NS Pospelov On the structure of the Faculty of Philology of the University and LANGUAGE TRAINING OF PERSONNEL IN RUSSIAN LINGUISTICS

NS Pospelov On the structure of the Faculty of Philology of the University and LANGUAGE TRAINING OF PERSONNEL IN RUSSIAN LINGUISTICS

Soviet linguistics, emancipation from the shackles of the «theory» of Marr, is intended, on the orders of Stalin, «to take first place in world linguistics.» Implementation of this ambitious task requires not only maximum creative effort on the part of the few cash cadres of Soviet linguists, and a strong inflow of new, fresh linguistic forces. To do this, first of all, the proper resolution of the issue of the most efficient and relevant methods of training staff on linguistic philological faculties of state universities and faculties of language and literature teacher training institutes. Resolution of this issue is caused, in turn, the best solution to the question of the essence of the higher philological education, the structure of the Faculty of Philology of the general curriculum of teaching linguistic and literary disciplines. All more or less agree on the establishment of the actual volume of philological education, limiting the study of language and literature. But it must be emphasized that a truly philological study of language and literature can only be the «historic», inextricably linked with the history of the people who belong to the studied Philology Language and Literature. However, the study of history as a distinct discipline, goes beyond philology in the proper sense of the word, although, of course, the study of history as an auxiliary discipline, it is necessary for students-philologists.

As in the literary education combined parallel scientific study of language and literature, how to ensure the well-trained and linguistic specialty is to this time remains a challenge, very far from their theoretical and practical implementation of the resolution. To see this, it will be enough to refer to the experience of any of the public universities and especially the experience of the Moscow University. The oldest University Union, named after the great Lomonosov Moscow University currently produces a negligible amount of linguists. Total number of theses in linguistics from year to year is not growing and shrinking.

Despite the apparent surge of interest to the student of philological faculty of linguistic problems (as, for example, shows the work of the linguistic section of the student scientific society), students of the Faculty of Philology, overwhelmingly prefer not to specialize in linguistics and on literary criticism. Despite the presence of experienced executives in the linguistic departments of the faculty and an extensive network of specialized seminars and special courses, but very few students dare to go to linguists. Why is this happening? In our opinion, the main reason for crying shortage of linguists at the Philological Faculty of Moscow State University is rooted in the improper structure of philological faculty and incorrect construction of the curriculum for the preparation of linguistic training.

In the pre 1951-1952 biennium. curriculum, students of philological faculty is only in his third year began to listen to the course of modern Russian language, t. e. the scientific understanding of the structure of the language they speak and think and scientific knowledge are primarily attracted to the university of the future linguists. After all, even in this year of transition to the curriculum a huge part of the third year for the first time to begin hearing the scientific course of modern Russian language. However, in the first year of university study, all students listen to the Russian offices of «Introduction to Linguistics» and «Old Church Slavonic language.» The course «Introduction to Linguistics» course provides students with a broad orientation in the fundamental questions of linguistics. However, this course does not set itself the task of scientific analysis of this or that particular language. A dip in the complex phonetics Mr. technical difficulties Old Slavonic language can attract only a relatively few students before admission to university to get a taste for the study of the history of language. A small handful of prospective students-specialists in Russian philology is usually released in the course of studying Russian dialectology and passing field dialectological practice. But the study of dialectology students do not listen to the course of modern Russian language inevitably gets theoretically narrowed narrowly practical. However, the Russian language department of Moscow University for the past two years to conduct seminars on the grammar of modern Russian language for students of the second course. The leaders of these workshops in their reports show the deep interest of the participants of these seminars to the problems of grammar and linguistic analysis of language material. But these workshops encounters great difficulties due to lack of students do not listen to the scientific course of modern Russian language, theoretical training and actual knowledge. It is quite natural that a special seminar the third and fourth courses on Russian language are anemic, often «dwarf» as a third course the vast majority of students of Russian department of «leaves» in literary criticism. And this is not only dominant position of literature in the modern university system philological education, but also the specifics of literature and language as a subject of research.

Following the publication of the works of genius Stalin on linguistics we can not either theoretically or in practical terms, pedagogically-considered language and literature as a social phenomenon of the same order, standing in line. Literature — a phenomenon superstructure order is a form of social ideology. Language is not an ideological superstructure and develops according to its own internal laws. But it is national language and its study is the natural base of philological education; otherwise, the study of literature will be (how often and sometimes is) to be superfluous and unproductive. After all, «the national language is a form of national culture» and literature can only be considered as one of its highest manifestations, achievable only by means of a national language. Therefore, as explained Acad. VV serve as a means of artistic and generalized typed play lighting and social reality. » On the other hand, linguistics and literature have in common the primary object of his scientific study. After all, the main subject of study and lexicology and morphology, syntax, and even a word that appears at the same time and the «primary element» of literature. Linguistics studies the word in the diversity of its lexical meaning, morphological changes and syntactic combinations, as a means of constructing sentences in the speech, and finally, in its grammatical meaning which is abstracted from the particular and concrete, such as «common, that is the basis of variation of the words n combination of words in sentences. » Fiction and applied the words of popular language in the entire multicolor their individual values, creating words and sentences of the works of art as a powerful ideological influence on the masses. And so the scientific understanding of the historical framework and the internal development of the language should be the foundation of literary education.

