In his opening remarks Acad. Vinogradov outlined are the main issues raised at the critical examination of the book Acad. I. Meshchaninova. He stressed that the criticism of the book is carried out in general terms the liberation of Soviet linguistics from the Marxist theory of Academician. Marr and his «disciples», according to the objectives set by Stalin (see. Published in this issue review Acad. Vinogradov).
A presentation on critical analysis of the book Acad. Meshchaninova II, made the doctor filol. Sciences EM Galkina-Fedoruk, and PhD. filol. Sciences VA Avrorin.
EM Galkina-Fedoruk, recalling the words of Joseph Stalin that «theoretical confusion introduced into linguistics Marr and his closest associates,» noted that the discussed book is a vivid example of such a «theoretical confusion.» Never expose any serious critical analysis, this book is actively introduced in the theory and practice of linguistics. The scientific community within a half pet vain waited Acad. I. Meshchaninov itself reveal the theoretical flaws of his book; now the criticism of this book is an urgent matter, because her ideas adverse effect not only on the Marr supporters, but also on the broad circle of linguists.
Parsed book represents one of the stages of development of the theory of stages marrovskoy as developed by I. Meshchaninov engaged throughout their activities (see his previous work, in particular the «new doctrine of language»). This book is presented by stages, to be undertaken on a narrow set of formal syntactic relations established on the basis of the semantics of the proverbial offer, which, Stalin said: «… Revaluation of semantics and abuse of the latter led NY Marr to idealism.» Along with the abuse of language semantics actually ignored the facts showing that the same concepts are expressed in some languages lexical means, Drew — GIH morphological or syntactic. So the line between grammar and vocabulary, morphology disappeared as such. The abolition of the morphology — is one of the characteristic features of the concept Meshchaninova. Significantly such a statement in his later work: «The predicate — this one, but the verb is different. The first of these relates to the syntax, and the other — to the vocabulary. «
The reporter considered and criticized the method by which I. Meshchaninov outlines ways of expressing syntactic relationships (incorporation, sintetizm, matching, circuit, separatism, localization, etc.). None of these methods has not been investigated I. Meshchaninov any satisfactory material on any particular language. In this regard, the concepts outlined they are not applicable to a number of languages; For example, the term «circuit» is widely used Acad. I. Meshchaninov to determine the quality and originality of parsing lines offer in different languages, including Russian, can not be considered as a characteristic of the syntactic relations of the Russian language, where it is more due to the differences in the location of the word and should be considered in stylistic syntax. It is inappropriate to unite all forms of combinations of words (and attributive and predicative relation) the term «harmonization».
Characteristics of the concept of «localization» also shows how superficial and without these specific language constructs II Meshchaninov its category, although then applies them to the languages of all systems. For the Russian language localization concept coincides with the concept of word order. Considering the method of syntactic relations in the Russian language, II Meshchaninov believes, however, sufficient to rely only on the cases of inversion determination with respect to the designated or in any way involving other extensive materials slovoraspolozheniyu in Russian.
Can not describe the syntax and morphology of any language, without showing the real interaction between the various syntax methods, II Meshchaninov builds on shaky ground the whole syntactic features of individual language structures. The desire to create some kind of a system of stages based on the disparate examples of individual languages is actually a denial of the existence of the language as a whole in its particular history, it leads to a complete anti-historical and cosmo itizmu.
The book does not clearly grounded theory offers not defined the essence of the proposal there is confusion, the identification of the concepts of «judgment» and «offer», misunderstanding of the proposal is the material shell of judgment, implement the proposal by various means. Mixed as the concept of «subject» and «subject», «predicate» and «predicate».
The basis of the understanding of the sentence and parts of speech in Meshchaninova II are conceptual categories, which he uncritically borrows from foreign lingua ists idealistic direction (for example, Jespersen) and puts at the service of the theory of stages. That definition, which provides the conceptual categories II Meshchaninov is also idealistic: it has assumed such categories of consciousness that supposedly pure, free from the language of matter exist in the mind.
The idealistic nature of this definition it becomes quite clear in the light of Marxist positions clearly and precisely formulated IV
So II Meshchaninov shuts, tears language and thought of each other, confuses the ratio of these series, distorting Lenin’s theory of reflection.
I. Meshchaninov treats conceptual category as the connecting element, which connects, in the end, the language material with the general structure of human thought. Here, the same idealistic gap between language and thought. The process of thinking occurring in the verbal design, gets another special component — conceptual categories.
Members suggestions and highlights the parts of speech in the book of II Meshchaninova only in terms of semantics, which absorbs the grammatical side of the analysis. The speaker cited a number of examples to illustrate this situation. Such, for example, does not give anything for the grammar attempt to discern the nature of the amendments to the proposals, «the professor gave a lecture» and «professor of reading a novel» (in the second case is addition by I. Meshchaninova, more independent, since it at least specifies the semantics of the verb » read «off the ground); It is an attempt to see the different actors in the sentence «I am reading» (the active subject), «I’m sick» (the passive subject). Such an approach is not in any way does not enrich the understanding of sentence structure, diverts attention towards issues that are not relevant to the grammar.
Parts of Speech II Meshchaninov also allocates only in terms of a kind of syntactic semantics, considering at the same time that they are obliged to release their historically constant use of a particular word in the same syntactic function. Syntactic features in their totality gave certain semantic categories that were fixed for different parts of speech, as the lexical groups.
The speaker also argued understanding of modality and category of state in the book of II Meshchaninova.
As a result, Rapporteur concluded that parsed the book in all its theoretical positions is a blatant contradiction to Stalin’s theory of language. Eclectically combining idealist and vulgar materialist ideas, ignoring the concrete living material languages, relying on vicious theory of stages, unity glottogonic process and «conceptual categories» Meshchaninov II came to an absolute anti-historical.
Kand. filol. Sciences VA Avrorin devoted his report to clarify the question of whether to preserve stadial approach to the phenomena of linguistic structure in the book parsed. VA Avrorin stressed that Meshchaninov II who recognized the depravity of his earlier works, did not make any analysis of the book, apparently believing that this his work favorably with previous ones.
At the time, the ultra-Marrists II Meshchaninova accused in connection with the release of the book «The members of the supply and the part of speech» to move away from the plants and from Marr marrovskoy of stages and enthusiasm of formal description of language structures.
Their claims were utterly groundless: stadial approach to the phenomena of language kept them completely. All material is located stadial scheme: full and partial incorporation, and then have ways of syntactic relationship between individual expressions of the sentence. Not by chance, and the order of these methods — sintetizm, matching, circuit, separatism, localization — so to speak, on the principle of diminishing incorporative. These methods are declared universal methods and are found in a wide variety of grammatical structure of language simply because each of these methods is found in transposing languages. Thus, all languages can be considered as being at various stages stadial stairs. Traces of incorporation II Meshchaninov sees and predicate in a subject-object parameters and pronominal verb conjugation, for example, in the Kazakh language, as well as, albeit with some reservations in the French. Syntax reception contiguity, widespread in Turkish and other languages, II Meshchaninov also brings with incorporation.
The book contains many contradictions: as the author frequently warns against the fact that the category of facts and one language is mechanically extended to other languages, but he regularly carries features incorporating languages and languages with ergative construction proposals for those languages that, in theory Author already passed these stages of development. The transport of the facts Indo-European languages, such as the Paleo-Asiatic author considers unacceptable, as Paleo-Asiatic languages are not passed in its development stage, the Indo-European languages, and the reverse transfer is quite valid and acceptable, although the basis for such an assertion the author completely a priori. The most ancient systems offer Meshchaninov II also acknowledged a priori possessivny and languages where this system is presented (though by no means exclusively), the most backward (see. Unwritten languages such as Eskimo, Samoyed, many Indian languages of America). The illegality of the practice of building well refuted. A number of such language was written we successfully developed and improved, while maintaining the momentum and said possessivnye, not signifying their backwardness.
Stadialnogo arrangement of the material results in spite of the real history of lan-ing, not an image of the process of gradual complication of the proposal and the presentation of the primary cleavage of a single, indivisible sound complex parts of it. In turn, the word-splitting proposal is put in direct dependence on the process of thinking idealistically interpreted as straight differentiation primary diffuse.
The explosion in the development of language by stages II Meshchaninov saw the introduction of the act of writing in unwritten languages. Thus, contrary to the real facts, all unwritten languages, in terms of I. Meshchaninova, combined similarities in grammar, distinguishing them from the written languages that are in relation to them on a fundamentally different stage. Condition newly created written language is represented as a state of radical change and adjustment of all the grammatical structure, which is also contrary to the actual situation: in fact, in a newly created written language is blurring dialectal differences, they developed a style of language, enriched with vocabulary, improved grammar, but it all — while retaining all the inherent this language of the basic features of its grammatical structure.
Conceptual category made from Meshchaninova II as a result of inability to classify the morphological features, as well as due to the fact that the syntactic material bad fit into the Procrustean bed of the scheme adopted. Hence the appeal to thinking, laws which are general and do not depend on the language they speak one or another nation. However, simply transfer the problem of stages in the area of thought was impossible. This should be done without taking away from its language, by including language in thinking. This has happened with the identification of language thinking. As the gasket between the two at the Marr appeared at the time the so-called «ideology of speech», while Ivan Meshchaninova «conceptual categories.» By Meshchaninova, each language has a certain number of formal expressions (t. E. Expression by means of language) the mental categories, along with the thought that there are categories that do not have formal expression in the language, but still exist in it. Here we are dealing with an invisible existence of «pure conceptual categories» in some languages; the reality of their existence is proved by the fact that in other languages, they can get their formal expression.
This is necessary to build an idealistic II Meshchaninova in order universalization of grammatical structure in which each language is the sum of the actual conceptual categories, arbitrarily transferred from other languages in the form of exemption from the «natural matter» of ideas.
Since each language detected by this same conceptual category as any other, anti-historical and cosmopolitan character of this theory is beyond doubt.
The speaker gave examples of blunders anecdotal nature that have arisen in the book for the use of conceptual categories as the base inostadialnmh Comparison while ignoring the real history of languages. For example, the incorporation was attributed to the Chukchi language, which is actually the main parts of the sentence are always expressed separately; typically agglutinative Eskimo was also included among the transposing. When you move into the Russian language features of Turkic Languages II Meshchaninov showed pronouns in modern Russian verb endings, and in the forms of words, ie, suffering t— gerunds, decorated ending -m.
In order to more easily look for traces of incorporation into a variety of languages, II Meshchaninov strongly emphasized the concept of syntactic groups. In the conventional group minor sentence around the main point he sought to eliminate the independence of the members of the minor, group them into closed, indissoluble unity.
At the beginning of the report, VA Avrorin mentioned that in the recent past he shared theoretical setting discussed books and general linguistic views of its author. However, in the report he had not of his works, a single example to illustrate this situation, the task of limiting his speech just parsing errors Meshchaninova II, stressing that it is committed to helping I. Meshchaninova understand being available in his book errors.
Acad. I. Meshchaninov twice spoke at a meeting of the Academic Council. In the first statement, he agreed that the morphology is virtually absent in the book in question; «Inflectional morphology» all dissolved in the syntax of marrovskoy scheme — morphology in the service of the syntax, parts of speech, and as such have become a group of lexical nature, united by the value of that word gets when you use it in a sentence. I. Meshchaninov also admitted that the whole structure of the book as a whole is contrary to the instructions of the genius Stalin: vocabulary section steel grammar and grammar remained without morphology; in fact, such a construction was motivated by the desire to find a new support for the development by stages. This same commitment led to the «rigging» in the material: show the transition from full to partial incorporation will not fit on the quality of the material, misinterpreted, taken from unrelated languages, excluding the internal laws of their development; any one of these languages is not only incorporate transmission means syntactic relationship, and there along with other syntax.
Noted II Meshchaninov antihistoricism and their constructions, the objective coincidence schemes synchronic linguistics Saussure type.
At the same time I. Meshchaninov tried to emphasize the positive aspects of the book. Thus, according to I. Meshchaninova, may remain in force division deals with the release of the dependent and independent of the sentence, although the entire analysis of factual material requires significant corrections (II Meshchaninov gave some examples requiring corrections and admitted that » inadvertently «attracted scientific material).
Widely carried out in the book comparing different systems based on universal language syntax, rather randomly chosen methods I. Meshchaninov qualified as a work of value to build a comparative syntax and genealogical classification of languages.
Head of the conceptual categories he regarded as having no direct relation to the work as a whole, as this chapter has been inserted after the end of the book, and allegedly not consistent with the content of the remaining chapters of the book.
Scientific Secretary of the Presidium of the USSR Academy of Sciences prof. VP Sukhotin pointed to the need to continue the in-depth criticism of works being marrovskim heritage. The challenge posed by Stalin, — exemption from the Marr’s mistakes — is not solved, this is evidenced by the fact that such a book as a «member of the sentence and part of speech», facing the problems of modern grammar, which had a huge impact on the scientific work this area for training on our school was not yet still properly analyzed.
This book is flawed by the method of the study, there reigns a complete a priori, the facts are selected, adjusted to a pre-approved scheme, get completely arbitrary interpretation, rare, individual for a particular language are given the facts of the typical.
The book is a series of gross errors and distortions: it is represented by the language gap by thinking, full of anti-historicism, cosmopolitan understanding of linguistic categories and structures of the language. The specific language material is not investigated and made extraction raznosistemnyh material placed artificially in a row, lose all value.
Analysis of the book given in the reports clearly showed that there can be no question of any improvements and refinements, the partial use of this book, as suggested by the author, speaking in objectivist tone. Egregious poor quality of all the material on which the book is based, I. Meshchaninov tend to be viewed as something secondary as part of presentation, without seeing that conclusions built on such materials, have no value.
For a number of critical positions put forward in the reports I. Meshchaninov never showed in his speech irrelevant. A lack of understanding of the mistakes and says modern subjects of the works Meshchaninova II, in particular prepared them work «On the domestic laws of Paleo-Asiatic languages.» In the light of the teachings of Stalin’s impossible to talk about the internal laws of development of a whole group of languages, which are close relatives of each other fairly questioned. Characteristically, the work devoted to the comparative study of these languages themselves, is still scheduled I. Meshchaninov.
This session aims to provide I. Meshchaninova creative assistance; it only reached its goal, if the author is aware of the depth of the nominated critical positions and respond to them properly.
The doctor filol. Sciences VN Yartsev described the use of the material in the book parsed. According to I. Meshchaninova in English prepositions turned into declensional prefixes and personal pronouns — in the elements, giving a new type of conjugation with the personal pronoun prefixes. Author of the book is the understanding of linguistic material needed to show a certain stage in the development of stages of the English language.
Such use of the material completely inappropriate, this is not taken into account lexical meaning inherent prepositions along with their formal function, roughly mixed morphological and syntactic categories. This approach is found in the language of cases, innumerable, and inducement system is destroyed.
According to VN Yarpevoy, II Meshchaninov wrong in assessing the role of conceptual categories in his book; in fact it is — the basis on which to build a comparison of language material, as in the book of II Meshchaninova it is held not to identify the identity and similarity of related languages being compared, and to identify the different systems in the timeless language, common, common conceptual categories inherent in them terms. This comparison does not satisfy us, it distorts the image of each language, and does not give a picture of its development. This primacy of the conceptual categories lead to confusion of vocabulary and grammar: the same conceptual categories can be expressed in some languages lexically, grammatically other, but they still placed in the same plane comparison.
Senior Researcher OP Sunik stressed that the book is based on a comparative-typological method. Based on the book — review of selected examples drawn from descriptions of these languages or oral communications media and researchers of these languages. The structure of these languages has remained unknown to the author of the book. All comparisons were built with a strong revaluation of the semantics, disregard for the sound form.
Carried out in the book of the systematization of syntactic methods (sintetizm closure, separatism, and so on. D.) Is flawed, as the seemingly slim list of these methods includes diverse phenomena of different languages; is mixed with the morphology syntax, grammar with vocabulary, all given on the same plane in one plane.
Understanding the conceptual categories on which the whole book is a mixture of categories of thinking, logic, mind, ideology and should be discarded.
Criticism of the book is important and urgent. The book attracted in the recent past, many linguists apparent departure from Marrism enticing imaginary and empty simplicity, extreme schematism in the presentation syntax receptions. In such a scheme, it was easy to put a cursory examination of the material, without examining it. Universalism conceptual categories attracted all prone to idle theorizing. Many impressed by the apparent wealth of illustrative material, from little-known languages of the Union.
Meanwhile, the fact this book can serve as a serious lesson in how you can not and do not need to engage in the study of the grammatical structure of languages.
OP Sunik pointing out that he had made serious mistakes in the work and has the experience to overcome them; specific examples of his release from the mistakes of the «new doctrine» of the language OP Sunik not led.
Chlev correspondent. USSR Academy of Sciences Zhirmunsky noted that before the discussion it seemed right that I. Meshchaninov mainly engaged the development of the doctrine of the unity glottogonic process and by stages. Zhirmunsky indicated that its erroneous work in comparative literature and comparative linguistics, he also followed this doctrine, and gave examples of Gogo as he set at the time the incorporation of the German language in spite of all the general indications of the language system. The idealistic essence of this doctrine, which is a distortion of the teachings of Marx about the socio-economic formations, became clear only after the publication of the works of genius Stalin.
Syntax stadialnogo represented in parsed book has all the vices of stages morphological: it also builds language through the ranks, going back to the Indo-European nominative as the highest rank, and can not explain why, along with the development of thinking and the more society, languages possessivnogo or ergative system does not go into nominative, but continue, as shown by Stalin, to develop and improve on their domestic laws.
The book is always left puzzling question: if substantially unchanged, always identical to itself thinking reflected in the different categories only from the formal point of view of grammar and syntax forms, what, then, is the stage-wise development of language and thought? Glottogonic process in this third and final transformation marrovskogo doctrine has become a kind of universal, timeless yazykotvorcheskuyu semantics.
Deputy Director of the Institute yaaykoznaniya BA Serebrennikov gave in his speech detailed review of the development of the theory of stages Marr. Desperate to build on the basis of the formal stages of the various languages, Marr turned his attention to the search for stages in the development of thinking (totemistic, space, process steps). I. Meshchaninov death Marr tried to trace the stages in the material side of the language, but suffered the same failure that his teacher again asked for help thinking, and found salvation in espersenov-ing conceptual categories.
I. Meshchaninova should therefore first of all make a profound critique of the theory of stages on which to build the whole book, and not to engage clarify and supplement certain provisions.
Marr’s theory of stages — Meshchaninova meaningless and grounds, as the same level of production can not be linked to specific language howling structure and can not be expressed in the form of material kinship korneslova. You can not find the base of this theory and in the community typology: the number of the basic techniques of expression of syntactic context in the languages of the world is relatively small, and the coincidence of the same techniques nothing shows. Typological comparison of material unrelated languages, located in different parts of the world presented in the book of II Meshchaninova, nothing can give for-established relationship of languages.
You must be discarded and conceptual categories that are the backbone of all the constructions II Meshchaninova. Conceptual category are based on the naive, not peculiar linguist representation of universalism concepts are actually quite diverse and qualitatively identical. Thus, in particular, conceptual categories mixed lexical and grammatical concepts, the nature of which is not identical.
In II Meshchaninova turns out that if some grammatical concept is not reflected in the grammar of the language, it is in the field of pure consciousness. This is an idealistic position, clearly indicating that the theory of conceptual categories is not acceptable to Soviet linguistics.
Prof. Tsintsius VI spoke of the harm inflicted on book II Meshchaninova case study and in-depth study of languages. With respect to the little-studied languages of the Union it considered it necessary to apply the scheme proposed in this book. Prof. Tsintsius tried to apply it in the study of language syntax Tungus-Manchurian group and make sure that it is impossible, since the author passed many specific, very important features of the language, on the basis of which built his scheme. Meanwhile, the case study material of genuine brake. The result is, for example, that workers in the northern languages are not able even now to read the course of historical and comparative grammar and dialectology of these languages. VI Tsintsius indicated that speakers in this session students II Meshchaninova — VA Avrorin, OP Sunik — did not show in his speeches as they used false and vicious position parsed books in the works who actually built on its methodology. Criticism and self-criticism, and in general, apparently, it is not up to the mark in the sector of the northern languages, evidenced by at least II Meshchaninova work on the topic «On the domestic laws of Paleo-Asiatic languages.» This work, as they say here, and fails in its design and to implement. Why is this collective group did not put a question about this in a timely manner?
Senior Researcher Igor Pospelov emphasized that in the II Meshchaninova proposal arises from a combination of words and not formed by a combination of the words, and the «meaning of the utterance establishes between words of the sentence syntactic links, making the words come together in syntactic relations, which gets reflected in the syntactic methods. » Thus, in the negated grammatical, and lexical nature of the word. Word is sinking in general semantics deals. In discussing the already stressed that the book is not the morphology, as its author is only interested in how the a priori conceptual categories adopted are reflected in the parts of speech. But in the book and no parsing and syntax as such. In its analysis, syntactic alleged author does not come from the concept of the word, not a combination of words in a sentence, and the concept of the semantics of indefinite sentences.
In the debate were also made by prof. R. Budagov, OK Schwede — The Asil -wa, scientific secretary of the Institute of Linguistics KV Gornung, prof. AV D e c -nitskaya, PhD. filol. YD Deschere Sciences, A. Moiseev, PY Skorik, maintain and develop the position of the speakers and those who spoke in the debate. Prof. PA Budagov on a number of bright illustrations also showed uncertainty language books and all of its style, which is connected, according to RA Budagova with uncertainty, contradictory scientific concept of the book. Prof. A. Hands-kai spoke about the dangers brought by this book, brought up in the language of linguists approach is its history, and stopped in this regard in his article «archaic features in the Indo-European compounding,» where there is the search for remnants of incorporation of archaic Indo-European types composites. These searches of the author pushed the idea of a universal way of building language, so the ancient Indo-European type of composition has not yet been worked out with the inflection of case without any grounds was interpreted as a fact incorporation.
Acad. I. Meshchaninov made the second time in the discussion of the book. He said that the discussion helped him deeply realize that in this book he has not moved away from the plants Marr discussed the entire work is built entirely on the basis of the theory of stages and therefore defective. Syntax led by stages to the statement distorts the historical perspective of the development of language, that the sentence is historically the oldest parts of speech. Trying to build a universal grammar of Different languages on the basis of typological comparisons also proved faulty. Typological comparison acted here as an end and removed any possibility of historicism; the historical development of languages in this approach completely ignored. Marrovskaya concept of language development in the form of revolutionary upheavals and lack of understanding of the internal laws of the specifics of the language characteristic of the book as a whole.
The role of the conceptual categories really is a leading around the presentation of the material; within the meaning of conceptual categories are mixed thinking and outlook, grammatical concepts and grammatical forms, vocabulary and grammar.
Just reproach that in the book there is a denial of the word itself, «the word in a dictionary»; This follows naturally from the exaggeration of the role of syntactic semantics, built on the basis of the conceptual categories.
In conclusion II Meshchaninov admitted that his work has had a detrimental effect on teaching and research, and does not correspond with the provisions of the theoretical doctrine of Stalin’s language.
Summing up the extended meeting of the Scientific Council, acad. Vinogradov said that the principle of criticism and self, which is the basic principle of the development of Soviet science was distorted during the rule of the «new doctrine» of the language. A critical examination of the book Acad. I. Meshchaninova at the meeting was based on a sample of unrivaled criticism, which gave Stalin in his work «Marxism and Problems of Linguistics», according to which criticism must be opened as a methodological basis of each work, and evaluation of a particular material, laid the foundation of various constructions. Disassembled the book of II Meshchaninova do not satisfy general principles and the specific material on which these principles are based. I. Meshchaninov agreed that he met the unanimous criticism was correct that the main provisions of his books are anti-Marxist, marrovskimi, he acknowledged that the material formed the basis of the work, they are not mined alone, assembled by chance. It should be emphasized that the methodology of this book is typical of all scientific activity I. Meshchaninova and that he had not departed from her. The discussion paper «for the creative development of the heritage of Academician Marr,» written in 1950., T. E. 5 years after the book «The members of the supply and the part of speech», ol urged to deepen the theory of stage-language development, with its explosions based on an understanding of language as a superstructure; organic complement and justification of the theory of stages was idealistic doctrine of conceptual categories.
Drawn criticism has shown complete unanimity in the assessment of the book II Meshchaninova and unanimity in the understanding of the main objectives of Soviet linguistics and basic categories of Marxist linguistics. There are many more issues require in-depth consideration of its in creative discussions. This is particularly a problem semasiology common system of linguistics and the associated clarification of problems of grammar, morphology and syntax of the ratio within the grammar, the problem of describing the grammatical structure and historical study.