LIMITS OF USE comparative historical method

LIMITS OF USE comparative historical method

In linguistics

(As applied to the Indo-European languages)

The value of the comparative historical method

This article does not set itself the task of fully reveal the value of the comparative historical method in linguistics, rejection of the application which was imposed by the Soviet science Marr and his «disciples.» This refusal caused great damage to the development of the historical and linguistic research, the introduction of a genuine case of historicism in the science of language. The significance of the comparative historical method and the benefits that it can bring a historical study of language, time and again we have been contacted after the release of the brilliant work of JV Stalin, «Marxism and Problems of Linguistics.» It may be noted only three of the most important points.

1. Stalin stressed the exceptional stability of the basics of the language, t. E. Its grammatical structure and basic lexical fund, stating that «the language, the structure can not be regarded as a product of any one epoch. The structure of the language, its grammar and basic lexical fund is the product of a number of epochs. » He also showed that the «elements of the modern language can be traced back to ancient times, before the era of slavery.» Hence the requirement — for understanding the development of language refer to the very distant past, including the time, from which we have no written records. Such insight into prehistory can only be achieved with the help of the comparative historical method. It inevitably hypothetical (in linguistics in the same way as in any other historical science), but at the same time it should be as justified by the facts, which are extracted by comparing languages ​​and who should be treated with the utmost rigor and caution. Marr and his followers taught us (not only linguists, but, for example, and archaeologists) wander in the «twilight of prehistory», without any clue, where a scientist can only be rigorous method.

2. The method used in science, can not be related to its object. Comparative-historical method in linguistics as a particular object. Unscrupulous comparison of certain facts in the same language with certain facts in other languages ​​(in terms of their similarities or differences — «similarities» and «differences») does nothing to science. «Typological» mapping practiced in recent years mainly in the works of Academician I. Meshchaninova, demonstrate the futility of such activities. They are outside of science. The object of the comparative historical method are those elements of the structure of the language, the similarity of which could not have arisen out of the genetic relationships between languages, and only those bonds can be explained. In other words, the object of the comparative-historical method is the study of genetic relationships similar and different phenomena in related languages, and the very fact that the degree of relationship is established only through the study of specific genetic links between them.

3. The use of a particular method should always have a defined purpose. The purpose of the application of the comparative historical method in linguistics is to establish a specific historical relations between languages, which in turn helps the clarification of the specifics of the historical development of these languages, the disclosure of operating its «internal laws». Links disclosed comparative-historical method, first of all, the essence of genetic connection, but is not limited to the establishment of these relations: the same method, you can check with any other (related and unrelated) languages ​​of the language is in communication throughout its history.

From all this it is clear how important is the use of linguistics in the comparative-historical method. However, along with this, it is necessary to clearly define the boundaries of the application of this method to determine its capabilities and understand the essence of his «serious shortcomings», he said that the presence of Stalin, also pointed out that the comparative-historical method, with all its «serious deficiencies» It has the advantage that it «… is pushing to work, to study languages ​​…».

Without this, there is a risk to universalize the value of the comparative historical method, reduced to a comparative historical research all the content of the science of language — the danger of substituting it by the most Marxist methodology in linguistics, the danger of the whole science of language in the «comparative philology», as it often was in the past (in the second half of the 19th and early 20th centuries).

Heuristic and combinatorial techniques

The issue of the borders of the comparative historical method, in turn, can not be understood simplistically and schematically — as a question of the limitations posed by the use of this method of studying the related languages ​​of the language limitations of the material at our disposal, or his character.

From the above words of Stalin certainly it implies that the comparative historical method must remain armed Marxist linguistics as a set of methodological research (heuristics and combinatorial) techniques. If these methods are used correctly, they not only do not conflict with the Marxist historical methodology common to all the social sciences, including for linguistics, but will also facilitate the introduction of Marxism into linguistics, which requires us to Stalin. Comparative-historical method thus appears as an important auxiliary method, it is specific to the science of language because of the specificity of language as a social phenomenon. In general, this helper is a very complex phenomenon. It consists of different, to some extent independent, groups of research techniques, including the technique of research.

However, the comparative-historical method in linguistics can in no way be reduced to this technique. The improvement of this technique is necessary, but one thing it has in no way solves the problem of overcoming the «serious shortcomings» of the method.

As an auxiliary method in linguistics, comparative-historical method can not depend on, when applied in the Marxist linguistics, from the general methodology of science. The basis of Marxist methodology of linguistics contains Stalin quite clear. She is learning the language «… in close connection with the history of the society, the history of the people who belong to the target language, and who is the creator and bearer of the language.» It follows that the construction of comparative historical grammar of related languages ​​and comparative historical lexicology, for all its importance as an indispensable stage in the historical and linguistic research, can not be an end in itself in linguistics, as it is thought and thought many bourgeois linguists.

In the Marxist historical linguistics, comparative grammar and comparative historical lexicology related languages ​​should remain as an important part of the science of language, which promotes the study of the development of the internal laws of language, which, as taught by Stalin, is the main task of linguistics. In these inner laws of development revealed the specific history of each language is inextricably linked to the particular history of the people, and the study of «linguistic relationship», disclosed by means of comparative-historical method can, as indicated by Stalin, «… bring a big linguistics benefit to study the laws of language development. «

Only the study of the development of every language in comparison with the development of related to it in other languages, the study of all the genetic relationships of the language, in a comparative study of dialects and sub-dialects within his defined features of its grammatical system and basic word stock in their growth and development, defined in the language of your and foreign, old and new, nationwide and dialectic, and so on. d.

Thus, in the comparative-historical research established a set of fundamental facts in their historical development, by means of analysis which can be known by the specific nature of the internal laws of the development of the language. The results of these studies are based in large part on the facts of ancient periods in the history of language, it is of great importance for the study of the later periods. Already own comparative-historical research shows us some generalized specifics of the internal laws of development peculiar to a group of related languages, but in all its specific nature of internal laws of development inherent in every language in force nationwide, uniform for all the people, but different from other people, nature its base (within the meaning of Stalin) revealed in a special study of these laws, which uses all the results of the comparative-historical research, but the longer is the comparative nature.

Thus, the comparative historical linguistic research techniques are primarily heuristic purposes, ie. E. Suggest ways of finding relevant facts researcher, it is indicative of the facts, covering the historical development of certain languages. Another group of research techniques, already associated with the next stage of the study, up combinatorial techniques, establishing the principles of systematization found evidence for their historical understanding. Through these steps, possessing all the wealth of a systematic, generalized and historically meaningful in its genesis and development of the linguistic material, we have to go to the final stage — to the construction of the history of the specific language in close connection with the history of the society, the history of peoples, their creators and carriers.

However, you can not bypass these steps. Engels wrote: «…» matter and form of the native language «become clear only when he traced the origin and gradual development, and this is not possible, if ignored, first, its own dead forms and, secondly, related living and dead languages. » Possible and desirable further detail grouping methods of comparative-historical study of related languages, but these two groups seem to us essential. In the transition to the further stages of the study of comparative historical method are not eliminated entirely, but it should already be combined with a variety of other techniques. The question of the comparative method combined with other methods of research is still very little developed.

Only with such an approach to the comparative-historical research, which clearly limits their tasks can be properly raised the question about the shortcomings of the comparative historical method, underlined by Stalin. Only with such an approach is possible and correct evaluation of all that we are preceding periods of development of comparative-historical method.

The study of comparative historical method by different researchers.

