept of language. In an expanded and refined form, distributional analysis was used to study all levels of language, including syntax and semantics; in general, it led to an awareness of the importance of experimenting with linguistic material and an improvement in the technique of linguistic experimentation.

Component Analysis

This technique is applied to the analysis of various language units. Let us demonstrate it using the example of component analysis of a word (see, for example, the works of Z. D. Popova and I. A. Sternin).

It is known that one lexeme can express several meanings, each of which is called sememe. Some sememes at their core denotative, i.e. they reflect objects of the external world, others connotative. i.e., they express assessments, emotions, etc. (for example, the components good/bad are contained in the connotative part of the words progress, energetic, panic, nonsense; emotional semes like/dislike are observed in the words informer (contempt), appetizing; functional-stylistic semes - in the words residence (official business), fidget (conversation); purely connogative semes in the words tavern (meaning “dirt, disorder”), game (meaning “lack of culture, nonsense, absurdity” ").

The direct nominative meaning of the word is indicated by D1 (denotative first seme):

Bag - D1 - a bag, a case made of fabric, leather, etc. for carrying something;

D2 (derivative - nominative meaning) - a cavity in the form of an abdominal pouch in some animals (kangaroos).

There are three types of connotative sememes. K1 (the connotative first seme) is in a logically motivated connection with its denotative seme). For example, crystal (K1) air is as transparent and sparkling as crystal. K2 (connotative second seme) has lost its logical connection with denotative sememes, for example, take on cannon. KZ (connotative third seme) has no denotative basis and is observed only as part of idioms (to get in trouble).

The set of seeds expressed by one lexeme forms se-mantema. Sememes included in one semanteme are in hierarchical relationships with each other, the initial one being sememe D1. Let's consider the semantic structure of the word crane. D1 is a large wading bird with long legs and neck. D2 - a long pole at the well, used as a lever to raise water. She lowers herself into the well with a bucket and comes out of it, just as a crane takes her out of the water after catching a frog. K1 - “what a crane is walking!” - you can say about a tall, awkward man.

Lexemes of different languages that are equivalent in the D1 sememe are, as a rule, not equivalent in the D2 and K1 sememes, especially in the K2 sememe. For example, the Russian lexeme bread has seme D2 “grain” and D2 “growing cereals”. The German lexeme Brot, English bread, and French pain, which are equivalent to it in terms of the D1 seme, do not have such D2. But fr. pain has the D2 sememe "piece" (pain de savon - a piece of soap, pain de sucre - a head of sugar).

Interlingual differences in semantemes are clearly manifested when analyzing the lexical compatibility of multilingual lexemes that are equivalent in D1. Thus, the adjective deep in the D1 seme is equivalent to English. deep, but deep grass ("deep grass") - Russian. 278

Russian is hidden-

"tall grass", deep person (deep person), a person who does not show his feelings."

Differences in sememes K1 and K2 are manifested in large differences between different languages in the field of phraseology. For example, Czechs compare a thin woman with noodles, about an uninteresting and unnecessary matter they say literally “this is a sausage for me”, about an ignorant person - “he understands this matter like a goat in parsley”, a trivial matter is symbolized by “mushrooms”: “this is mushrooms for him ", "he made mushrooms out of it", i.e. this is nothing for him. The Russian lexemes noodles, sausage, parsley, and mushrooms do not have such seeds K1 and K2. The same applies to their Ukrainian equivalents.

The foundations of component analysis were laid by L. Elmslev, then it was developed by B. Pothier, A. Greimas and others.

Sememes are divided into semes. Sema is understood as the reflection into a person’s consciousness of a separate attribute, some detail of an object that is entirely represented in the sememe. The division of seme into semes is endless; its limit becomes only a measure of knowledge of the properties and qualities of the denotation. Component analysis shows that the number of semes essential for communication in a seme is quite countable and not very large. It is clarified from comparisons and contrasts of different families with each other. A seme, which in one context appears to be further indivisible, in another context reveals its complexity and the possibility of further division. For example, in the D2 family the words p times there are semes “time, rest, end of lesson, bell, school, secondary educational institution, class time of 45 minutes, sound signal for the beginning and end of the lesson,” etc.

Semasiologists build various classifications of families.

Yes, cool ems- features that are most generalized in content and correspond to the meanings of parts of speech: objectivity, attribute, etc. Archisemes- features that unite groups of words within a part of speech, for example, animate/inanimate, action/state, etc.

Differential semes- these are signs by which words grouped in one archiseme are contrasted, and by which one sememe can be distinguished from another. For example, for

Words plain, plateau, plateau, immutability, lowland An archiseme will be “a section of the earth’s relief with a flat or slightly undulating surface.” Differential semes that delimit the meanings of these words are the following: “above 200 m above sea level” (plateau, plateau), “below 200 m above sea level” (lowland, plain), “vast, without visible boundaries” (plain, plateau, lowland), “small with visible boundaries” (plateau, lowland).

