/ CHAPTER THREE - LANGUAGE AS A HISTORICALLY DEVELOPING PHENOMENON

A serious drawback of many works on historical linguistics, writes K. Togebu, was an attempt to explain the evolution of language as a result of the action of any one factor. Other linguists, such as E. Coceriu and M.I. But not all linguists agree with this point of view. If<217>leave aside those scientists who believe that the problem of causality does not have the right to be considered within our science at all, or those who believe that "the question of the causes of language changes is not essential for the science of language", it can be noted that the opinions on this issue are represented by three different points of view.

The first of them is that all changes in the language are due to extralinguistic reasons, primarily the conditions of existence of the society in which the language exists. Criticizing the young grammarians for trying to discover the causes of transformations in the individual psychology of the speaker, A. Sommerfelt points out directly that all the various factors of change are ultimately social in nature. Sometimes such a straightforward concept is modified in the sense that its supporters, while recognizing the possibility of identifying a number of internal causes of evolution, believe at the same time that even behind these internal reasons there are extra-linguistic factors. Often, a decisive role in the emergence and spread of linguistic transformations is attributed to such a factor as the needs of a communicative nature.

The second extreme point vision is defended by those who believe that in any changes in the language, everything is caused exclusively by internal reasons. A variation of this concept are also theories according to which all extralinguistic impulses, although they may be taking place, should not be considered within the framework of linguistics. "As soon as we leave the tongue sensu stricto and we appeal to extra-linguistic factors, - writes, for example, Yu. Kurilovich, - we are losing the clear boundaries of the field of linguistic research. " Ideas that are similar in spirit are also developed by A. Martinet, who asserts that "only internal causality can interest a linguist." It seems that both points of view are rather limited.

Proceeding from the thesis about the bilateral dependence of the evolution of language on external and internal factors, we want to emphasize that the modern formulation of the problem is not to study some reasons to the detriment of others, but to objectively show what exactly can manifest the action of both and their specific interweaving. Although the opinion was expressed in Soviet linguistics that the proposition on the "pluralism of causes" is ostensibly eclectic in its essence, it should apparently be taken into account that it is precisely this that is most consistent with the true state of affairs and the results of numerous specific studies ( see, for example).

From the definition of a language as a dynamic system, it logically follows that some of its internal "problems" should be satisfied<218>not under the pressure of the system itself - by bringing the elements to greater orderliness, by embracing a single regulating principle of a larger number of units, adhering to the principle of maintaining the distance between members of oppositions, etc. On the contrary, from the definition of language as an open system, that is, interacting with the environment, it follows that its description cannot be complete without taking into account the specific forms of this interaction. Emphasizing the multilateral dependence of a language on a whole complex of reasons, A. Meillet pointed out, for example, that linguistic changes are predetermined by at least three groups of reasons, or factors: 1) the structure of a given language, that is, here its structure; 2) psychological, physical, spatial, social and other conditions of its existence; 3) those particular influences of other languages ​​that the target language is experiencing at a given time and place. It is easy to see, however, that the group of reasons named in the second paragraph is far from homogeneous and needs detailing and clarification. V general plan at the same time, it could be noted that the factors of the first group are internal, intralinguistic factors, and their specificity is determined equally by the sound substance in which the given language is embodied and the network of connections that exists between its elements (the structure of the language ) and, finally, by combining elements and connections into a special integral unity (system). It is natural in this regard that we are talking about systemic changes only as part of the internal transformations in the language. The factors listed by A. Meillet in the second paragraph of his classification are usually classified as extralinguistic factors. Finally, the reasons he singled out in the third group are peculiar semi-linguistic reasons: which language affects the language being studied and what is the correlative social status two languages, is an extralinguistic, socio-economic or even political factor; but exactly what forms linguistic contact takes depends directly on the contacting languages ​​themselves, and in this sense, the impact of one linguistic system on another can be regarded as an intra-linguistic process. In any case, the special role of these factors in the general set of causes of changes is undeniable (for more details see below, pp. 250-254).