The current method of comparative historical studies, established in basically in the first half of the XIX century., Although it is continuously improved over the past 70-80 years, and still remains largely unsatisfactory. It is still largely schematic and thus ahistorical. In various «Introduction to Linguistics» at FF Fortunatova (and his followers — VK Porzhezinskogo and DN Ushakov), IA Baudouin de Courtenay, B. Delbruck, I. Shreynena and others , contains a large number of correct and necessary for the further development of historical linguistics provisions produced work of many generations of scientists in the persistent and conscientious study of the actual material. About these remains largely unchallenged «elementary truths», which shamelessly and for a long time trampled now need quite loudly and insistently recalled. Their strong assimilation is necessary for all our young scientific generation, which in the years of the «new doctrine» of the language instead of scientific courses and benefits were presented «paleontology», «glottogonic» and «stage-typological» fantasy in conjunction with gross vulgarization and demagogic distortion of the main provisions Marxism. The acquisition of these «elementary truths» necessary and the followers of Marr, who in their arrogance, haughtiness, perceived by the «teacher» is often simply do not bother to meet them in a timely manner. Their assimilation is necessary also to representatives of related scientific disciplines — history, archeology, ethnography and anthropology as the fruitful development of these disciplines can not be conducted without the involvement of language data for comparison with the data. The impact of the «new doctrine» of the language in these areas were also quite profound. Western bourgeois linguists later time adjacent to one degree or another reaction to the militant anti-historical direction, «structuralism», criticizing the comparative disadvantages, make of the presence of these natural disadvantages for their anti-historical conclusion about refusal of this technique. Instead of criticizing inadequate consistently held historicism we find them coming even from de Saussure to undermine the very foundations of the historical approach to language. Not being able to justify and illustrate the real facts of the language abstract lifeless scheme by what sossyurianstve replaced in the «system» of language, de Saussure tore «synchrony» of «diachronic», but did not dare to even completely eliminate the latter, although it lost in the last years of his life just a taste for historical study of language. Structuralists have gone further and simply crossed out the history of language, the development of dissolving it in his «panhronicheskih» and «ahronicheskih» laws. This train of thought led one of the pillars of the foreign linguistics of the period between the first and second world wars, Trubetskoy, the actual denial of the genetic unity of the Indo-European language family. The fact that more and more waste of western linguistics from the comparative historical method with gorechyo stated by the bourgeois scientists from the number continues to work in this direction. Comparative-historical method starts already considered as «legacy», rather than as an actual problem of modern science, the development of which is not yet finished. Only some few comparativists (eg, E. Venvenist, E. Kurilovich, V. Pisani and the so-called «neolingvisty») seek, keeping the foundation of comparative techniques to radically improve it, and sometimes reach interesting results in particular. However, they are not able to deliver (even in terms of idealistic science) is widely basic question of how to deepen historicism in comparative historical studies. This prevents an incorrect understanding of the specifics of the language as a social phenomenon, the idealistic notion of the development of the society, an incorrect understanding of the nature of the linguistic sign, and so on. D. Overcoming these vices hinders and will hinder the depravity common methodology (and not methodological) basis for their work, the bourgeois limitations of their scientific and social outlook. With this in mind, and not succumbing to the temptation to drag strangers shared historical and linguistic constructs, we can derive some benefit from the critical analysis of the works of these scholars. Much more can promise us the use of works of scientists of the people’s democracy, with interest watching the development of Soviet science and beginning to consider its methodological advances (such as the works of Vl. Georgiev, Otrembskogo J. et al.). Finally, we need to be subjected to a detailed critical analysis of the development of comparative-historical method in our domestic linguistics — at FF Fortunatova, GK Ulyanov, IV Netushila, VA Mother of God, Shakhmatov, B . Porzhezinskogo K., M. Pokrovsky, AM Selishcheva and not only those outstanding, but also less well-known scientists. It should be borne in mind that the results of the comparative-historical studies of Indo-European languages, are set out by these scientists in general courses, were bound to be very general and simplified. Hunt these scientists usually little reflected in the general courses and the benefits (eg, VK Porzhezinskogo). From the pedagogical considerations in these courses (except, perhaps, the general works Shakhmatov) made only otkristallizovavshiesya provisions of the nature of the «elementary truths» about the use of reminders mentioned above. The special work of these scientists concluded much that they considered more controversial, insufficiently tested and that they therefore did not make in the general courses. However, these quests are of great methodological interest. The Russian linguists have often walked in front of Western science, which sometimes come to the same results later, as it was with the repetition of a number of historical and linguistic findings in the study of Indo-European languages, has previously made FF Fortunatov and remained unknown abroad ( Wed also, for example, research VA Mother of God of the relative chronology of the earliest periods of the development of Indo-European languages). Sometimes foreign science and did not come to the results achieved by Russian scientists, dodging in its development of an issue in the opposite direction. The further development of the technique of comparative historical studies (not only applied to the Indo-European languages) it must not be forgotten.

Not stopping at specially criticized the comparative historical method Marr (devoted to the topic we have just published a special printing of the article «On the criticism of Marr foundations of comparative and historical linguistics’), indicate only that the followers of N. I . Marr or completely discarded everything related to the Indo-European or tried to turn obtained by comparative historical situation and the facts of the «new doctrine» to strengthen it. Critics of the method substantially in the latter case was not. It was not in the interests of authors, as desired facts obtained by proxy, were used, but only to «reinterpret» the spirit of the «new doctrine» — sometimes to prove positions diametrically opposed to those of these facts follow. The work of this group of followers of Marr interspersed only occasionally unsubstantiated declaration of total depravity method in general, results of which are carefully used.

It should be noted that the proponents of Marr and adjacent to some extent, at least in a certain period of its activity, the Soviet linguists (RO Shore, LP Yakubinsky, BA Larin, M . Y. Nemirovsky) are often isolated in a foreign linguistics first third of the XX century. as «advanced» and «progressive» precisely those research areas, which sought to break with the tradition of comparative historical linguistics XIX century. So, they were allocated mainly de Saussure and walking away Franco-Swiss «sociological» school (Bally et al.), H. Schuchardt, Zhileron partly Trombetti, Uhlenbeck, Van Ginneken. This, too, perhaps, showed the influence of N. Marr with his promiscuity in the choice itself of the Western allies from among the «dissidents Indo» (same de Saussure and H. Schuchardt, Cassirer, Levy-Bruhl, V. Schmidt, and others.). It is significant here Marr’s followers desire to find innovative aspects in the linguistic doctrine H. Schuchardt, distracted from her nothing masked militant of idealistic nature and direct connection with the reactionary philosophy of Benedetto Croce and Karl Vossler. In addition to the «merit» in his criticism of Mr. Schuchardt «indoevropeizma» and comparative in its positive constructions especially attracted supporters Marr’s idea of ​​»history slovoveschey», strictly speaking, is not advanced by them, and R. Meringerom — earlier and more interesting aspect. This idea of ​​near-marrovskoy idea of ​​»linking the history of language with the history of material culture» and tried to pay as against the comparative-historical method, emphasizing assuming complete mixing of language to culture, care of languages ​​rooted in the local soil is due to related languages. The fact that Marr and II Meshchaninov only discredited the idea of ​​a fruitful relation with the history of the language and the history of material culture that knocked confused archeology and ethnography, we have already written after the publication of the works of Stalin in linguistics. Understanding this connection G. Schuhardt, although very little resemblance to marrovskoe, this does not become more acceptable to us, and can not be used in Soviet linguistics. His major work on the subject «The things and the words» contains a confusing mixture of various idealistic notions of «things» in its relation to slovu- name from medieval scholasticism to reaction ethnological conception Graebner, whose successors are shpenglerianets Frobenius and patera W. Schmidt and B. Koppers (heads of the reaction of the Viennese magazine «Anthropos»). Throughout this article H. Schuchardt, who at one time promoted in Soviet linguistics, permeates «revaluation of the semantics of» neglect of the language of the «immediate reality of thought,» mind the gap of language.