V. G. Gak divides semes into descriptive and relative. Descriptive semes reflect the own properties of an object (size, structure, shape, appearance, method of performing an action, etc.), relative- connections of an object with other objects in different respects (spatial, temporal, functional, etc.). For example, for verbs of movement, descriptive semes characterize the method of action: walk - with the help of legs, swim - on water, fly - through the air, etc., relative semes indicate the direction of movement: move away - from the starting point, approach - to the final point.

Archisemes and differential semes are sufficient to characterize the seme; from them the content of the seme is determined quite satisfactorily, however, in addition to these basic semes, each seme can contain an unlimited number of different semes, detailing all sorts of particulars in accordance with the real inexhaustibility of the characteristics of the object. Among these seven are probabilistic, potential, hidden. For example, in the lexeme sememe boss through an experiment, hidden, probabilistic semes “fat, angry, nervous” were identified in the lexeme seme professor- "wearing glasses, old, strict, smart" student- “cheerful, sociable”, etc.

Probabilistic semes are most widely realized in nouns, since it is in objects that a person discovers, first of all, more and more new properties. In dictionaries, probabilistic semes are most often marked with the word usually. For example, a camp is a temporary stop, usually outdoors, in tents; Dutch - indoor, usually tiled stove.

The semes within a sememe are hierarchically ordered and are in structural relationships, determining the category of the word, the generic and specific characteristics of the object, its main and secondary characteristics. The seme appears as the microstructure of the seme. The lexical-semantic version of a word (i.e. lexeme + seme) is an element of the lexical-semantic subsystem of the language, which is formed by oppositions of semes that arise due to their similarities and differences in seme composition.

Logical-semantic calculus and modeling

Logical-mathematical modeling uses the formal apparatus of logic, which studies the general laws of the theory of proof. What is common is the assumption of the logical correctness of the invariant (modeling, genotypic) essence of speech-mental activity, considering it as a logical device in which simple initial elements and a consistent formalized apparatus of logical operations can be distinguished.

Axiomatic method consists in the fact that a set of elements or objects is divided into parts (subsets); one part is considered as initial provisions - axioms that are accepted without proof, the remaining provisions (theorems) are proven logically. The axiomatic method is based on set theory and function theory (in the mathematical sense of the word).

Formalized theory is understood as a system of symbols considered as a sequence of logical terms, i.e., subject and predicate in a judgment, subject and predicates in a syllogism. Formal symbols include: logical symbols (v, u - l - or), predicate symbols (=) and function symbols (+), variables (a, b, c). Formal expressions and their final sequences are created from them.

The spread of axiomatic and formalized methods required the use of such techniques for solving linguistic problems as algorithmization, graphical calculus and matrix (tabular) determination of the truth of functions of complex statements.

The use of logical-mathematical methods and methods of analysis led to the emergence of various types of logical-mathematical modeling of language and text, thought experiments and hypothetico-deductive methods of research. The most well-known types of logical-mathematical analysis are various generation models, syntactic analysis models and invariant semantic analysis.

Generation models.

Structural-mathematical models of generation are used to describe the generation of language and text, as well as to determine the structure of speech activity and the structure of language.

An example of a generation model is the applicative (applicatio (lat.) - application) generation model, developed by domestic scientists. APM presupposes an understanding of language as a generative device - a mathematical system built on the basis of the hypotactical-deductive method and formalized transformation methodology. APM consists of 4 partial models (generators) connected to each other: an abstract generator, a word generator, a phrase generator (a set of words) and a transformation field generator. Consider as an example word generator The root is qualified as an empty semion 0, relators - as abstract affixes: R t - verb affix, SCH- affix of a noun, SCH- adjective, R 4 - preverbal adverb, R 5 - adjective adverb. Words have I, II and III derivations: R,0 - verb teaches. RJlfi- a noun formed from a verb - teacher, R^R, 0 - a verb formed from a verbal noun teach. Thus, the applicative model turns out to be an algebra of relators, and the language itself turns out to be a metalanguage, which is far from the concrete reality of the language.

Syntactic mo d spruce analysis text were driven by the needs of machine translation. The most widely used method is sequential text analysis and the depth hypothesis of V. Ingwe, as well as the algorithm of I. A. Melchuk.

I. A. Melchuk proceeds from the assumption that. That the text is a “black box” that must be dissected and described

using elements of analysis. Analysis elements are units stored in the machine's memory. The most important units of analysis are morphs (stems and affixes) and syntagms (classes of binary combinations of word forms and segments that have the same grammatical structure). The algorithm consists of many tables of standard forms (configurations) and rules for handling tables.

Thus, logical-mathematical techniques are associated with the translation of the semantics of natural languages into a semantic language, which is considered as a formalized structure and metalanguage. The specificity of the semantics of real language units loses its specificity; the real language units themselves appear as idealized models, deprived of their own linguistic basis.

Quantitative (symptomatic) and probable-statistical methods of studying language and text.

A complete comprehension of language without a more specialized examination of the quantitative side of linguistic, and in particular grammatical, phenomena is impossible. The reason for this is that each linguistic phenomenon, in addition to qualitative certainty, has, according to V. G. Admoni, some “mass”, that is, it occupies a certain space among other linguistic phenomena and is commensurate with them in certain aspects with varying degrees of intensity. Presenting in a variety of guises and in different relationships of its components, the “mass” of linguistic phenomena acts as a highly complex and complex concept. But it represents an objective fact and requires the use of quantitative research techniques.

Attempts to “measure” artistic and non-artistic speech and to apply quantitative assessments to it have been made for a long time. And even the most irreconcilable opponents of the use of statistics in the study of speech cannot avoid such clearly quantitative assessments in their essence as “often”, “rarely”, “many”, “few”, etc. Thus, M. V. Lomonosov He considered the fact that “the plural ending for e in all genders is more common than i” as proof of the need to unify the inflection of adjectives. A. S. Budilovich calculated the percentage of letters used in Church Slavonic

In these texts, D. N. Kudryavsky determined whether the aorist was a form of a living language by drawing up a distribution curve of verb forms in the Laurentian Chronicle. And there are a great many such examples. The use of quantitative methodology, when the percentage of linguistic facts is established, V. G. Admoni proposed to call symptomatic statistics.

At the beginning of this century, mathematicians tried to introduce probabilistic-statistical methods into the analysis of facts of speech and text. Thus, N. A. Morozov, in his work “Linguistic Spectra,” revealed the distribution of vowel sounds in “Eugene Onegin” by A. S. Pushkin. A. A. Markov, having analyzed his data, proved that the identified patterns are not statistically reliable; it is necessary to determine the size of frequency fluctuations and the relative error of the study.

It is now well known that the development and functioning of language, the construction of speech chains, the use of various linguistic units and categories in speech - all this is subject not to rigid, but to probabilistic laws and, therefore, special techniques are needed that would allow a linguist studying a language to grasp the limits actions of the same pattern in the development or functioning of language, to distinguish one pattern from another. The qualitative specificity of statistical aggregates is that they are affected by many different factors, significant and insignificant, systematic and random, internal and external. Moreover, the number and composition of factors acting on each unit of the population often do not coincide (partially or completely). Therefore, one or several cases here are not indicative of the entire mass as a whole; here it is necessary to systematically study a sufficiently large number of units in order to identify a more or less complete list of factors presented in a given set of factors, establish the possibilities of their combination and interaction, and, finally, determine the degree of participation of each factor a.

Assessing the reliability of the results of a qualitative-quantitative study is based on a number of criteria. The main one is the correspondence between qualitative analysis and quantitative

data, internal logic of numbers. If a finite population or an infinite homogeneous population is studied, then it becomes possible to assess the degree of reliability using probabilistic and statistical methods. In its simplest form, the probabilistic-statistical technique as applied to linguistics looks like this: 2 xi

H---p - average frequency of the phenomenon

G~ n: standard deviation, i.e. degree of swing

oscillations of sample frequencies around their average frequency, Z= ~/=? relative error (not the researcher’s error, but the degree of reliability. The results are considered reliable if it does not exceed 30%.). In the formula t- a special coefficient depending on

sample size, N- number of samples Z(jo-*) 2 .

X 2 = x - determination of significant discrepancies, i.e. whether these facts belong to one group of patterns. The Student's t test is used for the same purpose. The results are compared with the tables.

When studying styles, it is possible to use two types of statistics: probabilistic and symptomatic. Symptoms can be successfully used in the statistical description of functional styles, since it reveals percentage relationships between different types of linguistic phenomena.

Probabilistic statistics helps to establish the degree of reliability of the results obtained, the size and number of samples for analysis with a given accuracy; if there are significant differences between styles, it is possible to determine the distance between them; Correlation analysis can reveal the degree of interdependence of the analyzed elements. Methods of probabilistic statistics help to select objective criteria for differentiating

Revisions of various styles. It is the use of the apparatus of probabilistic statistics that makes it possible to differentiate continuous text according to functional styles on the basis of any objective criterion.

The statistical research technique is applicable not only to the study of language styles, but can be successfully used in the study of speech styles. B. N. Golovin, who has done a lot in this area, notes: “The author’s speech styles are, undoubtedly, in many respects (if not in all) determined by the frequency ratios of different elements of language that are stable for each author.” The study of speech styles allows us to deeply study the figurative system of the great masters of words, as well as outline trends in the formation and development of the national literary language. The author's speech styles are separate from the general - functional style of the language. If there is a large sample of texts by different authors who worked at approximately the same time, individual differences are relegated to the background, and the features of the functional style come to the fore. Knowing the characteristics of the speech styles of individual literary artists, it is possible to determine how the literary language develops and who has the greatest influence on its formation and development.

For the study of author's speech styles, correlation analysis is of great importance, which allows us to identify the degree of interdependence and interconnection of linguistic elements. In this regard, studies on determining the authorship of a number of anonymous works and a number of others are interesting.

The widespread use of probabilistic statistical methods in the study of the written subsystem of language in Russian linguistics began relatively recently, in the late 50s - early 60s, so the apparatus of statistical research is still far from perfect, but cumbersome. A significant role in the development of statistical methods was played by the work carried out by the staff of the Institute of Linguistics of Ukraine under the leadership of V. I. Perebeinos, the research of B. N. Golovin and his followers, as well as a number of other scientists.

Automation of linguistic work

Modern linguistics is characterized by the use of special technical means and modern equipment. This gave rise to the technical aspect of linguistics, giving rise to engineering linguistics.

The use of special equipment to study the sounds and intonation of a particular language is called experimental phonetic method. The method has a number of techniques that differ in equipment, conditions for setting up an experiment or obtaining a result. Experimental phonetic techniques are divided into somatic, pneumatic, electroacoustic (or electrographic).

Somatic techniques are based on the fact that by studying the bodily (somatic) expressions of the physiological processes of speaking, a conclusion is made about the phonetic phenomenon. Basic techniques: palatography, photography of articulation organs, x-ray photography of the speech apparatus and pneumatic measurement of speech breathing.

Pneumatic techniques consist of recording, using Maciej's drums on smoked kymograph paper, curves that record the pronunciation movements of the speech organs and changes in the fundamental tone and noises resulting from the movement of the air column in the oral, nasal and laryngeal cavities.

Electroacoustic techniques are based on the transformation of the sound features of speech into electrical vibrations. For this purpose, an oscilloscope and a spectrograph are mainly used.

When using somatic techniques, speech sounds are studied using diagrams depicting the functioning of the speech organs. Pneumatic and electroacoustic techniques study the recording of sound in the form of curves. Experimental phonetic techniques provide reliable and accurate acoustic and articulatory characteristics of speech sounds, formant structure, i.e., sound spectrum.

The advent of computers made significant changes in the practice of scientific research and posed new tasks and problems for science. In linguistics, such problems have become automatic translation, machine compilation and reduction (abstracting) of text.

Machine translation (MT) is a complex scientific problem that requires solving a number of linguistic, logical-mathematical and engineering problems. The main difficulty is

That the higher nervous activity of a person is an associative, multi-channel construction, and human thinking is heuristic, while computer memory is usually multi-channel, computer “thinking” is algorithmic. An algorithm is a solution to a problem using calculations that involve breaking down operations into simple sequential ones. The algorithmic description of language as a translation process involves analysis and synthesis of text. When analyzing the text, data is extracted that is expressed unambiguously and explicitly; During synthesis, a text is constructed using language data. The “meaning-text” problem receives not only a linguistic, but also a logical-mathematical interpretation.

Machine translation is an action performed on a computer to transform text in one natural language into text equivalent in content in another language, as well as the result of such an action. Modern MT systems involve a human (editor). To implement MP, a program (algorithm) and dictionaries of input and output languages containing a variety of information are introduced into the computer. The most common sequence of formal operations that make up analysis synthesis in the MP system: text entry and search for input word forms in the dictionary with accompanying morphological analysis; translation of idioms; determination of the basic grammatical (morphological, syntactic, as well as semantic, lexical) features necessary for translation within a given pair of languages, based on the input text; analysis of homography; lexical analysis and translation (including polysemantic words taking into account context); final grammatical analysis in order to further determine the information necessary for synthesis; synthesis of output word forms, sentences and text as a whole. The analysis can be carried out either phase by phase or for the entire text, with the identification of anaphoric connections in the latter case.

The first experiments with MT were carried out in the USA in the late 40s of the 20th century with the advent of computers. In our country, the first experiment on MP was carried out by I.K. Velskaya (linguistic basis of algorithms) and D.Yu. Panov (implementation program) at the Institute of Precision Mechanics and Computer Science of the USSR Academy of Sciences (1954). Work on MP is carried out in many countries around the world.

Lecture No. 24

Functional method

1. Functionalism and functional method.

2. Functional field, built on the principle of productivity
ness. Sietaksich field of Russian simple sentence.

3. The structure of modern Russian stylistics in terms of field.

Functionalism, which chose the functional aspect of language as the main object of analysis, developed in Western Europe in the 70s of the 20th century, and somewhat later - in domestic linguistics, although the problems developed in line with functionalism were once paid attention to by I. A. Baudouin de Courtenay, A. M. Peshkovsky, L. V. Shcherba and others. An undoubted positive point in the concept of functionalism, largely based on the ideas of the Prague Linguistic Circle, is the continuation on a new basis of research, the origins of which are rooted in the previous stages of the development of linguistics: the analysis of systemic relations in language and the study of their implementation in speech is carried out. The basic principle of functionalism is teleological (understanding of language as a purposeful system of means of expression).

Let us note that in the West, phonetics, phonology, and partly lexicology were studied in the functional aspect; functional grammar, fruitfully developed by A. V. Bondarko and his followers, considers in a single system means belonging to different language levels, but united on the basis of the commonality of their semantic functions.

The theoretical basis of the functional method is the understanding of language as a dynamic system in constant movement and development. The systemic nature and dynamism of language is manifested in the process of its functioning.

Functioning (in accordance with the term itself) is, on the one hand, the use of certain units, on the other hand, the implementation of various functions of the language, primarily semantic. These phenomena are dialectically closely interconnected and interdependent: every utterance is purposeful, it is organized depending on the teleological setting and areas of use, but functions can only be realized in the process of using language. In the process of functioning, new phenomena arise and old ones die off - the language develops and changes.

I. A. Baudouin de Courtenay was one of the first to draw attention to the slowness and gradualness of language changes: “... the imperceptible development, the imperceptible influence of slowly but thoroughly acting forces both in language and in all other manifestations of life, can be expressed by an algebraic formula 0 x "> = u, that is, that an infinitesimal change made at one moment, repeated an infinite number of times, finally gives a known definite change." Thus, any innovation arises in the speech of individuals, then, repeated many times, this innovation becomes one of the possible options, and then becomes or does not become a phenomenon of language as a result of the influence of various factors.

E. S. Kubryakova notes: “Language changes have been the subject of special research for a long time, while the processes of variation were involved in the range of linguistic problems only relatively recently... leaves no doubt, however, that this form of manifestation of linguistic dynamism, which largely determines specific paths of language evolution should also receive proper coverage... This is primarily due to the fact that the key to studying the nature of language changes lies in synchrony: both the starting and ending points of changes coexist for some time.”

I. A. Baudouin de Courtenay emphasized the need to distinguish between history and development: history is a sequence of homogeneous but different phenomena, interconnected through

natural rather than direct causation. In contrast, development is a continuous and unceasing extension of homogeneous but different phenomena interconnected by direct causality, or, in the next degree of scientific perfection, development is a continuous extension of significant changes, not phenomena."

In general, linguistic systems are characterized by unstable or relative equilibrium. Living languages develop constantly and unevenly, under the influence of many different factors.

To implement the idea of gradual development, it is necessary to turn to the “quantitativeness of linguistic thinking”, which I. A. Baudouin de Courtenay spoke about.

The functional method—a field built on the principle of productivity—allows us to detect a sporadically used form (0 in Baudouin de Courtenay), observe its formation and coexistence with other forms (variation), and move into the category of nuclear forms - the most common and stable.

This approach (field method) is due to the fact that many language phenomena have a field structure. However, we note that the field model is presented in different ways in different studies: for G. A. Zolotova it is, for example, a sphere, for V. G. Admoni it is a fan.

A. V. Bondarko rightly emphasizes: “It is necessary to distinguish between: a) a field as a special type of system - a grouping of connections and interactions of linguistic elements in linguistic reality itself, i.e., a field as an objective given, and b) a field principle, i.e., an approach "to the facts of language from the point of view of field theory as a reflection of this objective given in the methods of linguistic analysis. Between the structure of the field in the object of analysis and the "field approach" to linguistic phenomena there is a basic relation of determination: the structure of the object determines the methods of its research." The term "field" was first introduced into semasiology. G. Ipsen proposed the term Bedeutungsfeld, and I. Trier - Begriffsfeld, V. Porzig first began to write about the syntactic field and paratactic fields, but despite the long history of its existence in scientific use, researchers do not have a common understanding of the field,

Although it is recognized that the very idea of a field, borrowed from the natural sciences, in particular from physics, is fruitful.

The most well-known field concepts are presented in the works of V. G. Admoni, A. V. Bondarko, L. Weisgerber, E. V. Gulyga, E. I. Shentels, E. A. Zolotova, L. P. Ivanova, O A. Lapteva, A. G. Skovorodnikova, etc.

The field that E.V. Gulyga and E.I. Shendels are building is of a semantic-grammatical nature, i.e., any grammatical meaning and its linguistic design are considered. Later, this idea received comprehensive justification and development in the concept of A. V. Bondarko. By functional-semantic field he understands “a two-sided (content-formal) unity formed by the grammatical (morphological and syntactic) means of a given language together with the lexical, lexico-grammatical and word-formation elements interacting with them, related to same semantic zone".

The syntactic field is understood somewhat differently in the concept of G. A. Zolotova: “The syntactic field of a sentence is a system that unites its regular grammatical and semantic transformations around the original structure of the sentence.” Later, the idea receives a more specific embodiment: “The basic models of a sentence in relation to their semantic-grammatical modifications and complications can be represented as the center of a spherical system, surrounded by concentric layers, gradually retreating from the center to the near and far periphery of the field.” These layers are arranged in the following sequence:

1) grammatical modifications,

2) phase, modal, semantic-grammatical modifications
tions,

3) expressive communicative modifications,

4) monopredicative synonymous variations,

5) polypredicative complications of the model.

Undoubtedly, the idea is interesting, but, unfortunately, it was not realized when analyzing a large amount of factual material. 292

O. A. Lapteva consistently applied the field method on a wide range of material when describing typified structures of oral-conversational syntax: “This field... is arranged according to the principle of waves, with alternating and flowing into one another zones of condensation and rarefaction of the characteristic features of models. Such a device allows field to be continuous, diffuse, without clear and sharp boundaries between zones representing individual models. These zones, which are centers of condensation of specific characteristics of models, gradually move into peripheral areas, where the tension of condensation of specific properties weakens, giving way to less structural certainty. Located between centers, these peripheral areas create the fluidity of the field, in which models with different characteristics gradually, without sharp changes, transform into one another. The diffuseness of the structural characteristics presented in the peripheral areas is very convenient for spontaneous speech activity and allows these areas to simultaneously be derived from different models . Thus, a formal closure of models in peripheral areas is obtained materially in the same implementations. Thus, peripheral, transitional, structurally weakly formed areas acquire a primary role in the formation of the field of oral-conversational literary syntax."

A.P. Skovorodnikov in his doctoral dissertation summarizes the most essential provisions of field theory as follows.

1. Identification of the field as a special structural unit (grammar
ical or -broader- language system) is determined by the fact of special
battle of correlation and connectedness in non-paradigmatic units
with paradigmatic systems.

2. Like a paradigm, a field is seen as defined
construction, diagram, modeling relationships and connections, really su
existing in the language structure.

3. The field is seen as a way of being and grouping
roving of linguistic elements that have common (invariant
ant) properties.

4. In a linguistic object that has a field structure
tour, a center (core) is identified, to which phenomena, areas
giving all those multi-aspect signs that have their own
are characteristic of this category as such (complete characteristics
mi), and the periphery, which includes phenomena that have only
some incomplete signs.

5. Although listing the essential features of the field, explore
or usually indicate that the field is a multi-level concept,
that is, that this structure with a set of tools at different levels, no
grounds to deny the possibility of field structures within one
from levels, in particular - syntactic.

For the analysis of formal and semantic linguistic structures, the optimal one, in our opinion, is the atomic field model proposed by Rutherford and accepted by modern physics, that is, the nucleus and orbits are identified, on which the elements are located according to the degree of weakening of the connection with it. For us, the nucleus is the component of the structure that has the highest frequency, i.e., the most widely used; its variants are located in the perinuclear part and on the periphery of the field. As is known, Rutherford singles out the nucleus and electrons located around it in an atom. Electrons with a higher charge are closer to the nucleus, those with a smaller charge are further away; electrons in the peripheral, farthest orbit can even break away from their nucleus and join another.

Naturally, the mechanical transfer of models of the material world into the sphere of language is incorrect, but observations show that the structure of various linguistic objects, in particular a simple sentence, has a number of similarities with the structure of the atom. The most peripheral modifications of a linguistic unit can be lost or torn away from the core and begin either to exist independently in the form of a new type or as an equivalent of a linguistic unit; There are vast transition zones between the fields, which do not always lend themselves to unambiguous classification.

So, for example, the type of simple sentence structural scheme (SSPP) and semantic sentence structure (SSS) are phenomena of the language system. At the normal level, we observe specific

to the implementation of various possibilities for expressing elements of the structural and semantic scheme of a simple sentence, i.e. option I you. The limits of variability are limited, since the type of structural and semantic scheme of a simple sentence must be preserved intact and not overlap with others, although intersections and transition zones naturally arise.

A number of works by V. V. Babaytseva and her followers are devoted to the problems of transitivity in the syntax of a simple sentence and other language structures. Transitivity within the framework of this concept is considered as a universal property of language, which, reflecting the systemic relationship and interaction between linguistic facts, binds them into an integral system. One of the manifestations of transition is syncretism.

The limits of variability of the elements of the structural scheme of a simple sentence are determined by the capabilities of the paradigm of the part of speech by which this element is expressed. So, for example, the linking part of the structural diagram of a simple sentence N-cop N is expressed by a noun; at the level of norms we observe that most often the linking part is expressed by nominative and instrumental predicatives; Based on the capabilities of the language system, we can assume that it is likely to be expressed in both genitive, accusative, and other cases. An examination of a large corpus of texts shows that these variants do occur, but very rarely.

In the structure of the syntactic field we distinguish the core, the perinuclear part and the periphery. We consider the core of the field to be the most high-frequency variant of expressing the components of the structural diagram of a simple sentence or the semantic structure of a sentence (this approach is considered functional by V.G. Gak), since due to its widest use it most specializedly expresses the meaning of this type of analyzed linguistic phenomenon. The perinuclear part consists of 2-3 variants with the highest frequency. The periphery itself consists of the least frequent variants. The peri-nuclear part and periphery of the field are “multi-layered”: closer to the nucleus the most charac-

Characteristic for a given type of structural diagram of a simple sentence or semantic structure of a sentence, i.e., the most high-frequency options, then modifications follow in order of decreasing frequency. The least frequent variants, those most distant from the core, have such a weak connection with it that they can go beyond the limits of variation and generally break away from a given type of structural scheme of a simple sentence or semantic structure of a sentence, forming either a new type of analyzed structures or an equivalent sentence. So, for example, in the structural diagram of a simple sentence N N1, there are probably expressions like Good afternoon stood on a par with sentences like Good weather- existential-evaluative. Then the offer Good afternoon began to lose signs of existentiality and moved to the periphery of the field, and then broke away from it, forming the equivalent of a sentence - a lexicalized speech.

Thus, the proposed field model has predictive and explanatory properties. It allows us to identify the significance of the analyzed categories in the language system. When building a model, statistical interpretations are necessary as it is influenced by various factors.

On the other hand, cardinal changes in syntax (the appearance of new syntactic structures, the loss of old ones) may not appear even for several centuries, while phenomena observed in the language only sporadically may become typical over time, i.e., the accumulation of quantitative signs gives qualitative changes. A. S. Melnichuk argues that the historical development of sentence structure in Slavic languages takes place in the form of changes in the functional relationships between existing components of the structure, the development of new structural components of the sentence and the withering away of some old components. Therefore, the position of one or another component of a simple sentence in the structure of the syntactic field is significant.

The syntactic field can be monocentric and polycentric depending on the number of components of the predicative.

nogo center. Thus, the syntactic field N N1 is monocentric, and N - Vf contains two nuclei - the core of the subject and the core of the predicate.

The proposed understanding of the syntactic field is significantly narrower than the syntactic fields of A. V. Bondarko and G. A. Zalogova, however, firstly, we set out to build precisely syntactic field, secondly, such a field can be part of the comprehensive field of a simple sentence, including its communicative, referential and other characteristics. In all likelihood, such a field will have the shape of a sphere.

Comparison of syntactic fields of structural schemes of a simple sentence and analysis of their structure will reveal unrealized possibilities - ways for the development of new types of structural schemes of a simple sentence and their variants, “weakened” links that create the ground for the emergence of sentence equivalents. Comparing the fields will allow us to judge the degree of development of one or another type of structural diagram of a simple sentence. The study of development is essentially a comparison of realized possibilities.

Introduction

1. History of the study of linguistic universals

1.1Universal grammar

1.2Development of structural linguistics

3Achievement R.O. Jacobson

2. Types of universals

2.1 Absolute (complete) and statistical (incomplete) universals

2 Deductive and inductive universals

3 Synchronic and diachronic universals

Universals at different levels of language

Conclusion

List of sources used

Introduction

Universals are a set of concepts that are common to all or many languages, but are expressed differently in them. [Ozhegov]

The theory of linguistic universals considers and defines:

Common properties of all human languages in contrast to animal languages. For example, in human language the channel for any linguistic communication is vocal-auditory: in human language it is possible to easily create and easily perceive new messages.

A set of content categories expressed by one means or another in each language. For example, all languages express the relationship between the subject and the predicate, the categories of possessivity, evaluation, certainty or uncertainty, and plurality.

General properties of the language structures themselves, relevant to all language levels. For example, in any language there cannot be less than ten and more than eighty phonemes; if in a language there is a combination of consonants of the form “smooth + nasal”, then there is a combination of the form “smooth + noisy”, etc.

1. History of the study of linguistic universals

1.1 Universal Grammar

Originally, universal grammar was associated with universal semantic categories. Specific languages, in turn, were interpreted as variants approaching this ideal scheme.

.2 Development of structural linguistics

In 1961, a special conference on linguistic universals was held in New York, which apparently marked a new stage of research in this area.

.3 Achieving R.O. Jacobson

2. Types of universals

.1 Absolute (complete) and statistical (incomplete) universals

Absolute universals are characteristic of all known languages, for example: Every natural language has vowels and consonants. Such universals are contrasted with statistical (incomplete) universals. An example of a statistical universal: Almost all languages have nasal consonants. However, in some West African languages, nasal consonants are not separate phonemes. Statistical universals include the so-called frequentalia- phenomena that occur quite often in the languages of the world (with a probability exceeding chance).

Absolute universals are also opposed implicative (complex), that is, those that assert a connection between two classes of phenomena. It is argued that if a certain phenomenon takes place in a language ( ?), then it also contains the phenomenon ( ?), although the opposite is not necessarily true, that is, the presence of ( ?) does not mean presence ( ?). So, if a language has a dual number, then it also has a plural number, but the reverse is not always true. An illustration of complex universals can be, for example, the well-known inversely proportional relationships between the average length of a morpheme and the total number of phonemes in a language, between the average length of a word and the ratio of the number of phonemes to the number of syllables, etc. Implicative universals are very numerous, especially at the phonological level.

.2 Deductive and inductive universals

The statement that a phenomenon is universal can really mean two things:

a) “this phenomenon occurs in all known to the researcherlanguages" (and, by extrapolation, he assumes that it probably occurs in languages unknown to him);

b) “this is a phenomenon mustoccur in all languages."

.3 Synchronic and diachronic universals

Synchronic universals are universal linguistic patterns observed in a fixed state of language, and not in the process of its change.

Diachronic universals are universal linguistic patterns observed in the dynamic state of language, i.e. in the process of changing it.

3. Universals at different levels of language

linguistic universal deductive diachronic

J. Greenberg studied the general patterns of languages and formulated the following universals:

1.“If the nominal object precedes the verb, then the verb forms subordinate to the main verb also precede it.

2.In conditional constructions, the conditional part precedes the conclusion. This order is the normal word order for all languages.

.In desire and goal constructions, the subordinate verb form always follows the main verb, and this is the normal word order; The only exceptions are those languages in which the nominal object always precedes the verb.

.When a question requiring a “yes-no” answer differs from the corresponding statement by intonation differences, differential intonation features are revealed more clearly at the end of the sentence than at the beginning.

.If interrogative particles or affixes are fixed in position relative to the sentence as a whole, then with a probability greater than chance, initial elements are found in languages with prepositions, and final elements - in languages with postpositions.”

Conclusion

So, having considered the types of universals, we can conclude that universals are properties inherent in all languages or most of them.

According to the known classifications, there are different types of universals: diachronic and synchronic, absolute, statistical and implicative, deductive and inductive.

Universals are also distinguished at the following levels of language: phonetic, morphological, syntactic.

List of sources used

1.Greenberg J. Some grammatical universals, mainly concerning the order of significant elements / J. Greenberg // New in linguistics. ? 1970. ? Vol. 5. ? pp. 114-162.

2.Greenberg J. Memorandum on linguistic universals / J. Greenberg, C. Osgood, J. Jenkins // New in linguistics. ? 1970. ? Vol. 5. ? pp. 31-44.

.Melnikov G.P. Language as a system and linguistic universals / G.P. Melnikov // System research. Yearbook 1972. - M.: Nauka, 1973. ? With. 183-204.

.Uspensky B.A. The problem of universals in linguistics / B.A. Uspensky // New in linguistics. ? 1970. ? Vol. 5. ? pp. 5-30.

5.#"justify">6. http://www.ozhegov.org/words/37360.shtml

Tutoring

Need help studying a topic?

Our specialists will advise or provide tutoring services on topics that interest you.
Submit your application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.

Popular

“Atomic ghosts”: what abandoned nuclear power plants of the former Soviet Union look like

« The Crimean Nuclear Power Plant is the most expensive unfinished nuclear reactor in the world. To service the power plant, an entire city was built on the Kerch Peninsula -.... »

Underground power station of Sevastopol

« In November 1941, during the first assault on Sevastopol, the city Defense Committee organized the relocation of defense industries to... »

Rock Iphigenia - a legend in stone form

« Reading time: 2 minutes Iphigenia Rock, whose outline resembles a fortress, is located on the Crimean coast. She represents... »

Linguistic typology and the problem of linguistic universals. Typology of languages. Language universals. Typological (morphological) classification. Mathematical methods and techniques for language analysis

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Similar documents

12 Answer: Typological classification of languages. Agglutination (sticking) and fusion (fusion). Synthetic and analytical languages.

Tutoring