A few words should also be said about the delineation of two concepts, which are often confused, - about the delineation of the causes of linguistic changes and their nature and, their functional status. So, regardless of what was the immediate cause of the linguistic change, the fact of its penetration into the language system or its widespread distribution in the language are of a social nature. From this only point of view, it can be recognized that “and the internal laws of the development of language in<219>are ultimately social. " This does not mean, however, that all changes are socially driven. A similar remark should be made about the ambiguity of the term "system change". On the one hand, such a qualification may mean that the reason for the change was the very system of the given language; on the other, that, by its nature, this change is included in a series of uniform, serial, regular changes, so that all these changes together form a certain ordered unity. It is better to differentiate these two different definitions as much as possible (see below for more details). We consider systemic changes in the first sense only as part of internal ones, i.e., conditioned by the internal immanent essence of the language.

In accordance with the above theoretical considerations, all linguistic changes in general, or rather, their reasons, can be divided into two main categories - external and internal. It is almost not always easy to attribute this or that reason to one of these categories, since a closer study may turn out that the cause of a given linguistic change is a whole chain of consecutive reasons of the same order, or, on the contrary, a complex interweaving of many reasons of different order. In most cases, however, the immediate root cause appears more or less clearly. This reason creates the impulse under the influence of which the language change occurs. If the reason cannot be discerned in the linguistic mechanism itself and lies outside its sphere, it can, accordingly, be qualified as external. In Finnish, for example, adjectives began to agree with nouns in gender and number. The reason this phenomenon it was most likely the influence of the surrounding Indo-European languages, where a similar phenomenon is expressed quite clearly. On the contrary, changing the consonant group k? t and ct in modern Greek it is caused by an internal reason - the unpronounceability of the first group of consonants, etc.

To external causes, we refer to the entire set of unusually diverse impulses coming from the environment surrounding the language and associated primarily with the features of the historical development of society, migrations and migrations, the unification and disintegration of speech collectives, changes in the forms of communication, the progress of culture and technology, etc. The reasons for the internal order include various impulses that arise in connection with a purposeful tendency to improve the existing system language (cf., for example, the tendency to create a symmetric system of phonemes, discussed specifically below); to internal reasons, we also include various tendencies aimed at adapting the linguistic mechanism to the physiological characteristics of the human body, tendencies due to<220>the need to improve the linguistic mechanism itself, the tendencies caused by the need to preserve the language in a state of communicative suitability, etc. The action of these tendencies will be described by us on the basis of factual material in the following sections.

We have characterized here some of the features of the development of the language, due to its belonging to the class of complex dynamic systems. The description of the properties of language associated with its systemic nature not in diachrony, but in synchrony is the subject of a separate study.

The role of internal and external factors of language development
and the question of their classification

A serious drawback of many works on historical linguistics, writes K. Togebu, was an attempt to explain the evolution of language as a result of the action of any one factor. Other linguists, such as E. Coceriu and M.I. But not all linguists agree with this point of view. If<217>leave aside those scientists who believe that the problem of causality does not have the right to be considered within our science at all, or those who believe that "the question of the causes of language changes is not essential for the science of language", it can be noted that the opinions on this issue are represented by three different points of view.

The first of them is that all changes in the language are due to extralinguistic reasons, primarily the conditions of existence of the society in which the language exists. Criticizing the young grammarians for trying to discover the causes of transformations in the individual psychology of the speaker, A. Sommerfelt points out directly that all the various factors of change are ultimately social in nature. Sometimes such a straightforward concept is modified in the sense that its proponents, while recognizing the possibility of identifying a number of internal causes of evolution, believe at the same time that even behind these internal causes there are extra-linguistic factors. Often, a decisive role in the emergence and spread of linguistic transformations is attributed to such a factor as the needs of a communicative nature.

It should be noted that the human body is by no means indifferent to how the linguistic mechanism works. He tries to react in a certain way to all those phenomena that arise in the linguistic mechanism, which do not correspond to certain physiological characteristics of the organism. Thus, a constantly acting tendency of adaptation of the linguistic mechanism to the characteristics of the human body arises, practically expressed in tendencies of a more particular nature. Here are examples of intra-lingual changes:

1) In phonetics: the emergence of new sounds (for example, in the early Proto-Slavic language there were no sibilants: [f], [h], [w] - rather late sounds in all Slavic languages, resulting from the softening of sounds, respectively [g], [ k], [x |); loss of some sounds (for example, two previously different sounds cease to be distinguished: for example, the Old Russian sound, denoted by the old letter%, in the Russian and Belarusian languages ​​coincided with the sound [e], and in the Ukrainian - with the sound [I], compare others .-rus. a & r, rus, Belarusian, snow, ukr. sShg).

2) In grammar: the loss of some grammatical meanings and forms (for example, in the Proto-Slavic language, all names, pronouns and verbs had, except for the forms of the singular and plural, more forms of the dual number, used when it came to two objects; later the category of the dual was lost in all Slavic languages, except Slovenian); examples of the opposite process: the formation (already in the written history of the Slavic languages) of a special verb form - the gerunds; the division of the formerly single name into two parts of speech - nouns and adjectives; the formation of a relatively new part of speech in the Slavic languages ​​- the numeral. Sometimes grammatical form changes without changing the meaning: before they spoke cities, snows, and now cities, snows.

3) In vocabulary: numerous and extremely varied changes in vocabulary, phraseology and lexical semantics. Suffice it to say that in the publication "New words and meanings: Dictionary-reference book on materials from the press and literature of the 70s / Ed. By N. 3. Kotelova" CM., 1984. - VOB c), which included only the most noticeable innovations of ten years, about 5500 entries.

I. A tendency towards easier pronunciation.

The presence in languages ​​of a known tendency to facilitate pronunciation has been repeatedly noted by researchers. At the same time, there were skeptics who were inclined not to attach much importance to it. They motivated their skepticism by the fact that the very criteria of ease or difficulty of pronunciation are too subjective, since they are usually viewed through the prism of a particular language. What seems difficult to pronounce due to the action of the systemic "phonological synth" to a speaker of one language may not present any difficulties for a speaker of another language. Observations on the history of the development of the phonetic structure of various languages ​​of the world also testify with sufficient convincingness that in all languages ​​there are sounds and combinations of sounds that are relatively difficult to pronounce, from which each language seeks to free itself as much as possible or turn them into sounds easier to pronounce and combinations of sounds.

II. Expression trend different meanings in different forms.

The tendency to express different meanings in different forms is sometimes called a rejection of homonymy.

Arabic in the more ancient era of its existence, it had only two verb tenses - perfect, for example, katabtu "I wrote" and imperfect aktubu "I wrote". These times originally had a specific meaning, but not a temporary one. As for their ability to express the attitude of an action to a certain time plan, in this respect, the above times were polysemantic. So, for example, an imperfect could have the meaning of the present, future and past tenses. This communicative inconvenience required the creation of additional funds... So, for example, the attachment of the qad particle to the perfect forms contributed to a clearer delineation of the perfect proper, for example, qad kataba "He (already) wrote". The addition of the sa- prefix to the imperfect forms, for example, sanaktubu "we will write" or "we will write" made it possible to more clearly express the future tense. Finally, the use of perfect forms from the auxiliary verb kāna "to be" in conjunction with the forms of imperfect, for example, kāna jaktubu "he wrote" made it possible to more clearly express the past long.

III. The tendency to express the same or similar values ​​in the same form.

This tendency is manifested in a number of phenomena widespread in various languages ​​of the world, which are usually called the alignment of forms by analogy. Two most typical cases of alignment of forms by analogy can be noted: 1) alignment of forms that are absolutely identical in meaning, but different in appearance, and 2) alignment of forms that are different in appearance and exhibit only partial similarity of functions or meanings.

Words like table, horse and son in the Old Russian language had specific endings of the dative instrumental and prepositional plurals.

D. stol konem syn'm

T. tables kony sy'mi

P. stolћkh konikh synkh

In modern Russian, they have one common ending: tables, tables, tables; horses, horses, horses; sons, sons, sons. These common endings arose as a result of the transfer by analogy of the corresponding case endings of nouns representing the old stems in -ā, -jā such as sister, earth, cf. Old Russian sisters, sisters, sisters; lands, lands, lands, etc. For alignment by analogy, the similarity of case functions turned out to be quite sufficient.

IV. The tendency to create clear boundaries between morphemes.

It may happen that the boundary between stem and suffixes becomes not clear enough due to the merging of the final vowel of the stem with the initial vowel of the suffix. So, for example, a characteristic feature of the types of declensions in the Indo-European language-base was the preservation in the paradigm of the declension of the base and its distinctive feature, that is, the final vowel base. As an example for comparison, we can cite the reconstructed declension paradigm of the Russian word wife, compared with the declension paradigm of this word in modern Russian. Only singular forms are given.

I. genā wife

P. genā-s wives

D. genā-i wife

V. genā-m wife

M. genā-i wife

It is easy to see that in the paradigm of conjugation of the word wife, the previous axis of the paradigm - the base on -ā - is no longer maintained due to its modification in indirect cases as a result<244>various phonetic changes, which in some cases led to the merging of the vowel stem a with the vowel of the newly formed case suffix, for example, genāi> gene> wife, genām> geno> wife, etc. In order to restore clear boundaries between the stem of the word and the case suffix in In the minds of the speakers, a re-decomposition of the stems took place, and the sound that used to act as the final vowel stem moved to the suffix.

V. The trend towards savings in language resources.

The tendency to economize on linguistic means is one of the most powerful internal tendencies manifested in various languages ​​of the world. It can be argued a priori that there is not a single language on the globe in which 150 phonemes, 50 verb tenses and 30 different plural endings are distinguished. A language of this kind, burdened with a detailed arsenal of expressive means, would not make it easier, but on the contrary, made it difficult for people to communicate. Therefore, each language has a natural resistance to over-detailing. In the process of using language as a means of communication, often spontaneously and independently of the will of the speakers themselves, the principle of the most rational and economical selection of linguistic means really necessary for communication purposes is implemented.

The results of this trend are manifested in the most diverse areas of the language. So, for example, one form of the instrumental case can contain the most different meanings: the instrumental agent, the instrumental adverbial, the instrumental objective, the instrumental limitations, the instrumental predicative, the instrumental adopted, the instrumental comparisons, etc. : genitive quantitative, genitive predicative, genitive affiliation, genitive weight, genitive object, etc. If each of these values ​​were expressed in a separate form, then this would lead to an incredible cumbersomeness of the case system.

The vocabulary of the language, numbering many tens of thousands of words, opens ample opportunities for the implementation in the language of a huge number of sounds and their various shades. In reality, each language is content with a relatively small number of phonemes, endowed with a meaningful function. How the selection of these few functions occurs, no one has ever investigated. Modern phonologists are concerned with the study of the function of phonemes, but not the history of their origin. One can only assume a priori that some kind of spontaneous rational selection, subordinate to a certain principle, took place in this area. In each language, there has evidently been a selection of a complex of phonemes associated with a useful opposition, although the appearance of new sounds in the language is not explained only by these reasons. The principle of economy, apparently, is associated with the tendency to designate the same values ​​with the same form.

One of the striking manifestations of the tendency towards economy is the tendency to create a typical uniformity. Each language is constantly striving to create a typical uniformity.

Vi. The tendency to limit the complexity of speech messages.

The latest research indicates that in the process of generating speech, psychological factors act that limit the complexity of speech messages.

The process of generating speech occurs, in all likelihood, by sequential recoding of phonemes into morphemes, morphemes into words and words into sentences. At some of these levels, recoding is carried out not in the long-term, but in the person's operative memory, the volume of which is limited and is equal to 7 ± 2 message characters. Therefore, the maximum ratio of the number of units lower level language contained in one unit of a higher level, provided that the transition from a lower level to a higher one is carried out in random access memory, cannot exceed 9: 1.

The capacity of the RAM imposes restrictions not only on the depth, but also on the length of words. As a result of a number of linguopsychological experiments, it was found that with an increase in the length of words in excess of seven syllables, a deterioration in the perception of the message is observed. For this reason, with an increase in the length of words, the likelihood of their appearance in texts sharply decreases. This limit of perception of word length was found in experiments with isolated words. Context facilitates perception to a certain extent. The upper limit for the perception of words in context is approximately 10 syllables.

If we take into account the favorable role of the context - intraword and inter-word - in the recognition of words, one should expect that the excess of the critical word length of 9 syllables, determined by the volume of the operative memory, greatly complicates their perception. The data of linguopsychological experiments definitely indicate that the volume of perception of the length and depth of words is equal to the volume of a person's operative memory. And in those styles of natural languages ​​that are focused on oral communication, maximum length words cannot exceed 9 syllables, and their maximum depth is 9 morphemes.

Vii. The tendency to change the phonetic appearance of a word when it loses its lexical meaning.

This tendency is most clearly expressed in the process of converting a significant word into a suffix. So, for example, in the Chuvash language there is an instrumental case, characterized by the suffix -pa, -pe, cf. Chuv pencilpa "pencil", văype "force". This ending developed from the postposition palan, shroud "c"

In English colloquial speech, the auxiliary verb have in the forms of perfect, having lost its lexical meaning, actually reduced to the sound "v, and the form had - to the sound" d, for example, I "v written" I wrote ", he" d written "he wrote " etc.

The phonetic appearance of a word changes in frequently used words due to a change in their original meaning. A striking example is the non-phonetic falling away of the final r in the Russian word thank you, which goes back to the phrase God save. The frequent use of this word and the associated change in the meaning God save> thank you - led to the destruction of its original phonetic appearance.

VIII. The tendency to create languages ​​with a simple morphological structure.

In the languages ​​of the world, a certain tendency is found towards the creation of a linguistic type, characterized by the simplest way of combining morphemes. It is curious that in the languages ​​of the world, the absolutely overwhelming majority are languages ​​of the agglutinative type. Languages ​​with internal inflection are relatively rare.

This fact has its own specific reasons. In agglutinating languages, morphemes, as a rule, are indicated, their boundaries in the word are defined. This creates a clear intraword context that allows the identification of morphemes in the longest sequences. This advantage of agglutinative languages ​​was pointed out in his time by I. N. Baudouin de Courtenay, who wrote the following about this: , Finnish-Ugric, etc.) are more sober and require much less mental energy than languages ​​in which morphological exponents are additions at the beginning of a word, and additions at the end of a word, and psychophonetic alternations within a word. "

The problem of language change and development

Language, like any phenomenon of reality, does not stand still, but changes and develops. Change is a permanent property of language. DNUshakov once remarked: "... this change is the life of the language." The language changes and develops according to its internal logic, which remains unknown to the speaker. For example, speakers did not knowingly participate in the creation of grammatical categories. All this was created against their will, responding to the needs of communication, knowledge of reality, the development of language and thinking.

Each phenomenon has its own form of change. Has such a form of change and language. Its form of change is such that it does not disrupt the communication process, and therefore for the speaker at the moment of communication, the language appears to be unchanged. But at the same time, it is obvious that it is in the process of communication that changes can occur. The non-functioning language is dead. It does not change or develop.

In the development of a language, internal and external factors can be distinguished. Internal factors include continuity and innovation.

The evolution of linguistic phenomena is characterized by continuity. To replace any element (and in a changing system, change itself is reduced to replacing one element with another), one must be to a certain extent the same. But each unit has its own special nature, so it cannot be equal to the substitute unit. These two features - identity and difference within the limits of identity - turn out to be necessary for the development of the system. Such parallel units can exist historically for a long time(for example, in the form of variants, synonymy). Thus, change is one of the internal factors of language development.

Change is opposed to innovation. If change presupposes continuity and divergence, innovation does not presuppose them. Innovation has an individual nature (for example, the author's neologisms, individual imagery, catchphrases, unusual combination of words). Innovation can become a fact of language if it meets the needs of the speaking community and trends in language development.

However, along with the internal factors of language development, due primarily to the very creative nature of linguistic communication, there are external factors of language change associated with the development of society itself.

Early forms modern man formed in the favorable climatic conditions of the Earth - in the Mediterranean (Western Asia, Southeast Europe, North Africa). Unpopulated spaces of Eurasia and low labor productivity forced primitive people to settle on the mainland. The transition to a different climate, new working conditions, new food, new living conditions were correspondingly reflected in the languages. Thus, the linguistic history of mankind began with a variety of tribal dialects. Over time, they combined and shared. In the development of languages, the following trends are noted:

· Language as a whole and specific languages ​​develop historically. There are no periods of birth, maturation, prosperity and decline in their development.

· The development and change of the language occurs through the continuation of the existence of the early language and its modifications (the rate of change in different eras is not the same).

· Different sides languages ​​develop unevenly. The tiers of the language have heterogeneous units, the fate of which is associated with a variety of factors.

In the process of the historical development of languages, two main directions can be distinguished - differentiation (division) of the tongue and integration (unification) of languages. Differentiation and integration are two opposite processes. These are social processes, since they are more often explained by economic and political reasons.

Differentiation- This is the territorial division of the language, as a result of which related languages ​​and dialects arise. Differentiation increases the number of languages. This process prevailed during the primitive communal system. The search for food and protection from natural forces caused the migration of tribes and their resettlement along forests, rivers and lakes. The separation of tribes in space led to differences in language. However, languages ​​that go back to a common source retain common roots, common suffixes and prefixes, common phonetic patterns ... Presence in the past common language is proof of the common origin of peoples. Despite the territorial differences in languages, the tribes maintained a common language at meetings of tribal councils, during the days of general festivities.

An important component of the linguistic history of mankind is the emergence and spread of Indo-European languages. By the 4th - 3rd centuries. BC. three zones of Indo-European languages ​​were distinguished: southern (the language of Ancient Italy and the languages ​​of Asia Minor), central (Romance languages, Germanic, Albanian, Greek and Indo-Iranian) and northern ( Slavic languages).

The northern zone was represented by Slavic tribes. At that moment in history, they spoke in common Slavic (Proto-Slavic) language. The common Slavic language has existed since the second half of the first millennium BC. until the 7th century A.D. It was spoken by the ancestors of modern Czechs, Slovaks, Poles, Bulgarians, Yugoslavs, Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians. Continuous communication between peoples supported common features in the language, but in the 6th - 7th centuries. Slavic tribes settled in vast areas: from Lake Ilmen in the north to Greece in the south, from the Oka in the east to the Elbe in the west. This resettlement of the Slavs led to the formation of three groups of Slavic languages: east, west and south. The ancestors of modern Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians belonged to the Eastern Slavs. The Western Slavs are the ancestors of modern Czechs, Slovaks and Poles. The southern Slavs are the ancestors of the modern Bulgarians and Yugoslavs.

From the 9th - 10th centuries the third - the main - stage in the history of languages ​​begins - education languages ​​of nationalities... The languages ​​of nationalities were formed during the slave-owning period, when the unification of people did not take place according to family ties, but for living in the same territory. In 882. Prince Oleg of Novgorod took possession of Kiev and made it the capital of Kievan Rus. Kievan Rus contributed to the transformation of the East Slavic tribes into a single people - the ancient Russian nationality with its own language.

Thus, on the basis of the unification of the East Slavic tribes, the Old Russian nationality arose.

However, the Old Russian language had dialectal differences inherited from the common Slavic era. With the fall of Kiev and the development of feudal relations, dialectal differences increased and three nationalities were formed: Ukrainian, Belarusian and Great Russian - with their own languages.

Under capitalism, when there is an economic cohesion of territories and an internal market arises, a nationality turns into a nation. The languages ​​of nationalities are becoming independent national languages. There are no fundamental differences between the structure of the language of a nationality and the language of a nation. National languages ​​have a richer vocabulary and a more perfect grammatical structure. During the national period, the economic cohesion of territories leads to the widespread spread of a common language and the erasure of dialectal differences. The main feature of the national language is that it presupposes a written-literary form, close to the folk-colloquial speech. The language of the nationality also had a written form, but mainly for administrative purposes. For a national language, it is necessary not only to have a written form, but to spread it widely.

Integration comes down to social interaction between different states, which expands and deepens linguistic contacts. Language contacts (integration) include:

· Crossbreeding languages, in which one of them is the winner, the other is defeated. Crossbreeding took place in the early stages of human development, when some peoples conquered others. Moreover, the nature of the language or the advantage of its pictorial expressive means... Since it is not languages ​​that are actually in contact, but people, the language of the people that prevails politically and culturally wins.

According to the role that languages ​​play in such contacts, it is customary to distinguish between: substrate- traces of the language of the indigenous population, which collapsed as a result of contact with the language of aliens, but left some of its elements in its system. Thus, one of the contacting languages ​​disappears completely, the other develops, absorbing the elements of the language of the disappeared.

Superstrat- these are traces of the alien language, which influenced the language of the local population, but did not destroy its system, but only enriched it. So, for example, in the territory of modern France, the indigenous population lived - the Gauls. During the conquest of the Gauls by the Romans, the Gallic language was crossed with Latin. The result of this cross was modern French. Traces of the Gaulish language in French are considered to be a substrate, traces of the Latin language in French - a superstratum. In the same way, Latin was planted in the former Roman provinces of Iberia and Dacia.

Cases of crossing languages ​​should be distinguished from borrowings from other languages. When borrowing, the grammatical structure of the language and the main vocabulary do not change. When languages ​​are crossed, first of all, there is a change in the phonetics and grammar of the language.

· On the border territories of states, one can observe adstra. This is a type of linguistic contact in which elements of two neighboring languages ​​penetrate each other. The phenomenon of adstrata occurs during prolonged bilingualism in border areas. For example, elements of the Polish language in Belarusian (and vice versa) on the Belarusian-Polish border; elements of the Turkish adstratum in the Balkan languages.

Adstraat is a neutral type of linguistic interaction. Languages ​​do not dissolve into each other, but form an interlayer between themselves.

In the process of language contacts, language unions. This is a union of both related and unrelated languages, which has developed not because of kinship, but because of the territorial isolation of peoples and, as a result, historical, economic and cultural community. A linguistic union is a group of languages ​​with similarities primarily in grammatical structure (morphology and syntax), with a common fund of "cultural" words, but not connected by a system of sound correspondences, and similarities in elementary vocabulary. V modern world best known Balkan language union. It includes related languages: Bulgarian, Macedonian - and unrelated languages: Albanian, Romanian and Modern Greek. These languages ​​show common grammatical features that are not related to their relationship.

The change and development of the language occurs according to certain laws. The existence of linguistic laws is evidenced by the fact that language is not a collection of disparate, isolated elements. Changing, evolving linguistic phenomena are in regular, causal relationships with each other. Language laws are divided into internal and external.

Internal called the laws, which are cause-and-effect processes occurring in individual languages ​​and at individual linguistic levels. These include the laws of phonetics, morphology, syntax, vocabulary: the fall of the reduced in the Russian language; movement of consonants in German. Internal laws are regular relationships between linguistic phenomena and processes that arise as a result of spontaneous causes independent of external influences. It is the internal laws that testify that the language is a relatively independent, self-developing and self-regulating system. Internal laws are divided into general and specific.

External laws the laws are called, due to the connection of language with the history of society, by various parties human activity... Thus, a territorial or social restriction in the use of a language leads to the formation of territorial and social dialects. Natural connections between language and the development of social formations are revealed in the course of the historical development of society. For example, the formation of nations and nation states led to the formation national languages... The complication of social life, the division of labor caused the formation of styles, scientific and professional sublanguages.

The external structure of the language directly responds to changes in the historical movement of society. Under the influence of living conditions, the vocabulary of the language changes, local and social dialects, jargons, styles, genres are formed.

The change and complication of the external structure of the language affects its internal structure. However, the historical change in the forms of social life of the people does not violate the identity of the language, its independence. Changes and development of the internal structure of the language are counted over many centuries.

General laws cover all languages ​​and all language levels. These include the law of consistency, the law of tradition, the law of analogy, the law of economy, the laws of contradictions (antinomies).

The law of consistency found in different languages and at different language levels.

For example, all languages ​​have a similar tiered structure, in which constitutive units are allocated. The reduction in the number of cases in the Russian language (six out of nine) led to an increase in analytical features in the syntactic structure of the language. A change in the semantics of a word is reflected in its syntactic links and on his form.

The Law of the Linguistic Tradition due to the desire for stability. When this stability is shaken, prohibitive measures come into effect, emanating from specialists-linguists. In dictionaries, reference books, official regulations, there are indications of the legality or incompetence of the use of linguistic signs. An artificial preservation of the tradition takes place. For example, the rules preserve the tradition of using verbs to call - you call, call; turn on - turn on, turn on; hand over - hand over, hand over. Although in many verbs the tradition was broken. For example, there used to be a norm boil - boil: Ravens are not fried, not boiled (I. Krylov); The stove pot is dearer to you: you cook your own food in it (A. Pushkin).

The law of linguistic analogy manifests itself in the internal overcoming of linguistic anomalies, which is carried out as a result of assimilating one form of linguistic expression to another. The result is some form unification. The essence of the analogy lies in the alignment of forms in pronunciation, stress, and grammar. For example, by analogy, the transition of verbs from one class to another is caused: by analogy with the forms of verbs read - read, throw - throw forms appeared drips (caplet), hears (hears).

The laws of contradictions (antinomies) are explained by the inconsistency of the language. These include:

a) The antinomy of the speaker and the listener is created as a result of the difference in the interests of the communicants. The speaker is interested in simplifying and shortening the utterance (here the law of economy of effort is manifested), and the listener is interested in simplifying and facilitating the perception and understanding of the utterance.

For example, in the Russian language of the XX century. many abbreviations appeared, which was convenient for the compilers of the texts. However, at present, more and more dismembered names appear: Society for the Protection of Animals, Directorate of Combating organized crime that have great impact, because they carry open content;

b) The antinomy of the usus and the possibilities of the language system (systems and norms) lies in the fact that the possibilities of the language (system) are much wider than the use of linguistic signs accepted in the literary language. The traditional norm acts in the direction of limitation, while the system is able to satisfy the large demands of communication. For example, the norm fixes the absence of opposition by types in two-species verbs. Consumption compensates for such absences. For example, contrary to the norm, pairs are created attack - attack, organize - organize;

c) The antinomy due to the asymmetry of the linguistic sign is manifested in the fact that the signified and the signifier are always in a state of conflict. The signified (meaning) seeks to acquire new, more accurate means of expression, and the signifier (sign) - to acquire new meanings. For example, the asymmetry of a linguistic sign leads to a narrowing or expansion of the meanings of words: dawn"Lighting the horizon before sunrise or sunset" and "the beginning, the birth of something";

d) Antinomy of two functions of language - informational and expressive. The information function leads to uniformity, standardization of linguistic units, expressive - encourages novelty, originality of expression. The speech standard is fixed in the official spheres of communication - in business correspondence, legal literature, state acts. Expression, the novelty of expression is more characteristic of oratorical, publicistic, artistic speech;

e) Antinomy of two forms of language - written and oral. At present, rather isolated forms of language implementation are beginning to converge. Oral speech perceives elements of bookishness, written speech widely uses the principles of colloquialism.

Private laws occur in separate languages. In Russian, for example, these include the reduction of vowels in unstressed syllables, regressive assimilation of consonants, and stunning consonants at the end of a word.

Linguists note different rates of change and development of languages... There are some general patterns of the rate of change. So, in the preliterate period, the linguistic structure changes faster than in the written one. Writing slows down change, but doesn't stop it.

The rate of language change, according to some linguists, is influenced by the number of people speaking it. Max Müller noted that the smaller the language, the more unstable it is and the faster it is reborn. An inverse relationship is observed between the size of the language and the rate of evolution of its structure. However, this pattern can be traced far from all languages. Yuri Vladimirovich Rozhdestvensky notes that some preliterate languages ​​change their structure faster than others, even when these languages ​​had a common base language. So, the structure of the Icelandic language changed much more slowly than the structure in English, although quantitatively the Icelanders are significantly inferior to the British. Apparently, something special has affected here geographical position, the isolation of the Icelandic language. It is also known that the Lithuanian language largely retained the elements ancient order Indo-European languages ​​than Slavic languages, despite the Balto-Slavic linguistic unity in antiquity.

There are known cases of rare stability of the structure of the language over a historically long time. N.G. Chernyshevsky pointed to the amazing stability of the language in the colonies of Greeks, Germans, British and other peoples. The Arabic language among the nomadic Bedouins of Arabia practically did not change for many centuries.

Different rates of change are observed in the history of the same language. So, the fall of the reduced vowels in the Old Russian language took place, in terms of the rate of linguistic changes, relatively quickly in the X-XII centuries, especially if we consider that these vowels were still in the Indo-European language-based. The consequences of this phonetic law were very significant for the phonetic, morphological and lexical system of the Russian language: restructuring of the system of vowels and consonants, stunning voiced consonants at the end of a word, assimilation and dissimilation of consonants; the appearance of fluent vowels, unpronounceable consonants, various combinations of consonants; changing the sound of morphemes, words. At the same time, the relative stability of the structure of the national Russian literary language in the period from Pushkin to the present day is also noted. Pushkin's language, in its phonetic, grammatical, word-formation structure, semantic and stylistic system, cannot be torn away from the modern language. However, the Russian language of the middle of the 17th century, remote from the language of Pushkin for the same period of time, can in no way be called its contemporary language.

Thus, in the history of the same language, there are periods of relative stability and intense change.

Some linguists believe that language is an objective phenomenon that develops according to its own laws, and therefore it is not subject to subjective influences. It is inadmissible to arbitrarily introduce certain units of the language into the common language, to change its norms. In the Russian language, it is possible to point out only individual cases of the introduction of the author's new words into the vocabulary of the Russian language, although the author's neologisms are characteristic of the style of many writers.

However, some linguists, for example, E.D. Polivanov, representatives of the PLC believe that there is a need for subjective "interference" in the organization of linguistic means. It can be expressed in the codification of linguistic means; in establishing the norms of the literary language for all speakers.

Subjective influence on the language occurs in scientific sublanguages ​​when organizing terminological systems. This is due to the conventional nature of the term: it is usually introduced conditionally.

In a certain era of development, the decisive for the literary language is the personal, subjective impact on the literary language. Establishment of national literary languages takes place under the influence of prominent national writers and poets.