In the article «Things and the words» Mr. Schuchardt proceeds from the wrong assumption that in their native language speaker and perceiving it only «equate» the word and the thing. The nature of the linguistic sign thus distorted, a sign made by some label or labels (the image that is used by the Schuhardt in a different context), there is no ambiguity, «fishing, its dependence on the context of the speech, her style. It ignored not only the fact that the word, although it refers to the thing, but existing only in a certain form, expresses at the same relation to other things; ignored the semantic relation of every word with other words, through which it is included in the system lexicon, not representing any «collection of labels.» The vocabulary becomes Schuchardt from the language itself, while he teaches Stalin, is the only building material for the language.

The communicative function of language recedes into the background, giving way to his leading role nominative function. «Designation» (Vezeichnung) by Schuchardt in all its manifestations, primarily in relation to the value (Vedeutung), from which follows the above mentioned complete lack of attention to the polysemy of the word and to its semantic relations with other words. This leads the author to blatant anti-historicism, which erases the historically evolving specificity of specific languages, which also reflects a revival of idealist philosophy in the beginning of XX century. universalist ideas of medieval scholasticism (the school of Husserl, Spengler, «Thomism» fascist Geydekker). It is significant that such objectively anti-historical conclusions from Schuchardt combined with the ever proclaimed by his lopsided «historicism» — an interest in only one «formation» and indifference to the results of language development, t. E. In the language of our time, even though this interest H. Schuchardt stressed we (in complete contradiction with the facts) it advocates.

Some specific comments, warning against the idea of ​​omnipotence hobbies comparative historical method, occurring in H. Schuchardt and Zhilerona and is usually expressed in unduly categorical terms, concern only such particulars that can not be seen as the «serious shortcomings» method, which says Stalin. Positive Comparative build departed from scientists such as H. Schuchardt and Zhilerona as construction of Ferdinand de Saussure (even without the further conclusions that have been made of them structuralism and his predecessors, Geneva and Prague «schools») is unacceptable for us. They are anti-historical in its very basis, in as much as ahistorical so-called «new doctrine» of the language, although different from him or a fantasy Turkish pseudo-scientists that subjective arbitrariness in operating on the language material does not hit them in the eyes of his frank disdain for anything made before them. In fact, some structuralists, although do not make sharp attacks on the linguistic exercises of the past, as arrogantly deny all dostrukturalistskuyu science as Marr denied all domarrovskuyu science. Therefore, the development of the problem of overcoming the disadvantages of comparative-historical method in linguistics and improve it as a combination of research techniques urgently needed in certain areas of language learning, we have to go our own way. Modern foreign linguists who oppose the comparative-historical method, or ignore it, we have nothing to borrow. Because of criticism of the previous period (first third of the XX century.), We can consider only a partial correction.

Critical statements Vendryes of comparative-historical method.

Referring to the various forms as a negative attitude to the comparative-historical method, and attempts to improve it, which took place within the framework of bourgeois linguistics, we did not mention about the original with respect to this method by the French linguist Jean Vendryes widely known among us translated into Russian language non-fiction book, «Language. Linguistic introduction to the story. » Vendryes-comparativist with very little touch sossyurianstva (declarative recognition of the opposition «diachronic» and «synchrony» in the language without consistent application of this principle in practice, research). He is an authority on Celtic, Latin and Greek. Comparative-historical method — the main method by which he enjoys, and, of course, no hostile negative attitude to this method, characteristic Schuchardt or Zhileronu we had found.

In the chapter «The relationship of languages ​​and comparative method» Vendryes trying to determine a number of shortcomings comparative historical method, which in his opinion should be considered as «seriously flawed.» His views on this subject are reflected in the Soviet university practice of those teachers who in their general language courses not considered it necessary to decry the comparative-historical method in general or draw it on the strengthening of the «new doctrine» of the language. Consideration of its common and we have critical or rather skeptical statements about some aspects of comparative-historical method is of interest primarily because, in the light of the brilliant works of JV Stalin and some Soviet works, specifying and developing the Stalinist position, skepticism in Vendryes large part is completely untenable, and installed it lacks the comparative historical method are not those that really should be taken into account.

Analysis Vendryes basic fatally flawed comparative historical method can be reduced to a few provisions. Vendryes believes that comparative historical linguistic studies

1) can not be brought in line with the findings of anthropology and archeology, the linguistic reconstruction of the facts and processes even say nothing about native speakers of the base and cultural development;

2) indicate the continuity and correct sequence of language changes than simplified idea of ​​the historical development of the language, are excluded from it «random external interference»;

3) provide little in the study of the history of language, as «dictionary can be changed from top to bottom, while the language does not suffer significant changes in its phonetic and grammatical structure»;

4) states that «the grammatical relations between languages ​​do not agree with their lexical relations», ie. E. The individual language groups within the language family can be a grammatical system closer to one group, and the composition of the vocabulary — to other groups of the same family;

5) establish «absolute» phonetic changes and can not discern in phonetics differ in morphology «forms of the weak against the strong forms, the last remnants of the previous state language», whereby the phonetic «does nothing to determine the relationship of languages»;

6) Based on the stability of the morphological system of the language, while «you can imagine such extreme language changes when he’s under the influence of repeated exposure (other languages) will combine almost equally grammatical features of the two neighboring language families» and therefore «in cases hybridization of language grammar test becomes invalid «;

7) does not take into account that the same criterion is invalidated and when «grammatical changes occurred quickly or are known to us … only with large gaps in time»;

8)

In linguistics

(As applied to the Indo-European languages)

The value of the comparative historical method

This article does not set itself the task of fully reveal the value of the comparative historical method in linguistics, rejection of the application which was imposed by the Soviet science Marr and his «disciples.» This refusal caused great damage to the development of the historical and linguistic research, the introduction of a genuine case of historicism in the science of language. The significance of the comparative historical method and the benefits that it can bring a historical study of language, time and again we have been contacted after the release of the brilliant work of JV Stalin, «Marxism and Problems of Linguistics.» It may be noted only three of the most important points.

1. Stalin stressed the exceptional stability of the basics of the language, t. E. Its grammatical structure and basic lexical fund, stating that «the language, the structure can not be regarded as a product of any one epoch. The structure of the language, its grammar and basic lexical fund is the product of a number of epochs. » He also showed that the «elements of the modern language can be traced back to ancient times, before the era of slavery.» Hence the requirement — for understanding the development of language refer to the very distant past, including the time, from which we have no written records. Such insight into prehistory can only be achieved with the help of the comparative historical method. It inevitably hypothetical (in linguistics in the same way as in any other historical science), but at the same time it should be as justified by the facts, which are extracted by comparing languages ​​and who should be treated with the utmost rigor and caution. Marr and his followers taught us (not only linguists, but, for example, and archaeologists) wander in the «twilight of prehistory», without any clue, where a scientist can only be rigorous method.

2. The method used in science, can not be related to its object. Comparative-historical method in linguistics as a particular object. Unscrupulous comparison of certain facts in the same language with certain facts in other languages ​​(in terms of their similarities or differences — «similarities» and «differences») does nothing to science. «Typological» mapping practiced in recent years mainly in the works of Academician I. Meshchaninova, demonstrate the futility of such activities. They are outside of science. The object of the comparative historical method are those elements of the structure of the language, the similarity of which could not have arisen out of the genetic relationships between languages, and only those bonds can be explained. In other words, the object of the comparative-historical method is the study of genetic relationships similar and different phenomena in related languages, and the very fact that the degree of relationship is established only through the study of specific genetic links between them.

3. The use of a particular method should always have a defined purpose. The purpose of the application of the comparative historical method in linguistics is to establish a specific historical relations between languages, which in turn helps the clarification of the specifics of the historical development of these languages, the disclosure of operating its «internal laws». Links disclosed comparative-historical method, first of all, the essence of genetic connection, but is not limited to the establishment of these relations: the same method, you can check with any other (related and unrelated) languages ​​of the language is in communication throughout its history.

From all this it is clear how important is the use of linguistics in the comparative-historical method. However, along with this, it is necessary to clearly define the boundaries of the application of this method to determine its capabilities and understand the essence of his «serious shortcomings», he said that the presence of Stalin, also pointed out that the comparative-historical method, with all its «serious deficiencies» It has the advantage that it «… is pushing to work, to study languages ​​…».

Without this, there is a risk to universalize the value of the comparative historical method, reduced to a comparative historical research all the content of the science of language — the danger of substituting it by the most Marxist methodology in linguistics, the danger of the whole science of language in the «comparative philology», as it often was in the past (in the second half of the 19th and early 20th centuries).

Heuristic and combinatorial techniques

The issue of the borders of the comparative historical method, in turn, can not be understood simplistically and schematically — as a question of the limitations posed by the use of this method of studying the related languages ​​of the language limitations of the material at our disposal, or his character.

From the above words of Stalin certainly it implies that the comparative historical method must remain armed Marxist linguistics as a set of methodological research (heuristics and combinatorial) techniques. If these methods are used correctly, they not only do not conflict with the Marxist historical methodology common to all the social sciences, including for linguistics, but will also facilitate the introduction of Marxism into linguistics, which requires us to Stalin. Comparative-historical method thus appears as an important auxiliary method, it is specific to the science of language because of the specificity of language as a social phenomenon. In general, this helper is a very complex phenomenon. It consists of different, to some extent independent, groups of research techniques, including the technique of research.

However, the comparative-historical method in linguistics can in no way be reduced to this technique. The improvement of this technique is necessary, but one thing it has in no way solves the problem of overcoming the «serious shortcomings» of the method.

As an auxiliary method in linguistics, comparative-historical method can not depend on, when applied in the Marxist linguistics, from the general methodology of science. The basis of Marxist methodology of linguistics contains Stalin quite clear. She is learning the language «… in close connection with the history of the society, the history of the people who belong to the target language, and who is the creator and bearer of the language.» It follows that the construction of comparative historical grammar of related languages ​​and comparative historical lexicology, for all its importance as an indispensable stage in the historical and linguistic research, can not be an end in itself in linguistics, as it is thought and thought many bourgeois linguists.

In the Marxist historical linguistics, comparative grammar and comparative historical lexicology related languages ​​should remain as an important part of the science of language, which promotes the study of the development of the internal laws of language, which, as taught by Stalin, is the main task of linguistics. In these inner laws of development revealed the specific history of each language is inextricably linked to the particular history of the people, and the study of «linguistic relationship», disclosed by means of comparative-historical method can, as indicated by Stalin, «… bring a big linguistics benefit to study the laws of language development. «

Only the study of the development of every language in comparison with the development of related to it in other languages, the study of all the genetic relationships of the language, in a comparative study of dialects and sub-dialects within his defined features of its grammatical system and basic word stock in their growth and development, defined in the language of your and foreign, old and new, nationwide and dialectic, and so on. d.

Thus, in the comparative-historical research established a set of fundamental facts in their historical development, by means of analysis which can be known by the specific nature of the internal laws of the development of the language. The results of these studies are based in large part on the facts of ancient periods in the history of language, it is of great importance for the study of the later periods. Already own comparative-historical research shows us some generalized specifics of the internal laws of development peculiar to a group of related languages, but in all its specific nature of internal laws of development inherent in every language in force nationwide, uniform for all the people, but different from other people, nature its base (within the meaning of Stalin) revealed in a special study of these laws, which uses all the results of the comparative-historical research, but the longer is the comparative nature.

Thus, the comparative historical linguistic research techniques are primarily heuristic purposes, ie. E. Suggest ways of finding relevant facts researcher, it is indicative of the facts, covering the historical development of certain languages. Another group of research techniques, already associated with the next stage of the study, up combinatorial techniques, establishing the principles of systematization found evidence for their historical understanding. Through these steps, possessing all the wealth of a systematic, generalized and historically meaningful in its genesis and development of the linguistic material, we have to go to the final stage — to the construction of the history of the specific language in close connection with the history of the society, the history of peoples, their creators and carriers.

However, you can not bypass these steps. Engels wrote: «…» matter and form of the native language «become clear only when he traced the origin and gradual development, and this is not possible, if ignored, first, its own dead forms and, secondly, related living and dead languages. » Possible and desirable further detail grouping methods of comparative-historical study of related languages, but these two groups seem to us essential. In the transition to the further stages of the study of comparative historical method are not eliminated entirely, but it should already be combined with a variety of other techniques. The question of the comparative method combined with other methods of research is still very little developed.

Only with such an approach to the comparative-historical research, which clearly limits their tasks can be properly raised the question about the shortcomings of the comparative historical method, underlined by Stalin. Only with such an approach is possible and correct evaluation of all that we are preceding periods of development of comparative-historical method.

The study of comparative historical method by different researchers.