For future linguists, specialists in Russian philology and qualified teachers of Russian language study modern Russian language should be at the center of their learning. Absolutely rights Acad. Vinogradov, stressing that «the central subject of Russian linguistic cycle is a course of modern Russian language», that he «should serve as a natural, solid base for a more thorough, efficient development of other disciplines of linguistic cycle Russian» and that «from this course, both from the center, as the sun of linguistic training should go light radially in all directions — in the direction of the Old Slavonic language and historical grammar of the Russian language, Russian dialectology toward and away History of the Russian literary language. » Consistent implementation of the principle of historicism in the study of the Russian language, as well as any other specific language, is possible only on the basis of a careful study of the current state of the language; Only by analyzing the contemporary language with its prevailing for centuries, sustainable and at the same time developing logical grammatical system and basic word stock may go to the elucidation of the main periods in the historical development of language, its phonetics, vocabulary, grammatical structure. Finally, the fruitful study of vocabulary, phonetics and grammar of any language, students learn, speak and think in Russian, is impossible without a thorough, not only practical, but also theoretical assimilation of vocabulary, phonetics and grammar of modern Russian language. That is why, together with the course «Introduction to Linguistics» This course should be for all branches of the Faculty of Philology kursoi not auxiliary and basic values. In the first year of university studies, students of all branches of the Faculty of Philology have to listen to a full-fledged scientific course of modern Russian language, to actively participate in the detailed practical training on the course and complete their study of the Russian language course work on vocabulary, grammar and phonetics of modern Russian language.

However, for a decisive recovery philological education is not enough to put in its basis the general theory of linguistics and the study of the scientific course of modern Russian yazyka.Chtoby provide literary education in the deep and thorough study of general linguistics, native language and the language of each individual as a subject of scientific specialization, it is necessary to radically change the very structure of Philology.

The main defect structure of philological faculty is that it does not provide any rational training linguists or literary. Scientific profile branches of philological faculty is currently very uncertain. For example, the University of Moscow, in addition to having a special task of the journalism department, there are six departments: Department of Russian Language and Literature, Department of logic, psychology, and the Russian language department of Slavic, Romance and Germanic department, classical and Eastern Division. You might think that the philological faculty heavily involved in the training of scientists and qualified teachers of the Russian language, as the two largest of the divisions engaged in such training. But, as shown by the statistics department of Russian Language and Literature prepares mainly literary critics and teachers of Russian literature in three profiles: the literature of the XIX century., Soviet literature and folklore. And only a small group of students of this department on their own initiative focuses on the Russian language. Branch logic, psychology and the Russian language prepares mainly psychologists and is a kind of colony of the Faculty of Philosophy. Slavonic and East Branch fluctuate between language and literature, giving an advantage to one, then the other scientific profile. Romano-Germanic branch of a whole conglomerate of scientific specialties, combining the future as very few specialists in English, German, French and Spanish with literary critics, studied English, American, German, French literature. Thus, the Moscow University, none of the philological faculty of the department does not have a well-defined research profile. The structure of the Faculty of Philology of Leningrad University observed an even greater diversity and uncertainty. It has 17 branches in the Faculty of Philology and, in addition, two special philological faculty with bias: Faculty of Oriental Studies and the Faculty of the peoples of the north. This, along with major offices; Russian language and literature, logic, psychology and the Russian language, journalism, translation — uncertain of its scientific profile — there are about a dozen small departments: English, Italian, Spanish, Norwegian, Danish, French, Swedish, classic and the Caucasus — is not differentiating study language and literature studies. From the scientific uncertainty Profile branches undoubtedly affected the organization of training philologists — and linguists and literary scholars, and particularly suffer from this training linguists, who are now perhaps the most scarce scientific personnel.

Prof. absolutely right. A. Chikobava, arguing that «in order to prepare specialists linguists ought to philological faculties of several universities to create a linguistic department with the appropriate curriculum.» But that is not enough. The real way out of the abnormal situation can only be a new structure of Philology, the corresponding division of the Scientific Council at the linguistic and literary clubs, t. E. A clear distinction branches of philological faculty on real scientific profile. Where within a single scientific specialty philologist not yet clearly delineated language and literature, such as in Chinese, Japanese, Iranian, Arabic philology, it is necessary to organize a branch of philological character. Therefore, the Eastern Division of the University of Moscow now it would be inappropriate to split into two branches — the Eastern languages ​​and literatures, eastern. But when differentiated scientific study of certain languages ​​or of various literatures gets all-Union or national importance, it is necessary to allocate the linguistic and literary department.

Thus, in the future could be isolated in separate universities department of the Russian language, as well as Ukrainian and Belarusian languages, South and West Slavic languages, the Germanic languages, Romance languages, the Finno-Ugric languages, the languages ​​of the North, the Caucasian languages. In the next few years, not only in the periphery but also in the Central University of the Union would be more appropriate, under the overall guidance of the Department of General Linguistics and with the participation of the department of comparative Indo-European linguistics, combine all the linguistic department — for example, the Department of Russian and other Slavic languages, the Department of Romance and Germanic Linguistics, Department of Finno-Ugric Linguistics, Department of the Armenian and Georgian languages ​​as well as the department of ancient classical languages ​​(Sanskrit, Greek and Latin). Similarly, under the overall guidance of the Department of the theory of literature could be combined all of the department of literary cycle with the release of their part of the Department of Slavic Literature and the Department of Greek and Roman literature.

Universities national republics and regions, of course, the structure of philological faculties should be different: there are main offices of the local branch of the national department of philology and Russian language and literature; However, there should be sought clear distinction inside the compartments of two cycles: Linguistics and Literature — and gradually move on to the structure of the branches of the main scientific profiles of future specialists-philologists.

Department of the Faculty of Philology in the universities, as well as any other faculty, should be first and foremost guiding centers of scientific and pedagogical work, not just teaching and administrative articulations faculty arising, for whatever reasons. At the head of each department should be the scientific section of the Academic Council — linguistic, literary and philological as an exception (for example, the eastern section or sections specific national philology). Unlike departments, heads of scientific and pedagogical work, for whatever scientific specialty, department are leading research faculty profiles and sections — its basic research teams. Development of common questions of linguistics on the basis of Stalin’s theory of language, comparative analysis of related languages, the historical study of individual languages ​​and the domestic laws of their development and make the wide, but a definite, solid scientific profile, in determining within which alone the fruitful study of a Language I General Linguistics. For philology in its modern sense it is not a mechanical alloy «verbal» sciences and organic union of linguistic and literary education on the basis of Stalin’s theory of language. In total, the installation of the philological studies should be fertilized literary language study of works of art, not only as a phenomenon of the individual style of the writer, but also as a kind of expression of popular language.

Research profiles faculties can not be a secret for entering universities. To go to university, high school applicant must know that he will study, in which the circle of scientific study, he will prepare himself for his future scientific, industrial or educational activities. Arriving on a mathematical, mechanical and Astronomy Department of Mechanics and Mathematics Faculty know where they are going and what will be doing at the university, know their future scientific profile. Why received the Faculty only in the transition to the third year to decide who they are — linguists and literary critics? We want them to do all philologists, «language and literature», but in our time, a true scholar can only be either a linguist or literary in its scientific profile. Why, as the practice of Moscow and Leningrad university students struggling to pass a branch of logic, psychology and the Russian language department of language and literature? It is not because the separation of logic and psychology can not provide them in the future standard load a secondary school teacher, and because it does not give them a solid profile of scientific work. After entering the university, the student does not want to be second-rate second-rate psychologist or a linguist. Why are we now, after the release of the brilliant works of Comrade Stalin, have carried out a revolution in linguistics, found the courage to «loudly» to young people looking for this university education, with a call to study linguistics? Why do we have to offer them an incomplete study of language in tying the logic and psychology, or undifferentiated in conjunction with the study of literature? We might argue that the university has always been there and now scientific specialization and third-year students of Russian department split into literary critics and linguists. But first, why specialization begins only from the third year, and for some reason do not wish to notice that it was not really specialized, and belated selection of scientific profile? Why students novelists and Germanists specialize first year as future professionals of the French, Spanish, German or English, and students-specialists in Russian philology can dial his specialty Russian language only in the third year, after two years of uncertain status «students-language and literature»? We say it is a tradition. But if tradition is not justified by the merits of the case, it is necessary to refuse from.

Department of the Faculty must determine the student’s academic profile, and the relationship of his scientific training with some of the Department shall determine his future profession. Entered the linguistic department, deliberately choosing a precisely this separation, identifying himself still on the threshold of higher education as a future philologist and linguist, language student of linguistic separation in the first year of study must start learning the language, which would be his future scientific and basic teaching profession .

But, of course, linguists, philologists can not be narrow specialists. And each of them during their stay at the university must not only listen to the literature courses, and participate in special seminars on literature, that along with its primary research to get a second specialty, its corresponding research and teaching profession. After all, the future experts in the language should be well prepared and as a teacher of literature in high school, and vice versa, the future specialist literature should be prepared, and as a teacher of language (in the same volume). Therefore, literary critics should take part in linguistic seminaries. Such a «philological» completion of their specialty can only expand research horizons and linguists and literary critics.

Universities need to prepare full-fledged specialists in language or literature and teachers of language and literature with a solid scientific base — linguistic or literary.

It is time to prepare the Faculty of Philology «Teacher of Literature» and only the surplus of such training in the form of a «gift of fate» to recruit staff through postgraduate researchers. Universities need to prepare full-fledged scientific experts-philologists in all years of study.

Like this post? Please share to your friends: