LINGUISTIC TYPOLOGY is a comparative study of the structural and functional properties of languages, regardless of the nature of the genetic relationships between them. Typology is one of two main principles. aspects of language learning along with the comparative-historical (genetic) aspect, from which it differs ontologically (in terms of the essential characteristics of the subject of study) and epistemologically (in terms of the totality of principles and techniques of research): in linguistic typology, the concept of correspondence is not necessarily two-dimensional (in form and meaning ) and may be limited only by the form or only by the meaning of the units being compared . Usually, along with linguistic typology and comparative historical linguistics, the third approach is areal linguistics. Linguistic typology is based on studies of individual languages ​​and is closely related to general linguistics, using the concepts of the structure and functions of language developed in it.

Depending on the subject of research, they vary functional(sociolinguistic) typology and structural typology. The subject of functional typology is language as a communicative means, viewed through the prism of its social functions and spheres of use. The subject of structural typology is the internal organization of language as a system; however, they differ formal typology focused only on the plane of expression , And intensive typology focused on the semantic categories of language and ways of expressing them. Typological research can have different but interrelated goals: establishing structural similarities and differences between languages ​​(inventory typology); interpretation of language systems in terms of compatibility - incompatibility of structural characteristics and preferred types of structural conformity of both systems as a whole and individual ones levels language (implication typology); classification of languages ​​into certain types and classes ( taxonomic typology), which is usually considered the main and ultimate goal of typological research. The basis of classification in linguistic typology can be different, which is due to different interpretations of the central concept of linguistic typology - language type, which can mean both “type of language” and “type in language”. Thus, the traditional typological classification, distinguishing amorphous (insulating), agglutinative And inflectional languages, reflects the desire to identify types of languages ​​based on the general principles of the structure of grammatical forms . On the other hand, there are many classifications based on individual particular characteristics of the language, for example, the presence or absence of tones in it , the nature of the vocal systems, the order of the main parts of the sentence, etc. Such classifications are focused not on the type of language as a whole, but on the type of certain subsystems and categories in the language; their number can be large, and the same language, depending on different classification bases, will fall into different groups, which creates a multiplicity of its taxonomy, characteristics in the classification, in contrast to the uniqueness of its taxonomic affiliation in the genealogy, classification. Taxonomies of this kind are built directly on the data of inventory typology, assigning a language to a certain class, and can be called classochoric, Unlike typochoric taxonomies focused on type language.

The difference between the two types of typological taxonomy lies in the degree to which they reflect the underlying patterns of the structure of languages. Classochoric taxonomies only register the diverse external structural similarities and differences between languages; typochoric taxonomies are designed to distribute languages ​​into a relatively limited number of types, reflecting the internal patterns of the combination of various structural features. In this regard, the need arises for a more rational definition of the language type, and in the 2nd half of the 20th century. in linguistic typology, the prevailing point of view is that a language type should be understood not as a simple set of individual structural properties (which gives a “type in a language”), but as a hierarchical complex of semantic-grammatical characteristics connected by an implication relationship, which involves identifying the most general in each type a dominant characteristic that implies a number of others. An example of such an approach to typological taxonomy is the intensive typology of G.A. Klimov, who takes syntactic characteristics (the expression of subject-object relations in a sentence) as the main feature, from which some general features of the lexical and morphological structure are derived. The orientation of linguistic typology towards typochoric taxonomies brings to the fore the tasks of implicational typology, which creates the basis for determining linguistic types, revealing the implicational relationships between the structural properties of language (in this direction, for example, the work of J. H. Greenberg and his followers studying compatibility is carried out and the interdependence in the languages ​​of the world of various features of the order of the members of a sentence - subject, object and verbal predicate, and the order of the members of syntagmas - attributive, genitive, numerative, as well as the correlation with them of advantages, prefixation or suffixation).

The assignment of a language to a certain class on the basis of inventory and typological data is a procedure fragmented typologies, and the taxonomic affiliation of the language in this case turns out to be a sliding characteristic. Attributing a language to a certain type based on implication-typological data is a procedure (ideally) of a completely systemic typology, and the taxonomic affiliation of the language is of a more fundamental, stable nature. At the same time, the localization of a language in any typological taxonomy, in contrast to a genealogical one, is its historically variable characteristic, and the characteristics of a class can change faster than the characteristics of a type, and independently of them (for example, a language, due to internal or external reasons, can develop or lose nasal vowels, thereby moving from one class of phonological taxonomy to another, but maintaining belonging to the same type). The variability of language types over time, up to a complete change in the language of its typical features (for example, the transformation of a synthetic type into an analytical one), makes it relevant historical typology, which studies the principles of the evolution of language types, and typological reconstruction previous structural conditions and types; within the historical typology, a diachronic typology is distinguished (sometimes understood as a synonym, historical typology), which establishes the types of specific structural changes (for example, the development of diphthongs into simple vowels, the tone system into an accent system, the coincidence of the dual with the plural, etc.).

A synchronic consequence of the historical variability of language types is the polytypologism of any natural language, i.e. the representation of features of various types in it, in the absence of languages ​​that implement a pure type. Any language can be considered as in motion from one type to another, in connection with which the question of distinguishing between archaisms, actual dominance and innovation when describing a language type becomes essential; in taxonomic terms, this means that the type of a particular language is not absolute, but relative, a characteristic established on the basis of the prevailing typical features. Related to this is the fruitfulness of developing a quantitative typology, which operates not with absolute qualitative parameters (such as prefixation, nasalization, etc.), but with statistical indices that reflect the degree of representation of a particular qualitative feature in different languages. Taking into account quantitative indicators in linguistic means that, for example, in typochoric taxonomy, each type will be determined by some average value of indices that quantify the leading features of the type, with a possible indication of subtypes that demonstrate deviations from the average values. In classochoric taxonomy, the quantitative approach allows us to represent a separate class, distinguished by an absolute qualitative characteristic, in the form of a set of subclasses corresponding to different values ​​of the quantitative index of this characteristic, as a result of which, for each characteristic, languages ​​will be distributed on a certain scale, reflecting the relative weight of the class characteristic in each of them. them. For example, having identified the class of prefixing languages, we can give a quantitative assessment of the representation of prefixation in real texts in different languages ​​of this class; at the same time, as a rule, there is some scatter in the values ​​of the indices depending on the stylistic nature of the text (poetic, scientific, newspaper, etc.), and this fact gives grounds for the development of a stylistic typology (both intralingual and interlingual), forming an autonomous typological discipline, intermediate between functional and structural typology. The variability of a language type in time corresponds to its variability in space, which raises the problem of distinguishing invariants and variants in connection with the definition of language types (description of diatypic variation).

Being global in the scope of languages, linguistic typology in this regard is close to universology, differing from it in the nature of the established patterns; For linguistic typology, the coordinates of time and space are essential, while universals are panchronic and universal. At the same time, the typological approach does not exclude the analysis of certain genetic groups or families of languages; the purpose of such an analysis is to clarify the typological specificity of genetic groupings and search for possible typological correlates of such genetic concepts as “Slavic languages”, “Indo-European languages”, etc. (as an example, let us cite the attempts of N.S. Trubetskoy, R.O. Jacobson, P. Hartman to give a typological definition of Indo-European languages). This aspect of linguistic typology took shape as a relatively autonomous typological discipline - characterology (the term of V. Mathesius). Based on linguistic typology in the mid-20th century. has developed contrasting linguistics.

TYPOLOGICAL CLASSIFICATION LANGUAGES as a direction of linguistic research, arose at the beginning and developed in the 2nd quarter of the 19th century. (initially in the form of a morphological classification of languages), which aims to establish the similarities and differences of languages ​​(linguistic systems), which are rooted in the most general and most important properties of the language and do not depend on their genetics. kinship. The typological classification of languages ​​operates with classes of languages, united according to those characteristics that are chosen as reflecting the most significant features of the language structure (for example, the way morphemes are connected). The system of criteria for the typological classification of languages, helping to identify relationships between classes of languages, indicates ways of orientation in their real diversity. Determining the place of a particular language in the typological classification of languages ​​reveals a number of its properties that are hidden from the researcher in other linguistic approaches. The best known is the morphological classification of languages, according to which languages ​​are distributed through the abstract concept of type into the following four classes:

• 1) insulating, or amorphous, for example, Chinese, Bamana, most languages ​​of Southeast Asia. They are characterized by the absence of inflection, the grammatical significance of word order, and weak opposition between significant and function words;
• 2) agglutinative, or agglutinating, for example, Turkic and Bantu languages. They are characterized by a developed system of word-formation and inflectional affixation, the absence of phonetically not determined allomorphism, a single type of declension and conjugation, grammatical unambiguity of affixes, and the absence of significant alternations;
• 3) incorporating, or polysynthetic, for example, Chukchi-Kamchatka, many languages ​​of the Indians of North America. They are characterized by the possibility of including other members of the sentence (most often a direct object) in the predicate verb, sometimes with an accompanying morphonological change in the stems (the term “polysynthetic languages” more often designates languages ​​in which the verb can agree simultaneously with several members of the sentence);
• 4) inflected languages, for example, Slavic, Baltic. They are characterized by the multifunctionality of grammatical morphemes, the presence of fusion, phonetically unconditional root changes, and a large number of phonetically and semantically unmotivated types of declension and conjugation. Many languages ​​occupy an intermediate position on the scale of morphological classification, combining features of different types; for example, the languages ​​of Oceania can be characterized as amorphous-agglutinative.

In the 20th century are becoming widespread syntactic typological classifications of languages; phonetic Typological classifications of languages ​​are less common (compare the opposition of languages ​​based on the coincidence of morphemic and syllabic boundaries, which is usually associated with the opposition of isolating and non-isolating languages).

The typological classification of languages ​​in its origins was rather deductive in nature, because divided the system of objects - the entire set of known (or brought into consideration) languages ​​into typologies, classes, postulated as an idealized, generalized model. This approach led to the fact that the theoretical developments that, as a rule, accompanied the creation of each new classification, constituted a special direction of general linguistics - linguistic typology, which is not limited to the development of classifications and sometimes even abandons the classification principle as such (see, for example, many works on phonetic typology, some areas of ergativistics, etc.) or develops classifications of closed language subsystems (for example, prosodic: the works of K.L. Pike, V.B. Kasevich, etc.).

The first scientific typological classification of languages ​​is the classification of F. Schlegel, who contrasted inflected languages ​​(meaning mainly Indo-European) with non-inflected, affixed ones. Thus, inflections and affixes were contrasted as 2 types of morphemes that create the grammatical form of a word. He assessed uninflected languages ​​according to the degree of their “evolutionary proximity” to inflected ones and considered them as one or another stage on the way to an inflectional system. F. Schlegel declared the last type to be the most perfect (the idea of ​​assessing the aesthetic perfection of a language occupied a central place in his concept, which corresponded to the generally accepted philological views of the era). A.V. Schlegel improved the classification of F. Schlegel, highlighting languages ​​“without grammatical structure”, later called amorphous or isolating, which marked the beginning of the identification of another parameter of the typological classification - synthetism and analyticism. W. von Humboldt, based on the Schlegel classification, identified 3 classes of languages: isolating, agglutinating and inflectional. In the class of agglutinating languages, languages ​​with a specific sentence syntax are distinguished - incorporating; thus, a sentence is also introduced into the subject matter of linguistic typology. The basis for a meaningful (intensive) typology, taking into account the relationship between the plane of expression and the plane of content of linguistic structures, as well as the presence of universal and specific components in language forms, was laid by the outstanding scientist and thinker of the 19th century. Wilhelm von Humboldt. For W. von Humboldt, all types of languages ​​are equal. He distinguishes between isolating, agglutinating and inflectional languages. In the class of agglutinating languages, a special subtype is distinguished - incorporating languages. He denies the possibility of “pure” types. His scheme largely continues to be used today in the morphological classification of languages.

Typically there are four classes:

Inflected languages.

Agglutinative or agglutinating languages.

Isolating or amorphous languages.

Incorporating or polysynthetic languages.

In the 60s 19th century in the works of A. Schleicher, basically all classes of the typological classification of languages ​​are preserved; Schleicher, like his predecessors, saw in the classes of typological classification the historical stages of development of the linguistic system from isolation to inflection, and the “new” inflected languages, heirs of the ancient Indo-European ones, were characterized as evidence of the degradation of the linguistic system. Schleicher divided linguistic elements into those expressing meaning (roots) and those expressing attitude, and he considered the latter to be the most essential for determining the place of language in the classification and in each typological class he consistently identified sithetic and analytical subtypes.

At the end of the 19th century. (in the works of H. Steinthal, M. Müller, F. Misteli, F.N. Fink) The typological classification of languages ​​becomes multidimensional, taking into account data from all levels of the language, thus turning from a morphological into a general grammatical classification. Müller is the first to use morphonological processes as a criterion for typological classification; Misteli introduced into the practice of typological research material from languages ​​new to linguistics - Amerindian, Austroasiatic, African, etc. One of Fink's criteria - the massiveness/fragmentation of the structure of a word is noted on a graduated scale, thereby showing not so much the presence/absence, but rather the degree of manifestation of the feature.

theory of linguistic universals

At the beginning of the 20th century. the task of typological classification of languages ​​still attracts the attention of linguists, but its shortcomings - the possibility of unmotivated combination of historically or logically unrelated features, the abundance of empirical material that does not fall under any type, the instability and sometimes arbitrariness of criteria and limited explanatory power - force critical reconsider the basic principles of its construction. Noting the shortcomings of the existing model, E. Sapir made an attempt in 1921 to create a new type of classification - conceptual, or functional. Taking the types of functioning of formal grammatical elements as the basis for the classification, Sapir identifies 4 groups of grammatical concepts: I - basic (root) specific concepts, II - derivational , III - concrete-relational, or mixed-relational (the meaning of the word, along with the lexical component, also contains the meaning of the relation), IV - purely relational (the relation is expressed by the order of words, function words, etc.). In accordance with these groups, languages ​​are divided into purely relational (simple - groups I and IV, complex - groups I, II, IV) and mixed-relational (simple - groups I, III, complex - groups I, II, III). Sapir's work is distinguished by its systematic approach, focus on the functional aspect of typologization, and the desire to cover phenomena at different levels of language, but the very concept of class in it turned out to be unclear, as a result of which the grouping of languages ​​is not obvious. The introduction of precise methods into linguistic research led to the emergence of quantitative typology of J. H. Greenberg, who, taking Sapir's criteria as a basis and transforming them according to his goals, proposed calculating the degree of a particular quality of a linguistic structure, manifested in syntagmatics.

Joseph Greenberg gave the concept of morphological typology a new look by introducing the concept of quantitative indices. So, if per 100 words (W) of the text, from 100 to 200 morphs (M) are found, i.e. the synthesis index MW is established, greater than one and less than two, then we are dealing with analytical languages. A higher index characterizes affixed languages, namely synthetic (with an index from 2 to 3) and polysynthetic (with an index above 3).

Thus, initial tests showed that Vietnamese is characterized by a synthesis index of 1.06, Persian - 1.52, English - 1.68, Anglo-Saxon - 2.12, Yakut - 2.17, Russian - 2.33, Swahili - 2 .55, Sanskrit - 2.59, Eskimo - 3.72. In the same way, indices of agglutination, composition, derivation, predominant inflection, prefixation, suffixation, isolation, inflection in its pure form, and agreement are established. Further refinements of this technique by other researchers concerned the volume of control texts, taking into account their stylistic and authorial affiliation, etc.

In morphological typology, special attention is paid to the ways of connecting affixes with root morphemes and the nature of the expression of grammatical meanings by affixes.

Inflectional affixes:

often express several grammes at the same time (property of synthetosemia, according to Yu.S. Maslov); Wed in Russian writing the inflectional affix acts as a carrier of the grammemes “1 l.”, “unit h”, “nast, vr”, “express, nakl.”;

often homosemic among themselves; cf., for example, grass And logs, where in the first case the phoneme /a/ is the exponent of the morpheme - A, possessing a bundle of meanings “noun,” “singular,” “f.r.”, “im.p.”, and in the second case the same phoneme /a/ turns out to be an exponent of another morpheme - A, expressing a complex of meanings "noun", "plural", "name/vin.";

can compete with each other in expressing the same grammatical meaning; so, morphemes - s And - A in word forms students And Houses convey the meaning of the plural in the same way. h.;

may have zero exponents; Wed word forms of the word a country in plural h.: countries - countries - # - countries",

as a result of the processes of re-decomposition and simplification, they can, as it were, “merge” with root morphemes and with each other; Thus, the word form of dates is plural. h. noun leg decomposing today legs, Where - A is part of the ending, whereas initially it is - A was a thematic suffix, and the ending was reduced to - mi; Russian infinitive verb bake goes back to the proto-form * pek-ti.

In addition, grammatical meanings can be conveyed not only by segmental morphemes, but also by grammatical alternations of phonemes within the root (“internal inflection”); Wed English, man “man” and men “people”, goose “goose” and geese “geese”, find “find” and found “found”, German. brechen "break" and brachen "broke". Such significant alternations as umlaut and refraction in the Germanic languages ​​arose as a result of anticipatory (regressive) assimilation. For example, in the German verb sprechen "to talk" the appearance of i instead of e in 2nd and 3rd liters. units hours present vr. (du sprichst, er spricht) was at one time due to the presence of the upper vowel affix i (ancient - century - German sprich-ist, sprich-it). This vowel disappeared, but the alternation was preserved and from the living became historical.

The stems of words in inflected languages ​​often do not have the ability to be used independently; Wed formative stems of verbs run, pi-t.

Agglutinative affixes, against,

in principle, express no more than one gramme (according to Yu.S. Maslov, the property of haplosemy),

As a rule, they do not have homosemic correspondences;

standard in that they have no competitors in expressing the same grammatical meaning;

cannot have zero exponents;

in a linear plan, they are clearly demarcated from the root and from each other.

In addition, agglutinative languages ​​do not have internal inflection. Alternations of phonemes within affixes are not grammaticalized. They arise due to inertial (progressive) assimilation. So, alternating vowels A And e as part of the Turkic affix plural. h. larler is given next to (front or non-front) the vowel root: tur. adamlar "people", evler "houses".

The stems of words in agglutinative languages ​​are, in principle, more independent, i.e. can be used in a sentence on their own, without affixes.

Since the late 50s. The development of typological classifications proceeds generally in the following directions:

• 1) clarification and explication of the criteria proposed in the traditional morphological classification, clarification of their actual relationship (B.A. Serebrennikov’s hypothesis about the reasons for the stability of the agglutinative system, the work of S.E. Yakhontov on the formalization and clarification of the concepts of traditional classification, research into the problems of the relationship between isolation and agglutination from N.V. Solntseva, agglutination and flexion - from V.M. Alpatov and other works of Soviet researchers);
• 2) development of a universal grammatical metalanguage, with the help of which explication of the typological properties of any linguistic material is achieved ["structural typology" in the 50-60s. 20th century; This direction is characterized by a rapprochement with the theory of universals and characterology (V. Skalichka and others)], for example, the works of B.A. Uspensky, A. Martinet, T. Milevsky and other researchers;
• 3) development of a syntactic typological classification, including by the type of neutral word order (Grinberg, U.F. Leman, etc.), by the type of predicative construction - nominative (accusative), ergative, active languages, by the hierarchy of syntactic properties of actants - languages ​​with subject, languages ​​without a subject, or role (A.E. Kibrik, R. Van Valin and J.E. Foley, partly C. Fillmore), topic languages, that is, those in which grammatical priority is not the subject, but the topic ( C.N. Lee and S. Thompson), languages ​​with marking of syntactic connections in the vertex or dependent member (J. Nicolet);
• 4) development of whole-system classifications based on any one feature of the linguistic structure, which is recognized as leading (works of Soviet typologists of the 20s - 40s, content-oriented typology in the works of I.I. Meshchaninov and G.A. Klimov), grouping typologically relevant features of languages ​​around one feature ("structural dominant"), for example, the opposition of subject - object in nominative languages, agentive - factitive in ergative languages, activity - inactivity in active languages, etc.; This also includes lesser-known “dominant” technological theories, for example, the typology of “conceptual dominance” by A. Capell.

Particular attention in the 20th century. attracted the typological study of the syntactic structure of different languages, and above all a comparative study of ways of expressing subject-object relations (I.I. Meshchaninov, G.A. Klimov, S.D. Katsnelson, J. Greenberg, A.E. Kibrik, etc. ). The contribution of the St. Petersburg group of structural typology is significant.

For syntactic typology, experiments in comparing word order are interesting. Thus, the location of the subject (8), predicate verb (V) and object (O) can be represented by one of 6 formulas: SVO, SOV, VSO, VOS, OSV, OVS. In Russian, all six arrangements are possible, but only the SVO arrangement is neutral, stylistically unmarked.

The relationships between S and O, S and V, V and O can be marked in different ways. Thus, between S and V there can be an agreement in which Y can repeat one or more grammes inherent in S (in Russian and many other languages ​​with the inherent monopersonal conjugation of the gramme of person and number, and in the past tense, number and gender). In languages ​​that have a category of nominal classes, agreement can be formalized by various class indicators in the structure of the verb; Wed avar, v-ach! ana “father has come” - ebel y-ach! ana “mother came” (verb agreementrs v-/j-). A similar relation of agreement can connect V and O. If agreement connects V with both S and O at the same time, then they speak of polypersonal (two- and even three-person) conjugation. Wed. Abkhaz, dy-z-beit "him/her (person) - I-saw", i-z-beit "that (thing) - I-saw", i-by-r-toit "that (thing) - you (feminine gender) - they-give", it would-be-toit "you (feminine gender) - to them (non-human) - gives."

In syntactic typology, a connection has been discovered between word order and the presence of prepositions or postpositions. Two classes are distinguished: right-branching, in which the branching dependent usually follows the vertex (most Indo-European, Semitic, Austronesian languages), and left-branching, in which the branching dependent usually precedes the vertex (Altaic or Caucasian languages).

In the structure of a sentence, nominal constituents can be characterized by their syntactic function (as subjects, direct objects and indirect objects) and as carriers of semantic roles (with a bivalent transitive verb, the agent is opposed to each other, i.e. the animate participant in the situation, its initiator and controller, the performer the corresponding action, its source, and the patient, i.e. the participant in the situation who does not initiate, control or perform it; often the agent and the patient are made dependent on each other; it is often believed that the presence of a patient does not imply the presence of an agent).

S can always (or almost always) be marked with nouns and case in case languages, regardless of the transitivity or intransitivity of the predicate verb and regardless of whether the verb conveys an active action or a passive state. Languages ​​of this type are called nominative. The direct object in nominative languages ​​is usually expressed in the accusative case (hence their second name - accusative). S of the active construction corresponds to the agent, O to the patient. In the passive construction, the agent corresponds to O, and the patient to S. With an intransitive verb, S can be interpreted as patient. Indo-European languages ​​are characterized by the nominative structure of sentences. The absolute majority of languages ​​of the world are nominative - in addition to Indo-European, Afroasiatic, Uralic, Dravidian, Turkic, Mongolian, Tungus-Manchu, many Tibetan-Burman, some Australian, Kechumara, etc. can be named here.

If the choice of the subject's case is determined depending on whether the verb is transitive or intransitive, we speak of languages ​​with ergative structure of proposals. Ergative constructions are observed in Indo-Iranian, Caucasian, Eskimo-Aleut, Basque and many other languages. In sentences with an intransitive verb, S is in the usual case for the object of a transitive verb. S with a transitive verb is expressed in a special case - ergative. Thus, the ergative marks the agent, and the absolute (or other case) marks the patient. Thus, in the Basque sentence Ni-k gizona ikusi dat “I saw a man,” nik is in the ergative and gizona in the absolutive; in the sentence Gizona etorri da “The man came” gizona is used in the absolute. Ergative languages ​​include many languages: Caucasian (Georgian, Ubykh), Austronesian (Tonga), Australian (Dyirbal), Papuan, Chukchi-Kamchatka, Eskimo-Aleutian and Mayan (Tzeltal). Manifestations of ergativity are observed in Hindi and Urdu.

In languages active building, it is not the subject and the object that oppose each other, but the active and inactive principle. Active (animate) nouns are, in principle, combined with action verbs, and inactive nouns with state verbs. The agent is expressed by the agentive, the patient - by the inactive. Activity or inactivity is specified by the verb; cf.: Guarani hesa e-roga “He sees your house” - ti-miri “He is modest.” Wed. Eastern Pomo: ha ce. helka "I slide (not intentionally)", wi ce. helka “I slide (intentionally). Active languages ​​include some Amerind languages ​​(Dakota), Lhasa-Tibetan, Guarani. We find something similar (but not forming a system) in Russian. Me chills, in him. Mich Friert.

The choice of nominative, ergative or active way of forming a sentence, according to A.E. Kibrik, is explained by the action of three functional factors: opposing tendencies towards saving formal means and towards semantic distinctiveness, as well as the factor of motivation.

The typology of sentence members proves ideas about the non-universality of the subject, the relationship between the syntactic structure and the semantic roles of actants, the rules for the distribution of already known or new information, and the specificity of the expression of communicative-pragmatic information.

Typological comparisons of language systems at the morphological, syntactic and phonological levels are now often carried out independently. At the same time, there are numerous attempts to identify the dominant typological features in the structure of languages ​​and to establish the dependence of some typological features on others (for example, morphological features on syntactic ones).

Currently, the little-studied languages ​​of Africa, Australia, Siberia, Southeast Asia, Oceania, and the American Indians are increasingly being drawn into the sphere of typological research.

Diachronic typology and areal typology are being developed. Comparativists are increasingly showing interest in the presence of typological similarities in related languages. Along with the structural typology, a semantic and lexical, socially functional typology is currently developing. Particular interest is shown in how the communicative and cognitive functions of language affect the formal structure of the language and its development trends.

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

Modern linguistics distinguishes several levels of language research. Accordingly they differ:

First, entry level - descriptive ( descriptive) linguistics, which focuses its attention on individual specific languages ​​or dialects, for example Russian or German, Hindi or Arabic, Abaza or Ewe. It is unilingual in its object, and in its method it is predominantly empirical and inductive, i.e. builds his generalizations based on individual facts.

Second level - multilingual linguistics, which deals with limited sets of languages. It can be divided into two sublevels:

The lower sublevel of multilingual studies is comparative historical And areal linguistics, the objects of which are limited sets of genetically related or territorially closely contacting languages ​​that form language families or language unions. These disciplines are primarily empirical and inductive, although the generalizations they make are more abstract than the generalizations formulated in particular linguistics. At the same time, hypothetico-deductive methods are more often used here, suggesting the movement of the researcher’s thoughts from the general to the specific, from hypotheses to facts.

Upper sublevel of multilingual studies - typological linguistics, which in principle allows for consideration in a comparative aspect of all languages ​​of the world (firstly, both related and unrelated, and, secondly, both spatially interacting and geographically non-contacting languages). It groups languages ​​based on certain typological characteristics and works with these classes (typologically related sets) of languages. By identifying differences between languages ​​belonging to different structural types, typological linguistics is also primarily empirical and inductive, although the proportion of deductive methods is higher here.

The third, highest level is the theory of linguistic universals, or linguistic universology. It deals not with individual languages ​​or sets of genetically, areally and typologically similar languages, but with everyone without exceptions languages ​​of the world, considering them as particular manifestations of a single human language, although in reality universal coverage of many thousands of languages ​​is impossible and one has to limit oneself to equal samples of languages ​​from different regions of the world, different language families and different types of languages ​​(about 100 individual languages).

Universology is interested in linguistic universals, i.e. universal, essential features found in all or most languages ​​of the world. These features are postulated by the researcher in the form of hypotheses, which are then tested on the empirical material of specific languages. In other words, linguistic universology is primarily a theoretical and deductive discipline. It is no coincidence that many linguists believe that the general theory of language is, first of all, the theory of linguistic universals. See the statement by Joseph Vandries: “It will not be wrong to say that there is only one human language under all latitudes, uniform in its essence. It is this idea that underlies experiments in general linguistics.”

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

A linguistic universal is a feature found in all or the absolute majority of the world's languages. Often a universal is also called a statement (judgment) about such a pattern inherent in human language. The idea of ​​the universality of certain phenomena in languages ​​has never been alien to scientists who have addressed the problems of the nature and essence of language. The predecessors of research in this direction were ancient grammars. At a later time, the idea of ​​universals was developed by John Amos Comenius, Roger Bacon and others. In the 13th century. the term grammatical universalis appeared. With the appearance in 1660 of the famous “Grammar of Port-Royal / Port-Royal” by Antoine Arnauld and Claude Lanslot, the problem of universals becomes one of the central ones in theoretical grammar (today in this case they talk about general linguistics). The logical direction in linguistics paid primary attention not to the differences between languages, but to what is common in languages. And only approval in the first half of the 19th century. comparative historical linguistics laid the foundation for attempts to discover differences between languages, and these differences were explained by different paths of historical development of specific languages, different ethnocultures, etc.

Interest in linguistic universals reawakened in the mid-20th century, in connection with advances in structural, generative and functional linguistics. In practice, research into linguistic universals during this period was mainly carried out in line with the typology of languages, and only gradually did the realization mature that typological linguistics and the linguistics of universals have their own goals. The first explores rather the differences in the structure of languages, the second - the common features between languages. However, typology turns to universology when it cannot explain the typological similarities between languages ​​either by genetic or areal factors. Typology then turns to the idea that these similarities are due to general patterns of human language. A huge role was played by the work of J. Greenberg, who proposed his essentially inductive method of statistical sampling.

Research into linguistic universals should answer the following questions:

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

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

Universals are usually listed in order from more general to more specific. For example:

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

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

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

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

It is customary to distinguish the following types of universals:

According to the method of formulating statements about universals - universals deductive ( mandatory in all languages, including those unknown to the researcher) and inductive ( recorded in known languages).

By coverage of world languages ​​- absolute ( complete) and statistical ( incomplete) universals. Some researchers believe that universology should deal only with absolute universals. For J. Greenberg and his followers, statistical universals are of greater importance.

By their structure - universals simple ( the presence or absence of any phenomenon in the languages ​​of the world) and complex ( the presence of dependence between different phenomena, the presence between them of relations of the type of implication “if A, then B”). Implicate universals are currently given special importance.

In relation to the axis synchrony / diachrony - synchronous And diachronic universals.

In relation to the system of language - universals phonological, grammatical, semantic and so on. Thus, the phonological universals include the following: languages ​​can have no less than ten and no more than eighty phonemes; if there is a contrast between consonants in terms of hardness and softness, then there is no contrast in tones. Semantic universals include patterns of development of word meanings from concrete to abstract: “heavy (in weight)” > “difficult”; "bitter (to taste)" > "sorrowful, mournful"; "sweet (to taste)": "pleasant"; "empty" > "meaningless, frivolous"; "big" > "important". The interdependence between different structural levels is evidenced by the following universal: if in a language a word is always monosyllabic, then it is monomorphemic and there is a contrast of tones in the language; If the subject in a language comes before the verb and the object comes before the verb, then the language has case.

Vary actually linguistic And semiotic ( communication) universals. In this case, research is aimed at establishing the boundaries between natural human language and all other communication systems (for example, artificial languages, kinetic speech, communication systems in the animal kingdom, etc.). Thus, Charles F. Hockett points out 16 essential features in which natural human sound language differs from the communication systems of animals and the absence of which in biocommunication systems means that animals do not have language as such. These signs include:

use of the vocal-auditory channel;

broadcast transmission of language signals and directional reception;

rapid attenuation of language signals;

the functioning of adults either as transmitters or as receivers;

full feedback;

semantics (the presence of signs of their own denotations);

discreteness (a continuous sound stream manifests a sequence of discrete units);

the ability to relate linguistic messages to things remote in time and space;

the ability to freely and easily create new messages;

the presence of a grammatical structure that allows constructing new messages according to certain rules;

the possibility of a new semantic load on linguistic elements;

transmission of language through teaching and learning, and not by inheritance;

the presence of not only a system of sign units, but also a system of non-sign phonological units;

the possibility of constructing false or meaningless language messages;

the ability to build messages about the message itself;

a person's ability to easily master another language.

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

Universal in linguistics- one of the most important concepts of typology, properties or tendencies inherent in all (absolute universal language) or most (statistical, almost universal) languages ​​of the world. W.l. are formulated in the form of statements about the existence of a certain phenomenon (for example, “every language has vowels”) or a certain relationship between two phenomena (universal implications), for example, “if a language has a dual number, then there is a plural number.”

The development of the theory of universals is often associated with the name of Joseph Greenberg, although similar ideas were put forward in linguistics long before him. Study by W. l. allows us to reveal general patterns in the structure of language and is important for typology.

TYPES OF UNIVERSALS

Universals can be synchronic (existing at a certain moment in the development of a language) or diachronic (remaining throughout the historical development of the language system). Both types are interrelated and can often be reformulated into each other.

They also distinguish between absolute universals (characteristic of all known languages, for example: every natural language has vowels and consonants) and statistical universals (tendencies). An example of a statistical universal: almost all languages ​​have nasal consonants (however, in some West African languages, nasal consonants are not separate phonemes, but allophones of oral stops in the context of nasal consonants). Adjacent to statistical universals are the so-called frequentals - phenomena that occur in the languages ​​of the world quite often (with a probability exceeding random).

Absolute universals are also contrasted with implicative (complex) ones, that is, those that affirm the connection between two classes of phenomena. For example, if a language has a dual number, it also has a plural number.

Deductive (obligatory for all languages) and inductive (common for all known languages) universals are also contrasted.

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

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

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

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

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

Agglutination and fusion

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

The most important differences between these trends are as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is a difference in the use of zero affixes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Analytical and synthetic languages

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

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

1) synthetic methods and 2) analytical.

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

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

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

Towards synthetic languages belong to all Slavic languages.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Typology of languages:

by kinship into language families (common proto-language)

by geographic proximity, in language. unions

by structural similarity into structural types

Structural similarity– similarity in the principles of organization (grammar: morphological composition of the word, methods of constructing sentences, presence of the Civil Code, Civil Code)

For example, Malay has separate cases for standing, sitting, flying and floating objects.

Although the world's languages ​​seem endlessly diverse, they can be broken down into groups. Structural similarities, independent of their relationship and lexical proximity, are studied by linguistic typology.

Structural similarity is determined by similarity of thinking.

Language universals.

Universals are linguistic phenomena characteristic of all languages ​​or most languages ​​(frequintals are a variety of languages).

The assertion of the existence of universals goes back to antiquity (Aristotle).

Approaches to universals:

Universals are established by analyzing a large number of languages.

Greenberg studied 30 languages ​​and identified 45 universals.

A broad view of universals, i.e.

interested in the essential characteristics of language, without which language ceases to exist as a human means of communication. Such universals can be derived through in-depth analysis of a particular language. (Kholmsky's generative grammar) Classifications of universals (175):

1.criterion

: according to the method of establishing a given universal

Deductive (from general to specific - Kholmsky) Inductive (from particular to general - Greenberg)

- 2.criterion: by degree of language coverage

absolute

a) all languages ​​have vowels and consonants

b) all languages ​​have pronouns

c) all languages ​​have plosive consonants, but not all fricatives

- statistical(assume exception and describe frequency phenomena in specific/many languages):

Greenberg indices show the probability of manifestation of universals in a given language

3.criterion: in logical form

- implication(this concept is related to the concept markedness, since when a connection is established between 2 phenomena, it is often said that one of them contains some attribute (+), and the other does not (-). “+” is a marked phenomenon, “-” is a similarly marked phenomenon):

show the connection between several linguistic phenomena (if, then)

If: exists in language x, That: also have

If: root tongue, That: it has no grammatical parts of speech (Chinese).

If: in the language there is a word with the meaning “heavy”, having great weight, That: it will develop meaning

From Greenberg:

If: in the language the word order is VSO, That: it has prepositions, but no aftersyllables

If: language has a gender, That: there is also a number

If: word order VSO, That: an adjective can come after a noun

- simple:

a simple statement of fact (there are vowels and consonants, there are verbs, there are nouns, there are adjectives, etc.)

4.criterion: by the way of viewing a linguistic phenomenon

1.synchronous(statics)

2.diachronic

General historical trends

Pronouns – demonstrative

Development of polysemy

Education of Creole Languages

Serial verbs

5.criterion: by the way the language material is described

1.phonological

All languages ​​have stop consonants, the most common being “p”, “t”, “k”.

2.morphological

If the language has an inflectional affix (case ending)

3.syntactic

95% of languages ​​have a word order:

SOV(Hasan bought a bull = Turkish)

SVO (The man's built the house = English)

VSO (Man killed the dragon = Welsh)

4.semantic, etc.

Heavy, large, ways of expressing processes

6.criterion: according to geographical criterion

Morphological classification of languages

According to word structure:

root (forest, house)

derivatives – roots + affixes

complex (all-terrain vehicle)

compounds - roots + affixes

This leads to 4 types of languages:

root (isolating - Chinese, Vietnamese, Laotian). The order of words and the weak opposition of significant and function words are important.

polysynthetic (incorporating - Indian, Chukotka-Kamchatka).

The word consists of a long chain of roots and affixes, its meaning approaches the whole sentence. Most languages ​​of the world have 1-2 roots and few affixes - the derived type. These languages ​​are divided into:

inflectional (fusional - Slavic, Baltic, Arabic). The boundaries between morphemes are implicit, blurred, and the root is rarely used independently.

The connection between root and affix is ​​very close, so the sound changes inside the root (wind - wind, Internal inflection).

agglutinative - boundaries between affixes are visible, roots can be independent words, there are no internal inflections, affixes are unambiguous (Turkic, Bantu, Japanese, Finno-Ugric).

Introduction

1. History of the study of linguistic universals

1.1Universal grammar

1.2Development of structural linguistics

3Achievement R.O. Jacobson

2. Types of universals

2.1 Absolute (complete) and statistical (incomplete) universals

2 Deductive and inductive universals

3 Synchronic and diachronic universals

Universals at different levels of language

Conclusion

Introduction

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

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

The theory of linguistic universals considers and defines:

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

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

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

1.1 Universal Grammar

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

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

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

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

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

.2 Development of structural linguistics

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

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

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

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

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

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

.3 Achieving R.O. Jacobson

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

2. Types of universals

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

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

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

.2 Deductive and inductive universals

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

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

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

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

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

.3 Synchronic and diachronic universals

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

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

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

3. Universals at different levels of language

linguistic universal deductive diachronic

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of sources used

1.Greenberg J. Some grammatical universals, mainly relating to the order of significant elements / J. Greenberg // New in linguistics. − 1970. − Issue. 5. − P. 114-162.

2.Greenberg J. Memorandum on linguistic universals / J. Greenberg, C. Osgood, J. Jenkins // New in linguistics. − 1970. − Issue. 5. − P. 31-44.

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

.Uspensky B.A. The problem of universals in linguistics / B.A. Uspensky // New in linguistics. − 1970. − Issue. 5. − P. 5-30.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For example:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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