The current method of comparative historical studies, established in basically in the first half of the XIX century., Although it is continuously improved over the past 70-80 years, and still remains largely unsatisfactory. It is still largely schematic and thus ahistorical. In various «Introduction to Linguistics» at FF Fortunatova (and his followers — VK Porzhezinskogo and DN Ushakov), IA Baudouin de Courtenay, B. Delbruck, I. Shreynena and others , contains a large number of correct and necessary for the further development of historical linguistics provisions produced work of many generations of scientists in the persistent and conscientious study of the actual material. About these remains largely unchallenged «elementary truths», which shamelessly and for a long time trampled now need quite loudly and insistently recalled. Their strong assimilation is necessary for all our young scientific generation, which in the years of the «new doctrine» of the language instead of scientific courses and benefits were presented «paleontology», «glottogonic» and «stage-typological» fantasy in conjunction with gross vulgarization and demagogic distortion of the main provisions Marxism. The acquisition of these «elementary truths» necessary and the followers of Marr, who in their arrogance, haughtiness, perceived by the «teacher» is often simply do not bother to meet them in a timely manner. Their assimilation is necessary also to representatives of related scientific disciplines — history, archeology, ethnography and anthropology as the fruitful development of these disciplines can not be conducted without the involvement of language data for comparison with the data. The impact of the «new doctrine» of the language in these areas were also quite profound. Western bourgeois linguists later time adjacent to one degree or another reaction to the militant anti-historical direction, «structuralism», criticizing the comparative disadvantages, make of the presence of these natural disadvantages for their anti-historical conclusion about refusal of this technique. Instead of criticizing inadequate consistently held historicism we find them coming even from de Saussure to undermine the very foundations of the historical approach to language. Not being able to justify and illustrate the real facts of the language abstract lifeless scheme by what sossyurianstve replaced in the «system» of language, de Saussure tore «synchrony» of «diachronic», but did not dare to even completely eliminate the latter, although it lost in the last years of his life just a taste for historical study of language. Structuralists have gone further and simply crossed out the history of language, the development of dissolving it in his «panhronicheskih» and «ahronicheskih» laws. This train of thought led one of the pillars of the foreign linguistics of the period between the first and second world wars, Trubetskoy, the actual denial of the genetic unity of the Indo-European language family. The fact that more and more waste of western linguistics from the comparative historical method with gorechyo stated by the bourgeois scientists from the number continues to work in this direction. Comparative-historical method starts already considered as «legacy», rather than as an actual problem of modern science, the development of which is not yet finished. Only some few comparativists (eg, E. Venvenist, E. Kurilovich, V. Pisani and the so-called «neolingvisty») seek, keeping the foundation of comparative techniques to radically improve it, and sometimes reach interesting results in particular. However, they are not able to deliver (even in terms of idealistic science) is widely basic question of how to deepen historicism in comparative historical studies. This prevents an incorrect understanding of the specifics of the language as a social phenomenon, the idealistic notion of the development of the society, an incorrect understanding of the nature of the linguistic sign, and so on. D. Overcoming these vices hinders and will hinder the depravity common methodology (and not methodological) basis for their work, the bourgeois limitations of their scientific and social outlook. With this in mind, and not succumbing to the temptation to drag strangers shared historical and linguistic constructs, we can derive some benefit from the critical analysis of the works of these scholars. Much more can promise us the use of works of scientists of the people’s democracy, with interest watching the development of Soviet science and beginning to consider its methodological advances (such as the works of Vl. Georgiev, Otrembskogo J. et al.). Finally, we need to be subjected to a detailed critical analysis of the development of comparative-historical method in our domestic linguistics — at FF Fortunatova, GK Ulyanov, IV Netushila, VA Mother of God, Shakhmatov, B . Porzhezinskogo K., M. Pokrovsky, AM Selishcheva and not only those outstanding, but also less well-known scientists. It should be borne in mind that the results of the comparative-historical studies of Indo-European languages, are set out by these scientists in general courses, were bound to be very general and simplified. Hunt these scientists usually little reflected in the general courses and the benefits (eg, VK Porzhezinskogo). From the pedagogical considerations in these courses (except, perhaps, the general works Shakhmatov) made only otkristallizovavshiesya provisions of the nature of the «elementary truths» about the use of reminders mentioned above. The special work of these scientists concluded much that they considered more controversial, insufficiently tested and that they therefore did not make in the general courses. However, these quests are of great methodological interest. The Russian linguists have often walked in front of Western science, which sometimes come to the same results later, as it was with the repetition of a number of historical and linguistic findings in the study of Indo-European languages, has previously made FF Fortunatov and remained unknown abroad ( Wed also, for example, research VA Mother of God of the relative chronology of the earliest periods of the development of Indo-European languages). Sometimes foreign science and did not come to the results achieved by Russian scientists, dodging in its development of an issue in the opposite direction. The further development of the technique of comparative historical studies (not only applied to the Indo-European languages) it must not be forgotten.

Not stopping at specially criticized the comparative historical method Marr (devoted to the topic we have just published a special printing of the article «On the criticism of Marr foundations of comparative and historical linguistics’), indicate only that the followers of N. I . Marr or completely discarded everything related to the Indo-European or tried to turn obtained by comparative historical situation and the facts of the «new doctrine» to strengthen it. Critics of the method substantially in the latter case was not. It was not in the interests of authors, as desired facts obtained by proxy, were used, but only to «reinterpret» the spirit of the «new doctrine» — sometimes to prove positions diametrically opposed to those of these facts follow. The work of this group of followers of Marr interspersed only occasionally unsubstantiated declaration of total depravity method in general, results of which are carefully used.

It should be noted that the proponents of Marr and adjacent to some extent, at least in a certain period of its activity, the Soviet linguists (RO Shore, LP Yakubinsky, BA Larin, M . Y. Nemirovsky) are often isolated in a foreign linguistics first third of the XX century. as «advanced» and «progressive» precisely those research areas, which sought to break with the tradition of comparative historical linguistics XIX century. So, they were allocated mainly de Saussure and walking away Franco-Swiss «sociological» school (Bally et al.), H. Schuchardt, Zhileron partly Trombetti, Uhlenbeck, Van Ginneken. This, too, perhaps, showed the influence of N. Marr with his promiscuity in the choice itself of the Western allies from among the «dissidents Indo» (same de Saussure and H. Schuchardt, Cassirer, Levy-Bruhl, V. Schmidt, and others.). It is significant here Marr’s followers desire to find innovative aspects in the linguistic doctrine H. Schuchardt, distracted from her nothing masked militant of idealistic nature and direct connection with the reactionary philosophy of Benedetto Croce and Karl Vossler. In addition to the «merit» in his criticism of Mr. Schuchardt «indoevropeizma» and comparative in its positive constructions especially attracted supporters Marr’s idea of ​​»history slovoveschey», strictly speaking, is not advanced by them, and R. Meringerom — earlier and more interesting aspect. This idea of ​​near-marrovskoy idea of ​​»linking the history of language with the history of material culture» and tried to pay as against the comparative-historical method, emphasizing assuming complete mixing of language to culture, care of languages ​​rooted in the local soil is due to related languages. The fact that Marr and II Meshchaninov only discredited the idea of ​​a fruitful relation with the history of the language and the history of material culture that knocked confused archeology and ethnography, we have already written after the publication of the works of Stalin in linguistics. Understanding this connection G. Schuhardt, although very little resemblance to marrovskoe, this does not become more acceptable to us, and can not be used in Soviet linguistics. His major work on the subject «The things and the words» contains a confusing mixture of various idealistic notions of «things» in its relation to slovu- name from medieval scholasticism to reaction ethnological conception Graebner, whose successors are shpenglerianets Frobenius and patera W. Schmidt and B. Koppers (heads of the reaction of the Viennese magazine «Anthropos»). Throughout this article H. Schuchardt, who at one time promoted in Soviet linguistics, permeates «revaluation of the semantics of» neglect of the language of the «immediate reality of thought,» mind the gap of language.

In the article «Things and the words» Mr. Schuchardt proceeds from the wrong assumption that in their native language speaker and perceiving it only «equate» the word and the thing. The nature of the linguistic sign thus distorted, a sign made by some label or labels (the image that is used by the Schuhardt in a different context), there is no ambiguity, «fishing, its dependence on the context of the speech, her style. It ignored not only the fact that the word, although it refers to the thing, but existing only in a certain form, expresses at the same relation to other things; ignored the semantic relation of every word with other words, through which it is included in the system lexicon, not representing any «collection of labels.» The vocabulary becomes Schuchardt from the language itself, while he teaches Stalin, is the only building material for the language.

The communicative function of language recedes into the background, giving way to his leading role nominative function. «Designation» (Vezeichnung) by Schuchardt in all its manifestations, primarily in relation to the value (Vedeutung), from which follows the above mentioned complete lack of attention to the polysemy of the word and to its semantic relations with other words. This leads the author to blatant anti-historicism, which erases the historically evolving specificity of specific languages, which also reflects a revival of idealist philosophy in the beginning of XX century. universalist ideas of medieval scholasticism (the school of Husserl, Spengler, «Thomism» fascist Geydekker). It is significant that such objectively anti-historical conclusions from Schuchardt combined with the ever proclaimed by his lopsided «historicism» — an interest in only one «formation» and indifference to the results of language development, t. E. In the language of our time, even though this interest H. Schuchardt stressed we (in complete contradiction with the facts) it advocates.

Some specific comments, warning against the idea of ​​omnipotence hobbies comparative historical method, occurring in H. Schuchardt and Zhilerona and is usually expressed in unduly categorical terms, concern only such particulars that can not be seen as the «serious shortcomings» method, which says Stalin. Positive Comparative build departed from scientists such as H. Schuchardt and Zhilerona as construction of Ferdinand de Saussure (even without the further conclusions that have been made of them structuralism and his predecessors, Geneva and Prague «schools») is unacceptable for us. They are anti-historical in its very basis, in as much as ahistorical so-called «new doctrine» of the language, although different from him or a fantasy Turkish pseudo-scientists that subjective arbitrariness in operating on the language material does not hit them in the eyes of his frank disdain for anything made before them. In fact, some structuralists, although do not make sharp attacks on the linguistic exercises of the past, as arrogantly deny all dostrukturalistskuyu science as Marr denied all domarrovskuyu science. Therefore, the development of the problem of overcoming the disadvantages of comparative-historical method in linguistics and improve it as a combination of research techniques urgently needed in certain areas of language learning, we have to go our own way. Modern foreign linguists who oppose the comparative-historical method, or ignore it, we have nothing to borrow. Because of criticism of the previous period (first third of the XX century.), We can consider only a partial correction.

Critical statements Vendryes of comparative-historical method.

Referring to the various forms as a negative attitude to the comparative-historical method, and attempts to improve it, which took place within the framework of bourgeois linguistics, we did not mention about the original with respect to this method by the French linguist Jean Vendryes widely known among us translated into Russian language non-fiction book, «Language. Linguistic introduction to the story. » Vendryes-comparativist with very little touch sossyurianstva (declarative recognition of the opposition «diachronic» and «synchrony» in the language without consistent application of this principle in practice, research). He is an authority on Celtic, Latin and Greek. Comparative-historical method — the main method by which he enjoys, and, of course, no hostile negative attitude to this method, characteristic Schuchardt or Zhileronu we had found.

In the chapter «The relationship of languages ​​and comparative method» Vendryes trying to determine a number of shortcomings comparative historical method, which in his opinion should be considered as «seriously flawed.» His views on this subject are reflected in the Soviet university practice of those teachers who in their general language courses not considered it necessary to decry the comparative-historical method in general or draw it on the strengthening of the «new doctrine» of the language. Consideration of its common and we have critical or rather skeptical statements about some aspects of comparative-historical method is of interest primarily because, in the light of the brilliant works of JV Stalin and some Soviet works, specifying and developing the Stalinist position, skepticism in Vendryes large part is completely untenable, and installed it lacks the comparative historical method are not those that really should be taken into account.

Analysis Vendryes basic fatally flawed comparative historical method can be reduced to a few provisions. Vendryes believes that comparative historical linguistic studies

1) can not be brought in line with the findings of anthropology and archeology, the linguistic reconstruction of the facts and processes even say nothing about native speakers of the base and cultural development;

2) indicate the continuity and correct sequence of language changes than simplified idea of ​​the historical development of the language, are excluded from it «random external interference»;

3) provide little in the study of the history of language, as «dictionary can be changed from top to bottom, while the language does not suffer significant changes in its phonetic and grammatical structure»;

4) states that «the grammatical relations between languages ​​do not agree with their lexical relations», ie. E. The individual language groups within the language family can be a grammatical system closer to one group, and the composition of the vocabulary — to other groups of the same family;

5) establish «absolute» phonetic changes and can not discern in phonetics differ in morphology «forms of the weak against the strong forms, the last remnants of the previous state language», whereby the phonetic «does nothing to determine the relationship of languages»;

6) Based on the stability of the morphological system of the language, while «you can imagine such extreme language changes when he’s under the influence of repeated exposure (other languages) will combine almost equally grammatical features of the two neighboring language families» and therefore «in cases hybridization of language grammar test becomes invalid «;

7) does not take into account that the same criterion is invalidated and when «grammatical changes occurred quickly or are known to us … only with large gaps in time»;

does not take into account that «it is impossible to prove that these two languages ​​are not related to each other», and therefore «on the globe, perhaps, there is not even open Indo-European languages, devoid of history and belonging to the illiterate population.»

Pointing at the conclusion of the difficulties associated with the frequent lack of written records of past eras, Vendryes concludes that «a certain kinship of languages ​​- a relative thing,» and proceeds to the hidden polemic with A. Meillet and other linguists, linguistic affinity «absolutely normal» and outputting his «out of consciousness and the desire to enjoy speaking the same language, that of their fathers.»

Consider considerations Vendryes order.

In the light of the Stalinist doctrine of language first position Vendryes does not indicate a lack of method, and only that language develops primarily in their domestic laws, it does not reflect changes in the base so as to reflect their superstructural phenomenon, and that should not be confused language culture and to subordinate the development of both one and the same laws. As mentioned above, known connection between the development of language and the development of material culture can be established to the extent that some features of the latter may have an ethnic characteristic (which is denied Vendryes), and the language is the most important, although not the only one ethnicity. Data history of material culture can be used to test some of the findings of comparative historical linguistic research, but any restrictions to the use of comparative-historical method in linguistics, they do not make as linguistic communities, as a rule, do not coincide with areas of cultural and residential communities , they do not coincide in the distant past, even in the prehistoric past. Anthropological community does not coincide with the linguistic effect of mixed races already in the Paleolithic, and anthropological data may be relevant to the history of language. For example, anthropology shows that the initial colonization of. Madagascar has happened to the African continent, even though the language of the inhabitants of the island belongs to the Malayo-Polynesian language family, t. E. The indigenous population was to learn a foreign language.

The second position Vendryes brings him to the position of the «new doctrine» of NY Marr (against whom he played) on the «horse race» and «explosions» in the development of language. Stability basics of the language, its grammar and basic lexical fund, develop it by expanding and improving existing linguistic resources, it slowly changes and the course of these changes on the internal laws of the development of the language defining its identity, despite the «external random interference», which Vendryes says — all this takes away his objections to the picture of the historical development of language, reveals with the help of the comparative historical method. For example, the «external interference» in the development of the Bulgarian and Serbian languages, how was the conquest of the Balkans by the Turks, or the Tatar yoke in Russia did not violate the natural development of the Bulgarian, Serbian and Russian languages, and left their mark in the form of a certain number of Turkisms vocabulary.

Vendryes third position was valid when linguists considered a separate language translations and undifferentiated when, noticing the instability of language as a whole, they are excluded from the number of its characteristic features of a particular language. Isolation Stalin basic lexical fund (with its root part) extremely stable and plays a crucial role in word formation and vocabulary of in a state of almost constant change, ended the relationship remains the interpretation of vocabulary and grammar, which are either completely broke away alone on the other (in the traditional comparative linguistics), or mixed together (in the «new doctrine» of language), and opened the way for the development of comparative historical lexicology related languages ​​as an independent discipline, but is closely related to their comparative historical grammar.

The fourth position in the first place, is no longer on the same grounds as the third and second, has in mind only the comparative-historical research, in which the decomposition of the language base understood as a straightforward process undisturbed and uniform in the rate of differentiation . The diversity of language is determined by the process of differentiation, in addition, the uneven pace of change certain aspects of language that creates a heterogeneous relations between related languages ​​in grammar, vocabulary and phonetics.

The fifth position Vendryes incorrect in fact, as in phonetics we can distinguish between «strong» (stable) and «weak» (unstable) ele-ments, the ratio of which may vary sometimes from aktsentologicheskih relationships, sometimes the position of the sound in the morpheme, sometimes from a purely phonetic reasons. Tendency to release certain phonetic elements (individual sounds and their combinations) as «strong» and «weak» is often outlined as early as language-based one or another language group to its differentiation, but the uneven pace of precipitated closely related languages ​​(eg Latin and AUC with Umbrian or Lithuanian and Latvian) may lead to the fact that the same trend phonetic development is implemented to varying degrees (compare, for example, the absence of the Latin «rhotacism» in AUC and Umbrian language, where the change in Old s limit its voicing; Compare also the ratio of groups torot and trot in the Eastern Slavic and Polish. However, it is phonetics with its strict compliance very revealing (given the uneven pace of development of individual aspects of language related languages) for the establishment of linguistic affinity, although only a small part of the «phonetic laws «may be included in the number of» domestic laws of a particular language «- only those that are significantly reflected in the changes in the grammatical structure or the structure of words, change the specifics of the language, distinguishing it from other languages. This situation is not tenable Vendryes before. Note Stalin on the stability of the language, which is expressed in phonetics in the regular phonetic changes, definitively rejects the designation Vendryes this alleged lack of comparative-historical method in linguistics, «remnants of the previous state of language» was opened in phonetics comparative historical method with Large doleyu probability.

The sixth and seventh position Vendryes strongly refuted the indication of Stalin to the exceptional stability of the grammatical structure of the language, the slowness of change, development and deployment of it by improving existing linguistic resources, as well as Soviet linguists justified on the basis of the Stalinist doctrine of language situation of the stability of the morphological system language and almost complete impermeability of inflection in the crossing of languages. «Gaps» in witnessed the history of language, which indicates Vendryes, of course, creates great difficulties for the linguist, but it is the comparative historical method makes it possible to overcome these difficulties, for example, in the reconstruction by comparing the Romance languages ​​scantily attested to live a nationwide Latin V-VIII centuries BC. e .; where the objects for comparison are not present (for example, in the case of live Greek Byzantine era, constituting an intermediate link between ancient Greek and Modern Greek), the situation is much worse, but the way of grammatical forms is still broadly restored t. e . «grammatical criterion» is not eliminated.

In the last (eighth) position Vendryes contained to some extent correct indication of the fact that the comparative historical method really is powerless to prove the absence of indisputable maenads distantly related languages, show no signs of kinship. However, the likelihood of approval is still quite large. For example, you can allow a remote affinity (ie. E. The final origin from a common source), Indo-European and Finno-Ugric languages. This is indicated by some of the facts, but the question remains entirely open. Kinship they are not proven as not proven and no relationship. One can argue about the genetic community or lack of it at the Finno-Ugric languages ​​Altai, but with respect to, for example, the Bantu and the Chinese or Bantu and American languages ​​is possible with sufficient certainty that relationship in the sense in which we talk about the relationship of language within the established science of language the family can not be. Here, a criterion the history of society and culture that allows us to believe that all the existing language families were formed relatively late.

Critical statements Vendryes of the comparative-historical method confirms thus made above the position that the question of the shortcomings of the comparative-historical method in linguistics should be put Soviet science in a new way, because criticism of him is essentially suggested earlier, it is in the light of Stalin the teaching of the language untenable.

In the resulting 25 years later, the article «Comparison of linguistics» (La comparaison en linguistique — Bull, de la Societe de ling, de Paris, vol. 42,1, 1946, p. 1-18) Vendryes partially repeats his skeptical statements 1921 year, and partly what is going on in the direction of replacing the comparative-historical method of comparative applicable to both related and unrelated to the language. Several times in this article, he speaks ironically about the issues that may interest the historian, but not a linguist, raising thus the gap of language history from the history of the people in principle. For example, on p. 7 he states that the genetic affiliation of English to German is important for the historian and linguist can be interesting convergence of its modern structure with the structure of the Chinese language.

Modernization reconstructed language based.

Disadvantages of comparative-historical method specified Vendryes, appear when viewed in the light of the works of Stalin on linguistics imaginary shortcomings, but it does not weaken the severity of the issue of these shortcomings, and therefore this issue and is attracting a lot of attention of Soviet linguists. For example, BA Serebrennikov in the aforementioned article correctly separates the objective nature of the shortcomings of the shortcomings of a subjective nature, but not the future holds in this division series. In his presentation of difficult to judge what he thinks of the disadvantages of subjective and, therefore, easily removable. Some of these shortcomings it would not be such if we proceed from the definition of the boundaries of the use of comparative-historical method, which was given at the beginning of this article. So the recognition of these borders can no longer require that the use of comparative-historical method illuminated the history of language without any spaces, it puts the issue of BA Serebrennikov.

The history of language in relation to the history of the people, as we have said, using data obtained with the help of the comparative historical method, but she no longer uses it as a tool for scientific research. The lack in some cases, «a reliable material for comparison,» also emphasizes BA Serebrennikov, there is not a defect of the method as such, but rather unfavorable conditions for its application. The same can be said about the lack of cultural and historical data, often a nuisance to carry out verification of comparative historical constructions.

Indicates BA Serebrennikov and one indisputable objective (unrecoverable) drawback — the inevitable any hypothetical reconstructions of archetypes (sounds, forms, meanings of words) and two purely subjective lack of belonging entirely to the application of the method — «archetypes attraction to one chronological plane» and unfounded courage in the etymological comparisons of words with a very large difference in the meaning in some related languages ​​(words, meet only the requirements of sound correspondences). All three of these deficiencies identified quite correctly. The first, as we have said, can not be eliminated, but science without hypotheses can not develop. The second and third shall be a maximum corrective forces of researchers, and on what should be in more detail.

In order not to be reduced to one plane of the features of the reconstructed tongue base (real, growing, t. E. Changing the language) to implement historicism and methods of linguistic reconstruction (with the inevitable preservation of their hypothetical nature), we must first firmly refuse Proposals A. Meillet understanding of language as an abstract base «matching system» in the spirit of Saussure’s «synchronicity.» This is — anti-historical setting, which was completely alien to Russian language school, recognized ,, that a comparison of related languages ​​allows us to reconstruct only the «era of disintegration» of the language of the base, which had a long history of development, and that only the disadvantages of the method and the lack of facts compel us to connect one plane phenomena that really could belong to different epochs. Reconstructed language is the basis in the representation of scientists fortunatovskoy school — «… the real value, but the value is not yet fully laid in proper chronological and dialectical framework». It was also recognized that «the customary comparative grammar comparison of languages ​​of our family suffers significant disadvantage as a result of the comparison is between a different time, depending on the state of languages ​​from the beginning of writing in the past» and that «to put a line of different languages ​​chronological ages.»

VA Virgin, the view of which was cited today, believed that «the study of comparative grammar … should be complemented by a comparative study of the same language and the possibility while comparing them synchronistic correspondence» and that «normal static study should be complemented by the study consistent course of linguistic processes in each branch. » It is clear that such an approach to the comparative study of related languages ​​is a deeply historical, which is incompatible with the idea of ​​yazyke- basis, as a «system of correspondences», located in one plane and combines the events chronologically very far from each other stages of language development base and its dialects. Therefore FF Fortunatov and VA Virgin should be recognized as pioneers of the general statement of the issue of «relative chronology» of linguistic phenomena within the whole language family. Foreign linguists, placed at the end of the XIX century. This question, put it in a much more narrow limits.

Only much later foreign Comparative came to the recognition that the Russian linguist was quite clear — namely, that reconstructing yazk-based, we must be fully aware in hypothetical and known conditional result of reconstruction, but at the same time in the method of reconstruction must to go from the idea of ​​developing a historically real language real people and not by the desire to build a «matching system», which itself does not correspond to any historical reality.

A third disadvantage, underlined BA Serebrennikov, is not a disadvantage of the method. Here we are dealing with a less stringent or too wide use. The etymological study of the vocabulary of a language and, above all, its basic lexical fund is an integral part of learning the language in a comparative historical perspective. It is necessary not only to historical lexicology, grammar and history. BA Serebrennikov is absolutely right that this area is the use of comparative-historical method comprises the most controversial and should be regarded as backward areas in which the progress of science for the past 120 years («etymological studies» A. Pott) was the lowest.

The main disadvantages are: a) arbitrary words with comparisons to meet the requirements of comparative historical phonetics sound structure, but without sufficient account of differences in value, b) comparison of words with enough ambiguity in the elucidation of the structure that should be considered the original root. And then, and another is in itself can not be counted among the disadvantages of the method and objective, as we indicated above, is primarily associated with subjective defects in the application of its authors etymological dictionaries.

However, even then, and another is under a, in addition to the subjective qualities of etymology, two very real flaws of the current state of linguistics as a whole: a) complete lack of the question of the laws of semantic changes; b) undeveloped theory of the roots and stems in the Indo-European languages ​​available to us their ancient state, inconsistency of different hypotheses about the «determinative», «distribution» and the like, and their identity or mismatch with derivational affixes.

Only the development of these issues will allow to say whether we are dealing with the manifestation of certain limitations of the comparative-historical method or is just not done all that is possible using this method to make.

It is, then, is to recognize the poor state of the question of the relationship between the cases related to conservation: the language features of language structure of the base cases of the so-called parallel development in these tumors of the same type. Undoubtedly, in the development of related languages, and they both cases occur. However, linguists have not yet learned how to distinguish between them, although this issue has been written a lot.

Here we may note two major obstacles to a satisfactory resolution of the issue:

1. It is usually assumed that the parallel development of tumors is determined by the same trend, supposedly «planted» in one of the dialects of language base — in the (alleged) dialect differentiation is given two or more language isolate, has been developing for yourself this «trend» Do not get the final disposition of the original dialect. But the conditions for the emergence of such trends are usually unclear. They can be clarified only in the light of the definition of the domestic laws of that language, as the laws of interconnection, interdependence of individual elements of the structure of language. Roughly mistake is to explain the parallel development of tumors of the similarity of external conditions of life of peoples, bearers of these languages. This explanation is the proximity of the Baltic and Slavic languages ​​put forward by A. Meillet, replaces the period of admission of the Baltic Slavic linguistic community assumption of long-term life of the ancestors of the Baltic and Slavic peoples «in the neighboring areas, and in the same cultural conditions» .In such cases the value of the parallel development of tumors is clearly exaggerated.

2. During the reconstruction of the base language is very often a tendency to upgrade their grammatical structure and sound composition, the maximum approximation of these features to those of the certified written language of this group, which have the greatest monuments of antiquity. The same A. Meillet said in his book «the Slavic language», and before him FF Fortunatov actually identified almost single Slavonic tongue-base with the Old Slavonic language.

A departure from this position with the wider involvement of these other Slavic languages ​​occurs in Shakhmatov in his «Essay on the history of the ancient period of Russian language» relating only to the Slavic sound system of the language of the base. More widespread use of the living Slavic languages ​​(in this case, not only in the field of phonetics, and morphology) can be noted in the book of the Slovak scientist I. Korzhinek «Proto-Indo-European from a Proto-Slavic» negative side of that is, on the other hand, inadequate accounting data Baltic languages. The tendency towards convergence structure the Slavic language of the base with the Old Slavonic received extreme expression in the works of NN Durnovo and Trubetzkoy, where it connects with the approval of the preservation of the unity of the Slavic language to the X-XI centuries. That justified indication distribution of the «fall of the deaf» (with all its consequences) in all Slavic languages. Old Slavonic language in the basic features of the structure of these scientists is even closer to the Slavic language-based than their predecessors. Finally, you can specify that all reconstruction obscheromanskogo base language novelists are much closer to the actual Romance languages ​​than to a real live «Vulgar Latin» testified monuments 3 — 4 centuries.

Modernization reconstructed language based, on the one hand, and the exaggeration of the role of the parallel development of the trends, but «embedded» in the language-based, on the other hand, it is — two deviations in the development of comparative historical studies that, although they are, as it were opposed each other, but are one and the same — to the wrong offset the historical perspective of dialects and languages ​​- and therefore often coexist in the same work.

Our goal was to show the fundamental difference between the limited comparative historical method, by which its scope can not be unduly extended, and disadvantages of techniques to be eliminated to the extent in which it allows the limitations already of language material of the past, which is correct He emphasized BA Serebrennikov. Specific examples of improved techniques — this is the theme of a special article. Really improve the technique may not arguments about the methodology and case studies, applying it in the light of the tasks assigned to Soviet linguistics Stalin. Case linguist and theoretician summarize the experience of research practices, making it the methodological adjustments. But if such a practice would not be a linguist and theoretician at risk of falling into a bare schematic theorizing. While, as stated in the editorial of the first issue of the journal «Issues of Linguistics», the specific application of comparative-historical method in a new light, in accordance with the basic principles of the Stalinist doctrine of the language, we do not have. Of course we have to wait for it, especially in the field of comparative historical grammar of Slavic languages.

However, in the study of all the Indo-European language family there quite a few topical issues which the existing solution in terms of the traditional use of comparative-historical method is clearly unsatisfactory. For example, many comparativists regardless of Marr, interpreted the appearance of certain series of tumors, having the character of the system as a sort of «explosion», breaking the existing structure of language and replacing it with a new structure. Such, for example, the view of many modern linguists about the origin of declination, continuing in all Indo-European languages, have not lost a synthetic system. According to these linguists mnogopadezhnaya inducement system, most typically preserved in Sanskrit, was replaced in the Indo-European language, the basis of more ancient and primitive, are saved as relics of the so-called «geteroklisii» (alternation in decline stems with differently according to the character). Such «larinalnaya hypothesis» attributing «single act» extinction of some (alleged) According to a one-time change in the nature of all Indo-European vocalism.

In the light of indications Stalin that «the development of language occurred not through the destruction of an existing language and the construction of new, and through the deployment and improvement of the main elements of the existing language» to such questions should be, we think, to approach different than the approach to so far. Issues on the line, very much, and there is no doubt that the brilliant guidance Stalin on all major problems of linguistics will help to raise the Soviet linguists and comparative-historical study of related languages ​​to a new level, to remove them from the shortcomings that are not They are among the «fatal.»

Like this post? Please share to your friends: